![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
I have nominated Big Bang for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 22:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
A while ago some people found this useful. I've updated all associated pages today for those interested. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 00:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I have found and fixed a number of NED citations with broken URLs (the problem was caused by a missing '&'). Examples: NGC 446, NGC 445, NGC 415. I have also found an article citing another NGC object ( NGC 449/ [1]). Presumably there is more to do, thus it is time to ask for some help. Thank you in advance -- UnaToFiAN-1 ( talk) 09:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
The Astronomical catalog page seems to be a very short and random grab bag, containing some very misleading claims (2MASS was not "the most ambitious project" even when it was operating). The effort required to make it decent seems drastically more than it is worth: "historical importance" and "widely used" are not really verifiable for more than a handful of possibilities (e.g. Messier, NGC, UGC, and a few of the Star catalogs), it doesn't include any non-optical catalogs (e.g. ROSAT, XMM-slew, VLA-FIRST), and modern digital surveys like the Sloan Digital Sky Survey are far more "widely used" (based on publication statistics) than anything else.
As a counterexample, Star catalog is much more well fleshed out and most of the catalogs listed there have decent pages themselves. I was going to post an AfD for Astronomical catalog, but figured I'd check here to see if others had thoughts. What should be the criteria for inclusion on this page? The proliferation of catalogs in the last few decades due to improved survey techniques suggests that either only truly historical (pre-1950?) catalogs should be included, or we shouldn't bother at all. - Parejkoj ( talk) 02:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi all. Quick query—does anyone know where this journal's website is now? The links on our page are out of date, as it seems to have been hosted by UCL, but they are now 404s. I'm after the 1905 volume, which I'd half-expect to be in an online archive somewhere, but without knowing where that is...! Hope you can help. Cheers! —— SN 54129 15:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
A whole bunch of exoplanets and their host stars have been given proper names if anyone feels like updating their articles.
New names at http://www.nameexoworlds.iau.org/final-results
These are the result of national competitions held this year where every country in the world was given the chance by the IAU to name an exoplanet and its host star. Fdfexoex ( talk) 05:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
If more people could way in at [5] on my proposal to remove NGC objects from the WP:NASTRO page and clarify the language in that section, that would be much appreciated. Sam-2727 ( talk) 01:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
In the course of adding in the information about the NameExoWorlds project I have come across at least one instance where there is a Wikipedia page for the planet, but not for the star. The planet HAT-P-14b and star HAT-P-14 being an example. Where there is a page for the star I've just been adding information about both the star and the planet there, but I'm not sure what to do in this instance. The HAT-P-14b page is very short so creating another very short page for the star seems somewhat superfluous. My inclination would be to create a page for the star and transfer the planet information to there, but I'm not sure if there is a convention that I should be following. Physdragon ( talk) 16:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
So for the past year or something I had been adding {{ starbox reference}}s to starboxes, but I've noticed several problems with the parameters.
|Simbad=
parameter shouldn't even be necessary. Since SIMBAD accepts full constellation genitive names, that means names like "15 Monocerotis" and "RR Lyrae" work, as well as names like "Gliese 758", "HD 181068", etc. There would of course be the rare exception such as
W75N(B)-VLA2, but except for those, I feel that as it stands, adding |Simbad
is a waste of time.|EPE=
parameter is completely useless, since the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia doesn't have individual pages for stars anymore.What are your thoughts on this? Loooke ( talk) 22:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Interested parties, please see Talk:Sloan Digital Sky Survey#Update needed. The article is in dire need of updating, as it still talked (before I edited it just now) about SDSS-III (which, AFAIK, ended in 2014) as if it was yet to happen. Also note that I suspect much of the prose in the article was copied nearly verbatim from the official website of the Survey. Someone familiar with the SDSS or sky surveys in general should do a thorough copyedit/rewrite of the article. (Not tagging it as a copyvio yet, since I thought I'd give this group a chance to take a crack at it first.) - dcljr ( talk) 04:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Grateful if someone here could pick up on a post made at Talk:Deneb#Stellar_parameters by someone from galaxymap.org/ who's more familiar, I think, with the current science on stars than they are on things wikipedia. (This twitter thread kicked the whole issue off; further discussion in this subthread.) tl:dr the article might usefully present more recent science on a Deneb measurement; there may be a general point about the currency of wikipedia stellar science information; Galexymap has hitherto been unwilling to get involved with wikipedia because of an aversion to conflict & might be more inclined to do so if this approach is well met. thx -- Tagishsimon ( talk) 21:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
The lead is disputed, see talk page and edit history. -- mfb ( talk) 05:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Equinox#RfC on season-specific redirects.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 17:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
It's very slightly in our purview, but {{ No orbit for payload}} has been nominated for deletion. Please join in the discussion at this location. Primefac ( talk) 14:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is new, and I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Why are the titles of articles for exoplanets discovered using the CoRoT spacecraft written in ALL CAPS? CoRoT-2b is the only one with a correctly formatted title. Should I rename all the articles from "COROT" to "CoRoT"? SevenSpheresCelestia ( talk) 20:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
One week later; two for and none against. I'll do the move. SevenSpheresCelestia ( talk) 17:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Is there some policy or guideline for the section colors used in the background
parameter on {{infobox planet}}? I've seen some usage patterns, but haven't found anything defining them. For example, the planets of this solar system use colors matching the infobox background; most moons, including
Earth's moon, most of
Jupiter's moons and most of
Saturn's moons use a darkish gray, but the
Galilean moons use green and
Titan, though a moon of Saturn, uses a color matching the infobox background. Where could I find an explanation of the color choices?
Thtatithticth (
talk) 12:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
If you look at the articles in Category:Exoplanets with proper names (which I've been doing a lot of work populating recently), most of them have the designation as the title (e.g. 51 Pegasi b) but some have the name as the title (e.g. Pirx). Which title should be used? Personally I prefer keeping the designation as the title. SevenSpheresCelestia ( talk) 02:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Everyone needs to be aware of this. SevenSpheresCelestia ( talk) 20:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey there; I just wanted to let you guys know that I've opened up a requested move discussion at Talk:1SWASP J140747.93−394542.6 to rename the article to V1400 Centauri. Feel free to hop over to the discussion and share your thoughts on the proposal! – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 10:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
The "newsletter" tab on the main project page seems kind of useless at this point since the news letter hasn't been sent out in quite a while. Would it be worth removing it at this point? It would make the tabs bar seem less overloaded. Sam-2727 ( talk) 02:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
It's a curious anomaly that the Kepler's Supernova article is the most popular astronomy topic by a huge margin. I can't find any reason why that page is so popular. Any ideas? On the other hand, it's unfortunate that zodiac is rated the second highest, ahead of even Albert Einstein. One is almost tempted to add a warning: "today the positions of the stars and planets will have a negligible impact on your life". Praemonitus ( talk) 15:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Is there some consensus to remove pronunciations from astronomical object articles that I am unaware of. Kwamikagami is removing them from hundreds of articles today. Is that wise considering the popularity of astronomy articles among non-scientists? StarryGrandma ( talk) 19:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I'd like to bring your attention to Finger of God (Carina). This article is about a Bok globule, nicknamed the "Finger of God" for its shape. My only concern is that it's not notable; I can find hardly any reference to it except for a few news sites. I also can't find any scholarly references about this object either, but that's made harder by the fact that I'm having difficulties tracking down its coordinates or other designations, if any. Should this just be merged into Carina Nebula? Loooke ( talk) 04:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to propose that supernovae mentioned on galaxy articles be subject to a supernovae name redirect that is categorized under Category:Supernovae. For example, ' SN 2008A' could redirect to ' NGC 634'. Does this seem reasonable? Praemonitus ( talk) 00:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Orbit#Merger_proposal_7_April_2020.
Soumyabrata
stay at home
wash your hands
to protect from coronavirus 12:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Draft:Frontier Radio is a draft that has been bouncing around for a couple of years now with very nominal improvements. The subject doesn't seem to have much independent coverage, but does seem to be an integral component in a few space probes. Requesting comment from this group at the MfD that has now been put up for it at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Frontier Radio. Cheers! Sulfurboy ( talk) 20:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
{{ DEC}} substitutes hyphens so that they get rendered as minus signs, which is technically correct. Is there some way we can do that for other astronomy-related templates, such as {{ Starbox character}}, {{ Starbox astrometry}}, {{ Starbox detail}}, {{ Infobox galaxy}}, and many more? I tried to simply add the {{ str rep}} a little while back, but it didn't work. Loooke ( talk) 16:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I was searching for Russian names on planets, moons etc and I was thinking maybe a template like Template:Surface features of space objects would be useful, so I created it, and I've added it to List of geological features on Mercury. What do you think, is it useful? Shall I add it to more lists like List of geological features on Mercury? Avram25 ( talk) 01:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Recently an impact event was observed in Akure, Nigeria which originally thought to be a vehicle or IED explosion in the town is being recently classified as a meteor impact event leaving behind a crater of 21 m diameter and 7.8 m depth. The blast radius was about 1 km. Should this event deserve an article or just an addition to the List of bolides and Impact crater. My opinion is that this deserves an article as there is a lot of controversy around the impact and the news is still developing. News source suggesting Meteor impace: https://www.thecable.ng/akure-explosion-was-impact-from-meteors-not-explosives-says-oau-prof. - Crazydaemon1 ( talk) 21:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Curious thinkers can ask themselves "What Russian names exist in space?" (comets, meteorites, asteroids, lunar craters etc having Russian names). Therefore I just started Russian names in space - also Thai names in space. And I would like to ask if it's ok to create such lists. Avram25 ( talk) 23:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I think it's also worth considering the fact that, since for some countries there are such lists in the media - so they have sources, then we can decide if such lists can exist for all countries. IMO, if the lists of Chinese, Hungarian and Czech names on the sky are notable, then a list of such names is also notable for all the other countries, even if it's not so easy to find sources. It's not very easy for an English editor to find a source in Vietnamese for example. But since the list of Chinese names on the sky is notable, then the Vietnamese should also be notable, even without finding sources for it. We can make a decision about the entire category of such lists. Avram25 ( talk) 21:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
We now have several NGC object articles that are about stars. These appear to be non-notable objects; whatever notability they have is inherited from the NGC catalogue. For example: NGC 84, NGC 464, NGC 91. Should these be merged into a list article? I.e. List of NGC stars. Praemonitus ( talk) 01:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
@ Praemonitus:, [10] is helping me find a more complete list. I'm going to go ahead and create the table feel free to add anything you find. It also turns out there are a lot of stars in the IC. Creating a separate list for that would be useful as well. Sam-2727 ( talk) 21:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
This page has baffled me for quite some time. Mostly because I'm not quite sure what the purpose is. However, there is a more pressing issue in that some of these articles have already been made. Should we clear them off the list? Loooke ( talk) 19:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Could a knowledgeable editor please check my recent edit to the
Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder. It relates to its part (large/small?) in discovering where the missing (~50%) of 'normal' matter in the universe is. Apparently this is not referring to
dark matter. I based my edit on an Oz ABC News report,
here, as the
Nature article was not then available at the link in the story.
• I later became concerned the reporter may have 'overstated' the discovery.
Regards,
220
of
Borg 09:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I invite input on this draft -- not sure if it should be accepted. Paper is super new and index is not picked up in any other scientific articles, but it got attention in the popular press (mostly low-quality sources). Thoughts? Calliopejen1 ( talk) 22:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there are many errors in the article List of minor planets named after people and the underlying articles to the article Meanings of minor planet names. A suitable template should therefore be added to all these listarticles. Voyager85 ( talk) 22:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
A deletion discussion of interest to this Wikiproject. Sam-2727 ( talk) 16:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Jyotirmimamsa—an article about an Indian astronomy work—is under-sourced, poorly summarized, and highly unapproachable for someone not intimately familiar with the topic. It needs expert attention from someone familiar with astronomy, history of Indian science, or both. As a member of Wikiproject Cleanup, I put a request for an expert on the article about a year ago, but there's been little movement. Plus, Cleanup no longer does requests for additional sources. Would one of you astronomy experts lend your expertise to fixing this article? — A garbage person ( talk) 17:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
The {{ Starbox end}} template is at TfD. I suspect the inclusion of the message on the template article is why I'm seeing an extra line at the top of star articles. When I replaced {{ Starbox end}} with {{ end}}, the blank line goes away. Just another pedantic editor issue at play. Praemonitus ( talk) 16:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
<noinclude>...</noinclude>
pair, so it should be showing up any more. I'll see about the whitespace issue.
Primefac (
talk) 17:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
This article says, the two white dwarf have a combined mass of about 1.8 solar masses. There is a new paper, which claims a much smaller mass https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2020/06/aa38117-20/aa38117-20.html So maybe you want to update the article. Thanks and greetings from Germany. -- Wurgl ( talk) 10:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
It seems that many articles on wikipedia (to name a few KW Sagitarii and XX Persei) seem not to agree on some fundamental parameters, and articles related to similar and/or same topics have wholly different estimates. I've cleaned one of two of these but find it quite, well, 'outrageous', that this is happening. I really think there should be a major clean up of astronomy articles, so this can be sorted out, and everything can be consistent and from the latest estimate(s).
Any thoughts?
PNSMurthy ( talk) 07:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
I would like an answer here, many articles are complete messes, and worse, some of them don't even fit together properly, and I had to correct a few incomprehensibe paragraphs. PNSMurthy ( talk) 07:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Then what’s the point? I’m asking myself why I edit astronomical articles, or even encyclopaedic WP when no one views them, and even if someone does, they don’t seem to dig for the details. PNSMurthy ( talk) 01:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Very well, but that is not going to be the first thing in my mind:) PNSMurthy ( talk) 01:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
This is why I am generally skeptical of a lot of the single object articles here: they might be based on one or two papers, or on data extracted from a survey catalog, but the object is not particularly notable otherwise, so once the page is created, nobody is really looking to maintain it as scientific knowledge moves forward. - Parejkoj ( talk) 23:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm seriously debating nominating List of largest stars for deletion. As Lithopsian will likely attest, it is a hotbed of OR, edit warring, and incredibly varying measurements. In the last month I've seen a star be pushed to the top of the list, then the bottom, then removed entirely, then re-added somewhere in the middle before finally returning to the top, all based on which reference the involved editors happened to choose as their preferred values for calculating L/Teff. While I have no doubt that this list is (on paper) a notable list (because we do have "largest X" for just about everything), but I just don't feel like (in reality) it's supported reliably enough to be a valid resource. I thought I'd solicit some thoughts here before I pulled the trigger, if only to spitball ideas for potential improvements and/or things to propose at an AFD. Primefac ( talk) 13:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
What stars are those? -- THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 ( talk) 07:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
All stars on the list. And, it doesn't seem to be as bad as the late list of largest galaxies (atleast everything is cited). PNSMurthy ( talk) 07:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Ok, It is better than that deleted list and the original List of largest stars.Plus, It is sill Semi-Protected and It will not have any Vandalism issues... I have almost 400 edits and could update the List, But if you are asking: why are you not editing the List? It is because I am afraid to mess up the list and add Inaccurate sizes.... THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 ( talk) 16:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello Wikiproject Astronomy members, Following discussion, at Wikipedia talk:Notability (astronomical objects), NGC objects are no longer an example of objects of "high historical importance" and now must meet WP:GNG. I'm going to go through the current list of NGC objects and open AfD discussions for the ones that I don't think meet WP:GNG, but help is welcome (I'm starting at 1,000). Sam-2727 ( talk) 04:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I came across this article, but what is the notability of this particular field of sky? It doesn't seem clear to me. Loooke ( talk) 17:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
If anyone has a bit of time to look at this article, a new editor has just added a lot of info here that looks useful, but is unreferenced. Perhaps the additions should just be removed, but it would be good to have a longer article about the topic. (I started the article last year, but it was quite short as I couldn't find many references.) Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 07:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
After two relistings, comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NGC 529 (2nd nomination) would be appreciated. Sam-2727 ( talk) 23:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Should categories such as Category:Comets in 2020 be sorted by perihelion date instead of by name? -- Kheider ( talk) 07:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
The article in question, has recently just come out of an edit war. It is still getting back on its feet, and many stars in it are yet to be revised and re added. I am raising a request here for the limit size (which is currently 700 solar radii), to be shifted to a 1,000, mainly because of the fact, that, in light of recent events, there are easily 500 stars that cross this limit and are yet to be added.
I have transcluded relative sections from the talk page of the article in question here: PNSMurthy ( talk) 09:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
This is getting out of hand. There are 200 odd stars in the pending additions page, and 200 more in these three links ; https://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/898/1/24/suppdata/apjab9c17t1_mrt.txt, https://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/898/1/24/suppdata/apjab9c17t2_mrt.txt, and https://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/898/1/24/suppdata/apjab9c17t3_mrt.txt. The list will be 1.), unruly, and 2.), unimaginably long. Over this, we still haven't templated the list yet! How about we amp up the limit to 1,000 Rsol, so we can keep this list relatively large? PNSMurthy ( talk) 23:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC) |
There are still so many more stars from various refs that have yet to be added, I may not always have time or want to add so many, it gets pretty boring. I would like help with this so the list of largest stars can finally be more complete. Let's work together to find as many stars as possible! Nussun05 ( talk) 05:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
|
A ancient classical statue of Atlas in Naples (the Farnese Atlas) holds a celestial globe, carved in the 2nd century AD (probably) but based (possibly) on an older model. This globe has constellations on, and various erudite theories have been proposed as to the relevance of this globe to the history of astronomy and science generally. There are sources that indicate it is the subject of much debate, and it would good if someone competent with astronomy and its jargon could look at the sources cited and expand on the scientific side of the article. GPinkerton ( talk) 23:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
I have nominated Big Bang for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 22:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
A while ago some people found this useful. I've updated all associated pages today for those interested. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 00:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I have found and fixed a number of NED citations with broken URLs (the problem was caused by a missing '&'). Examples: NGC 446, NGC 445, NGC 415. I have also found an article citing another NGC object ( NGC 449/ [1]). Presumably there is more to do, thus it is time to ask for some help. Thank you in advance -- UnaToFiAN-1 ( talk) 09:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
The Astronomical catalog page seems to be a very short and random grab bag, containing some very misleading claims (2MASS was not "the most ambitious project" even when it was operating). The effort required to make it decent seems drastically more than it is worth: "historical importance" and "widely used" are not really verifiable for more than a handful of possibilities (e.g. Messier, NGC, UGC, and a few of the Star catalogs), it doesn't include any non-optical catalogs (e.g. ROSAT, XMM-slew, VLA-FIRST), and modern digital surveys like the Sloan Digital Sky Survey are far more "widely used" (based on publication statistics) than anything else.
As a counterexample, Star catalog is much more well fleshed out and most of the catalogs listed there have decent pages themselves. I was going to post an AfD for Astronomical catalog, but figured I'd check here to see if others had thoughts. What should be the criteria for inclusion on this page? The proliferation of catalogs in the last few decades due to improved survey techniques suggests that either only truly historical (pre-1950?) catalogs should be included, or we shouldn't bother at all. - Parejkoj ( talk) 02:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi all. Quick query—does anyone know where this journal's website is now? The links on our page are out of date, as it seems to have been hosted by UCL, but they are now 404s. I'm after the 1905 volume, which I'd half-expect to be in an online archive somewhere, but without knowing where that is...! Hope you can help. Cheers! —— SN 54129 15:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
A whole bunch of exoplanets and their host stars have been given proper names if anyone feels like updating their articles.
New names at http://www.nameexoworlds.iau.org/final-results
These are the result of national competitions held this year where every country in the world was given the chance by the IAU to name an exoplanet and its host star. Fdfexoex ( talk) 05:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
If more people could way in at [5] on my proposal to remove NGC objects from the WP:NASTRO page and clarify the language in that section, that would be much appreciated. Sam-2727 ( talk) 01:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
In the course of adding in the information about the NameExoWorlds project I have come across at least one instance where there is a Wikipedia page for the planet, but not for the star. The planet HAT-P-14b and star HAT-P-14 being an example. Where there is a page for the star I've just been adding information about both the star and the planet there, but I'm not sure what to do in this instance. The HAT-P-14b page is very short so creating another very short page for the star seems somewhat superfluous. My inclination would be to create a page for the star and transfer the planet information to there, but I'm not sure if there is a convention that I should be following. Physdragon ( talk) 16:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
So for the past year or something I had been adding {{ starbox reference}}s to starboxes, but I've noticed several problems with the parameters.
|Simbad=
parameter shouldn't even be necessary. Since SIMBAD accepts full constellation genitive names, that means names like "15 Monocerotis" and "RR Lyrae" work, as well as names like "Gliese 758", "HD 181068", etc. There would of course be the rare exception such as
W75N(B)-VLA2, but except for those, I feel that as it stands, adding |Simbad
is a waste of time.|EPE=
parameter is completely useless, since the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia doesn't have individual pages for stars anymore.What are your thoughts on this? Loooke ( talk) 22:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Interested parties, please see Talk:Sloan Digital Sky Survey#Update needed. The article is in dire need of updating, as it still talked (before I edited it just now) about SDSS-III (which, AFAIK, ended in 2014) as if it was yet to happen. Also note that I suspect much of the prose in the article was copied nearly verbatim from the official website of the Survey. Someone familiar with the SDSS or sky surveys in general should do a thorough copyedit/rewrite of the article. (Not tagging it as a copyvio yet, since I thought I'd give this group a chance to take a crack at it first.) - dcljr ( talk) 04:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Grateful if someone here could pick up on a post made at Talk:Deneb#Stellar_parameters by someone from galaxymap.org/ who's more familiar, I think, with the current science on stars than they are on things wikipedia. (This twitter thread kicked the whole issue off; further discussion in this subthread.) tl:dr the article might usefully present more recent science on a Deneb measurement; there may be a general point about the currency of wikipedia stellar science information; Galexymap has hitherto been unwilling to get involved with wikipedia because of an aversion to conflict & might be more inclined to do so if this approach is well met. thx -- Tagishsimon ( talk) 21:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
The lead is disputed, see talk page and edit history. -- mfb ( talk) 05:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Equinox#RfC on season-specific redirects.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 17:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
It's very slightly in our purview, but {{ No orbit for payload}} has been nominated for deletion. Please join in the discussion at this location. Primefac ( talk) 14:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is new, and I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Why are the titles of articles for exoplanets discovered using the CoRoT spacecraft written in ALL CAPS? CoRoT-2b is the only one with a correctly formatted title. Should I rename all the articles from "COROT" to "CoRoT"? SevenSpheresCelestia ( talk) 20:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
One week later; two for and none against. I'll do the move. SevenSpheresCelestia ( talk) 17:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Is there some policy or guideline for the section colors used in the background
parameter on {{infobox planet}}? I've seen some usage patterns, but haven't found anything defining them. For example, the planets of this solar system use colors matching the infobox background; most moons, including
Earth's moon, most of
Jupiter's moons and most of
Saturn's moons use a darkish gray, but the
Galilean moons use green and
Titan, though a moon of Saturn, uses a color matching the infobox background. Where could I find an explanation of the color choices?
Thtatithticth (
talk) 12:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
If you look at the articles in Category:Exoplanets with proper names (which I've been doing a lot of work populating recently), most of them have the designation as the title (e.g. 51 Pegasi b) but some have the name as the title (e.g. Pirx). Which title should be used? Personally I prefer keeping the designation as the title. SevenSpheresCelestia ( talk) 02:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Everyone needs to be aware of this. SevenSpheresCelestia ( talk) 20:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey there; I just wanted to let you guys know that I've opened up a requested move discussion at Talk:1SWASP J140747.93−394542.6 to rename the article to V1400 Centauri. Feel free to hop over to the discussion and share your thoughts on the proposal! – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 10:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
The "newsletter" tab on the main project page seems kind of useless at this point since the news letter hasn't been sent out in quite a while. Would it be worth removing it at this point? It would make the tabs bar seem less overloaded. Sam-2727 ( talk) 02:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
It's a curious anomaly that the Kepler's Supernova article is the most popular astronomy topic by a huge margin. I can't find any reason why that page is so popular. Any ideas? On the other hand, it's unfortunate that zodiac is rated the second highest, ahead of even Albert Einstein. One is almost tempted to add a warning: "today the positions of the stars and planets will have a negligible impact on your life". Praemonitus ( talk) 15:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Is there some consensus to remove pronunciations from astronomical object articles that I am unaware of. Kwamikagami is removing them from hundreds of articles today. Is that wise considering the popularity of astronomy articles among non-scientists? StarryGrandma ( talk) 19:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I'd like to bring your attention to Finger of God (Carina). This article is about a Bok globule, nicknamed the "Finger of God" for its shape. My only concern is that it's not notable; I can find hardly any reference to it except for a few news sites. I also can't find any scholarly references about this object either, but that's made harder by the fact that I'm having difficulties tracking down its coordinates or other designations, if any. Should this just be merged into Carina Nebula? Loooke ( talk) 04:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to propose that supernovae mentioned on galaxy articles be subject to a supernovae name redirect that is categorized under Category:Supernovae. For example, ' SN 2008A' could redirect to ' NGC 634'. Does this seem reasonable? Praemonitus ( talk) 00:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Orbit#Merger_proposal_7_April_2020.
Soumyabrata
stay at home
wash your hands
to protect from coronavirus 12:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Draft:Frontier Radio is a draft that has been bouncing around for a couple of years now with very nominal improvements. The subject doesn't seem to have much independent coverage, but does seem to be an integral component in a few space probes. Requesting comment from this group at the MfD that has now been put up for it at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Frontier Radio. Cheers! Sulfurboy ( talk) 20:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
{{ DEC}} substitutes hyphens so that they get rendered as minus signs, which is technically correct. Is there some way we can do that for other astronomy-related templates, such as {{ Starbox character}}, {{ Starbox astrometry}}, {{ Starbox detail}}, {{ Infobox galaxy}}, and many more? I tried to simply add the {{ str rep}} a little while back, but it didn't work. Loooke ( talk) 16:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I was searching for Russian names on planets, moons etc and I was thinking maybe a template like Template:Surface features of space objects would be useful, so I created it, and I've added it to List of geological features on Mercury. What do you think, is it useful? Shall I add it to more lists like List of geological features on Mercury? Avram25 ( talk) 01:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Recently an impact event was observed in Akure, Nigeria which originally thought to be a vehicle or IED explosion in the town is being recently classified as a meteor impact event leaving behind a crater of 21 m diameter and 7.8 m depth. The blast radius was about 1 km. Should this event deserve an article or just an addition to the List of bolides and Impact crater. My opinion is that this deserves an article as there is a lot of controversy around the impact and the news is still developing. News source suggesting Meteor impace: https://www.thecable.ng/akure-explosion-was-impact-from-meteors-not-explosives-says-oau-prof. - Crazydaemon1 ( talk) 21:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Curious thinkers can ask themselves "What Russian names exist in space?" (comets, meteorites, asteroids, lunar craters etc having Russian names). Therefore I just started Russian names in space - also Thai names in space. And I would like to ask if it's ok to create such lists. Avram25 ( talk) 23:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I think it's also worth considering the fact that, since for some countries there are such lists in the media - so they have sources, then we can decide if such lists can exist for all countries. IMO, if the lists of Chinese, Hungarian and Czech names on the sky are notable, then a list of such names is also notable for all the other countries, even if it's not so easy to find sources. It's not very easy for an English editor to find a source in Vietnamese for example. But since the list of Chinese names on the sky is notable, then the Vietnamese should also be notable, even without finding sources for it. We can make a decision about the entire category of such lists. Avram25 ( talk) 21:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
We now have several NGC object articles that are about stars. These appear to be non-notable objects; whatever notability they have is inherited from the NGC catalogue. For example: NGC 84, NGC 464, NGC 91. Should these be merged into a list article? I.e. List of NGC stars. Praemonitus ( talk) 01:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
@ Praemonitus:, [10] is helping me find a more complete list. I'm going to go ahead and create the table feel free to add anything you find. It also turns out there are a lot of stars in the IC. Creating a separate list for that would be useful as well. Sam-2727 ( talk) 21:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
This page has baffled me for quite some time. Mostly because I'm not quite sure what the purpose is. However, there is a more pressing issue in that some of these articles have already been made. Should we clear them off the list? Loooke ( talk) 19:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Could a knowledgeable editor please check my recent edit to the
Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder. It relates to its part (large/small?) in discovering where the missing (~50%) of 'normal' matter in the universe is. Apparently this is not referring to
dark matter. I based my edit on an Oz ABC News report,
here, as the
Nature article was not then available at the link in the story.
• I later became concerned the reporter may have 'overstated' the discovery.
Regards,
220
of
Borg 09:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I invite input on this draft -- not sure if it should be accepted. Paper is super new and index is not picked up in any other scientific articles, but it got attention in the popular press (mostly low-quality sources). Thoughts? Calliopejen1 ( talk) 22:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there are many errors in the article List of minor planets named after people and the underlying articles to the article Meanings of minor planet names. A suitable template should therefore be added to all these listarticles. Voyager85 ( talk) 22:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
A deletion discussion of interest to this Wikiproject. Sam-2727 ( talk) 16:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Jyotirmimamsa—an article about an Indian astronomy work—is under-sourced, poorly summarized, and highly unapproachable for someone not intimately familiar with the topic. It needs expert attention from someone familiar with astronomy, history of Indian science, or both. As a member of Wikiproject Cleanup, I put a request for an expert on the article about a year ago, but there's been little movement. Plus, Cleanup no longer does requests for additional sources. Would one of you astronomy experts lend your expertise to fixing this article? — A garbage person ( talk) 17:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
The {{ Starbox end}} template is at TfD. I suspect the inclusion of the message on the template article is why I'm seeing an extra line at the top of star articles. When I replaced {{ Starbox end}} with {{ end}}, the blank line goes away. Just another pedantic editor issue at play. Praemonitus ( talk) 16:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
<noinclude>...</noinclude>
pair, so it should be showing up any more. I'll see about the whitespace issue.
Primefac (
talk) 17:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
This article says, the two white dwarf have a combined mass of about 1.8 solar masses. There is a new paper, which claims a much smaller mass https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2020/06/aa38117-20/aa38117-20.html So maybe you want to update the article. Thanks and greetings from Germany. -- Wurgl ( talk) 10:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
It seems that many articles on wikipedia (to name a few KW Sagitarii and XX Persei) seem not to agree on some fundamental parameters, and articles related to similar and/or same topics have wholly different estimates. I've cleaned one of two of these but find it quite, well, 'outrageous', that this is happening. I really think there should be a major clean up of astronomy articles, so this can be sorted out, and everything can be consistent and from the latest estimate(s).
Any thoughts?
PNSMurthy ( talk) 07:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
I would like an answer here, many articles are complete messes, and worse, some of them don't even fit together properly, and I had to correct a few incomprehensibe paragraphs. PNSMurthy ( talk) 07:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Then what’s the point? I’m asking myself why I edit astronomical articles, or even encyclopaedic WP when no one views them, and even if someone does, they don’t seem to dig for the details. PNSMurthy ( talk) 01:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Very well, but that is not going to be the first thing in my mind:) PNSMurthy ( talk) 01:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
This is why I am generally skeptical of a lot of the single object articles here: they might be based on one or two papers, or on data extracted from a survey catalog, but the object is not particularly notable otherwise, so once the page is created, nobody is really looking to maintain it as scientific knowledge moves forward. - Parejkoj ( talk) 23:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm seriously debating nominating List of largest stars for deletion. As Lithopsian will likely attest, it is a hotbed of OR, edit warring, and incredibly varying measurements. In the last month I've seen a star be pushed to the top of the list, then the bottom, then removed entirely, then re-added somewhere in the middle before finally returning to the top, all based on which reference the involved editors happened to choose as their preferred values for calculating L/Teff. While I have no doubt that this list is (on paper) a notable list (because we do have "largest X" for just about everything), but I just don't feel like (in reality) it's supported reliably enough to be a valid resource. I thought I'd solicit some thoughts here before I pulled the trigger, if only to spitball ideas for potential improvements and/or things to propose at an AFD. Primefac ( talk) 13:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
What stars are those? -- THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 ( talk) 07:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
All stars on the list. And, it doesn't seem to be as bad as the late list of largest galaxies (atleast everything is cited). PNSMurthy ( talk) 07:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Ok, It is better than that deleted list and the original List of largest stars.Plus, It is sill Semi-Protected and It will not have any Vandalism issues... I have almost 400 edits and could update the List, But if you are asking: why are you not editing the List? It is because I am afraid to mess up the list and add Inaccurate sizes.... THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 ( talk) 16:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello Wikiproject Astronomy members, Following discussion, at Wikipedia talk:Notability (astronomical objects), NGC objects are no longer an example of objects of "high historical importance" and now must meet WP:GNG. I'm going to go through the current list of NGC objects and open AfD discussions for the ones that I don't think meet WP:GNG, but help is welcome (I'm starting at 1,000). Sam-2727 ( talk) 04:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I came across this article, but what is the notability of this particular field of sky? It doesn't seem clear to me. Loooke ( talk) 17:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
If anyone has a bit of time to look at this article, a new editor has just added a lot of info here that looks useful, but is unreferenced. Perhaps the additions should just be removed, but it would be good to have a longer article about the topic. (I started the article last year, but it was quite short as I couldn't find many references.) Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 07:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
After two relistings, comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NGC 529 (2nd nomination) would be appreciated. Sam-2727 ( talk) 23:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Should categories such as Category:Comets in 2020 be sorted by perihelion date instead of by name? -- Kheider ( talk) 07:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
The article in question, has recently just come out of an edit war. It is still getting back on its feet, and many stars in it are yet to be revised and re added. I am raising a request here for the limit size (which is currently 700 solar radii), to be shifted to a 1,000, mainly because of the fact, that, in light of recent events, there are easily 500 stars that cross this limit and are yet to be added.
I have transcluded relative sections from the talk page of the article in question here: PNSMurthy ( talk) 09:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
This is getting out of hand. There are 200 odd stars in the pending additions page, and 200 more in these three links ; https://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/898/1/24/suppdata/apjab9c17t1_mrt.txt, https://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/898/1/24/suppdata/apjab9c17t2_mrt.txt, and https://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/898/1/24/suppdata/apjab9c17t3_mrt.txt. The list will be 1.), unruly, and 2.), unimaginably long. Over this, we still haven't templated the list yet! How about we amp up the limit to 1,000 Rsol, so we can keep this list relatively large? PNSMurthy ( talk) 23:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC) |
There are still so many more stars from various refs that have yet to be added, I may not always have time or want to add so many, it gets pretty boring. I would like help with this so the list of largest stars can finally be more complete. Let's work together to find as many stars as possible! Nussun05 ( talk) 05:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
|
A ancient classical statue of Atlas in Naples (the Farnese Atlas) holds a celestial globe, carved in the 2nd century AD (probably) but based (possibly) on an older model. This globe has constellations on, and various erudite theories have been proposed as to the relevance of this globe to the history of astronomy and science generally. There are sources that indicate it is the subject of much debate, and it would good if someone competent with astronomy and its jargon could look at the sources cited and expand on the scientific side of the article. GPinkerton ( talk) 23:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)