![]() | 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 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 |
At S/2004 S 24, the infobox image was deleted at Commons due to copyright concerns — Sheppard is not employed by NASA. This raises concerns about many other images taken by Sheppard of irregular moons in the Solar System, though non-free images would qualify for inclusion at the moons' infoboxes per WP:NFCC if there is no NASA-created equivalent. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 17:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Most constellation entries end with an External Links section that includes a link called "the clickable [constellation name]". These go to a domain named <astrojan.eu5.org>. Currently that site is returning a "not available" flag. I noticed it a few days ago; when the link actually went dead I do not know. Perhaps one of you has already noticed it. It is not clear whether this is a hosting problem and the site will return, or whether the site has disappeared for ever. Three options occur to me: 1, wait to see if it reappears; 2, delete all links as being dead; 3, change the link to an archive version. Thoughts? Skeptic2 ( talk) 13:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
I am raising this discussion here to get more attention.
This has been a very long (probably 2 years now) dispute regarding the radius of this star, which has been controversial and the reasons for consensus are invoking WP:NOTRIGHT (which I do take a lot of issues with, see the discussion regarding this issue).
This has become a hot mess to deal with that I think this needs to be raised here on the Wikiproject proper. I highly recommend you to check and contribute to the discussion. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 05:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
The Wikiprojects Solar System, Mars, Moon and Eclipses are largely abandoned. What if we turn them into task forces? Cambalachero ( talk) 01:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Okay, so I've started moving things around, and I've noticed some inconsistencies that I want to sort out (mainly so I don't have to shift things twice). For our taskforces, are they "X Task Force", "X task force", or "X taskforce"? All three are valid, and I believe I have seen all three in the wild, but we should probably pick one and stick with it (for example, the first line of the Mars Task Force says "The Mars taskforce", which is an annoying inconsistency). Primefac ( talk) 09:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
There is a featured List of space telescopes, and additionally List of X-ray space telescopes and List of proposed space observatories, both looks to be duplicates of sections of the first list. Should they be merged into the main list? I see no good reason to have three lists (two of them mostly unsourced) instead of good-sourced and well-organizes one list that we already have. Any thoughts on this? Artem.G ( talk) 19:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
hey, here's a proposal to remove Influences/influenced fields from the scientist infobox. It was done for the philosopher infobox, and bacause these fields often have too many unsourced / unnecessary entries never covered in text it might be a good idea for scientists as well. Please see and comment there: Template_talk:Infobox_scientist#Influences/influenced. Artem.G ( talk) 16:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lunar distance (astronomy)#Requested move 23 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping ( talk) 22:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
There is a deletion discussion for List of exoplanets with Bayer designations. Fdfexoex ( talk) 21:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Neptunian desert was recently moved to Neptunian Desert. Now there is a discussion to move it back at Talk:Neptunian Desert. Fdfexoex ( talk) 21:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
In the next couple of months I will be helping to run some training sessions on behalf of WMF(UK) for members of the International Astronomical Union and Max Planck Institute on how to contribute to Wikipedia. I would like to invite WikiProject Astronomy members to submit any suggestions of points specific to this field that I ought to be aware of, or to raise during that training; any pitfalls professionals need to avoid, or pointers to identifying key topics for improvement or creation. Any other ideas, concerns or suggestions are also welcome. My rough notes to date on planning these sessions can be found at User:Nick Moyes/training. It includes a Google slides presentation that I plan to use, which is also under construction. Many thanks, Nick Moyes ( talk) 21:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Not so long ago I noticed that the computational side of astrophysics and cosmology on Wikipedia is extremely incomplete and lacks several articles, templates, and maintenance in general. (Latter is not surprising as the Cosmology task force is inactive...) As someone, who's doing a PhD in this field, it was really surprising to me, since computational aspects of both fields are increasingly vital in astronomical research.
I noticed there is a Computational astrophysics article that writes a couple words about cosmology too, however it's far below the bare minimum. While there's a certain overlap between these two topics, I feel a definite difference should be made between astrophysics and cosmology and Wikipedia should also reflect that.
For this reason I have a couple propositions:
But first, I wanted to ask the community's opinion about any of this. While I see this topic is extremely important and vital in astronomical research nowadays, others may have a different opinion on the relevancy of this topic specifically on Wikipedia. Or, some may have some alternative solutions to my original problem statement.
-- Masterdesky ( talk) 15:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi im new here. What to do? moew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anotaomo ( talk • contribs) 06:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi im new here. What to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anotaomo ( talk • contribs) 06:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
I have nominated Kreutz sungrazer for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 04:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
The URL format for this source has recently changed, and approximately 2,000 incoming links will need to be updated. In the new format, hyphens are now underscores, and each planet has been given a numeric ID; for example, Kepler-62f is 1261. The template {{ Cite EPE}} can be used for linking to this website. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 16:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I want to create an article for the asteroid pair (458271) 2010 UM26 and 2010 RN221, but they have very similar orbital elements (down to several decimal places) and have only been studied together in publications (examples: (MPML) (Vokrouhlický) (Jewitt 2023)). Should I create a single article that includes both objects (title will be " (458271) 2010 UM26 and 2010 RN221") or should I create two separate articles for (458271) 2010 UM26 and 2010 RN221 individually? Not much is known about the individual asteroids other than their approximate sizes, shapes, and orbits; the biggest point of scientific interest is their very similar orbits and separation history according to the publications I listed earlier. Thanks. Nrco0e ( talk) 07:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Pleiades 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) 19:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Can anyone share an example URL request for the MPC's API, if it exists, or point to a resource describing such? They seem keen on having you go through python or some other interface, but I just want to scrape HTML the old fashioned way. I'm specifically looking for "Orbit type: Hilda", etc., which can be found here: MPC, but not here: JPL, nor here (JPL's API). I realize I can constrain the orbital elements myself, but would rather not have to do that for all the various orbit types. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 03:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Named minor planet | Provisional | This minor planet was named for... | Ref · Catalog |
---|---|---|---|
620307 Casanovas | 2002 QL149 | Description available (see ref). Please summarize in your own words. | IAU · 620307 |
I'm thinking of going though all the WGSBN Bulletin archives and placing a note (above) on all MoMP entries which have a description on a bulletin, but not yet on WP, and placing the page into a tracking category so that editors can more easily find missing descriptions. Comments and suggestions welcome. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 11:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
I recently created Amaterasu particle. Any help with expansion would be appreciated. Thriley ( talk) 13:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
@ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor planets: 624001–625000, the scope of which affects many of these list pages. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 11:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
& @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meanings of minor planet names: 623001–624000. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 23:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
...is underway at Template talk:Starbox begin#Broader redesign of apparent-magnitude and color-index entries. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 12:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chandrayaan programme#Requested move 22 November 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 17:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Many stars (for isntance) have been used in popular culture, fiction or film. Can for instance we add a section at Gamma Draconis where for instance we could list Ursula K. Le Guin's Planet of Exile which is set on a planet in that system? Perhaps this Wikiproject has discussed this sort of thing already. -- Evertype· ✆ 14:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
3 Juno 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. Nrco0e ( talk) 08:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
10 Hygiea 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. Nrco0e ( talk) 08:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
A user discovered a fatal error that will require the table in the sub-lists to be rebuilt from scratch. The reference column is offset, and some entries (such as the mass of Kepler-46b) are wrong. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 07:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
There's a new page about the GRSI_model and several astronomy/cosmology articles have new sections linking to Duer's work. I recall various pure-GR approaches in the past but I'm not familiar enough with that field to know whether any of them got any real traction. This one doesn't seem to have, and the papers are mostly self-cites (plus a very strong "this is wrong" critique that wasn't linked). It doesn't seem notable enough to be worthy of an article and subsections; anyone else familiar with this? - Parejkoj ( talk) 17:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
What do we think of adding JPL Small-Body Database SPK-ID (P716), Minor Planet Center body ID (P5736), and other relevant identifiers to the {{ Authority control}} template, in either the existing AC section "Other", or in a new section called "Scientific"?
{{ JPL small body}}, {{ NeoDys}}, and other templates exist, but they each require separate placement on each page, while {{ Authority control}} would be able to capture all current and future database inclusions, and automatically display them compactly at the bottom of the page. I'm not suggesting {{ Authority control}} replace {{ JPL small body}}, etc., since they provide much more info, but that {{ Authority control}} be used regardless.
Courtesy ping to Rfassbind ~ I hope he is well and chooses to return to editing. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 18:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
See
... an edit by which a new section -- (called "a suggestion for a small change") -- was added to the "Talk:" page for the [article about the] " Hertzsprung–Russell diagram".
Any comments? Mike Schwartz ( talk) 15:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello there! There are three articles that I think should be merged as their scope is mostly the same: X-ray telescope, X-ray space telescope, and X-ray astronomy detector. The second article also has a long list, that mostly duplicate List of X-ray space telescopes, and the list itself is mostly a duplicate of List_of_space_telescopes#X-ray. What do you think? Artem.G ( talk) 16:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Σ Eridani#Requested move 6 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 19:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Greetings,
is anyone interested in commenting on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kreutz sungrazer/archive1? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 08:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Solophi ( talk · contribs) inserted a further reading to a religious philosophy book published by Solophi as an "early reference" [1] at Hawking star ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an astrophysics article. This seems like advertising. I have deleted the link -- 65.92.247.66 ( talk) 05:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of natural satellites#Requested move 9 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 18:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:G Doradus#Requested move 1 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky ( talk) 01:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Escape velocity#Requested move 11 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 08:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a discussion about changing infobox colours for planets. Please join in the discussion here. Primefac ( talk) 20:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
1400+ articles (mostly asteroids, but also some comets, moons and TNOs) still had the infobox img size set locally from years ago when that was necessary. Mostly the number was just copied over from the sample box, which was at various times set from 250 to 265 px -- that is, they were mostly cruft. I stripped most of them out so that the template default size would be used. A question though is what default size would work best. I assume we'd want something almost the width of the info box; i.e., as big as possible without causing the info box to take up more space, but also accommodate ppl with vision impairments by sizing the img relative to the reader's pref rather than absolute pixels, which is deprecated for accessibility reasons. Scaling at 1.33 seems to work well. Is that okay? — kwami ( talk) 22:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi all. There is an ongoing discussion on whether the Planetary habitability in the Solar System article should have a section discussing the habitability of the Sun. Please join in here. CoronalMassAffection ( talk) 20:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I have nominated the image File:Neptune Full.jpg for Featured Picture delisting on Wikimedia Commons. Comments and votes are highly welcome. Nrco0e ( talk) 05:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi all! I would like to add Carl Sagan - plus some other notable figures - to the list of Academy of Achievement awardees. I’ll leave this to the discretion of other editors because I work for the organization. Talk:Academy_of_Achievement#Additional_Names_for_Awardees_Table Jarc12030 ( talk) 17:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
We now have articles for mega-Earth, super-Earth, and sub-Neptune. They seem a bit redundant. Praemonitus ( talk) 16:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Oppose merging Mega-Earths are more massive than super-Earths and indeed can be more massive than Neptune. Also sub-Neptunes are not necessarily anything like Neptune so are not always Mini-Neptunes. Some mega-Earths could be considered as Super-Neptunes and sub-Neptunes at the same time because they have a larger mass than Neptune but a smaller radius. Fdfexoex ( talk) 15:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
The article Cis-Neptunian object has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
This classification is seldom used by researchers, does not appear to be a consensus classification, and is largely redundant. On NASA ADS, only one search result for "cis-Neptunian object" is relevant to the term, out of four total results.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
I shall ping the active WikiProject contributors @ Kwamikagami, Double sharp, Kheider, Serendipodous, Headbomb, Ruslik0, Exoplanetaryscience, AstroChara, Tom.Reding, WolfmanSF, CactiStaccingCrane, LaundryPizza03, Praemonitus, XOR'easter, and C messier:. Nrco0e ( talk) 02:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Even after an arduous admin review and mass deletion about a year ago I am quite surprised that there are still a lot of pictures uploaded by this guy that are still used in many articles, like the Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall, Giant GRB Ring, Saraswati Supercluster, and U1.11, of which I have all removed from the articles.
Apparently, the mass deletion review did not heed Nrco0e's (another user that I also see some works being problematic) request of deleting all of this user's uploads, and so we still see a LOT of his misleading pictures. Keep in mind that even after all of this, he still uploads a lot of planet images as late as 15 August 2023, eight months after he was apprehended, which I am almost certain is made using a software like Universe Sandbox, of which he has not linked in the description.
A bit of help to remove the images uploaded by this guy to various astronomy articles, as well as to launch another mass deletion of his uploads in Commons that somehow got missed, to finally remove all the images lacking scientific merit once and for all.
Thoughts? SkyFlubbler ( talk) 16:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
God damnit! (pardon for profanity but NGGGGH!), after an hour of editing the nomination request, all of it got deleted by my stupid phone lagging. The files are too many (like probably there is 500 of them?). I think I will try again in draft before submitting. This will take a while. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 04:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Name conflicts with minor planets#Requested move 29 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. NasssaNser talk 10:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
I thought perhaps "Norma" was a cluster, so Norma Cluster should be named Norma cluster according to WP:NCCAPS. But I've found sources that used "Norma Cluster" and other that use "Norma cluster". So perhaps the proper name of the thing is "Norma Cluster"? Is there any astronomical naming convention source that says one way or another? Johnjbarton ( talk) 17:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Alpha Cephei#Requested move 4 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 16:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I put some redirects ( Betria and Gatria) in redirects for discussion. The discussion can be found in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 13#Betria. Everyone can join the discussion to decide the fate of these redirects. InTheAstronomy32 ( talk) 22:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of solar eclipses in antiquity#Requested move 16 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 13:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
It was my understanding that the Chandrasekhar limit concerns the maximum mass at the process of a star -> white dwarf transition. The end point is stable so the story ends.
Is Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit really analogous, meaning the max mass for star -> neutron star, end of story?
(I'm not really interested in the fine points of how these limits might be changed by better models, but rather just the concept they represent; these pages get edits that want the end points and cross the limits).
Ideal would be a ref. Johnjbarton ( talk) 02:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
There are three new requested moves at Talk:WD 2359−434, Talk:L 97-12 and Talk:PG 1047+003 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. InTheAstronomy32 ( talk) 16:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Some further input on Life_habitable_zones would be useful: the page looks like a WP:SYNTH list, with names that don't necessarily appear in the references and no obvious reason why it couldn't just be folded into Habitable_zone. - Parejkoj ( talk) 18:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Arlo James Barnes 23:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
I have nominated Galaxy for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 12:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Minor planet articles that might pass NASTRO, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. —
a smart kitten[
meow 04:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
draft:list of smallest named extraterrestrial craters lemme know what y'all think. Arlo James Barnes 09:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
It looks like not all of the constellation navboxes have been fully populated. The {{ Pegasus (constellation)}} navbox, for example, is lacking sections below the stars, including globular clusters and galaxies. (Compare to {{ Andromeda (constellation)}}.) Several such objects are listed at Pegasus (constellation)#Deep-sky objects. It can also include galaxies in Pegasus Galaxy and page links from Category:Pegasus (constellation). Praemonitus ( talk) 16:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
For some reason, in the Serpens article infobox there are two images depicting Serpens Caput. As Serpens is a constellation divided into two non-contiguous parts (Serpens Caput and Serpens Cauda), there are two images to represent the two parts, and there should be a third to represent both parts. However, the third image is already duplicating the image of Serpens Caput. On Wikipedia, we have this image which represents the constellation as a whole.
I tried to edit the article, but I couldn't replace the image. Apparently the images are predefined in {{ infobox constellation}}. InTheAstronomy32 ( talk) 19:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:WD 2359−434#Requested move 24 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 16:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
The subject phrase seems to be standard Astronomy lingo for a specific way of defining a galaxy diameter. I assume that this would be defined in an astronomy text. I have none. Any hints on a source for the definition?
Thanks. Johnjbarton ( talk) 04:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I am a little bit confused about Draft talk:Andrea Ferrara (astrophysicist) because a sourced page was moved to draft for what sounds like minor reasons that no other users visiting it pointed out (so they don't look critical). I usually don't add information unless it's on third-party sources so I am not going to add more content just because it's on an official website even if I know it's true.
So whoever wants to take care of it further, please do so. Alexmar983 ( talk) 00:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Just to be clear now User:Ldm1954 converted his request to this warning but this is not actually correct to me. I analyzed all sources for months, all other sources are almost from websites of university or institutions where he is actually working. I usualy do not add such content. It's fineI suppose for some of you, I agree that it's there but I focus mostly on content that it's also on third-party sources or peer-reviewed such as in publication. If User:Ldm1954 wants to be more specific and link here all sources he is referring to can add some of them if they are from a thirdpart.-- Alexmar983 ( talk) 00:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
After a protracted argument on the Dyson sphere talk page that seemed to be going nowhere, I decided to consolidate and restate the basic issues concerning this section in general, and one particular instance that has proven especially vexing, as I see them. I hope that members of this and other related WikiProjects might weigh in and give their opinions. P Aculeius ( talk) 18:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello. I am inviting you to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox galaxy for a possible change in some parameters, particularly galaxy diameters. Feel free to add comments. Thanks! SkyFlubbler ( talk) 18:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of July 16, 2186 (2nd nomination), which is within the scope of this WikiProject.
Primefac (
talk) 05:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm inclined to rate astronomy museums, documentaries, and education programs as of bottom importance. Do you agree? Examples include: Kepler Museum, Our Heavenly Bodies, Category:Astronomy education television series, Category:Astronomy museums, Category:Documentary television series about astronomy. Category:Planetaria are already of bottom importance. Praemonitus ( talk) 17:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Here's a candidate Education block for the importance scale:
Will this work? Praemonitus ( talk) 14:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
This is approaching a state in which the featured article review can be closed as kept, but could use some more attention. I recently left some review comments and was requested to leave a note here. Hog Farm Talk 02:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Template:Argo Navis (compact) has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
--
65.92.244.237 (
talk) 14:28, 24 May 2024 (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 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 |
At S/2004 S 24, the infobox image was deleted at Commons due to copyright concerns — Sheppard is not employed by NASA. This raises concerns about many other images taken by Sheppard of irregular moons in the Solar System, though non-free images would qualify for inclusion at the moons' infoboxes per WP:NFCC if there is no NASA-created equivalent. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 17:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Most constellation entries end with an External Links section that includes a link called "the clickable [constellation name]". These go to a domain named <astrojan.eu5.org>. Currently that site is returning a "not available" flag. I noticed it a few days ago; when the link actually went dead I do not know. Perhaps one of you has already noticed it. It is not clear whether this is a hosting problem and the site will return, or whether the site has disappeared for ever. Three options occur to me: 1, wait to see if it reappears; 2, delete all links as being dead; 3, change the link to an archive version. Thoughts? Skeptic2 ( talk) 13:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
I am raising this discussion here to get more attention.
This has been a very long (probably 2 years now) dispute regarding the radius of this star, which has been controversial and the reasons for consensus are invoking WP:NOTRIGHT (which I do take a lot of issues with, see the discussion regarding this issue).
This has become a hot mess to deal with that I think this needs to be raised here on the Wikiproject proper. I highly recommend you to check and contribute to the discussion. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 05:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
The Wikiprojects Solar System, Mars, Moon and Eclipses are largely abandoned. What if we turn them into task forces? Cambalachero ( talk) 01:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Okay, so I've started moving things around, and I've noticed some inconsistencies that I want to sort out (mainly so I don't have to shift things twice). For our taskforces, are they "X Task Force", "X task force", or "X taskforce"? All three are valid, and I believe I have seen all three in the wild, but we should probably pick one and stick with it (for example, the first line of the Mars Task Force says "The Mars taskforce", which is an annoying inconsistency). Primefac ( talk) 09:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
There is a featured List of space telescopes, and additionally List of X-ray space telescopes and List of proposed space observatories, both looks to be duplicates of sections of the first list. Should they be merged into the main list? I see no good reason to have three lists (two of them mostly unsourced) instead of good-sourced and well-organizes one list that we already have. Any thoughts on this? Artem.G ( talk) 19:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
hey, here's a proposal to remove Influences/influenced fields from the scientist infobox. It was done for the philosopher infobox, and bacause these fields often have too many unsourced / unnecessary entries never covered in text it might be a good idea for scientists as well. Please see and comment there: Template_talk:Infobox_scientist#Influences/influenced. Artem.G ( talk) 16:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lunar distance (astronomy)#Requested move 23 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping ( talk) 22:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
There is a deletion discussion for List of exoplanets with Bayer designations. Fdfexoex ( talk) 21:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Neptunian desert was recently moved to Neptunian Desert. Now there is a discussion to move it back at Talk:Neptunian Desert. Fdfexoex ( talk) 21:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
In the next couple of months I will be helping to run some training sessions on behalf of WMF(UK) for members of the International Astronomical Union and Max Planck Institute on how to contribute to Wikipedia. I would like to invite WikiProject Astronomy members to submit any suggestions of points specific to this field that I ought to be aware of, or to raise during that training; any pitfalls professionals need to avoid, or pointers to identifying key topics for improvement or creation. Any other ideas, concerns or suggestions are also welcome. My rough notes to date on planning these sessions can be found at User:Nick Moyes/training. It includes a Google slides presentation that I plan to use, which is also under construction. Many thanks, Nick Moyes ( talk) 21:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Not so long ago I noticed that the computational side of astrophysics and cosmology on Wikipedia is extremely incomplete and lacks several articles, templates, and maintenance in general. (Latter is not surprising as the Cosmology task force is inactive...) As someone, who's doing a PhD in this field, it was really surprising to me, since computational aspects of both fields are increasingly vital in astronomical research.
I noticed there is a Computational astrophysics article that writes a couple words about cosmology too, however it's far below the bare minimum. While there's a certain overlap between these two topics, I feel a definite difference should be made between astrophysics and cosmology and Wikipedia should also reflect that.
For this reason I have a couple propositions:
But first, I wanted to ask the community's opinion about any of this. While I see this topic is extremely important and vital in astronomical research nowadays, others may have a different opinion on the relevancy of this topic specifically on Wikipedia. Or, some may have some alternative solutions to my original problem statement.
-- Masterdesky ( talk) 15:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi im new here. What to do? moew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anotaomo ( talk • contribs) 06:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi im new here. What to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anotaomo ( talk • contribs) 06:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
I have nominated Kreutz sungrazer for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 04:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
The URL format for this source has recently changed, and approximately 2,000 incoming links will need to be updated. In the new format, hyphens are now underscores, and each planet has been given a numeric ID; for example, Kepler-62f is 1261. The template {{ Cite EPE}} can be used for linking to this website. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 16:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I want to create an article for the asteroid pair (458271) 2010 UM26 and 2010 RN221, but they have very similar orbital elements (down to several decimal places) and have only been studied together in publications (examples: (MPML) (Vokrouhlický) (Jewitt 2023)). Should I create a single article that includes both objects (title will be " (458271) 2010 UM26 and 2010 RN221") or should I create two separate articles for (458271) 2010 UM26 and 2010 RN221 individually? Not much is known about the individual asteroids other than their approximate sizes, shapes, and orbits; the biggest point of scientific interest is their very similar orbits and separation history according to the publications I listed earlier. Thanks. Nrco0e ( talk) 07:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Pleiades 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) 19:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Can anyone share an example URL request for the MPC's API, if it exists, or point to a resource describing such? They seem keen on having you go through python or some other interface, but I just want to scrape HTML the old fashioned way. I'm specifically looking for "Orbit type: Hilda", etc., which can be found here: MPC, but not here: JPL, nor here (JPL's API). I realize I can constrain the orbital elements myself, but would rather not have to do that for all the various orbit types. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 03:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Named minor planet | Provisional | This minor planet was named for... | Ref · Catalog |
---|---|---|---|
620307 Casanovas | 2002 QL149 | Description available (see ref). Please summarize in your own words. | IAU · 620307 |
I'm thinking of going though all the WGSBN Bulletin archives and placing a note (above) on all MoMP entries which have a description on a bulletin, but not yet on WP, and placing the page into a tracking category so that editors can more easily find missing descriptions. Comments and suggestions welcome. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 11:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
I recently created Amaterasu particle. Any help with expansion would be appreciated. Thriley ( talk) 13:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
@ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor planets: 624001–625000, the scope of which affects many of these list pages. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 11:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
& @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meanings of minor planet names: 623001–624000. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 23:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
...is underway at Template talk:Starbox begin#Broader redesign of apparent-magnitude and color-index entries. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 12:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chandrayaan programme#Requested move 22 November 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 17:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Many stars (for isntance) have been used in popular culture, fiction or film. Can for instance we add a section at Gamma Draconis where for instance we could list Ursula K. Le Guin's Planet of Exile which is set on a planet in that system? Perhaps this Wikiproject has discussed this sort of thing already. -- Evertype· ✆ 14:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
3 Juno 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. Nrco0e ( talk) 08:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
10 Hygiea 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. Nrco0e ( talk) 08:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
A user discovered a fatal error that will require the table in the sub-lists to be rebuilt from scratch. The reference column is offset, and some entries (such as the mass of Kepler-46b) are wrong. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 07:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
There's a new page about the GRSI_model and several astronomy/cosmology articles have new sections linking to Duer's work. I recall various pure-GR approaches in the past but I'm not familiar enough with that field to know whether any of them got any real traction. This one doesn't seem to have, and the papers are mostly self-cites (plus a very strong "this is wrong" critique that wasn't linked). It doesn't seem notable enough to be worthy of an article and subsections; anyone else familiar with this? - Parejkoj ( talk) 17:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
What do we think of adding JPL Small-Body Database SPK-ID (P716), Minor Planet Center body ID (P5736), and other relevant identifiers to the {{ Authority control}} template, in either the existing AC section "Other", or in a new section called "Scientific"?
{{ JPL small body}}, {{ NeoDys}}, and other templates exist, but they each require separate placement on each page, while {{ Authority control}} would be able to capture all current and future database inclusions, and automatically display them compactly at the bottom of the page. I'm not suggesting {{ Authority control}} replace {{ JPL small body}}, etc., since they provide much more info, but that {{ Authority control}} be used regardless.
Courtesy ping to Rfassbind ~ I hope he is well and chooses to return to editing. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 18:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
See
... an edit by which a new section -- (called "a suggestion for a small change") -- was added to the "Talk:" page for the [article about the] " Hertzsprung–Russell diagram".
Any comments? Mike Schwartz ( talk) 15:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello there! There are three articles that I think should be merged as their scope is mostly the same: X-ray telescope, X-ray space telescope, and X-ray astronomy detector. The second article also has a long list, that mostly duplicate List of X-ray space telescopes, and the list itself is mostly a duplicate of List_of_space_telescopes#X-ray. What do you think? Artem.G ( talk) 16:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Σ Eridani#Requested move 6 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 19:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Greetings,
is anyone interested in commenting on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kreutz sungrazer/archive1? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 08:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Solophi ( talk · contribs) inserted a further reading to a religious philosophy book published by Solophi as an "early reference" [1] at Hawking star ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an astrophysics article. This seems like advertising. I have deleted the link -- 65.92.247.66 ( talk) 05:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of natural satellites#Requested move 9 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 18:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:G Doradus#Requested move 1 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky ( talk) 01:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Escape velocity#Requested move 11 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 08:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a discussion about changing infobox colours for planets. Please join in the discussion here. Primefac ( talk) 20:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
1400+ articles (mostly asteroids, but also some comets, moons and TNOs) still had the infobox img size set locally from years ago when that was necessary. Mostly the number was just copied over from the sample box, which was at various times set from 250 to 265 px -- that is, they were mostly cruft. I stripped most of them out so that the template default size would be used. A question though is what default size would work best. I assume we'd want something almost the width of the info box; i.e., as big as possible without causing the info box to take up more space, but also accommodate ppl with vision impairments by sizing the img relative to the reader's pref rather than absolute pixels, which is deprecated for accessibility reasons. Scaling at 1.33 seems to work well. Is that okay? — kwami ( talk) 22:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi all. There is an ongoing discussion on whether the Planetary habitability in the Solar System article should have a section discussing the habitability of the Sun. Please join in here. CoronalMassAffection ( talk) 20:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I have nominated the image File:Neptune Full.jpg for Featured Picture delisting on Wikimedia Commons. Comments and votes are highly welcome. Nrco0e ( talk) 05:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi all! I would like to add Carl Sagan - plus some other notable figures - to the list of Academy of Achievement awardees. I’ll leave this to the discretion of other editors because I work for the organization. Talk:Academy_of_Achievement#Additional_Names_for_Awardees_Table Jarc12030 ( talk) 17:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
We now have articles for mega-Earth, super-Earth, and sub-Neptune. They seem a bit redundant. Praemonitus ( talk) 16:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Oppose merging Mega-Earths are more massive than super-Earths and indeed can be more massive than Neptune. Also sub-Neptunes are not necessarily anything like Neptune so are not always Mini-Neptunes. Some mega-Earths could be considered as Super-Neptunes and sub-Neptunes at the same time because they have a larger mass than Neptune but a smaller radius. Fdfexoex ( talk) 15:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
The article Cis-Neptunian object has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
This classification is seldom used by researchers, does not appear to be a consensus classification, and is largely redundant. On NASA ADS, only one search result for "cis-Neptunian object" is relevant to the term, out of four total results.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
I shall ping the active WikiProject contributors @ Kwamikagami, Double sharp, Kheider, Serendipodous, Headbomb, Ruslik0, Exoplanetaryscience, AstroChara, Tom.Reding, WolfmanSF, CactiStaccingCrane, LaundryPizza03, Praemonitus, XOR'easter, and C messier:. Nrco0e ( talk) 02:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Even after an arduous admin review and mass deletion about a year ago I am quite surprised that there are still a lot of pictures uploaded by this guy that are still used in many articles, like the Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall, Giant GRB Ring, Saraswati Supercluster, and U1.11, of which I have all removed from the articles.
Apparently, the mass deletion review did not heed Nrco0e's (another user that I also see some works being problematic) request of deleting all of this user's uploads, and so we still see a LOT of his misleading pictures. Keep in mind that even after all of this, he still uploads a lot of planet images as late as 15 August 2023, eight months after he was apprehended, which I am almost certain is made using a software like Universe Sandbox, of which he has not linked in the description.
A bit of help to remove the images uploaded by this guy to various astronomy articles, as well as to launch another mass deletion of his uploads in Commons that somehow got missed, to finally remove all the images lacking scientific merit once and for all.
Thoughts? SkyFlubbler ( talk) 16:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
God damnit! (pardon for profanity but NGGGGH!), after an hour of editing the nomination request, all of it got deleted by my stupid phone lagging. The files are too many (like probably there is 500 of them?). I think I will try again in draft before submitting. This will take a while. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 04:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Name conflicts with minor planets#Requested move 29 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. NasssaNser talk 10:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
I thought perhaps "Norma" was a cluster, so Norma Cluster should be named Norma cluster according to WP:NCCAPS. But I've found sources that used "Norma Cluster" and other that use "Norma cluster". So perhaps the proper name of the thing is "Norma Cluster"? Is there any astronomical naming convention source that says one way or another? Johnjbarton ( talk) 17:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Alpha Cephei#Requested move 4 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 16:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I put some redirects ( Betria and Gatria) in redirects for discussion. The discussion can be found in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 13#Betria. Everyone can join the discussion to decide the fate of these redirects. InTheAstronomy32 ( talk) 22:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of solar eclipses in antiquity#Requested move 16 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 13:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
It was my understanding that the Chandrasekhar limit concerns the maximum mass at the process of a star -> white dwarf transition. The end point is stable so the story ends.
Is Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit really analogous, meaning the max mass for star -> neutron star, end of story?
(I'm not really interested in the fine points of how these limits might be changed by better models, but rather just the concept they represent; these pages get edits that want the end points and cross the limits).
Ideal would be a ref. Johnjbarton ( talk) 02:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
There are three new requested moves at Talk:WD 2359−434, Talk:L 97-12 and Talk:PG 1047+003 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. InTheAstronomy32 ( talk) 16:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Some further input on Life_habitable_zones would be useful: the page looks like a WP:SYNTH list, with names that don't necessarily appear in the references and no obvious reason why it couldn't just be folded into Habitable_zone. - Parejkoj ( talk) 18:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Arlo James Barnes 23:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
I have nominated Galaxy for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 12:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Minor planet articles that might pass NASTRO, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. —
a smart kitten[
meow 04:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
draft:list of smallest named extraterrestrial craters lemme know what y'all think. Arlo James Barnes 09:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
It looks like not all of the constellation navboxes have been fully populated. The {{ Pegasus (constellation)}} navbox, for example, is lacking sections below the stars, including globular clusters and galaxies. (Compare to {{ Andromeda (constellation)}}.) Several such objects are listed at Pegasus (constellation)#Deep-sky objects. It can also include galaxies in Pegasus Galaxy and page links from Category:Pegasus (constellation). Praemonitus ( talk) 16:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
For some reason, in the Serpens article infobox there are two images depicting Serpens Caput. As Serpens is a constellation divided into two non-contiguous parts (Serpens Caput and Serpens Cauda), there are two images to represent the two parts, and there should be a third to represent both parts. However, the third image is already duplicating the image of Serpens Caput. On Wikipedia, we have this image which represents the constellation as a whole.
I tried to edit the article, but I couldn't replace the image. Apparently the images are predefined in {{ infobox constellation}}. InTheAstronomy32 ( talk) 19:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:WD 2359−434#Requested move 24 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 16:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
The subject phrase seems to be standard Astronomy lingo for a specific way of defining a galaxy diameter. I assume that this would be defined in an astronomy text. I have none. Any hints on a source for the definition?
Thanks. Johnjbarton ( talk) 04:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I am a little bit confused about Draft talk:Andrea Ferrara (astrophysicist) because a sourced page was moved to draft for what sounds like minor reasons that no other users visiting it pointed out (so they don't look critical). I usually don't add information unless it's on third-party sources so I am not going to add more content just because it's on an official website even if I know it's true.
So whoever wants to take care of it further, please do so. Alexmar983 ( talk) 00:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Just to be clear now User:Ldm1954 converted his request to this warning but this is not actually correct to me. I analyzed all sources for months, all other sources are almost from websites of university or institutions where he is actually working. I usualy do not add such content. It's fineI suppose for some of you, I agree that it's there but I focus mostly on content that it's also on third-party sources or peer-reviewed such as in publication. If User:Ldm1954 wants to be more specific and link here all sources he is referring to can add some of them if they are from a thirdpart.-- Alexmar983 ( talk) 00:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
After a protracted argument on the Dyson sphere talk page that seemed to be going nowhere, I decided to consolidate and restate the basic issues concerning this section in general, and one particular instance that has proven especially vexing, as I see them. I hope that members of this and other related WikiProjects might weigh in and give their opinions. P Aculeius ( talk) 18:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello. I am inviting you to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox galaxy for a possible change in some parameters, particularly galaxy diameters. Feel free to add comments. Thanks! SkyFlubbler ( talk) 18:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of July 16, 2186 (2nd nomination), which is within the scope of this WikiProject.
Primefac (
talk) 05:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm inclined to rate astronomy museums, documentaries, and education programs as of bottom importance. Do you agree? Examples include: Kepler Museum, Our Heavenly Bodies, Category:Astronomy education television series, Category:Astronomy museums, Category:Documentary television series about astronomy. Category:Planetaria are already of bottom importance. Praemonitus ( talk) 17:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Here's a candidate Education block for the importance scale:
Will this work? Praemonitus ( talk) 14:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
This is approaching a state in which the featured article review can be closed as kept, but could use some more attention. I recently left some review comments and was requested to leave a note here. Hog Farm Talk 02:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Template:Argo Navis (compact) has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
--
65.92.244.237 (
talk) 14:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)