![]() | 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 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 |
The following proposed tab bar uses a more recent style employed by a number of WikiProjects. It drops the entries to inactive WikiProjects that we are still carrying.
Main | Talk | Astronomical objects | Eclipses | Article ratings | Image review | Popular pages | Members | Wikidata |
What do you think? Praemonitus ( talk) 02:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Main | Talk | Article ratings | Image review | Popular pages | Members | Wikidata |
Astronomical objects | Talk | Eclipses | Talk | Constellations | Talk | Cosmology | Talk |
But that's a lot of clutter at the top just to save a few people an extra click. Praemonitus ( talk) 15:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Main | Talk |
Astronomical objects ( Talk) |
Eclipses ( Talk) | Article ratings | Image review | Popular pages | Members | Wikidata |
Main | Talk |
Astronomical objects ( Talk) |
Eclipses ( Talk) | Article ratings | Image review | Popular pages | Members | Wikidata |
Main | Talk |
Astronomical objects ( Talk) |
Eclipses ( Talk) | Article ratings | Image review | Popular pages | Members | Wikidata |
Unless there is an objection, I'm going to proceed with implementing the last example above. It will at least give the main page a more slick, modern look. Thanks. Praemonitus ( talk) 05:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I made a minor change to the tab bar, removing the underscores from the links so they match the page address. This should allow the background color on the active tab to be set to white when the page is displayed. Praemonitus ( talk) 14:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
I've performed a major rewrite of the article Grubb Parsons, about the historic telescope manufacturer. That page doesn't seem to have many watchers, so I would appreciate some more eyes on it. Modest Genius talk 13:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Some articles on stars with TOI designations use a hyphen ( TOI-178), while others use a space ( TOI 700). This should be standardized. The form with a hyphen seems to be more common, and is used by databases such as SIMBAD and the NASA Exoplanet Archive. SevenSpheres ( talk) 00:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Do we have any explicit conventions for what kind of image to use in the infobox? The consensus seems to be that we should use natural-color photos, at least of planetary objects in the SS, but is that stated anywhere to help decide between competing imgs, or is it an informal consensus? — kwami ( talk) 07:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Per the Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Importance ratings, there are only three people in the top level importance ratings: Albert Einstein, Galileo Galilei, and Henrietta Swan Leavitt. I'd like to suggest that the criteria should be modified to move more high rated astronomers up to the top category. For example: Edwin Hubble, Nicolaus Copernicus, William Herschel, Hipparchus, and Johannes Kepler. I think this may be possible by bumping up the statements about making important contributions by one category. Praemonitus ( talk) 16:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
The 'Specific' categories don't accurately reflect how objects are being rated for importance. I see a number of objects of 'High' importance to WP:ASTRO that have a 'Top' rating. For example: Pluto, Ceres, Eris, Haumea, Acrux, Deneb, and Ganymede (moon), are all rated 'Top'. Praemonitus ( talk) 14:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Where do we draw the line on "high impact" (Mid-rated) Category:Astronomy journals, so we can rate lower impact journals as 'Low'? For example, what about Acta Astronomica, Advances in Space Research, or Astronomische Nachrichten? Do we say 'Mid' rating if, say, it has been published for at least 50 years? That would include Icarus (journal) and Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada. Praemonitus ( talk) 15:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
I have tried to search for the reason why the HIP catalogue designations are preferred to HD catalogue designations for article names of stars without official IAU names, Bayer, Flamsteed designations or designations for variable stars?
When you look up a star using the HIP catalogue designation in the Simbad database you will see it uses the HD catalogue designation as the title.
As I have noticed HD is more used in the scientific area where HIP is more used in the amateur area - the starmap program Stellarium uses HIP but its online counterpart Stellarium-Web uses HD.
Is there a Wikipedia guideline for this?
If I decide which to use it would be HD - because there are more stars in the HD catalogue which as to my knowledge contains all the stars in the HIP catalogue and it is more scientific than amateurish.
If I have asked in the wrong place then please direct me to where I should have asked this quiestion. Thanks in advance. Agerskov ( talk) 10:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Strange edits by a new editor. They remind me of another account, so this is possibly a sock, but I don't have time to look into it right now. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Planetary nebula | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Characteristics | |
Type | Emission nebula |
Mass range | 0.1M☉-1M☉ [1] |
Size range | ~1 ly [1] |
Density | 100 to 10,000 particles per cm3 [1] |
External links | |
![]() | |
![]() | |
Additional Information | |
Discovered | 1764, Charles Messier [2] |
Hello,
I have prototyped a new infobox (see example, right) for types of astronomical objects (e.g. comet, star, reflection nebula), not individuals of those objects. The infobox (prototype & documentation located at User:Edward-Woodrow/Infobox astronomical formation) has fields for typical physical characteristics of the object, as well as links to a Wikimedia Commons category and the relevant Wikidata items. It would be useful for providing basic data on broad types of objects, as other templates such as {{ Infobox comet}} aren't really applicable, as they supply only individual-specific parameters. There are more examples of this template in my sandbox. Edward-Woodrow ( talk) 21:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
References
I just wanted to point out a tool I was informed about on the Village Pump. The PetScan tool can be used to search a category for specific traits. I used this tool as follows:
It gave me a list of 398 articles missing a project template (although a minority don't appear to be astronomy topics – they're just in related categories like astrology or outer space). The tool can run very slowly for greater depths, so it's probably more efficient to run it with shallow depths for individual categories. Praemonitus ( talk) 14:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
While researching on Abell 1413's monstrously large cD galaxy, I found out about a galaxy named SC 1325.1-311 G1 in [3]. It appears to be inside a cluster named SC 1325.1-311 according to [4]. This galaxy was listed as having a larger logR compared to Abell 1413's BCG, but does not appear to have been mentioned outside of Sir J.M. Schombert's 3 papers on supergiant elliptical galaxies. I did a basic NED search, assuming that it had something on it, but I cannot find it. Just what is this galaxy? I would love to have an answer on this.-- The Space Enthusiast ( talk) 17:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
This page has some problems; I've started a discussion at Talk:Sun chart § Merge discussion to try and sort them out. Thoughts and opinions appreciated. Primefac ( talk) 08:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.
Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:
Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.
Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.
|
All received a
Million Award
|
But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):
and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:
... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Noting some minor differences in tallies:
|
But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.
Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.
More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.
If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Missing from this list is: Redshift. Praemonitus ( talk) 14:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
This article requires excessive cleanup and rewriting, because reading it feels like I am reading a promotional website.
Lines like these do not sit well for me:
I don't think this is what we want for a B-class article. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 18:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Category:L-type stars 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.
Category:T-type stars 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.
Category:Y-type stars 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. Nrco0e ( talk) 16:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
I remember reading how an asteroid was named after a South American god (possibly Ecuador?), the problem was that they got the name from a vandalised Wikipedia article and that the god was a hoax.
And no, it wasn't Jar'Edo Wens.
Does anyone remember this? Was this fixed?. Yilku1 ( talk) 20:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Astronomy 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. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 22:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
FYI File:Euclid Structural and thermal model.jpg has been nominated for deletion This is a photo of an engineering model of the space telescope. It is to be deleted as it can be replaced as representation by an artist's rendering of the telescope -- 64.229.90.172 ( talk) 05:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at
Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent
Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class=
parameter to {{
WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{ WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project decides to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{
WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom
parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present.
Aymatth2 (
talk) 14:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
There is an interesting draft currently on AfC, Draft:Dust astronomy. I skimmed it and it looks good (not GA good, just good), but I have no time and will now to review that large draft. Sources used look reliable, the only concern I have is with possible overlaps with Cosmic dust and Space dust measurement (created by the same editor). Pinging the author to participate in discussion: Dusteg.
If no concerns would be raised here, I'll probably accept the submission later this week, after spotchecking few random sources. Copyvio detector shows high scores for several sources, but it looks so just because long titles of the articles and long names are used both here and there. Artem.G ( talk) 13:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
a random collection of aspects, and poorly sourced one. Artem.G ( talk) 12:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Wow that's long and very well developed for an AfC submission. However it seems very poorly named - it is discussing the study of physical samples in the form of
pre-solar grains and
dust collectors on spacecraft. That isn't
astronomy at all, it's a subfield of
cosmochemistry. There's also an excessively long digression into potential sources, which belongs on
cosmic dust.
While I commend the effort that's gone into developing this, I don't think it justifies a new article. The content should be merged into
cosmic dust,
presolar grain and
space dust measurement. Those articles are certainly far from perfect - but it would be better to improve them, than to create a confusingly overlapping new article.
I'm also worried that
Dusteg has a
WP:COI, particularly with many of the references they have cited. I see that user has heavily edited
Eberhard Grün, who is cited 47 times in the new draft, which is excessive. They also wrote
Helios Dust Instrumentation,
Cosmic Dust Analyzer and
Galileo and Ulysses Dust Detectors, which all describe instruments developed by Grün, and heavily cited him there too. Is the user Grün himself? If so, they have a major (undeclared?) conflict of interest.
Modest Genius
talk 20:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Abell 1413 has the following strange wikitext:
{{cvt|000|+/-|637.45|44.69|Mpc|e9ly|0|abbr=on|lk=on}}
I suppose 000
is just 0
. The +/-
is the correct way to tell {{
convert}} to use ±. |abbr=on
should be omitted because {{
cvt}} is convert with abbr=on. The problem which I am hoping someone will fix is the |44.69
which makes no sense to convert. What is intended here?
Johnuniq (
talk) 09:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Regarding {{
Infobox galaxy}}, the parameter dist_pc
was added on
2 June 2015 and removed on
21 January 2023 by
Danbloch with no discussion that I can see. That is why it is not working at
Abell 1413#Abell 1413 BCG. I maintain {{
convert}} and so have fixed it to use correct syntax in the article although it does not display. What happens with dist_pc
and that parameter is something for this wikiproject to decide. If the convert I tweaked is displayed, the result will not be satisfactory, for example, is 0±637.45
a useful result?
Johnuniq (
talk) 02:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Albert Einstein 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 23:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
A draft for AT2021lwx has recently been created. Thriley ( talk) 07:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
There are some long-standing inconsistencies in article titles from the Gliese Catalogue of Nearby Stars ( Dictionary of Nomenclature). These designations can have two different prefixes:
There's a clear consensus on Wikipedia to use Gliese for numbers below 1000, but it's unclear whether to use Gliese or GJ for numbers above 1000. Gliese seems to be used more often on Wikipedia, and I've sometimes worked from the assumption that this is the convention (e.g. here), but WP:STARNAMES actually says that the convention is to use GJ for these stars.
I've found some old discussions on this topic with no clear consensus - this discussion from 2012 seems to favor using GJ for stars numbered above 1000, while this one from 2015 was closed in favor of Gliese but didn't really have a consensus. Some of the arguments in favor of Gliese in the latter discussion were weak, such as incorrectly claiming that GJ is an abbreviation of Gliese, and the fact that Gliese is commonly used for some specific objects numbered below 1000, which isn't particularly relevant to what should be used for designations from the later catalogues.
Thoughts? SevenSpheres ( talk) 22:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gliese 1214 b#Requested move 6 May 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – Material Works 14:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm finding that many of the reference lookup links to the JPL small-body database are now broken. For example, 713 Luscinia has the following link in the second reference:
A working link is now:
It could make sense to turn this reference into a template for future upkeep. Praemonitus ( talk) 19:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
While investigating the cataclysmic variable YY Dra, I found that there has been some debate over whether this is the same system as DO Dra. There have been papers published over which identity to use, and both seem to have a number of scholarly articles published. The most recent, Hill et al (2022), [5] lists the subject as "YY Dra (DO Dra)". Which name should the Wikipedia article use? I'm leaning toward ""YY Draconis". However, SIMBAD lists it as a lost eclipsing binary, based on the opinion of the GCVS team. Praemonitus ( talk) 21:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
hello guys I'm new member of Wikipedia: wikiProject/astronomy i need to know how can I contribute in wikiproject and how can I post my opinion in afd I need help to know all of these because I want to help Wikipedia please help me MICHAEL 942006 ( talk) 12:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
There is currently an on-going requested move discussion pertaining to Ptolemy at Talk:Ptolemy#Requested move 25 May 2023 that might be of interest to this WikiProject. Walrasiad ( talk) 17:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I have noticed that all of the NGC objects from 1-500 either have pages or are redirected to the lists of NGC objects, which makes all of the links to these objects blue. Unfortunately, beyond those objects, most of the links to these objects are red. I have decided to create some articles for them, starting with NGC 979, a lenticular galaxy in the constellation of Eridanus. It is possible that its page might get deleted due to its lack of notability, but I just have a feeling that some of these objects deserve articles. If possible, help me on this endeavour. Thanks.-- The Space Enthusiast ( talk) 19:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Manual of Style (MoS) |
---|
This is the style guide for editing astronomy articles. The general rules from the Wikipedia:Manual of Style apply when writing astronomy articles.
Images
An astronomical image is any image file concerning non-artificial objects or phenomena that originate outside the Earth's atmosphere. It can include photographs, diagrams, and illustrations. In addition to the usual standards of image selection outlined by the
Wikipedia:Image use policy and
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, which cover image quality and pertinence, several other considerations apply to articles about astronomy:
I'm just taking a look at what such a style-guide might include. Praemonitus ( talk) 15:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
For reasons I haven't been able to discover, the "low" rating for the {{ WikiProject Astronomy}} template isn't working. This is showing up on the WP:ASTRAT as a large number of articles in the ??? column. Praemonitus ( talk) 13:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
It looks like the issue has been resolved (for now). Praemonitus ( talk) 20:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Does this subsection belong in the article where it currently is? XOR'easter ( talk) 19:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi to everyone, I was looking at the List of geological features on Venus and it seems that the link Helen Planitia redirectes to the page that is in. Flatlandia ( talk) 12:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Would someone please check recent edits at Lagrange point#Physical and mathematical details. Some background is shown in comments by a new user and an IP at Talk:Lagrange point#L1, L2, & L3 Quintic Equations. Johnuniq ( talk) 08:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
So recently there has been an edit war on the Andromeda Galaxy article that seems to went unchecked betwen Daviddayag and CactiStaccingCrane (pinging them here in case) over the proposed lead image on the article, which seems to revolve around the issue of whether we should accept modified, neater images with additional data or just plain images as it was seen by visible light. I brought it here in the Wikiproject discussion to garner a wider audience.
Based on Daviddayag's summaries in this edit and this edit, he stated that his image was as follows:
On the summary of CactiStaccingCrane's edit, however, he pointed out that we should however use raw unmodified images with very little processing to avoid misconnceptions, citing examples in the articles about the Sun, Europa, and Venus.
They engaged in a string of edits which borderline violated the WP:3RR, however since the last edit was a few days ago I am not able to give a warning about it and it died down immediately. I reverted a section tothe talk page added by CactiStaccingCrane because I don't think that the talk page was the right avenue to do so, and because the section seems to be a personal and nonconstructive dispute ignition for me.
Regardless of the edit warring behavior, I believe this is still an important discussion to do and must involve community consensus.
Personal opinion: I have to go with CactiStaccingCrane's argument here. Yes, the image by Daviddayag may be crisper, higher in quality, more contrast, and is widely used, but the addition of the H-alpha data (which is deep red but here the wavelength seem to be modified to be more visible) to enhance nebulosity features, while a welcome addition, just makes it misleading. If we want to be truthful, we must use raw, unprocessed image data based on true color, and while Daviddayag's image is true color, the H-alpha data is not.
However, I do not agree with CactiStaccingCrane's edit warring behavior and he should have addressed this in their respective talk pages. He is a long-time user so I am surprised he did this.
But I would like to hear your thoughts about this. Regards! SkyFlubbler ( talk) 14:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Support for the bottom figure - images can be pushed in all kinds of directions re: false color, enhancements of certain wavelengths, etc. Lead images should look natural, not pushed, so that they do not require any explanation. Enhanced images can be used (and explained) in the body somewhere. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 18:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Support for top figure. The bottom one has been clearly enhanced by the use of a an analog optical telescope. I'm guessing that a camera was used, probably a digital camera. Probably photographed under some kind exceptional viewing conditions!!! It's not at all what you would see, if you stepped out on a typical night and looked up at the sky in downtown Chicago. 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 01:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
So apparently Daviddayag tried to revert my edits into the page again and insists of using his image because "it was used for the last 3 years" (see here), despite ZaperaWiki44's revert and the overwhelming consensus in this discussion. I do think he is not here to contribute to Wikipedia but rather make a self-promotion on his image while disregarding any accuracy concerns. Another revert on his part would constitute WP:3RR violation. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 01:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
If anyone is interested, I've opened Wikipedia:Peer review/Pulsar planet/archive1 to see if this article would work as a GA. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
In
Exometeorology, we render exoplanet names in a variety of ways, with or without spaces, sometimes as non-breaking spaces (
) in one or both places. "Gliese 1214 b", "GJ 1214b", etc. Is there a canonical format these should be in? This is going to be on the main page tomorrow as part of the DYK section; it would be nice to have this cleaned up before that happens.
RoySmith
(talk) 14:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
hey, I've noticed that the "Formation and history" of the Andromeda Galaxy was fully rewritten today by FrançoisHam, who's probably "Hammer, F.,"; article by this author is now used as a source. It looks like COI, maybe somebody can look through the recent edit? Artem.G ( talk) 14:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Moreover, M31's disk and bulge were already in place suggesting that mergers of this magnitude need not dramatically affect galaxy structure.and
Yet, M31 had already formed its bulge stars > 6 Gyr ago, long before M31's merger with M32p.
Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals), which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Tercer ( talk) 13:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej ( talk) 17:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
I’d like to eliminate some violations of MOS:NEGATIVE in certain templates and modules by replacing instances of U+002D - HYPHEN-MINUS with the prescribed U+2212 − MINUS SIGN. Presently I have my eye on some templates and modules pertaining to solar eclipses that feature a negative gamma value. An example of a relevant template would be {{ Solar eclipse set 2004–2007}}. An example of a relevant module would be Module:Solar eclipse/db/165, which populates {{ Infobox solar eclipse}}, as may be seen at Solar eclipse of August 12, 1673.
Correcting the character in the templates raises no functional concerns; I think the same is true of the modules because as far as I can tell this content is being used only as strings for transclusion. To be cautious, though, I’m asking if anyone is aware of an instance where Gam
is being used in an actual value in a function in which the typographically correct character might present a technical problem. Please let me know if you do. (Pinging
Tomruen and
Frietjes, the primary contributors to the modules.) Cheers! —
jameslucas
▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 00:28, 29 July 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 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 |
The following proposed tab bar uses a more recent style employed by a number of WikiProjects. It drops the entries to inactive WikiProjects that we are still carrying.
Main | Talk | Astronomical objects | Eclipses | Article ratings | Image review | Popular pages | Members | Wikidata |
What do you think? Praemonitus ( talk) 02:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Main | Talk | Article ratings | Image review | Popular pages | Members | Wikidata |
Astronomical objects | Talk | Eclipses | Talk | Constellations | Talk | Cosmology | Talk |
But that's a lot of clutter at the top just to save a few people an extra click. Praemonitus ( talk) 15:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Main | Talk |
Astronomical objects ( Talk) |
Eclipses ( Talk) | Article ratings | Image review | Popular pages | Members | Wikidata |
Main | Talk |
Astronomical objects ( Talk) |
Eclipses ( Talk) | Article ratings | Image review | Popular pages | Members | Wikidata |
Main | Talk |
Astronomical objects ( Talk) |
Eclipses ( Talk) | Article ratings | Image review | Popular pages | Members | Wikidata |
Unless there is an objection, I'm going to proceed with implementing the last example above. It will at least give the main page a more slick, modern look. Thanks. Praemonitus ( talk) 05:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I made a minor change to the tab bar, removing the underscores from the links so they match the page address. This should allow the background color on the active tab to be set to white when the page is displayed. Praemonitus ( talk) 14:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
I've performed a major rewrite of the article Grubb Parsons, about the historic telescope manufacturer. That page doesn't seem to have many watchers, so I would appreciate some more eyes on it. Modest Genius talk 13:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Some articles on stars with TOI designations use a hyphen ( TOI-178), while others use a space ( TOI 700). This should be standardized. The form with a hyphen seems to be more common, and is used by databases such as SIMBAD and the NASA Exoplanet Archive. SevenSpheres ( talk) 00:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Do we have any explicit conventions for what kind of image to use in the infobox? The consensus seems to be that we should use natural-color photos, at least of planetary objects in the SS, but is that stated anywhere to help decide between competing imgs, or is it an informal consensus? — kwami ( talk) 07:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Per the Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Importance ratings, there are only three people in the top level importance ratings: Albert Einstein, Galileo Galilei, and Henrietta Swan Leavitt. I'd like to suggest that the criteria should be modified to move more high rated astronomers up to the top category. For example: Edwin Hubble, Nicolaus Copernicus, William Herschel, Hipparchus, and Johannes Kepler. I think this may be possible by bumping up the statements about making important contributions by one category. Praemonitus ( talk) 16:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
The 'Specific' categories don't accurately reflect how objects are being rated for importance. I see a number of objects of 'High' importance to WP:ASTRO that have a 'Top' rating. For example: Pluto, Ceres, Eris, Haumea, Acrux, Deneb, and Ganymede (moon), are all rated 'Top'. Praemonitus ( talk) 14:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Where do we draw the line on "high impact" (Mid-rated) Category:Astronomy journals, so we can rate lower impact journals as 'Low'? For example, what about Acta Astronomica, Advances in Space Research, or Astronomische Nachrichten? Do we say 'Mid' rating if, say, it has been published for at least 50 years? That would include Icarus (journal) and Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada. Praemonitus ( talk) 15:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
I have tried to search for the reason why the HIP catalogue designations are preferred to HD catalogue designations for article names of stars without official IAU names, Bayer, Flamsteed designations or designations for variable stars?
When you look up a star using the HIP catalogue designation in the Simbad database you will see it uses the HD catalogue designation as the title.
As I have noticed HD is more used in the scientific area where HIP is more used in the amateur area - the starmap program Stellarium uses HIP but its online counterpart Stellarium-Web uses HD.
Is there a Wikipedia guideline for this?
If I decide which to use it would be HD - because there are more stars in the HD catalogue which as to my knowledge contains all the stars in the HIP catalogue and it is more scientific than amateurish.
If I have asked in the wrong place then please direct me to where I should have asked this quiestion. Thanks in advance. Agerskov ( talk) 10:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Strange edits by a new editor. They remind me of another account, so this is possibly a sock, but I don't have time to look into it right now. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Planetary nebula | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Characteristics | |
Type | Emission nebula |
Mass range | 0.1M☉-1M☉ [1] |
Size range | ~1 ly [1] |
Density | 100 to 10,000 particles per cm3 [1] |
External links | |
![]() | |
![]() | |
Additional Information | |
Discovered | 1764, Charles Messier [2] |
Hello,
I have prototyped a new infobox (see example, right) for types of astronomical objects (e.g. comet, star, reflection nebula), not individuals of those objects. The infobox (prototype & documentation located at User:Edward-Woodrow/Infobox astronomical formation) has fields for typical physical characteristics of the object, as well as links to a Wikimedia Commons category and the relevant Wikidata items. It would be useful for providing basic data on broad types of objects, as other templates such as {{ Infobox comet}} aren't really applicable, as they supply only individual-specific parameters. There are more examples of this template in my sandbox. Edward-Woodrow ( talk) 21:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
References
I just wanted to point out a tool I was informed about on the Village Pump. The PetScan tool can be used to search a category for specific traits. I used this tool as follows:
It gave me a list of 398 articles missing a project template (although a minority don't appear to be astronomy topics – they're just in related categories like astrology or outer space). The tool can run very slowly for greater depths, so it's probably more efficient to run it with shallow depths for individual categories. Praemonitus ( talk) 14:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
While researching on Abell 1413's monstrously large cD galaxy, I found out about a galaxy named SC 1325.1-311 G1 in [3]. It appears to be inside a cluster named SC 1325.1-311 according to [4]. This galaxy was listed as having a larger logR compared to Abell 1413's BCG, but does not appear to have been mentioned outside of Sir J.M. Schombert's 3 papers on supergiant elliptical galaxies. I did a basic NED search, assuming that it had something on it, but I cannot find it. Just what is this galaxy? I would love to have an answer on this.-- The Space Enthusiast ( talk) 17:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
This page has some problems; I've started a discussion at Talk:Sun chart § Merge discussion to try and sort them out. Thoughts and opinions appreciated. Primefac ( talk) 08:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.
Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:
Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.
Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.
|
All received a
Million Award
|
But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):
and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:
... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Noting some minor differences in tallies:
|
But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.
Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.
More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.
If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Missing from this list is: Redshift. Praemonitus ( talk) 14:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
This article requires excessive cleanup and rewriting, because reading it feels like I am reading a promotional website.
Lines like these do not sit well for me:
I don't think this is what we want for a B-class article. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 18:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Category:L-type stars 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.
Category:T-type stars 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.
Category:Y-type stars 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. Nrco0e ( talk) 16:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
I remember reading how an asteroid was named after a South American god (possibly Ecuador?), the problem was that they got the name from a vandalised Wikipedia article and that the god was a hoax.
And no, it wasn't Jar'Edo Wens.
Does anyone remember this? Was this fixed?. Yilku1 ( talk) 20:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Astronomy 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. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 22:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
FYI File:Euclid Structural and thermal model.jpg has been nominated for deletion This is a photo of an engineering model of the space telescope. It is to be deleted as it can be replaced as representation by an artist's rendering of the telescope -- 64.229.90.172 ( talk) 05:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at
Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent
Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class=
parameter to {{
WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{ WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project decides to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{
WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom
parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present.
Aymatth2 (
talk) 14:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
There is an interesting draft currently on AfC, Draft:Dust astronomy. I skimmed it and it looks good (not GA good, just good), but I have no time and will now to review that large draft. Sources used look reliable, the only concern I have is with possible overlaps with Cosmic dust and Space dust measurement (created by the same editor). Pinging the author to participate in discussion: Dusteg.
If no concerns would be raised here, I'll probably accept the submission later this week, after spotchecking few random sources. Copyvio detector shows high scores for several sources, but it looks so just because long titles of the articles and long names are used both here and there. Artem.G ( talk) 13:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
a random collection of aspects, and poorly sourced one. Artem.G ( talk) 12:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Wow that's long and very well developed for an AfC submission. However it seems very poorly named - it is discussing the study of physical samples in the form of
pre-solar grains and
dust collectors on spacecraft. That isn't
astronomy at all, it's a subfield of
cosmochemistry. There's also an excessively long digression into potential sources, which belongs on
cosmic dust.
While I commend the effort that's gone into developing this, I don't think it justifies a new article. The content should be merged into
cosmic dust,
presolar grain and
space dust measurement. Those articles are certainly far from perfect - but it would be better to improve them, than to create a confusingly overlapping new article.
I'm also worried that
Dusteg has a
WP:COI, particularly with many of the references they have cited. I see that user has heavily edited
Eberhard Grün, who is cited 47 times in the new draft, which is excessive. They also wrote
Helios Dust Instrumentation,
Cosmic Dust Analyzer and
Galileo and Ulysses Dust Detectors, which all describe instruments developed by Grün, and heavily cited him there too. Is the user Grün himself? If so, they have a major (undeclared?) conflict of interest.
Modest Genius
talk 20:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Abell 1413 has the following strange wikitext:
{{cvt|000|+/-|637.45|44.69|Mpc|e9ly|0|abbr=on|lk=on}}
I suppose 000
is just 0
. The +/-
is the correct way to tell {{
convert}} to use ±. |abbr=on
should be omitted because {{
cvt}} is convert with abbr=on. The problem which I am hoping someone will fix is the |44.69
which makes no sense to convert. What is intended here?
Johnuniq (
talk) 09:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Regarding {{
Infobox galaxy}}, the parameter dist_pc
was added on
2 June 2015 and removed on
21 January 2023 by
Danbloch with no discussion that I can see. That is why it is not working at
Abell 1413#Abell 1413 BCG. I maintain {{
convert}} and so have fixed it to use correct syntax in the article although it does not display. What happens with dist_pc
and that parameter is something for this wikiproject to decide. If the convert I tweaked is displayed, the result will not be satisfactory, for example, is 0±637.45
a useful result?
Johnuniq (
talk) 02:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Albert Einstein 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 23:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
A draft for AT2021lwx has recently been created. Thriley ( talk) 07:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
There are some long-standing inconsistencies in article titles from the Gliese Catalogue of Nearby Stars ( Dictionary of Nomenclature). These designations can have two different prefixes:
There's a clear consensus on Wikipedia to use Gliese for numbers below 1000, but it's unclear whether to use Gliese or GJ for numbers above 1000. Gliese seems to be used more often on Wikipedia, and I've sometimes worked from the assumption that this is the convention (e.g. here), but WP:STARNAMES actually says that the convention is to use GJ for these stars.
I've found some old discussions on this topic with no clear consensus - this discussion from 2012 seems to favor using GJ for stars numbered above 1000, while this one from 2015 was closed in favor of Gliese but didn't really have a consensus. Some of the arguments in favor of Gliese in the latter discussion were weak, such as incorrectly claiming that GJ is an abbreviation of Gliese, and the fact that Gliese is commonly used for some specific objects numbered below 1000, which isn't particularly relevant to what should be used for designations from the later catalogues.
Thoughts? SevenSpheres ( talk) 22:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gliese 1214 b#Requested move 6 May 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – Material Works 14:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm finding that many of the reference lookup links to the JPL small-body database are now broken. For example, 713 Luscinia has the following link in the second reference:
A working link is now:
It could make sense to turn this reference into a template for future upkeep. Praemonitus ( talk) 19:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
While investigating the cataclysmic variable YY Dra, I found that there has been some debate over whether this is the same system as DO Dra. There have been papers published over which identity to use, and both seem to have a number of scholarly articles published. The most recent, Hill et al (2022), [5] lists the subject as "YY Dra (DO Dra)". Which name should the Wikipedia article use? I'm leaning toward ""YY Draconis". However, SIMBAD lists it as a lost eclipsing binary, based on the opinion of the GCVS team. Praemonitus ( talk) 21:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
hello guys I'm new member of Wikipedia: wikiProject/astronomy i need to know how can I contribute in wikiproject and how can I post my opinion in afd I need help to know all of these because I want to help Wikipedia please help me MICHAEL 942006 ( talk) 12:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
There is currently an on-going requested move discussion pertaining to Ptolemy at Talk:Ptolemy#Requested move 25 May 2023 that might be of interest to this WikiProject. Walrasiad ( talk) 17:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I have noticed that all of the NGC objects from 1-500 either have pages or are redirected to the lists of NGC objects, which makes all of the links to these objects blue. Unfortunately, beyond those objects, most of the links to these objects are red. I have decided to create some articles for them, starting with NGC 979, a lenticular galaxy in the constellation of Eridanus. It is possible that its page might get deleted due to its lack of notability, but I just have a feeling that some of these objects deserve articles. If possible, help me on this endeavour. Thanks.-- The Space Enthusiast ( talk) 19:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Manual of Style (MoS) |
---|
This is the style guide for editing astronomy articles. The general rules from the Wikipedia:Manual of Style apply when writing astronomy articles.
Images
An astronomical image is any image file concerning non-artificial objects or phenomena that originate outside the Earth's atmosphere. It can include photographs, diagrams, and illustrations. In addition to the usual standards of image selection outlined by the
Wikipedia:Image use policy and
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, which cover image quality and pertinence, several other considerations apply to articles about astronomy:
I'm just taking a look at what such a style-guide might include. Praemonitus ( talk) 15:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
For reasons I haven't been able to discover, the "low" rating for the {{ WikiProject Astronomy}} template isn't working. This is showing up on the WP:ASTRAT as a large number of articles in the ??? column. Praemonitus ( talk) 13:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
It looks like the issue has been resolved (for now). Praemonitus ( talk) 20:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Does this subsection belong in the article where it currently is? XOR'easter ( talk) 19:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi to everyone, I was looking at the List of geological features on Venus and it seems that the link Helen Planitia redirectes to the page that is in. Flatlandia ( talk) 12:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Would someone please check recent edits at Lagrange point#Physical and mathematical details. Some background is shown in comments by a new user and an IP at Talk:Lagrange point#L1, L2, & L3 Quintic Equations. Johnuniq ( talk) 08:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
So recently there has been an edit war on the Andromeda Galaxy article that seems to went unchecked betwen Daviddayag and CactiStaccingCrane (pinging them here in case) over the proposed lead image on the article, which seems to revolve around the issue of whether we should accept modified, neater images with additional data or just plain images as it was seen by visible light. I brought it here in the Wikiproject discussion to garner a wider audience.
Based on Daviddayag's summaries in this edit and this edit, he stated that his image was as follows:
On the summary of CactiStaccingCrane's edit, however, he pointed out that we should however use raw unmodified images with very little processing to avoid misconnceptions, citing examples in the articles about the Sun, Europa, and Venus.
They engaged in a string of edits which borderline violated the WP:3RR, however since the last edit was a few days ago I am not able to give a warning about it and it died down immediately. I reverted a section tothe talk page added by CactiStaccingCrane because I don't think that the talk page was the right avenue to do so, and because the section seems to be a personal and nonconstructive dispute ignition for me.
Regardless of the edit warring behavior, I believe this is still an important discussion to do and must involve community consensus.
Personal opinion: I have to go with CactiStaccingCrane's argument here. Yes, the image by Daviddayag may be crisper, higher in quality, more contrast, and is widely used, but the addition of the H-alpha data (which is deep red but here the wavelength seem to be modified to be more visible) to enhance nebulosity features, while a welcome addition, just makes it misleading. If we want to be truthful, we must use raw, unprocessed image data based on true color, and while Daviddayag's image is true color, the H-alpha data is not.
However, I do not agree with CactiStaccingCrane's edit warring behavior and he should have addressed this in their respective talk pages. He is a long-time user so I am surprised he did this.
But I would like to hear your thoughts about this. Regards! SkyFlubbler ( talk) 14:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Support for the bottom figure - images can be pushed in all kinds of directions re: false color, enhancements of certain wavelengths, etc. Lead images should look natural, not pushed, so that they do not require any explanation. Enhanced images can be used (and explained) in the body somewhere. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 18:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Support for top figure. The bottom one has been clearly enhanced by the use of a an analog optical telescope. I'm guessing that a camera was used, probably a digital camera. Probably photographed under some kind exceptional viewing conditions!!! It's not at all what you would see, if you stepped out on a typical night and looked up at the sky in downtown Chicago. 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 01:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
So apparently Daviddayag tried to revert my edits into the page again and insists of using his image because "it was used for the last 3 years" (see here), despite ZaperaWiki44's revert and the overwhelming consensus in this discussion. I do think he is not here to contribute to Wikipedia but rather make a self-promotion on his image while disregarding any accuracy concerns. Another revert on his part would constitute WP:3RR violation. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 01:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
If anyone is interested, I've opened Wikipedia:Peer review/Pulsar planet/archive1 to see if this article would work as a GA. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
In
Exometeorology, we render exoplanet names in a variety of ways, with or without spaces, sometimes as non-breaking spaces (
) in one or both places. "Gliese 1214 b", "GJ 1214b", etc. Is there a canonical format these should be in? This is going to be on the main page tomorrow as part of the DYK section; it would be nice to have this cleaned up before that happens.
RoySmith
(talk) 14:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
hey, I've noticed that the "Formation and history" of the Andromeda Galaxy was fully rewritten today by FrançoisHam, who's probably "Hammer, F.,"; article by this author is now used as a source. It looks like COI, maybe somebody can look through the recent edit? Artem.G ( talk) 14:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Moreover, M31's disk and bulge were already in place suggesting that mergers of this magnitude need not dramatically affect galaxy structure.and
Yet, M31 had already formed its bulge stars > 6 Gyr ago, long before M31's merger with M32p.
Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals), which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Tercer ( talk) 13:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej ( talk) 17:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
I’d like to eliminate some violations of MOS:NEGATIVE in certain templates and modules by replacing instances of U+002D - HYPHEN-MINUS with the prescribed U+2212 − MINUS SIGN. Presently I have my eye on some templates and modules pertaining to solar eclipses that feature a negative gamma value. An example of a relevant template would be {{ Solar eclipse set 2004–2007}}. An example of a relevant module would be Module:Solar eclipse/db/165, which populates {{ Infobox solar eclipse}}, as may be seen at Solar eclipse of August 12, 1673.
Correcting the character in the templates raises no functional concerns; I think the same is true of the modules because as far as I can tell this content is being used only as strings for transclusion. To be cautious, though, I’m asking if anyone is aware of an instance where Gam
is being used in an actual value in a function in which the typographically correct character might present a technical problem. Please let me know if you do. (Pinging
Tomruen and
Frietjes, the primary contributors to the modules.) Cheers! —
jameslucas
▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 00:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)