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 30 | ← | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 |
Notifying solar system editors @ Renerpho, Kheider, Exoplanetaryscience, Tomruen, and Rfassbind: (also pinging @ Kwamikagami, Double sharp, Starcluster, and Kepler-1229b:)
I would like to propose standardizing JPL-Horizons's barycentric orbital elements for TNOs and long-period comets instead of using JPL-SBDB's heliocentric elements on Wikipedia. For those not familiar, barycentric orbital elements use the Solar System Barycenter as the reference point, and are much more stable in that they don't fluctuate as much as heliocentric elements (i.e. heliocentric semimajor axis can change by as much 1 AU in 200-day intervals!).
For TNOs whose perihelia lie within or outside Neptune's orbit (q>29.8 AU), this would eliminate the need to update orbital elements every time JPL-SBDB updates their reference epoch semiannually. Only the mean anomaly changes by epoch, but this can be simply resolved by standardizing a same epoch for all TNOs (the epoch can be arbitrary, but maybe we can keep it simple with a nice, rounded epoch date like JD 2460000.5?). Even if TNOs are being perturbed by Neptune, the timescale for noticeable change in their barycentric orbits is very long anyway, so there won't be a need for frequent updates.
For high-aphelion minor planets and comets whose perihelia lie interior or close to the orbits of significant perturbers like Jupiter or Saturn, we can arbitrarily define the epoch at the date when the object is far enough from the Sun that gravitational and non-gravitational perturbations are minimal. Whether to use the inbound or outbound barycentric orbital elements, you decide; personally I prefer using inbound elements for currently inbound objects that haven't passed perihelion and vice versa.
As far as I'm aware of, the only issues with using JPL-Horizons's barycentric elements are the lack of uncertainties listed for each element. This wouldn't be a problem for objects with well-determined orbits and multi-opposition arcs, but for objects that don't have these, I'm not sure how to handle those.
Also one more thing to mention, we can modify Template:Infobox planet and Template:Infobox comet to include options for barycentric elements.
My rules and constraints above are only my ideas however, so I'd like to hear what you all have to say about this. Nrco0e ( talk · contribs) 18:29, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Update: Sounds like everybody is on board with this idea. I'll leave the discussion open for a bit longer. In the meantime, I'll begin implementing changes into the templates, so feel free to comment on my actions if you have any more concerns. Nrco0e ( talk · contribs) 18:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I support the general idea, but I do have a few concerns.
That's all I have for the moment. Renerpho ( talk) 23:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
|barycentric=
. I'm INfobox oriented, unknown with planet terms.|barimetric=yes
, and manually change the values from helio-based ones is tricky business. It woudl require manual checks, if I understand well.|bari_inclination=
. When present, the infobox shows different section "Barimetric orbit characteristics" as expected, leaving the existing helio-values untouched (ands showing these, unchanged, in their current section). That way the editors like you all keep a clear view of changed (added) values. (Another option: don't show the new parameters in a separate sectrion, butadd them to current section clearly marked with a "barimetric values:" subheader).it would require manual checks. I don't see how it is "more manual" than the old method. If someone -- not me! -- wanted to get fancy and use a bot to automate the process, the link is designed to be machine-readable. Just replace format=text in the url with format=json.
|barycenter=yes
? Alternatively, I had previously suggested to use "apoapsis" and "periapsis", regardless of the status of |barycenter=
(those are the "neutral" terms). Apart from that, the template looks fine.
Renerpho (
talk)
17:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
|barycenter=yes
, and (B) use distinct parameters (create new ones as needed), like |inclination=x
←→ |bari_inclination=z
. That way, an article editor is required to be clear about which value was entered :-) Do not, I said not, expect editors to (C) change edit existing |inclination=x into z
, because nobody can see what the current value is supposed to mean: was it changed or not after someone set |barycenter=yes
??? The infobox data will become untrustable, even for experienced readers like you.|bari_...=
-parameters required.@ Nrco0e: Can you brief me on the current status of the template? Renerpho ( talk) 02:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to request a comment from a neutral perspective over a recent edit dispute over the article HM Sagittae. The relevant details are located here: Talk:HM Sagittae#Cases. Frankly I wouldn't bother with the ego dispute, but feel free to comment. Thank you. Praemonitus ( talk) 15:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I have noticed that several/most contributions of HistorySc20 ( talk · contribs) revolve around the work of Alessandro De Angelis... I am concerned there is a conflict of interest here, so I'm bringing up the issue for review both and at WikiProject Physics to ensure that Wikipedia remain neutral. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 07:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
{{
RA}}
seems to add a space after its content, and I can't figure out how to get rid of it. You can see it at the end of the first paragraph in the
Virgo III Groups article. Anyone have any ideas how to get rid of it? ···
日本穣 ·
投稿 ·
Talk to Nihonjoe ·
Join WP Japan!
16:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
FYI, the galaxybox template system has been nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 August 23 -- 64.229.88.43 ( talk) 04:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Was wondering if some members from this WikiProject could take a look at Donald Machholz? He recently died and his wife has been editing the article. I left a note about making edit requests instead on her user talk page, but see never responded. She seems to mean well but the last edit she made might need some re-assessing. She provided a source for the content, but it's an obituary-type piece written by a friend of her and her husband; so, it's hard to ascertain it's reliability. The source also begins by directly mentioning content the wife by name and how she notified the author of her husband's death. It's one of those claims that seems really hard to verify, even when sourced, because there's no way to tell whether it's actually true. Perhaps it should be attributed? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 03:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:TOI-755#Requested move 5 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky ( talk) 01:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Article of questionable notability with wrong title, see corresponding talk page. SevenSpheresCelestia ( talk) 15:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Article is still very poorly developed despite being made in 2008. The references given are either very old, unreliable, or just nothing more than a subtle mention. If you want to join in the deletion discussion, I hope you can do so. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 00:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Your serious feedback or crumpled smile would be appreciated at Talk:Timeline of the far future#Stupid spacecraft statistics. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 02:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates § need a template about an infobox template that could probably use more than just my input from an astro perspective. Ta. Primefac ( talk) 20:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#cseligman.com. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Unlike other similarly worded redirects, Earth-moon system redirects to a different target article. Your comments at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 14#Earth-moon system would be appreciated. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 03:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
While we're here with successfully merging Stupendously large black hole with Supermassive black hole, we might as well also include this one.
Same reasoning as above; invoking WP:TOOSOON. In addition the article itself is poorly written with weasel-worded phrases and lack of consistency. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 09:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
An IP user added a huge graphic, essentially a poster-style schema for the Local Group, to several articles related to that topic:
The IP who added this image is likely the same as the user who uploaded it to Commons ( Pabloillustrations ( talk · contribs)), as they added other images by the same user, including terribly unencyclopedic representations of Big Rip and Jamais vu. At Commons, I have nominated several of their uploads for deletion for this reason. My hunch for this specific image would be to remove all copies except at the main article, as it is too large and broad in scope. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 10:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
I feel like I bring this up every once in a while, but I can't find it in the archives of here, WT:ASTRO, or WT:SOLAR, and NASTRO is a bit quiet on the subject of features on astronomical objects. Basically, my concern is that we have dozens (if not hundreds) of single-sentence stubs that are little more than the prose version of the related table, plus a gallery of images. Take for example Peridier (crater), Inuvik (crater), or any of the other half-dozen I pseudo-randomly chose from the List of craters on Mars (I did avoid the ones I knew were notable). Do we really need these articles, or should they be redirected back to the parent article, much like the hundreds of others I created a few years back? Primefac ( talk) 10:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the invitation to discuss, Primefac. I agree that redirect to list for any stub created is better than deletion. I've been meaning to discuss this generally and have mentioned it before. I think the criteria for notability of craters should be changed. The criteria could be slightly different for different bodies such as Mercury, Mars, the moon, etc. But fundamentally I think any complex crater should be considered notable. Complex craters have central peaks or peak rings. By that criterion the crater Peridier (crater) would be retained as an article, but Chatturat (crater) would be redirected, for example. The larger craters are more likely to be written about in the scientific literature so this criteria may be "automatically" true in a sense, but I think it should be explicit. I think using simple diameter of a crater is not the right way to go as 1) Onset of complexity occurs over a range of diameters, and 2) onset of complexity is different on different planets, primarily but not entirely based on gravity. Another tricky element to this is the fact that some complex craters can appear to be "simple" (without a peak) because the peak has been buried by sediment (like Palos, probably) or lava (like Plato on the moon). I have other points to make about IAU's criteria for naming that could come into it but that would clutter up this particular comment so I will make it later. Jstuby ( talk) 11:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I support redirecting most of these stub crater articles as many of them fail WP:NASTRO in their current form. However, if referenced content can be added and notability is shown, many of these articles could be kept. Even so, I think a lot of them are going to be redirected. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk) 12:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Kinda fits with the above, so ++ topical. Anyway, I've seen several scientists refer to this phenomenon, which clearly is beyond just jetseses. Maybe I missed mention of this on the project, but in any case, should this be a standalone page, or failing that, a section somewhere? Just a mention? And so on. Top google result is a barebone NASA Image of the Day entry from Dec 2020, which reads (in part) as follows:
The rest of the entry discusses the illustration, which would be cool if we could use. Haven't really looked at substantive sourcing beyond that, which at this point I leave to folks more familiar with the scholarship than myself. So, standalone page? Section? Fleeting mention? WP:TOONSTOWN? Et cetera, etc. Comments welcome. El_C 18:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
standalone page? Section? Fleeting mention?So, don't get fixated by the red link in the header; rather, look to the substance of my note.
Category:Astronomical objects by source of name has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cambalachero ( talk) 15:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Greetings, is anyone interested in bringing TRAPPIST-1 to featured article status? I tried twice but from the comments at WP:FAC it seems like someone needs to copyedit/review it on understandable-ity-for-general-audiences, as noted at Talk:TRAPPIST-1#Third attempt on prose. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Martian canals probably gets a fair number of hits.
The article has been tagged with "needs additional citations for verification" since September 2019.
I'm guessing that adding those cites would be fairly simple.
Anybody?
- 189.122.243.241 ( talk) 04:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello everyone, if you can improve my article over here, it will be a big help. Thanks! -- The Space Enthusiast ( talk) 11:11, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Planet/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
User:SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer has repeatedly stated to remove Stephenson 2-18 from the list. However, several users, including myself, have responded and supported St2-18's status on the list. We tried to convince him that "uncertainties" weren't enough to remove it from the list, as its massive radius (~2,150 Rsol) was verifiable, supported by the Laws of the universe and hard math, and in a reliable source, but he kept on going about the radius being too large and above the limit for star sizes. As the discussion is becoming very tiring (and annoying), I have extended the discussion here so more people can be involved. This will hopefully result in a faster consensus. Thanks, and if you can, respond. - The Space Enthusiast ( talk) 03:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Arguments were raised about whether there is one Solar System or multiple solar systems in the Milky Way. Sometimes "solar" and "planetary" are used interchangeably. ESA uses "solar systems" in the sense of multiple planetary systems, though NASA states there is only one (official) Solar System in the Milky Way, and all other systems are called "planetary" not "solar". I found no guidance from the IAU on that topic, so here we are. There doesn't appear to be a strong case to shun all usage of the expression "solar system" in relation to other planetary systems, but it could be better for us as we reduce ambiguity in that way.
MOS:OUR (and WP:PRONOUN, based on the MOS guideline) are the closest to answering this question. Both state that it is generally inappropriate to narrate the article from the first person. There was an attempt to use the "figurative use" exception, but it lacked details. Besides, figurative language is commonly used to convey difficult topics in an easy-to-digest manner, and there doesn't appear to be any argument that changing "our" to "the" will complicate the understanding of the lead. Also, local consensus should not normally override policies and guidelines.
Therefore, the rough consensus that we should use the Solar System throughout (option B) is established in this discussion. ( non-admin closure) Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 13:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Currently articles are inconsistent with the naming of the aforementioned planetary system, here are two examples:
The Milky Way is the galaxy that includes our Solar System <!--NOTE: Please do not change the lead sentence(s) without consulting the discussion page first. The lead sentence has been discussed and there is general consensus that this is the best one for now. Thanks.-->
The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System <!-- Please don't change "the" to "our" — there is only one "Solar System", and thus "the" is correct. See Talk page for this article and Solar System. -->
Both articles (and more) had had multiple RfCs in their talk pages, but most of them ended with no consensus.
our Solar System. [1]
the Solar System.
Betseg ( talk) 02:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
There appears to be only one primary source for this term [1], and then a mountain of coverage of this one source in the woo-woo science press because the name is so cool. But does it really warrant a separate page? PianoDan ( talk) 15:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC) PianoDan ( talk) 15:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: bibcode (
link)
Definitely not deserving to have its own article at the moment, as the coverage about the subject remains very little and limited to the author and some media outlets. I don't recommend merging it with the List of most massive black holes as that list's main purpose is keeping records, not lengthy discussions of the subject. For the time being, it must be a redirect to Supermassive black hole with at least a subsection mentioning it. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 13:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
The discussion petered out, but consensus seems clear. The only commentor who thinks this article should exist is the page creator - everyone else favours removing it. I'll turn it into a redirect. Modest Genius talk 12:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
I see that User:ZaperaWiki44 made some major changes to Supermassive Black Hole, including adding significant sections for "ultramassive" and "stupendously large". The latter definitely shouldn't have a whole section (I deleted what was added), as noted in the consensus above, and the former probably shouldn't either: I only count between 5-10 articles using that term on arXiv. I've deleted the "stupendously large" section, and am tempted to delete the ultramassive section as well. I also think many of the rewording changes are less clear than the original: copy editing is in order. - Parejkoj ( talk) 07:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
A user on this page has been in a low grade-long edit war over the lifespan and mass of the sun and K-type stars. ( Example) The source cited in states the correct estimated lifespan of the sun, 10 billion years, but the user has misinterpreted it as 20 billion. I have replaced the 2009 source with a NASA article written in 2019, but can the rest of the numbers (mass of stars, etc) be checked and page be hardened with some slightly firmer sources? 159.235.96.154 ( talk) 02:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
There is a series of three articles written by COI, UPE and SPA accounts [1] that need attention from someone who knows which sources are appropriate and acceptable for the astronomy and astrophysics fields. The articles are:
The articles are primarily sourced with press releases and primary sources. Starmus started as basically a few astrophysicists who got together to make a festival to award those in the arts who promote science. There's a lot of name dropping (and MOS:DUPLINKs) in these articles of the awardees of this relatively new awards festival. I see that the organizers had been very busy getting press releases splattered all over the internet, including Wikipedia, however I'm not finding a lot of independent reliable sources covering Starmus and its awards except as churnalism of press releases originating from Starmus and its organizers. Note that some of the organizers (board members) are themselves scientists who are familiar with promoting themselves via papers and other releases. Much of the Wikipedia articles were written and/or edited by the organizers themselves and their employees. [1]
I had written up my analysis of notability of Starmus on Talk:Starmus Festival#Article fails to show notability. I'm inclined to think that the Starmus and medal articles should be merged into the article of its creator/organizer after removing much of the WP:FLUFF.
Grorp ( talk) 00:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
References
We have Engelʹgardt (crater), but the NASA Catalogue of Lunar Nomenclature (Andersson & Whitaker 1982) has Engelhardt. Should we move the article? — kwami ( talk) 01:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laser star model of quasars until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
- Parejkoj ( talk) 21:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I encourage you to leave your comments about a discussion I left at Template talk:Infobox galaxy#The sizes of galaxies. If you have any comments or suggestions, feel free to share it. I would highly appreciate your comments. Regards. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 14:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
There is now an RFC at Talk:Milky Way on the subject of basic wording in the lead sentence. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 00:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Watchers of this page may be interested in an AfD discussion that concerns one of the Good Articles associated with this WikiProject, Skathi (moon). The discussion is here. - Astrophobe ( talk) 16:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
In a search for research papers which have details regarding IC 1101 nd Abell 2029, I stumbled upon this : https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/35464/does-ic-1101-have-any-name. It was about somebody asking about whether IC 1101 has a proper name or not, and called it the largest galaxy known. I looked at the responses, and one person who seemed to be an astronomer named Peter Erwin said that IC 1101 had no proper name, and said that in this paper ( https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..247...43K/abstract), about 12 or 15 galaxies are larger than IC 1101 by half-light radius. While I know that we now use different measurements for galaxy sizes, I think some details could be added. We can't just ignore things, after all. One particular thing I noticed is that 2MASX J15212054+3040154, the central galaxy of Abell 2061, has been listed on Table 4 with an extremely large half-light radius of 64,592 kiloparsecs, but with an extremely large uncertainty of nearly the same value. What is up with the galaxy, and could we discuss ore about galaxy size criteria? I'd love to hear your thoughts.-- The Space Enthusiast ( talk) 18:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
At List of exoplanets discovered by the Kepler space telescope, I have made the following changes:
However:
– LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 17:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Stephenson 2-18#Requested move 20 January 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Category:Planets in the circumstellar habitable zone has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cambalachero ( talk) 14:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Universe has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Artem.G ( talk) 18:21, 6 February 2023 (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 30 | ← | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 |
Notifying solar system editors @ Renerpho, Kheider, Exoplanetaryscience, Tomruen, and Rfassbind: (also pinging @ Kwamikagami, Double sharp, Starcluster, and Kepler-1229b:)
I would like to propose standardizing JPL-Horizons's barycentric orbital elements for TNOs and long-period comets instead of using JPL-SBDB's heliocentric elements on Wikipedia. For those not familiar, barycentric orbital elements use the Solar System Barycenter as the reference point, and are much more stable in that they don't fluctuate as much as heliocentric elements (i.e. heliocentric semimajor axis can change by as much 1 AU in 200-day intervals!).
For TNOs whose perihelia lie within or outside Neptune's orbit (q>29.8 AU), this would eliminate the need to update orbital elements every time JPL-SBDB updates their reference epoch semiannually. Only the mean anomaly changes by epoch, but this can be simply resolved by standardizing a same epoch for all TNOs (the epoch can be arbitrary, but maybe we can keep it simple with a nice, rounded epoch date like JD 2460000.5?). Even if TNOs are being perturbed by Neptune, the timescale for noticeable change in their barycentric orbits is very long anyway, so there won't be a need for frequent updates.
For high-aphelion minor planets and comets whose perihelia lie interior or close to the orbits of significant perturbers like Jupiter or Saturn, we can arbitrarily define the epoch at the date when the object is far enough from the Sun that gravitational and non-gravitational perturbations are minimal. Whether to use the inbound or outbound barycentric orbital elements, you decide; personally I prefer using inbound elements for currently inbound objects that haven't passed perihelion and vice versa.
As far as I'm aware of, the only issues with using JPL-Horizons's barycentric elements are the lack of uncertainties listed for each element. This wouldn't be a problem for objects with well-determined orbits and multi-opposition arcs, but for objects that don't have these, I'm not sure how to handle those.
Also one more thing to mention, we can modify Template:Infobox planet and Template:Infobox comet to include options for barycentric elements.
My rules and constraints above are only my ideas however, so I'd like to hear what you all have to say about this. Nrco0e ( talk · contribs) 18:29, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Update: Sounds like everybody is on board with this idea. I'll leave the discussion open for a bit longer. In the meantime, I'll begin implementing changes into the templates, so feel free to comment on my actions if you have any more concerns. Nrco0e ( talk · contribs) 18:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I support the general idea, but I do have a few concerns.
That's all I have for the moment. Renerpho ( talk) 23:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
|barycentric=
. I'm INfobox oriented, unknown with planet terms.|barimetric=yes
, and manually change the values from helio-based ones is tricky business. It woudl require manual checks, if I understand well.|bari_inclination=
. When present, the infobox shows different section "Barimetric orbit characteristics" as expected, leaving the existing helio-values untouched (ands showing these, unchanged, in their current section). That way the editors like you all keep a clear view of changed (added) values. (Another option: don't show the new parameters in a separate sectrion, butadd them to current section clearly marked with a "barimetric values:" subheader).it would require manual checks. I don't see how it is "more manual" than the old method. If someone -- not me! -- wanted to get fancy and use a bot to automate the process, the link is designed to be machine-readable. Just replace format=text in the url with format=json.
|barycenter=yes
? Alternatively, I had previously suggested to use "apoapsis" and "periapsis", regardless of the status of |barycenter=
(those are the "neutral" terms). Apart from that, the template looks fine.
Renerpho (
talk)
17:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
|barycenter=yes
, and (B) use distinct parameters (create new ones as needed), like |inclination=x
←→ |bari_inclination=z
. That way, an article editor is required to be clear about which value was entered :-) Do not, I said not, expect editors to (C) change edit existing |inclination=x into z
, because nobody can see what the current value is supposed to mean: was it changed or not after someone set |barycenter=yes
??? The infobox data will become untrustable, even for experienced readers like you.|bari_...=
-parameters required.@ Nrco0e: Can you brief me on the current status of the template? Renerpho ( talk) 02:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to request a comment from a neutral perspective over a recent edit dispute over the article HM Sagittae. The relevant details are located here: Talk:HM Sagittae#Cases. Frankly I wouldn't bother with the ego dispute, but feel free to comment. Thank you. Praemonitus ( talk) 15:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I have noticed that several/most contributions of HistorySc20 ( talk · contribs) revolve around the work of Alessandro De Angelis... I am concerned there is a conflict of interest here, so I'm bringing up the issue for review both and at WikiProject Physics to ensure that Wikipedia remain neutral. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 07:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
{{
RA}}
seems to add a space after its content, and I can't figure out how to get rid of it. You can see it at the end of the first paragraph in the
Virgo III Groups article. Anyone have any ideas how to get rid of it? ···
日本穣 ·
投稿 ·
Talk to Nihonjoe ·
Join WP Japan!
16:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
FYI, the galaxybox template system has been nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 August 23 -- 64.229.88.43 ( talk) 04:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Was wondering if some members from this WikiProject could take a look at Donald Machholz? He recently died and his wife has been editing the article. I left a note about making edit requests instead on her user talk page, but see never responded. She seems to mean well but the last edit she made might need some re-assessing. She provided a source for the content, but it's an obituary-type piece written by a friend of her and her husband; so, it's hard to ascertain it's reliability. The source also begins by directly mentioning content the wife by name and how she notified the author of her husband's death. It's one of those claims that seems really hard to verify, even when sourced, because there's no way to tell whether it's actually true. Perhaps it should be attributed? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 03:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:TOI-755#Requested move 5 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky ( talk) 01:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Article of questionable notability with wrong title, see corresponding talk page. SevenSpheresCelestia ( talk) 15:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Article is still very poorly developed despite being made in 2008. The references given are either very old, unreliable, or just nothing more than a subtle mention. If you want to join in the deletion discussion, I hope you can do so. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 00:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Your serious feedback or crumpled smile would be appreciated at Talk:Timeline of the far future#Stupid spacecraft statistics. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 02:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates § need a template about an infobox template that could probably use more than just my input from an astro perspective. Ta. Primefac ( talk) 20:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#cseligman.com. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Unlike other similarly worded redirects, Earth-moon system redirects to a different target article. Your comments at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 14#Earth-moon system would be appreciated. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 03:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
While we're here with successfully merging Stupendously large black hole with Supermassive black hole, we might as well also include this one.
Same reasoning as above; invoking WP:TOOSOON. In addition the article itself is poorly written with weasel-worded phrases and lack of consistency. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 09:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
An IP user added a huge graphic, essentially a poster-style schema for the Local Group, to several articles related to that topic:
The IP who added this image is likely the same as the user who uploaded it to Commons ( Pabloillustrations ( talk · contribs)), as they added other images by the same user, including terribly unencyclopedic representations of Big Rip and Jamais vu. At Commons, I have nominated several of their uploads for deletion for this reason. My hunch for this specific image would be to remove all copies except at the main article, as it is too large and broad in scope. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 10:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
I feel like I bring this up every once in a while, but I can't find it in the archives of here, WT:ASTRO, or WT:SOLAR, and NASTRO is a bit quiet on the subject of features on astronomical objects. Basically, my concern is that we have dozens (if not hundreds) of single-sentence stubs that are little more than the prose version of the related table, plus a gallery of images. Take for example Peridier (crater), Inuvik (crater), or any of the other half-dozen I pseudo-randomly chose from the List of craters on Mars (I did avoid the ones I knew were notable). Do we really need these articles, or should they be redirected back to the parent article, much like the hundreds of others I created a few years back? Primefac ( talk) 10:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the invitation to discuss, Primefac. I agree that redirect to list for any stub created is better than deletion. I've been meaning to discuss this generally and have mentioned it before. I think the criteria for notability of craters should be changed. The criteria could be slightly different for different bodies such as Mercury, Mars, the moon, etc. But fundamentally I think any complex crater should be considered notable. Complex craters have central peaks or peak rings. By that criterion the crater Peridier (crater) would be retained as an article, but Chatturat (crater) would be redirected, for example. The larger craters are more likely to be written about in the scientific literature so this criteria may be "automatically" true in a sense, but I think it should be explicit. I think using simple diameter of a crater is not the right way to go as 1) Onset of complexity occurs over a range of diameters, and 2) onset of complexity is different on different planets, primarily but not entirely based on gravity. Another tricky element to this is the fact that some complex craters can appear to be "simple" (without a peak) because the peak has been buried by sediment (like Palos, probably) or lava (like Plato on the moon). I have other points to make about IAU's criteria for naming that could come into it but that would clutter up this particular comment so I will make it later. Jstuby ( talk) 11:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I support redirecting most of these stub crater articles as many of them fail WP:NASTRO in their current form. However, if referenced content can be added and notability is shown, many of these articles could be kept. Even so, I think a lot of them are going to be redirected. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk) 12:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Kinda fits with the above, so ++ topical. Anyway, I've seen several scientists refer to this phenomenon, which clearly is beyond just jetseses. Maybe I missed mention of this on the project, but in any case, should this be a standalone page, or failing that, a section somewhere? Just a mention? And so on. Top google result is a barebone NASA Image of the Day entry from Dec 2020, which reads (in part) as follows:
The rest of the entry discusses the illustration, which would be cool if we could use. Haven't really looked at substantive sourcing beyond that, which at this point I leave to folks more familiar with the scholarship than myself. So, standalone page? Section? Fleeting mention? WP:TOONSTOWN? Et cetera, etc. Comments welcome. El_C 18:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
standalone page? Section? Fleeting mention?So, don't get fixated by the red link in the header; rather, look to the substance of my note.
Category:Astronomical objects by source of name has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cambalachero ( talk) 15:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Greetings, is anyone interested in bringing TRAPPIST-1 to featured article status? I tried twice but from the comments at WP:FAC it seems like someone needs to copyedit/review it on understandable-ity-for-general-audiences, as noted at Talk:TRAPPIST-1#Third attempt on prose. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Martian canals probably gets a fair number of hits.
The article has been tagged with "needs additional citations for verification" since September 2019.
I'm guessing that adding those cites would be fairly simple.
Anybody?
- 189.122.243.241 ( talk) 04:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello everyone, if you can improve my article over here, it will be a big help. Thanks! -- The Space Enthusiast ( talk) 11:11, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Planet/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
User:SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer has repeatedly stated to remove Stephenson 2-18 from the list. However, several users, including myself, have responded and supported St2-18's status on the list. We tried to convince him that "uncertainties" weren't enough to remove it from the list, as its massive radius (~2,150 Rsol) was verifiable, supported by the Laws of the universe and hard math, and in a reliable source, but he kept on going about the radius being too large and above the limit for star sizes. As the discussion is becoming very tiring (and annoying), I have extended the discussion here so more people can be involved. This will hopefully result in a faster consensus. Thanks, and if you can, respond. - The Space Enthusiast ( talk) 03:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Arguments were raised about whether there is one Solar System or multiple solar systems in the Milky Way. Sometimes "solar" and "planetary" are used interchangeably. ESA uses "solar systems" in the sense of multiple planetary systems, though NASA states there is only one (official) Solar System in the Milky Way, and all other systems are called "planetary" not "solar". I found no guidance from the IAU on that topic, so here we are. There doesn't appear to be a strong case to shun all usage of the expression "solar system" in relation to other planetary systems, but it could be better for us as we reduce ambiguity in that way.
MOS:OUR (and WP:PRONOUN, based on the MOS guideline) are the closest to answering this question. Both state that it is generally inappropriate to narrate the article from the first person. There was an attempt to use the "figurative use" exception, but it lacked details. Besides, figurative language is commonly used to convey difficult topics in an easy-to-digest manner, and there doesn't appear to be any argument that changing "our" to "the" will complicate the understanding of the lead. Also, local consensus should not normally override policies and guidelines.
Therefore, the rough consensus that we should use the Solar System throughout (option B) is established in this discussion. ( non-admin closure) Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 13:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Currently articles are inconsistent with the naming of the aforementioned planetary system, here are two examples:
The Milky Way is the galaxy that includes our Solar System <!--NOTE: Please do not change the lead sentence(s) without consulting the discussion page first. The lead sentence has been discussed and there is general consensus that this is the best one for now. Thanks.-->
The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System <!-- Please don't change "the" to "our" — there is only one "Solar System", and thus "the" is correct. See Talk page for this article and Solar System. -->
Both articles (and more) had had multiple RfCs in their talk pages, but most of them ended with no consensus.
our Solar System. [1]
the Solar System.
Betseg ( talk) 02:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
There appears to be only one primary source for this term [1], and then a mountain of coverage of this one source in the woo-woo science press because the name is so cool. But does it really warrant a separate page? PianoDan ( talk) 15:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC) PianoDan ( talk) 15:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: bibcode (
link)
Definitely not deserving to have its own article at the moment, as the coverage about the subject remains very little and limited to the author and some media outlets. I don't recommend merging it with the List of most massive black holes as that list's main purpose is keeping records, not lengthy discussions of the subject. For the time being, it must be a redirect to Supermassive black hole with at least a subsection mentioning it. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 13:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
The discussion petered out, but consensus seems clear. The only commentor who thinks this article should exist is the page creator - everyone else favours removing it. I'll turn it into a redirect. Modest Genius talk 12:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
I see that User:ZaperaWiki44 made some major changes to Supermassive Black Hole, including adding significant sections for "ultramassive" and "stupendously large". The latter definitely shouldn't have a whole section (I deleted what was added), as noted in the consensus above, and the former probably shouldn't either: I only count between 5-10 articles using that term on arXiv. I've deleted the "stupendously large" section, and am tempted to delete the ultramassive section as well. I also think many of the rewording changes are less clear than the original: copy editing is in order. - Parejkoj ( talk) 07:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
A user on this page has been in a low grade-long edit war over the lifespan and mass of the sun and K-type stars. ( Example) The source cited in states the correct estimated lifespan of the sun, 10 billion years, but the user has misinterpreted it as 20 billion. I have replaced the 2009 source with a NASA article written in 2019, but can the rest of the numbers (mass of stars, etc) be checked and page be hardened with some slightly firmer sources? 159.235.96.154 ( talk) 02:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
There is a series of three articles written by COI, UPE and SPA accounts [1] that need attention from someone who knows which sources are appropriate and acceptable for the astronomy and astrophysics fields. The articles are:
The articles are primarily sourced with press releases and primary sources. Starmus started as basically a few astrophysicists who got together to make a festival to award those in the arts who promote science. There's a lot of name dropping (and MOS:DUPLINKs) in these articles of the awardees of this relatively new awards festival. I see that the organizers had been very busy getting press releases splattered all over the internet, including Wikipedia, however I'm not finding a lot of independent reliable sources covering Starmus and its awards except as churnalism of press releases originating from Starmus and its organizers. Note that some of the organizers (board members) are themselves scientists who are familiar with promoting themselves via papers and other releases. Much of the Wikipedia articles were written and/or edited by the organizers themselves and their employees. [1]
I had written up my analysis of notability of Starmus on Talk:Starmus Festival#Article fails to show notability. I'm inclined to think that the Starmus and medal articles should be merged into the article of its creator/organizer after removing much of the WP:FLUFF.
Grorp ( talk) 00:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
References
We have Engelʹgardt (crater), but the NASA Catalogue of Lunar Nomenclature (Andersson & Whitaker 1982) has Engelhardt. Should we move the article? — kwami ( talk) 01:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laser star model of quasars until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
- Parejkoj ( talk) 21:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I encourage you to leave your comments about a discussion I left at Template talk:Infobox galaxy#The sizes of galaxies. If you have any comments or suggestions, feel free to share it. I would highly appreciate your comments. Regards. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 14:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
There is now an RFC at Talk:Milky Way on the subject of basic wording in the lead sentence. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 00:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Watchers of this page may be interested in an AfD discussion that concerns one of the Good Articles associated with this WikiProject, Skathi (moon). The discussion is here. - Astrophobe ( talk) 16:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
In a search for research papers which have details regarding IC 1101 nd Abell 2029, I stumbled upon this : https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/35464/does-ic-1101-have-any-name. It was about somebody asking about whether IC 1101 has a proper name or not, and called it the largest galaxy known. I looked at the responses, and one person who seemed to be an astronomer named Peter Erwin said that IC 1101 had no proper name, and said that in this paper ( https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..247...43K/abstract), about 12 or 15 galaxies are larger than IC 1101 by half-light radius. While I know that we now use different measurements for galaxy sizes, I think some details could be added. We can't just ignore things, after all. One particular thing I noticed is that 2MASX J15212054+3040154, the central galaxy of Abell 2061, has been listed on Table 4 with an extremely large half-light radius of 64,592 kiloparsecs, but with an extremely large uncertainty of nearly the same value. What is up with the galaxy, and could we discuss ore about galaxy size criteria? I'd love to hear your thoughts.-- The Space Enthusiast ( talk) 18:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
At List of exoplanets discovered by the Kepler space telescope, I have made the following changes:
However:
– LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 17:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Stephenson 2-18#Requested move 20 January 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Category:Planets in the circumstellar habitable zone has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cambalachero ( talk) 14:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Universe has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Artem.G ( talk) 18:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)