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 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Hi, I'd like to advise the discussion linked in the title. Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 18:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I've been wanting to add manual short descriptions to articles as part of WikiProject Short Descriptions, but when I looked at exoplanet articles there was a discrepancy: some were labeled "exoplanet" and others were labeled "extrasolar planet" by Wikidata. I'd like some opinions on which description would be preferable, if any (for consistency purposes). Thanks! :) Supernova58 ( talk) 00:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks everyone! Supernova58 ( talk) 23:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Can someone please rate Marat Arakelian for quality and importance according to Wikiproject Astronomy standards? talk:Marat_Arakelian Thanks! - TimDWilliamson speak 02:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Heat death of the universe appears to have been hijacked by an editor who insists on restoring all content written by the editor despite the efforts of several editors to restore a version not la-la land. David notMD ( talk) 18:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I have nominated Earth 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. -- Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Could someone else please try to explain decay does not power supernovae? I made a simple clarification edit months ago, but it was twice promptly reverted with no more discussion than "yes, that's what it says". Either I am massively misunderstanding what that sentence is trying to say or @ Lithopsian is, because supernovae happen just fine without anything heavier than iron-56. 174.70.79.141 ( talk) 19:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
FYI module:Lunar eclipse has been nominated for deletion. This may be of interest to you. -- 67.70.32.97 ( talk) 02:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Given the discussion here, considering WP:Common name, WP:NCASTRO, and also WP:Recentism and WP:Neutrality, I'm formally asking to revert the NGC 2392 page's title to Eskimo Nebula, its proper name which is absolutely the best known name of this nebula all over the english-speaker astronomy and amateur astronomy communities. Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 07:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Please come take part in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of September 12, 2053. I don’t care which side you fall on, keep or delete. I just thought more editors with a basic familiarity with astronomy should take part. - TimDWilliamson speak 02:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I apologize for slightly necro-posting (I really fecking hate the fact that page archiving hides all future notifications), but could I solicit some opinions on why we have these articles (specifically, eclipses after the 2020s but in general "this eclipse happened" articles)? I feel like "this can be calculated indefinitely" doesn't really meet any sort of notability requirement. Primefac ( talk) 21:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Proxima c : /info/en/?search=Proxima_Centauri_c has beem confirmed by just 1 reserch note written by 1 author. I suggest that Proxima c should be considered a candidate, especially considering that all the other articles in 2020 refer to Proxima c as a candidate. It doens't appear in the NASA exoplanet archive either. Plus the Proxima c page should be considered a stub article in my opinion. As a good practice I won't rever the edits made by the main editor of that page, but instead I would like to ask someone else to please do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertheditor ( talk • contribs) 13:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Per this page, the count of stub astronomy articles rated of medium importance is now down to 369. If these articles really are of medium importance, they likely deserve to be brought up to Start status. Otherwise, they should probably be de-prioritized with a Low rating. If this mini project interests you, please consider contributing. Thank you. Praemonitus ( talk) 15:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi - I've noticed a number of new articles about stars cropping up in the WP:NPP feed. A typical example would be NGC 1240. As a non-expert, I find it difficult to determine, from the sources provided, whether it would pass WP:NASTRO - my gut is telling me 'probably not', but I'm not sure where the 'HR Catalogue identifier' would be (if it existed) on those pages, or where to check to see whether it's on one of the relevant catalogues. I'm going to ping 1Muskmelon, as the articles' author, as any reply would probably be helpful for them. Thanks in advance for any guidance, GirthSummit (blether) 12:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
As part of the move away from adhering to only the IAU's definition of 'planet', I've mentioned at terrestrial planet that planetary geologists accept the Moon and sometimes Io and Europa as terrestrials. Lakadawalla counts Io, and I've seen illustrations that include Europa as well, I just forget where. Anyone know offhand? — kwami ( talk) 03:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm thinking about creating a "Navigation Template" for the late stages of stellar evolution (AGB Star, Planetary Nebula, White Dwarf, Supernova, etc) that would be analogous to the existing Star formation template. I've never created something like that on Wikipedia, and I don't want to anger people by not following rules that I am unaware of. Is it standard protocol to get permission from some group within Wikiproject Astronomy to do something like that? If I make a template, and then star modifying existing articles to use that template, will that be bad form? If there is some agreed upon procedure to do this, where can I learn the rules? PopePompus ( talk) 02:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I updated the ecliptic coordinates of the pole of 7 Iris, but don't know how to calc the axial tilt from that. There is some commentary about what the axial tilt means for seasonal temp fluctuations. Could someone fix? — kwami ( talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I just nominated Mass dimension one fermions for deletion. I figure some of the editors from the Astronomy project may wish to weigh in, as this is now linked from Dark Matter. - Parejkoj ( talk) 21:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Does someone know how to get the WayBack Machine at https://web.archive.org/ to take an archive of the risk-listed asteroid at https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/sentry/details.html#?des=2020%20VV -- Kheider ( talk) 19:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I initiated a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Solar_System#Merging_WP_templates to propose merging the {{ WikiProject Solar System}} template into {{ WikiProject Astronomy}}. Please comment if you have an opinion. Thanks. Praemonitus ( talk) 15:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
There seems to be some debate about the Wow! signal, which has spilled from the talk page to a discussion at DRN. Input from this project would be appreciated. Primefac ( talk) 12:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
New articles are currently being created under the auspices of the WikiProject Women in Red about women astronomers who had worked over a century ago at the Mount Wilson Observatory that have been previously been ignored by history. It would be very helpful if persons with a background in astronomy can help improve the scientific contribution sections in these new articles since most of us editors have not taken enough astronomy courses to determine what the subject's key contributions to astronomy were really were by just look at the person's publication list. Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Early_20th_century_Mount_Wilson_Observatory_human_computers for more information. Thanks. -- 68.50.32.85 ( talk) 03:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
An exciting opportunity to run an exciting and topical TFA, but all four articles need updating to be considered: see TFA discussion here about this event. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I have edited the sandboxes at {{ starbox character}} and {{ starbox observe}} for two small issues I ran into. The page layout at {{ starbox character}}, not the template output itself, is cobbled together from the template itself which doesn't display except for a small yellow box saying "Characteristics" and a hard-coded demo template inside the documentation which doesn't quite output in the correct layout. I have altered this to display the actual template as for the other starboxes. There should be no changes on pages that use the template. In {{ starbox observe}} I found a case where the template would produce trailing whitespace that in some cases produced a blank line at the top of the page where it was used. Luckily, {{ starbox character}} is usually used immediately afterwards and it swallows the whitespace. However, I have added a fix so that what is actually a blank table row is not produced, just for the appmag_v field. This may occur in other templates or for other fields, I'm sure I've seen it happen but can't track down cases now. Maybe in {{ starbox sources}} or {{ starbox short}}? Lithopsian ( talk) 20:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Someone added a link to
universeguide.com to
IC_1101 to the "Discovery" section (I've since removed that entire section: see
Talk:IC_1101). Poking around at that page, it does not include citations to where it got the included data, and has a bunch of inaccuracies or questionable statements. The author of the page states "This website was put together by me, John as a learning tool for PHP then ASP.NET and has grown and grown." which is makes this seem like not a good source to use for astronomy facts, especially given the existence of SIMBAD and NED. Given this, I don't think we should use this page as a source for anything in the astronomy sphere (science fiction citations are another question). A quick google for universeguide.com site:en.wikipedia.org
turned up a number of uses of the page here; I'm guessing others have a better way of doing such a search. Is there a bot that can remove these links easily, and/or replace them with better links to e.g. NED? -
Parejkoj (
talk) 18:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Big Freeze is currently up for discussion at RfD. I thought you might be interested.
Also, looking at wikt:en:Big Freeze#English, the definition on Wiktionary needs a rewrite. Anyone want to give it a try?
-- 67.70.26.89 ( talk) 11:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I have nominated Jupiter 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. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
I have launched a new discussion at Talk:List of most massive black holes about the entry of SDSS J140821.67+025733.2. I hope you can join so me and hopefully others may get clarified, and hopefully we get a new consensus regarding this object. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 15:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
By the way, if you are interested, help me in getting data from this page:
https://iopscience.iop.org/0067-0049/228/1/9/suppdata/apjsaa5504t1_mrt.txt
This is a monstrous data set of black hole masses. I am finding for candidates above 10 billion solar masses. This might take time if I do this alone, so I may as well ask for help. If you have any concerns regarding the reference, please leave your ideas here. It would be greatly appreciated.
Also, this is the same reference where the value of 196 billion solar masses was obtained for SDSS J140821.67+025733.2. I don't think this was raised in the earlier discussion here. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 05:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I submitted a deletion review here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 December 18#SDSS J140821.67+025733.2
Please place inputs in there. Thanks!
SkyFlubbler ( talk) 06:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 14:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I have nominated Astrophysics Data System 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. Hog Farm Bacon 05:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
What are our rules on using composite images in astronomy articles? I'm thinking specifically of c:File:TheGreatConjunction2020.png uploaded by KSPFanatic102 and the thread at Talk:Great_conjunction#Stitched_image?. For an image like this, I would think WP:V would require more details about how the composite image was constructed. I'm sure there was no deceptive intent here, so I'm not dumping on KSP, just trying to make sure we're presenting quality content to our readers. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject Astronomy! I'm Ed Erhart, part of the Wikimedia Foundation's Communications department. (You might know me better as The ed17.)
Have you ever wanted to ask an astronaut a question about living in space or the science that's done on the International Space Station (ISS)? Or perhaps you're expanding an article on human spaceflight and can't find a citation for an important bit of information? We're looking for community input on questions to ask a NASA astronaut.
For Wikipedia's 20th birthday, coming up on 15 January, and 20 years of continuous occupation of the ISS, we're working with Modest Genius to broadcast an interview with a NASA astronaut. Suitable topics would include Wikipedia's coverage of astronautics, scientific contributions made by crewed spaceflight over the last twenty years, and plans for the next two decades of spaceflight. We'll select the best questions to put to the astronaut.
If you have questions to submit, please respond below or send them to me via email by Sunday, 10 January (UTC). Thank you! Ed Erhart (WMF) ( talk) 01:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kepler-1638 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExoEditor ( talk • contribs) 18:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Sandbox Organiser A place to help you organise your work |
Hi all
I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.
Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.
Hope its helpful
John Cummings ( talk) 11:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Do UGC 9796 and II Zwicky 73 refer to the same galaxy? I've seen some sources like this one say that they are, while others like SIMBAD say they are two different galaxies. Loooke ( talk) 17:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I wrote down some problems with the article on its talk page, and am wondering if other editors think the same of the article. Courtesy @ Astronome de Meudon: since he/she wrote the article, and @ EN-Jungwon: since he/she assessed the article. Banedon ( talk) 05:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I have AfD'ed both of them. Tercer ( talk) 18:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Globular cluster 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. ( t · c) buidhe 17:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is being held here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_Space.com and here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Space.com_reliable? ExoEditor 02:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Should a star be included in a Constellation template if the article has been changed to a redirect to the list of stars for that constellation. Because there are quite a few that have been redirected, particularly in the 'HR' section. As an example: HD 19549 in {{ Aries (constellation)}}. Thanks. Praemonitus ( talk) 16:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Are the citations for Draft:Sarah Roberts (Physicist) sufficient for notability in this field? DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
There are several articles on stars with exoplanets that are separate from the article on the exoplanet itself. The problem is that these stars' only claim to notability is having exoplanets, and there isn't even enough information about them to make for a sensible article. User:Lithopsian has been AfD'ing these articles one by one [7] [8], but I think this is a very laborious and haphazard approach. It would be better if people could come to an agreement on how to deal with these articles uniformly. My proposal would be to merge the star's article with the exoplanet article. As suggested by User:SevenSpheresCelestia and User:PopePompus, the target should be the star's article, as this allows for stars with multiple exoplanets to be dealt with sensibly. Examples:
And many, many more. What do you think? Tercer ( talk) 16:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
However, there's nothing currently in the article to demonstrate that the star is independently notable - it just quotes entries in large catalogues and mentions the planets.There is at least this paper, although you're probably correct that:
It does not appear that any of those planets are notable on their own either, just as a combined system.I wouldn't be against merging these.
Again there's nothing in the current Kepler-22 to demonstrate that it's notable independently of the planet.True, but the articles have existed separately for almost a decade now and are both fairly developed (neither is a stub) so I don't really see the need for a merge...In any case, these should be discussed individually on the article talk pages. SevenSpheresCelestia ( talk) 19:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Should we create a separate article for Hubble tension? it has been going on for a while and probably deserves its own article for deeper discussion. -- ReyHahn ( talk) 13:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Need someone who can check some of the content, and mathematical formulae, at Supernova neutrinos. The article was created by a Wiki Ed student and looks pretty good, but is too technical for me to verify. Also, any recommendations to this new editor about how to find and use secondary sources in this field would be appreciated. Also listed at WT:PHYSICS. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 21:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
About 99% of gravitational binding energy...— Contrary to source cited. Source says 99% of emitted energy comes out as neutrinos, which is not the same as the gravitational binding energy. I'm not an expert, but I see statements which don't agree with my limited understanding, and trying to chase down citations either runs into paywalls or they don't obviously agree with the cited statement. The article needs someone who works in the field to straighten out, and a large dose of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH needs to be applied. Tarl N. ( discuss) 02:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
I made a draft about American space exploration but it was rejected. Can you help? Link: Draft:Space Exploration 64.121.103.144 ( talk) 18:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I just noticed Orcus (DP) and Salacia (DP); I am not aware that dwarf planets are called "DP"s. Is this valid terminology for abbreviating "dwarf planet" ? (It is not currently listed at DP (disambiguation) nor wikt:en:DP ) If this is valid terminology, it needs to be added to the disambiguation page and the wiktionary entry -- 67.70.27.246 ( talk) 01:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I recently did a fairly large overhaul of this page, but with only a handful of page watchers it might not get enough followup for a few discussions on the talk page. Nothing vital or crazy (and both discussions started in the last 24 hours), just a few things that could potentially use some extra input. Primefac ( talk) 10:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Explorer King is a new user here. Most of his edits were on The articles for the Andromeda and Triangulum galaxies, as well as the Milky Way’s article. He added that the Milky Way was larger than the Andromeda galaxy, basing it on a radius of 129,000 light years. It seems that it came from a news article which says that the Milky Way is larger than the Andromeda, and bases that on a paper about the Milky Way’s Mass. Any thoughts? The Space Enthusiast ( talk) 14:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Should we remove the claims that claim the Milky Way is larger than M31? The Space Enthusiast ( talk) 12:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not an astronomer, but I have a concern about NGC 179 especially "This galaxy comprises several stars lost of interstellar matter and it can be possible to flatten more until they will faint." "flattening until they faint" sounds like something in the playground that merits a teacher intervening. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I propose that we extend {{infobox nebula}} with a new section containing central star characteristics. The proposal can be read and discussed here: Template talk:Infobox nebula § Central star characteristics. — UnladenSwallow ( talk) 11:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Would anyone please weigh in at the discussion at Talk:Noon#High noon, particularly with regard to how the nonspecialist terms solar noon and high noon relate to both the time of the Sun's meridian transit and the time of the Sun's highest altitude? Ibadibam ( talk) 02:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
55701 Ukalegon is a smaller Jupiter trojan that fails notability per WP:DWMP. ( JPL · MPC · LCDB · Ferret · AstDyS-2)
Since 2018, I've been trying unsuccessfully to turn the stub into a redirect page but my edits keep getting reverted by the same user (see article's talk page). So maybe somebody else should look into this matter. Rfassbind – talk 23:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Anyone know why Template:Sky is acting all weird now? It now seems to cut into the top of infoboxes for stars and such, and I recall it being a bit higher up then now. This wasn’t occurring a few days ago. -- MarioProtIV ( talk/ contribs) 19:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Transit of Venus 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. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I have realized the potentially habitable exoplanets GJ 1061 d and c have been merged: /info/en/?search=Gliese_1061#Gliese_1061_d I think it's a good idea to have them as separate articles. Any thoughts? They are the 7th and 8th most potentially habitable: http://phl.upr.edu/projects/habitable-exoplanets-catalog And they have been covered in many scientific papers and media. Cheers. ExoEditor 23:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I am an inexperienced user who revived WikiProject Rocketry. Could some experienced editors please put it on their watchlist and help out? StarshipSLS ( Talk), ( My Contributions) 15:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Nuclear pasta 13,380 446 Stub -- Coin945 ( talk) 13:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry to start yet another discussion about IC 1101 but this time it is not about the overall size, it is the core size. You see, I found this paper which says that IC 1101 has the largest core of any galaxy. The link is: [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Space Enthusiast ( talk • contribs) 01:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Just for any editors who pass this, I started a draft ( Draft:Helium rain experiments) based on some experiments that showed the possibility of "helium rain" inside gas giants. Elijahandskip ( talk) 20:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
There is a Request for Comment about Robert Lanza#Biocentrism that may be of interest to members of the WikiProject: Bibliographies/Science task force. Talk:Robert Lanza#Request For Comment Robert Lanza. I would encourage members of this project to consider participating to add diversity to the discussion. Sapphire41359 ( talk) 17:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Please watchlist and keep an eye on this dab page, as it keeps getting turned into a redirect to a video game. Thanks! Skyerise ( talk) 23:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Baten Kaitos. Skyerise ( talk) 03:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
A few people from the newly formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather have decided to create a task force dedicated to working on articles underneath the space weather branch of meteorology. Besides articles underneath the space weather category (including subcategories) and planetary atmospheric articles, what else should be included? I was also wondering if anyone here would be interested in helping to improve these articles as they fall underneath both our projects. Noah Talk 02:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Currently rosette orbit is a redirect to Klemperer rosette, which is not the same thing at all. I noticed this as a result of reading the orbital eccentricity article, which originally (back in 2012) contained just the text "rosette orbit," that was later wikilinked to Klemperer rosette (possibly due to the existing redirect), and later still edited to explicitly include the "Klemperer." Sources mentioning "rosette orbit" (no mention of Klemperer) are cited on the talk page. Anyway, I reverted it back to the original, but that still leaves the problem of the bad redirect. I can't find anything on Wikipedia that actually describes what a rosette orbit is, or why a star would follow one, although confusingly there's the very similarly named Rosetta (orbit) (but that explicitly limits itself to relativistic precession)... So perhaps someone should write something about the topic, or delete the redirect, or something? I'll leave it up to more experienced editors to decide what's best. 89.168.85.237 ( talk) 16:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
I noticed on List of largest craters in the Solar System there is an impact crater on Ganymede that is 15,600 kilometers wide. However on the talk page for that, A user said it was geographically impossible, since Ganymede is only 5,270 kilometers wide. What are your opinions about this? The Space Enthusiast ( talk) 14:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I removed it. -- mfb ( talk) 16:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello, WikiProject Astronomy,
This is a recently created category and I assume it has something to do with astronomy. But it doesn't have any parent categories so I do not know how it fits into the Wikipedia category structure. If some knowledgeable editor could assign it some parent categories or tag it for CFD deletion if it is nonsense, I would appreciate it. Thanks much. Liz Read! Talk! 02:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I just went and removed a bunch of references and external links to "astronoo.com". It appears to be a blog-like source, is full of ads, doesn't have any of its information sources linked on the various pages, and is an automatic translation of a French page. This seems to be not at all the kind of source we should be using for scientific articles on Wikipedia. I think I removed them all, but this is a notice others to keep an eye out if they re-appear, or if I missed any. - Parejkoj ( talk) 18:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
While going through Astronomy, Popular pages, I found these two lists
At article Canopus I added both to "See also" and am now wondering, while each is different, might the titles be changed? Me not being an astronomer, how can each list name be clarified? Or are they okay as is? JoeNMLC ( talk) 14:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
It has been about a year since I looked here to check Popular pages bot. As of today there are 25 entries for WP not updated for July's monthly run. Click on right-side "Updated" columns sorts the table to view by date sequence. The bot is not perfect, and does stall out sometimes. Generally problems can be from the wikicode on a wikiproject talk page configuration, or at the bots configuration page for each wikiproject. Looking at details for WP Astronomy, entries look correct. For Talk:Skathi (moon), I updated to use full WP names (uncertain if this will help), and added Annual readership stats graph to help monitor daily numbers. JoeNMLC ( talk) 22:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I did a complete overhaul of this article because it was filled with unnecessary background information, severely oudated (often using future tense from before the project bagan), and scantly referenced in many places. About 3/4 of the content was deleted in the process. It could still use some fine-tuning by making sure that the references actually support the text and updatng the results section. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 04:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Asking for expert help with stub article Abell 2199 (galaxy cluster). The Hubble image for this article is used at Astronomy Portal, Selected image. Additions to the article would be helpful. JoeNMLC ( talk) 15:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello! I have created a Wikipedia project called SETI: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_SETI Feel free to join. ExoEditor 10:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
On Talk:List of largest stars, a discussion is happening in which two users said that stars with sizes calculated by us should be removed, Stephenson 2-18 included. What are your opinions about this? -- The Space Enthusiast ( talk) 06:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
What about variable stars they can vary in size by a pretty big factor within months. Crandall a clark ( talk) 22:40, 27 August 2021 (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 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Hi, I'd like to advise the discussion linked in the title. Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 18:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I've been wanting to add manual short descriptions to articles as part of WikiProject Short Descriptions, but when I looked at exoplanet articles there was a discrepancy: some were labeled "exoplanet" and others were labeled "extrasolar planet" by Wikidata. I'd like some opinions on which description would be preferable, if any (for consistency purposes). Thanks! :) Supernova58 ( talk) 00:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks everyone! Supernova58 ( talk) 23:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Can someone please rate Marat Arakelian for quality and importance according to Wikiproject Astronomy standards? talk:Marat_Arakelian Thanks! - TimDWilliamson speak 02:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Heat death of the universe appears to have been hijacked by an editor who insists on restoring all content written by the editor despite the efforts of several editors to restore a version not la-la land. David notMD ( talk) 18:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I have nominated Earth 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. -- Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Could someone else please try to explain decay does not power supernovae? I made a simple clarification edit months ago, but it was twice promptly reverted with no more discussion than "yes, that's what it says". Either I am massively misunderstanding what that sentence is trying to say or @ Lithopsian is, because supernovae happen just fine without anything heavier than iron-56. 174.70.79.141 ( talk) 19:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
FYI module:Lunar eclipse has been nominated for deletion. This may be of interest to you. -- 67.70.32.97 ( talk) 02:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Given the discussion here, considering WP:Common name, WP:NCASTRO, and also WP:Recentism and WP:Neutrality, I'm formally asking to revert the NGC 2392 page's title to Eskimo Nebula, its proper name which is absolutely the best known name of this nebula all over the english-speaker astronomy and amateur astronomy communities. Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 07:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Please come take part in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of September 12, 2053. I don’t care which side you fall on, keep or delete. I just thought more editors with a basic familiarity with astronomy should take part. - TimDWilliamson speak 02:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I apologize for slightly necro-posting (I really fecking hate the fact that page archiving hides all future notifications), but could I solicit some opinions on why we have these articles (specifically, eclipses after the 2020s but in general "this eclipse happened" articles)? I feel like "this can be calculated indefinitely" doesn't really meet any sort of notability requirement. Primefac ( talk) 21:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Proxima c : /info/en/?search=Proxima_Centauri_c has beem confirmed by just 1 reserch note written by 1 author. I suggest that Proxima c should be considered a candidate, especially considering that all the other articles in 2020 refer to Proxima c as a candidate. It doens't appear in the NASA exoplanet archive either. Plus the Proxima c page should be considered a stub article in my opinion. As a good practice I won't rever the edits made by the main editor of that page, but instead I would like to ask someone else to please do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertheditor ( talk • contribs) 13:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Per this page, the count of stub astronomy articles rated of medium importance is now down to 369. If these articles really are of medium importance, they likely deserve to be brought up to Start status. Otherwise, they should probably be de-prioritized with a Low rating. If this mini project interests you, please consider contributing. Thank you. Praemonitus ( talk) 15:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi - I've noticed a number of new articles about stars cropping up in the WP:NPP feed. A typical example would be NGC 1240. As a non-expert, I find it difficult to determine, from the sources provided, whether it would pass WP:NASTRO - my gut is telling me 'probably not', but I'm not sure where the 'HR Catalogue identifier' would be (if it existed) on those pages, or where to check to see whether it's on one of the relevant catalogues. I'm going to ping 1Muskmelon, as the articles' author, as any reply would probably be helpful for them. Thanks in advance for any guidance, GirthSummit (blether) 12:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
As part of the move away from adhering to only the IAU's definition of 'planet', I've mentioned at terrestrial planet that planetary geologists accept the Moon and sometimes Io and Europa as terrestrials. Lakadawalla counts Io, and I've seen illustrations that include Europa as well, I just forget where. Anyone know offhand? — kwami ( talk) 03:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm thinking about creating a "Navigation Template" for the late stages of stellar evolution (AGB Star, Planetary Nebula, White Dwarf, Supernova, etc) that would be analogous to the existing Star formation template. I've never created something like that on Wikipedia, and I don't want to anger people by not following rules that I am unaware of. Is it standard protocol to get permission from some group within Wikiproject Astronomy to do something like that? If I make a template, and then star modifying existing articles to use that template, will that be bad form? If there is some agreed upon procedure to do this, where can I learn the rules? PopePompus ( talk) 02:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I updated the ecliptic coordinates of the pole of 7 Iris, but don't know how to calc the axial tilt from that. There is some commentary about what the axial tilt means for seasonal temp fluctuations. Could someone fix? — kwami ( talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I just nominated Mass dimension one fermions for deletion. I figure some of the editors from the Astronomy project may wish to weigh in, as this is now linked from Dark Matter. - Parejkoj ( talk) 21:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Does someone know how to get the WayBack Machine at https://web.archive.org/ to take an archive of the risk-listed asteroid at https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/sentry/details.html#?des=2020%20VV -- Kheider ( talk) 19:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I initiated a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Solar_System#Merging_WP_templates to propose merging the {{ WikiProject Solar System}} template into {{ WikiProject Astronomy}}. Please comment if you have an opinion. Thanks. Praemonitus ( talk) 15:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
There seems to be some debate about the Wow! signal, which has spilled from the talk page to a discussion at DRN. Input from this project would be appreciated. Primefac ( talk) 12:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
New articles are currently being created under the auspices of the WikiProject Women in Red about women astronomers who had worked over a century ago at the Mount Wilson Observatory that have been previously been ignored by history. It would be very helpful if persons with a background in astronomy can help improve the scientific contribution sections in these new articles since most of us editors have not taken enough astronomy courses to determine what the subject's key contributions to astronomy were really were by just look at the person's publication list. Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Early_20th_century_Mount_Wilson_Observatory_human_computers for more information. Thanks. -- 68.50.32.85 ( talk) 03:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
An exciting opportunity to run an exciting and topical TFA, but all four articles need updating to be considered: see TFA discussion here about this event. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I have edited the sandboxes at {{ starbox character}} and {{ starbox observe}} for two small issues I ran into. The page layout at {{ starbox character}}, not the template output itself, is cobbled together from the template itself which doesn't display except for a small yellow box saying "Characteristics" and a hard-coded demo template inside the documentation which doesn't quite output in the correct layout. I have altered this to display the actual template as for the other starboxes. There should be no changes on pages that use the template. In {{ starbox observe}} I found a case where the template would produce trailing whitespace that in some cases produced a blank line at the top of the page where it was used. Luckily, {{ starbox character}} is usually used immediately afterwards and it swallows the whitespace. However, I have added a fix so that what is actually a blank table row is not produced, just for the appmag_v field. This may occur in other templates or for other fields, I'm sure I've seen it happen but can't track down cases now. Maybe in {{ starbox sources}} or {{ starbox short}}? Lithopsian ( talk) 20:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Someone added a link to
universeguide.com to
IC_1101 to the "Discovery" section (I've since removed that entire section: see
Talk:IC_1101). Poking around at that page, it does not include citations to where it got the included data, and has a bunch of inaccuracies or questionable statements. The author of the page states "This website was put together by me, John as a learning tool for PHP then ASP.NET and has grown and grown." which is makes this seem like not a good source to use for astronomy facts, especially given the existence of SIMBAD and NED. Given this, I don't think we should use this page as a source for anything in the astronomy sphere (science fiction citations are another question). A quick google for universeguide.com site:en.wikipedia.org
turned up a number of uses of the page here; I'm guessing others have a better way of doing such a search. Is there a bot that can remove these links easily, and/or replace them with better links to e.g. NED? -
Parejkoj (
talk) 18:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Big Freeze is currently up for discussion at RfD. I thought you might be interested.
Also, looking at wikt:en:Big Freeze#English, the definition on Wiktionary needs a rewrite. Anyone want to give it a try?
-- 67.70.26.89 ( talk) 11:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I have nominated Jupiter 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. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
I have launched a new discussion at Talk:List of most massive black holes about the entry of SDSS J140821.67+025733.2. I hope you can join so me and hopefully others may get clarified, and hopefully we get a new consensus regarding this object. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 15:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
By the way, if you are interested, help me in getting data from this page:
https://iopscience.iop.org/0067-0049/228/1/9/suppdata/apjsaa5504t1_mrt.txt
This is a monstrous data set of black hole masses. I am finding for candidates above 10 billion solar masses. This might take time if I do this alone, so I may as well ask for help. If you have any concerns regarding the reference, please leave your ideas here. It would be greatly appreciated.
Also, this is the same reference where the value of 196 billion solar masses was obtained for SDSS J140821.67+025733.2. I don't think this was raised in the earlier discussion here. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 05:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I submitted a deletion review here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 December 18#SDSS J140821.67+025733.2
Please place inputs in there. Thanks!
SkyFlubbler ( talk) 06:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 14:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I have nominated Astrophysics Data System 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. Hog Farm Bacon 05:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
What are our rules on using composite images in astronomy articles? I'm thinking specifically of c:File:TheGreatConjunction2020.png uploaded by KSPFanatic102 and the thread at Talk:Great_conjunction#Stitched_image?. For an image like this, I would think WP:V would require more details about how the composite image was constructed. I'm sure there was no deceptive intent here, so I'm not dumping on KSP, just trying to make sure we're presenting quality content to our readers. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject Astronomy! I'm Ed Erhart, part of the Wikimedia Foundation's Communications department. (You might know me better as The ed17.)
Have you ever wanted to ask an astronaut a question about living in space or the science that's done on the International Space Station (ISS)? Or perhaps you're expanding an article on human spaceflight and can't find a citation for an important bit of information? We're looking for community input on questions to ask a NASA astronaut.
For Wikipedia's 20th birthday, coming up on 15 January, and 20 years of continuous occupation of the ISS, we're working with Modest Genius to broadcast an interview with a NASA astronaut. Suitable topics would include Wikipedia's coverage of astronautics, scientific contributions made by crewed spaceflight over the last twenty years, and plans for the next two decades of spaceflight. We'll select the best questions to put to the astronaut.
If you have questions to submit, please respond below or send them to me via email by Sunday, 10 January (UTC). Thank you! Ed Erhart (WMF) ( talk) 01:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kepler-1638 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExoEditor ( talk • contribs) 18:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Sandbox Organiser A place to help you organise your work |
Hi all
I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.
Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.
Hope its helpful
John Cummings ( talk) 11:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Do UGC 9796 and II Zwicky 73 refer to the same galaxy? I've seen some sources like this one say that they are, while others like SIMBAD say they are two different galaxies. Loooke ( talk) 17:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I wrote down some problems with the article on its talk page, and am wondering if other editors think the same of the article. Courtesy @ Astronome de Meudon: since he/she wrote the article, and @ EN-Jungwon: since he/she assessed the article. Banedon ( talk) 05:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I have AfD'ed both of them. Tercer ( talk) 18:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Globular cluster 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. ( t · c) buidhe 17:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is being held here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_Space.com and here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Space.com_reliable? ExoEditor 02:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Should a star be included in a Constellation template if the article has been changed to a redirect to the list of stars for that constellation. Because there are quite a few that have been redirected, particularly in the 'HR' section. As an example: HD 19549 in {{ Aries (constellation)}}. Thanks. Praemonitus ( talk) 16:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Are the citations for Draft:Sarah Roberts (Physicist) sufficient for notability in this field? DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
There are several articles on stars with exoplanets that are separate from the article on the exoplanet itself. The problem is that these stars' only claim to notability is having exoplanets, and there isn't even enough information about them to make for a sensible article. User:Lithopsian has been AfD'ing these articles one by one [7] [8], but I think this is a very laborious and haphazard approach. It would be better if people could come to an agreement on how to deal with these articles uniformly. My proposal would be to merge the star's article with the exoplanet article. As suggested by User:SevenSpheresCelestia and User:PopePompus, the target should be the star's article, as this allows for stars with multiple exoplanets to be dealt with sensibly. Examples:
And many, many more. What do you think? Tercer ( talk) 16:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
However, there's nothing currently in the article to demonstrate that the star is independently notable - it just quotes entries in large catalogues and mentions the planets.There is at least this paper, although you're probably correct that:
It does not appear that any of those planets are notable on their own either, just as a combined system.I wouldn't be against merging these.
Again there's nothing in the current Kepler-22 to demonstrate that it's notable independently of the planet.True, but the articles have existed separately for almost a decade now and are both fairly developed (neither is a stub) so I don't really see the need for a merge...In any case, these should be discussed individually on the article talk pages. SevenSpheresCelestia ( talk) 19:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Should we create a separate article for Hubble tension? it has been going on for a while and probably deserves its own article for deeper discussion. -- ReyHahn ( talk) 13:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Need someone who can check some of the content, and mathematical formulae, at Supernova neutrinos. The article was created by a Wiki Ed student and looks pretty good, but is too technical for me to verify. Also, any recommendations to this new editor about how to find and use secondary sources in this field would be appreciated. Also listed at WT:PHYSICS. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 21:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
About 99% of gravitational binding energy...— Contrary to source cited. Source says 99% of emitted energy comes out as neutrinos, which is not the same as the gravitational binding energy. I'm not an expert, but I see statements which don't agree with my limited understanding, and trying to chase down citations either runs into paywalls or they don't obviously agree with the cited statement. The article needs someone who works in the field to straighten out, and a large dose of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH needs to be applied. Tarl N. ( discuss) 02:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
I made a draft about American space exploration but it was rejected. Can you help? Link: Draft:Space Exploration 64.121.103.144 ( talk) 18:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I just noticed Orcus (DP) and Salacia (DP); I am not aware that dwarf planets are called "DP"s. Is this valid terminology for abbreviating "dwarf planet" ? (It is not currently listed at DP (disambiguation) nor wikt:en:DP ) If this is valid terminology, it needs to be added to the disambiguation page and the wiktionary entry -- 67.70.27.246 ( talk) 01:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I recently did a fairly large overhaul of this page, but with only a handful of page watchers it might not get enough followup for a few discussions on the talk page. Nothing vital or crazy (and both discussions started in the last 24 hours), just a few things that could potentially use some extra input. Primefac ( talk) 10:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Explorer King is a new user here. Most of his edits were on The articles for the Andromeda and Triangulum galaxies, as well as the Milky Way’s article. He added that the Milky Way was larger than the Andromeda galaxy, basing it on a radius of 129,000 light years. It seems that it came from a news article which says that the Milky Way is larger than the Andromeda, and bases that on a paper about the Milky Way’s Mass. Any thoughts? The Space Enthusiast ( talk) 14:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Should we remove the claims that claim the Milky Way is larger than M31? The Space Enthusiast ( talk) 12:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not an astronomer, but I have a concern about NGC 179 especially "This galaxy comprises several stars lost of interstellar matter and it can be possible to flatten more until they will faint." "flattening until they faint" sounds like something in the playground that merits a teacher intervening. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I propose that we extend {{infobox nebula}} with a new section containing central star characteristics. The proposal can be read and discussed here: Template talk:Infobox nebula § Central star characteristics. — UnladenSwallow ( talk) 11:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Would anyone please weigh in at the discussion at Talk:Noon#High noon, particularly with regard to how the nonspecialist terms solar noon and high noon relate to both the time of the Sun's meridian transit and the time of the Sun's highest altitude? Ibadibam ( talk) 02:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
55701 Ukalegon is a smaller Jupiter trojan that fails notability per WP:DWMP. ( JPL · MPC · LCDB · Ferret · AstDyS-2)
Since 2018, I've been trying unsuccessfully to turn the stub into a redirect page but my edits keep getting reverted by the same user (see article's talk page). So maybe somebody else should look into this matter. Rfassbind – talk 23:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Anyone know why Template:Sky is acting all weird now? It now seems to cut into the top of infoboxes for stars and such, and I recall it being a bit higher up then now. This wasn’t occurring a few days ago. -- MarioProtIV ( talk/ contribs) 19:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Transit of Venus 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. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I have realized the potentially habitable exoplanets GJ 1061 d and c have been merged: /info/en/?search=Gliese_1061#Gliese_1061_d I think it's a good idea to have them as separate articles. Any thoughts? They are the 7th and 8th most potentially habitable: http://phl.upr.edu/projects/habitable-exoplanets-catalog And they have been covered in many scientific papers and media. Cheers. ExoEditor 23:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I am an inexperienced user who revived WikiProject Rocketry. Could some experienced editors please put it on their watchlist and help out? StarshipSLS ( Talk), ( My Contributions) 15:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Nuclear pasta 13,380 446 Stub -- Coin945 ( talk) 13:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry to start yet another discussion about IC 1101 but this time it is not about the overall size, it is the core size. You see, I found this paper which says that IC 1101 has the largest core of any galaxy. The link is: [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Space Enthusiast ( talk • contribs) 01:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Just for any editors who pass this, I started a draft ( Draft:Helium rain experiments) based on some experiments that showed the possibility of "helium rain" inside gas giants. Elijahandskip ( talk) 20:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
There is a Request for Comment about Robert Lanza#Biocentrism that may be of interest to members of the WikiProject: Bibliographies/Science task force. Talk:Robert Lanza#Request For Comment Robert Lanza. I would encourage members of this project to consider participating to add diversity to the discussion. Sapphire41359 ( talk) 17:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Please watchlist and keep an eye on this dab page, as it keeps getting turned into a redirect to a video game. Thanks! Skyerise ( talk) 23:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Baten Kaitos. Skyerise ( talk) 03:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
A few people from the newly formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather have decided to create a task force dedicated to working on articles underneath the space weather branch of meteorology. Besides articles underneath the space weather category (including subcategories) and planetary atmospheric articles, what else should be included? I was also wondering if anyone here would be interested in helping to improve these articles as they fall underneath both our projects. Noah Talk 02:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Currently rosette orbit is a redirect to Klemperer rosette, which is not the same thing at all. I noticed this as a result of reading the orbital eccentricity article, which originally (back in 2012) contained just the text "rosette orbit," that was later wikilinked to Klemperer rosette (possibly due to the existing redirect), and later still edited to explicitly include the "Klemperer." Sources mentioning "rosette orbit" (no mention of Klemperer) are cited on the talk page. Anyway, I reverted it back to the original, but that still leaves the problem of the bad redirect. I can't find anything on Wikipedia that actually describes what a rosette orbit is, or why a star would follow one, although confusingly there's the very similarly named Rosetta (orbit) (but that explicitly limits itself to relativistic precession)... So perhaps someone should write something about the topic, or delete the redirect, or something? I'll leave it up to more experienced editors to decide what's best. 89.168.85.237 ( talk) 16:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
I noticed on List of largest craters in the Solar System there is an impact crater on Ganymede that is 15,600 kilometers wide. However on the talk page for that, A user said it was geographically impossible, since Ganymede is only 5,270 kilometers wide. What are your opinions about this? The Space Enthusiast ( talk) 14:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I removed it. -- mfb ( talk) 16:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello, WikiProject Astronomy,
This is a recently created category and I assume it has something to do with astronomy. But it doesn't have any parent categories so I do not know how it fits into the Wikipedia category structure. If some knowledgeable editor could assign it some parent categories or tag it for CFD deletion if it is nonsense, I would appreciate it. Thanks much. Liz Read! Talk! 02:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I just went and removed a bunch of references and external links to "astronoo.com". It appears to be a blog-like source, is full of ads, doesn't have any of its information sources linked on the various pages, and is an automatic translation of a French page. This seems to be not at all the kind of source we should be using for scientific articles on Wikipedia. I think I removed them all, but this is a notice others to keep an eye out if they re-appear, or if I missed any. - Parejkoj ( talk) 18:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
While going through Astronomy, Popular pages, I found these two lists
At article Canopus I added both to "See also" and am now wondering, while each is different, might the titles be changed? Me not being an astronomer, how can each list name be clarified? Or are they okay as is? JoeNMLC ( talk) 14:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
It has been about a year since I looked here to check Popular pages bot. As of today there are 25 entries for WP not updated for July's monthly run. Click on right-side "Updated" columns sorts the table to view by date sequence. The bot is not perfect, and does stall out sometimes. Generally problems can be from the wikicode on a wikiproject talk page configuration, or at the bots configuration page for each wikiproject. Looking at details for WP Astronomy, entries look correct. For Talk:Skathi (moon), I updated to use full WP names (uncertain if this will help), and added Annual readership stats graph to help monitor daily numbers. JoeNMLC ( talk) 22:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I did a complete overhaul of this article because it was filled with unnecessary background information, severely oudated (often using future tense from before the project bagan), and scantly referenced in many places. About 3/4 of the content was deleted in the process. It could still use some fine-tuning by making sure that the references actually support the text and updatng the results section. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 04:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Asking for expert help with stub article Abell 2199 (galaxy cluster). The Hubble image for this article is used at Astronomy Portal, Selected image. Additions to the article would be helpful. JoeNMLC ( talk) 15:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello! I have created a Wikipedia project called SETI: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_SETI Feel free to join. ExoEditor 10:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
On Talk:List of largest stars, a discussion is happening in which two users said that stars with sizes calculated by us should be removed, Stephenson 2-18 included. What are your opinions about this? -- The Space Enthusiast ( talk) 06:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
What about variable stars they can vary in size by a pretty big factor within months. Crandall a clark ( talk) 22:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)