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 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
OOOOk… sorry if this is un-cyclopedic but for the life of me I can’t remember this… there was a star, called “star of saint catherine” o “saint catherine’s star” because pilgrims going to saint Catherine’s monastery could see it right above the monastery, sparkling and twinkling… anyone knows what the proper name of this star is? I’m looking around on the web and can’t find it, and I have no access to my books for the next weeks… Well, sorry for the semi-unrelated matter, and thanks in advance! Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 15:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the answer but i'm almost sure it was a star, and not a planet... i'm looking it up right now though ;P, thank you! Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 15:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
YES! It's Canopus, thank you RJH! @ChiZeroOne eheheheheh well the important thing is i found the answer ;P i'll squeeze the info into the canopus article too ;P thank you all ! Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 15:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I just created a new article titled G. J. Toomer. Quite a large number of articles link to it, but it's very stubby. Do what you can to improve it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
There's a redirect Extrasolar system ... is this really an appropriate redirect? It points to exoplanet, and not planetary system or star system. Though, in I think, 2004, someone created a whole batch of now-deleted categories that categorized everything outside the Solar System into "extrasolar system", so even the linkage to planets is not automatic since that person from early 00's used a different definition. 65.95.15.144 ( talk) 07:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
There's a question about the Phobos & Deimos orbits at the Graphic Labs. The question is basically if the P&D orbits should pass closer to Jupiter. Reply here or there. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Feedback/Help is welcome. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The new article Lorenzo Iorio was deleted at AfD but then been resurrected through DRV. It seems to have a whole load of problems with sources and a potential conflict of interest. I've tagged a bunch of these and brought up several issues on the talk page; could someone familiar with either his science or the way we handle other articles on current academic astronomers take a look? I'd appreciate a second opinion. Thanks. Modest Genius talk 02:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
The article on Cygnus A states that it was discovered in 1939 by Grote Reber, but doesn't cite any sources. As far as i know/remember, Cygnus A was discovered by Baade and Minkowsky in 1952. I found this http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1999ApJ...525C.569B&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_VIEW&classic=YES Anyone more in the know could shed light on this? Thank you in advance! Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 14:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
"Cygnus A" is a name for a radio source, and the paper you linked to is about identication of optical sources related to radio sources, so one is the discovery of Cygnus A, the radio source, the other is the identification of the optical counterpart of the radio source. In your paper, the sources have already been discovered, so there is no "discovery of a new object" there, just the identification linking an optical object to a radio object. 65.93.13.129 ( talk) 05:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I see, thank you! Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 20:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I've created an article titled Ptolemy's table of chords. It is imperfect in its present form. Work on it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
FYI, I have nominated {{ WikiProject Space}} for deletion since the abolishment of WP:SPACE and the removal the template. The discussion is here. JJ98 ( Talk) 21:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
A very persistent IP editor keeps inserting references to an unrelated anime at Heat death of the universe ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). They're hopping between several IPs, so short of semi-protection there isn't much that can be done beyond reverting. More eyes would be helpful, as I'm sure they'll be back. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 19:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
There are other links in that section concerning fiction; shouldn't those be removed as well? Njardarlogar ( talk) 13:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Astrology is currently protected due to attempts to deny that it's a pseudoscience. Some of the people on the talk page appear to think they are approaching consensus to do the same once it goes off protection. Just a note in case anyone here wants to chime it. — kwami ( talk) 18:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
No matter what we say, every couple months a couple astrologers will get together and claim they have consensus to change it. Basically, I think it would be nice if some of the people on this project would keep it on their watch list to revert non-consensual changes. (Maybe you already do.) I don't expect people to counter the claims on the talk page point by point, which would be a waste of time, but when an alleged "consensus" is developed, it would be nice if a few would chime in and say this has been gone over many times before, and that the current article does reflect consensus. (Though of course any contributions in content would be useful, if you feel it's worth your time.) IOW, basically just policing the article and giving voice to the silent consensus. — kwami ( talk) 04:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{
citation}}, {{
cite journal}}, {{
cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id=
(or worse {{
arxiv|0123.4567}}
|url=
http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567
), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567
, likewise for |id=
and {{
JSTOR|0123456789}}
|url=
http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789
→ |jstor=0123456789
.
The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):
Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah just put the full path.
{{cite journal |author=R. O. Gray ''et al'' |year=2006 |title=Contributions to the Nearby Stars (NStars) Project: Spectroscopy of Stars Earlier than M0 within 40 parsecs: The Southern Sample |journal=Astronomy Journal |volume=132 |issue= |pages=161–170 |arxiv=astro-ph/0603770 |bibcode=2006AJ....132..161G |doi=10.1086/504637 }}
becomes
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help); Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
According to a report at the Fringe theories noticeboard, there is likely to be some enthusiastic editing regarding the influence of the moon on extreme weather and the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami. Opinions on a section recently added to Orbit of the Moon would be welcome at that article's talk page. Also see Supermoon. Johnuniq ( talk) 06:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Big Bang has been requested to be renamed, see Talk:Big Bang. -- 184.144.160.156 ( talk) 13:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I've made a request for a bot to try and guess bibcodes for the most popular astronomy journals / journals with the biggest presence in the ADSABS database. Feedback is welcome. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The List of molecules in interstellar space article contains several molecules that have only been found in circumstellar space. I think it would make sense to rename it to List of interstellar and circumstellar molecules. Before moving this article, I wanted to see if there were any issues you might have. Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 19:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Holy smokes, those citation edit bots are running amuck. This makes it difficult to monitor articles for vandalism. I hope they will be done soon.— RJH ( talk) 22:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Magnetic reconnection#Attempts To Delete Criticism Section could use some input from people familiar with magnetic reconnection and solar physics. Should it be treated as a well-established theory or a developing one? - 2/0 ( cont.) 18:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Taking a look at Special:WhatLinksHere/The Journal of Business reveals very odd results.
For example 90482 Orcus has
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)which is pure nonense. It should be
{{
cite arXiv}}
: |class=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)This seems to affect several infoboxes and is too systematic to be due to random vandalism. It's either a dedicate vandal, or a malfunctioning bot. Someone should look into this (and cleanup the mess, I've done a few, but this is a slow process) Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Supermoon keeps changing between "In astrology" and "In astronomy" every few hours. Any opinion on that? (It said "In astrology and astronomy" at one point) 184.144.166.85 ( talk) 13:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I just started it and could use a little help with the definition. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 02:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia community,
I am very ne wat thgis - just 1 month since registering for a username and findinmg it all a bit daunting. I have written what is intended as a major edit to append to 7604 Kridsadaporn in my user subpage Article draft folder.
I hope that any one that has a few spare moments can comment upon this draft - I am not confident enough to append to that stub as I feel there must be many things to consider or alter before it could be considered being worthy of the quality required to put into main-space articles.
The part that most worries me is perhaps the heading "Discovery and naming" - many Google/translate references to the Thai langauge - I don't know if Google/translate is an acceptable reference source for Wikipedia standards. If not, can I simply leave those references out and leave the text as is ??? - leaving it up to the reader to translate themselves if they need. The reference numbers [8] and [10] are bothering me most.
As mentioned I feel like a bull in a china shop - lacking the sofistication of experienced editors - as mentioned before, its been a single month since first registering at Wikipedia. Hope you can help me, please. --NehruR42 14:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NehruR42 ( talk • contribs)
I shouldn't be saying this, but I have added Gliese 745 to wikipedia. It's a binary red dwarf system in sagittarius. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clammybells ( talk • contribs) 09:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
{{ Red-dwarf-stub}} has been nominated to be renamed, see WP:SFD April 23. 65.94.45.160 ( talk) 10:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
This article is really unbalanced. It used to be called traditional star names, now it's just a section in the renamed article, except there is nothing else. It appears to have been a campaign last year by a user to remove "traditional name" from the titles of several star-related articles, because they are not "traditional in astronomy" (though, I think stars exist outside of astronomy terms as well... in culture, where there are traditions) 65.94.45.160 ( talk) 11:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planetarium hypothesis. Thanks. Jaque Hammer ( talk) 15:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Antigalaxy has been nominated for deletion. 65.94.45.160 ( talk) 06:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
SN 1054 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I came upon this on an "Articles for Translation" page. It is a somewhat awkward translation from French Wikipedia. In a perfect world, it would benefit from the attention of someone who knows both astronomy and French, but the next best thing would be some copy-editing by someone familiar with astronomical terms. Thanks, Jonathanwallace ( talk) 11:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Marion S. (Sally) Oey has been requested to be renamed to Sally Oey by someone claiming to be the astronomer herself. 64.229.100.153 ( talk) 04:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Someone added a flashing dot to the starmap on Epsilon Lyrae. Should we be using that? 64.229.100.153 ( talk) 06:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I just finished citing http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110516080124.htm in updates I applied to Gliese 581. ScienceDaily's article was based on something published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters. According to that ref, "Many now believe that Gliese 581 g may not exist at all. Instead, it may simply be a result of noise in the ultra-fine measurements of stellar 'wobble' needed to detect exoplanets in this system." I'm confident that this detail, once confirmed, will over time make its way into all the relevant articles. But I wanted to draw your attention to the use of File:Gliese581 2010.png in {{ Gliese 581}}. If current consensus questions planet g's existence, I think the template's image should either be removed or at least be switched back to File:Gliese581.png. Thanks. 67.101.6.194 ( talk) 19:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
An editor has posted a request for a Peer Review of the European Southern Observatory article. See Wikipedia:Peer review/European Southern Observatory/archive1. Regards, RJH ( talk) 22:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm posting here on the suggestion of RJH. I am writing a fairly substantial article on stellar core collapse. Because of the scope of this topic, its technical nature in parts, and its connections to numerous fields (physics, astronomy, cosmology) I would like to ask in advance for any users prepared to review it for accuracy, omissions, and "latest research findings" before I move it to mainspace. Would anyone interested or knowledgeable please let me know on my talk page. Estimated timeline - not less than 3 weeks and maybe more as I have a lot left to do before I would feel I've done "all I can".
Thanks for any help you can offer!
FT2 ( Talk | email) 00:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
with the 100th anniversary of AAVSO this year, it might be a good time to improve the article. The current "Astronomy" magazine has a profile on the organization. 65.95.13.213 ( talk) 21:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Guys, can you help expand NGC 4444? I found this a heavily tagged stub. I did some fixes and added some refs but I can't translate some of the astronomy data like coordinates and other stuff.-- Lenticel ( talk) 00:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Orphadeus has made a number of recent additions to Astronomy pages with links to intrinsic redshift/electric universe sites. I've reverted some of them, but a revision war appears to be starting at Metric_expansion_of_space. Suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parejkoj ( talk • contribs) 17:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
This is turning into a revert war, as Orphadeus has not heeded any of my comments on the talk page and continues to misinterpret papers and add non- WP:RS sources. My comments in Talk:Metric_expansion_of_space#Dissent appear to be entirely ignored. Suggestions? - Parejkoj ( talk) 16:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Orphadeus has now completely re-written Extinction_(astronomy) making it full of falsehoods, inaccuracies and misleading statements, and removing most of the valid scientific references and discussion. I have pointed some of these problems out on the talk page, but Orphadeus has not responded to any of my comments on the talk page, and has kept making the same inaccurate changes. Now what? - Parejkoj ( talk) 19:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
There's a dispute in progress at a new article: Center of gravity ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I think it would benefit from more participants (currently there are only three). Melchoir ( talk) 07:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
(Cross-posted from WT:PHYS.)
195.245.149.70 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) has recently made a series of edits to several cosmology articles, mostly concerning heat death and related concepts. It's hard for me to tell whether the edits are legitimate or not; if someone with expertise could look them over, that would be handy. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 16:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi all - just a heads-up that two new stub types relating to your project have just been created:
The first of these should greatly reduce the nmber of stubs loose in the main Category:Astronomy stubs and will be a subcategory of it - the second will be a subcategory of the existing Category:Moon stubs. Any help youn can give in moving articles over to the new stub types will be greatly appreciated, though much of it will be done by WP:WikiProject Stub sorting. If you've got any comments or questions, please drop a note at WT:WSS. Thanks - and I hope the new stub types are useful to you! Grutness... wha? 02:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I've put together a list of articles about astronomical observatories which so far don't have geographical coordinates added at User:The Anome/Observatories without coordinates. If you'd like to add coordinates to these articles, and don't know how to do this already, WP:COORD has advice about how to add them. -- The Anome ( talk) 13:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The usage of Super Nova is under discussion, see Talk:Darius Force.
65.94.47.63 ( talk) 06:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The map image in Solar eclipse of September 26, 2117 is just a red link. Maybe someone who knows how these images are made could do this one (it seems to be the only solar eclipse article with a missing map). -- Zundark ( talk) 12:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
An anon recently commented at Talk:Gamma-ray burst#PBH Evaporation claiming that there is now strong evidence that short-duration bursts are due to primordial black hole evaporation. The link they provide is to a conference paper, not a journal paper, and it doesn't appear to be a survey article (so it reflects one group's opinion rather than academic consensus). That said, astronomy is not my field. Would someone who follows the literature be willing to check to see if consensus has changed in the last few years, and comment at that thread? -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 06:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Gamma-ray burst is today's featured article, some more attention might want to be paid to it for the next few days. 65.94.47.63 ( talk) 05:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Heliosynchronous orbit ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been prodded for deletion. 65.94.47.63 ( talk) 06:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
History of Mars ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated for deletion. 65.94.47.63 ( talk) 05:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Please see:
Template talk:Infobox planet#Diagrams for orbits. Thanks!
—
V = IR (
Talk •
Contribs)
22:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I changed this article to a Start class as it did not seem to fit into the category of a Stub. I am currently working on it for references as it looks like a lot of the references were only placed once in the article by the previous editor(s). A second opinion on it would be nice though. Marx01 Tell me about it 00:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
It is currently rated stub. I think it should be upgraded to start. Also any feedback on the article (is it comprehensible/hopelessly confusing) would be much appreciated! Once I understood what an eclipse season was, eclipse frequency and cyclity made a whole lot more sense. -- TimL ( talk) 03:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The article Newcomb's formula has been nominated for deletion. Your expert recommendations are welcome as to whether this is a notable topic deserving an article by itself, or should redirect to another article – and if so, which one. -- Lambiam 19:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I just created an article, ULAS J1120+0641, about a newly reported quasar with the largest redshift ever measured. It is possible that a mention of this will shortly appear in the In the News section on the front page, so if there are any actual astronomers around who could give this a quick once-over to check for errors, it might perhaps be useful. Regards, Looie496 ( talk) 03:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
This new article GRB 090429B needs a review by somebody in Astronomy. Thanks. Safiel ( talk) 04:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
You might want to pay attention to Gamma-ray burst ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The article has been edited by User:Sehmeet singh ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), the primary author of GRB 090429B, who has repeatedly inserted mentions of it as the most distant object in the universe into the GRB article (not true, there's a z>10 galaxy that was announced a few months ago, which we have an article on). On recent edits [3] he's been using questionable quality references, and poorly cited references to support rewriting the article. 65.93.15.213 ( talk) 06:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I was reading a book about the origin of elements, and it was great reading. I looked for an article in WP that summarized the source of elements, but I could not find one. I see there are a few articles related to the topic: Nucleosynthesis, Big Bang nucleosynthesis, Stellar nucleosynthesis, and Supernova nucleosynthesis. But I was looking for a table/list that enumerated the elements and identified the process that generated them (at least, the most common process). Question: Is there such an article already in WP? Would such an article have merit? I've got a few sources already, but are there additional sources that others can recommend that cover the topic? Thanks. -- Noleander ( talk) 19:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
In the articles about neighbourhoods of the Sun, such as Local Interstellar Cloud, Local Bubble and Orion–Cygnus Arm, I think it would be a great improvement to include some kind of estimate on the number of stars in them. The LB article, for example, opens with an image that while aesthetically pleasing might give a layman the impression that the Sun and β CMa are the only stars there, which is of course terribly wrong. Now, I think I understand that the problem here is that we don't really know enough about these things to be able to say for sure. But even knowing if a star count is closer to 100, 103, 106 or 109 would be great information for those of us who constantly get lost in the vastness of our home galaxy. Perhaps what would be really interesting to know is the approximate proportion of all visible objects (or all objects above some threshold of apparent magnitude) that are located in the region in question. Just a suggestion from someone too ignorant to implement it himself. :) 85.226.206.229 ( talk) 11:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help) (which of course only plots stars that were included in their analysis, the true number would probably be at least ten times that many). The LIC is another issue, because it's not really a region within which stars reside, but a poorly-defined and very difficult to measure cloud of gas.This was brought up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#Astrology, but we though it could use a wider audience. A few users have started adding a lot of astrology stuff to articles about stars, beginning with Algol (see the long discussion at Talk:Algol). User:MakeSense64 noticed some pre-discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astrology#Algol and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astrology#Are the fixed star pages of sole interest to astronomers and not astrologers?. Could some other folks please comment? I pointed out a page specifically devoted to Stars in astrology, but they want to start including such things on the regular pages, which as MakeSense64 pointed out at the bottom of Talk:Algol#Revert, is a significant change from the way other astronomy pages are handled. - Parejkoj ( talk) 18:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Is the ISS as bright as Venus, Brighter or comparable ? Is looking through a telescope at the ISS even astronomy ? is it an astronomical object ? We could use some help here. Anyone got 10 minutes ? Please come to the ISS talk page to help. Penyulap talk 15:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated International Space Station for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Please understand, this is about an effort to improve the article, and get some new blood and new ideas into this article. Penyulap talk 15:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
It's my first asteroid article. Could someone please give it a quick look-see? Many thanks if you can. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 17:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Some editors here may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Eclipses, which is currently undergoing revival. Cheers, Mlm42 ( talk) 20:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated Coordinated Universal Time as a good article. Go to the talk page to evaluate it or offer your views. See the topmost box for a link on how to evaluate the article. Jc3s5h ( talk) 20:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The JCW compilation updated a while ago. Here's the top-cited missing journals that are astronomy-related.
If you're interested to help, Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide has some guidance about how to write an article on journals. Any help you can give would be much appreciated at WP:JOURNALS. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
A number of the articles on Asteroids could do with their hardcoded infoboxes replaced with a version using {{ Infobox planet}}. I've tagged them on the talk pages using {{ Newinfobox}} and the following link lists them all. -- WOSlinker ( talk) 22:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I created this early, but I'm certainly no expert on nucleosynthesis. It would be nice if people could take a glance at it (are there missing articles? does the structure of the book make sense? etc...) and leave feedback at Book talk:Nucleosynthesis . Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
This had ben a "child" project of WikiProject Space which is now defunct and has apparently become WikiProject Astronomy. Thus I have made WikiProject Eclipses a subproject of WikiProject Astronomy. This only shows up in categorization for now, and that is fine. -- TimL ( talk) 20:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
A deletion discussion has been started at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William D. Ferris. Yoninah ( talk) 22:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Is it really needed to create separate crater infobox for Venus and Mercury? Bulwersator ( talk) 11:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
So I suggest to merge "Infobox XXXX crater" to Template:Infobox extraterrestrial impact site as Template:Infobox terrestrial impact site is completely different for following reasons:
There is one problem - "colongitude". There are two solutions:
Opinions? I will invite editors from successful deletion discussion over "Infobox crater" and template creators but I prefer to check, maybe it is competely wrong idea. -- sorry for my poor English, Bulwersator ( talk) 07:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
{{Infobox extraterrestrial impact site}}
is perhaps an over-long name.
Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing);
Andy's talk;
Andy's edits
14:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
{{Infobox impact site}}
as base infobox and {{Infobox terrestrial impact site}}
, maybe {{Infobox lunar impact site}}
as specialized variants?
Bulwersator (
talk)
15:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Ophiuchus#Meaning of zodiacal longitude and sign of the zodiac and indicate if you think the term "zodiacal longitude" means anything at all, and whether the meaning of "sign of the zodiac" is well enough defined to be used as it currently is in the article. Jc3s5h ( talk) 18:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I just finished a version of an article on the potential supernova impostor SN 1961V. I'm not that knowledgeable about astronomy so I'd appreciate it if the more knowledge individual (presumably people here) could take a quick look and help correct any egregious errors. JoshuaZ ( talk) 00:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
can anyone please have a look at the Lemma of the article S/2011 P 1? The designation given there is wrong, as Pluto is no longer considered a Planet. With Pluto being a dwarf planet, the correct designation is "S/2011 (134340) 1". This designation is also confirmed in the IAU release on the discovery of this moon [4]. As IAU is the only authority to asign these provisional designations, the article should be named this way. Please see also Astronomical naming conventions#Natural satellites of planets on this topic. Thanks, -- Spiritus Rector ( talk) 08:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
There are two separate articles, Zeta Apodis and Z Apodis.
It isn't clear if these are two different things.
There is a further confusion, because Ζ Apodis - that is, with a greek Ζ, not a letter Z - redirects to the first one.
If they should be two separate articles, some kind of hatnote might be helpful, such as; "Ζ Apodis" (with the Greek letter Zeta) redirects here. For the star in the constellation of Apus, see Z Apodis (with the letter Z).
If, however, they're the same subect, some kind of merge might be more appropriate.
Could someone who understands such things please sort it out?
Note, this comes from a helpdesk query, [5]. Chzz ► 08:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Three of our articles, moonlight, daylight and lux say that the light of a full moon can attain a level of 1 lux when overhead at tropical latitudes. They all cite the same reference for this claim: "Bunning, Erwin; and Moser, Ilse (April 1969).Interference of moonlight with the photoperiodic measurement of time by plants, and their adaptive reaction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 62 (4): 1018–1022. [9]." That paper says "With the altitude of the moon at 60°, the intensity may reach 0.7 lx.6 With the moon at still higher altitudes in tropical or sub tropical regions, the maximum intensity may reach 1 lx." For the 0.7 lux claim, Bunning and Moser reference a 268 page book, (6) "Sauberer, F. , and O. Hrtel, Pflanze und Strahlung (Leipzig: Akad. Verl. Ges., 1959), p.12."
Other sources give a maximum value for moonlight in the 0.2 to 0.267 lux range, e.g. [10]. The value seems to be of most interest in biology, for the study of light induced behaviors in plants and animals. A Google Scholar search on "moonlight lux" gives many such biology papers a wide range of moonlight values (one as high as 2.2 lux [11]). It there an authoritative source for this number in the astronomical literature? Surely we must have better instrumentation and data than was available in 1959. Not surprisingly, a regular Google search on "moonlight intensity" gives our moonlight article as the top pick. Should we leave this possible dubious claim in the three articles?-- agr ( talk) 02:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Universe Today ("a space and astronomy news site") has been nominated for deletion. I have no view on that, but editors with relevant knowledge might like to comment. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Feedback would be appreciated here. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
There is an RFC on the addition of identifier links to citations by bots. Please comment. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I have rescued from the speedy-deletion pile this article, which was started in February and left in an untidy and incomplete state. I have found a reference which shows it is not a hoax, and it has been reduced to a stub, which could probably be expanded by someone better-qualified. The original author gave it a long list of categories; it would be useful if someone could check whether they all really apply. JohnCD ( talk) 18:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#comet_names, regarding the usage of hyphens or dashes in comet names. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 16:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I just threw up an article on the newly discovered supernova PTF 11kly which I believe to be noteworthy, and something that will attract attention in the next few days (and likely for a long time after). I'm not very much up with astronomy though, so it's just a stub, and I thought I'd let others know! Mostlyharmless ( talk) 08:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
PSR J1719-1438 is in the news because it has a planet said to be made of diamond. The article needs an infobox, which is beyond my ability. Anyone? Speciate ( talk) 02:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Question at Eris talk page. I reverted the POV that Eris is a DO pending discussion here. — kwami ( talk) 07:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the proper location to bring this up, but there seems to be widespread confusion in Astronomy article between the term "equinox" and the term "epoch" when related to coordinates of astronomical objects. The distinction is relatively simple. Equinox refers to the precession of the coordinate system used. Epoch refers to the timing of an event such as an observation. The coordinate system we currently use J2000, uses the equinox as defined at epoch J2000 (= 2000 Jan 1, 12h TT).
The distinction is important, for example in the Hipparcos catalog. In it the coordinate system is equinox J2000 but the epoch of the coordinates is J1991.25. In any other catalog that includes proper motion the epoch is important. It's also important to variable stars, pulsars, neutrino detections from supernovae, etc. I've seen a lot of people wrongly precess coordinates when given a set with an observation epoch attached.
Given the widespread misuse, I know it's not an easy fix. SETIGuy ( talk) 03:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
It strikes me that "equinox" involves the reader selecting from many context sensitive meanings, and the correct meaning actually involves a great deal of shorthand. Apparently, for the meaning being discussed here, "equinox" must take one of a few values generally recognized by the astronomical community, one of which is J2000, and it involves many things other than the direction of the equinox and the time, such as whether the direction of the celestial north pole neglects nutation. Perhaps a term like "standard coordinate frame" would be more appropriate for a general readership. Jc3s5h ( talk) 20:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Mass was off by an order of magnitude according to the link provided in the article. Apparently a corrected error, but both versions lie outside the norm.
A Jan. 2009 archive of the page jibes with our old figures. It has:
In today's version, the order of magnitude has been iterated by one, a number approximated by their 2010 calculations:
The old density was amazingly low (even for a rubble pile), and the corrected density incredibly high (almost solid iron). The greater error bar on the 2011 data though makes it look more reasonable; I suspect (31) may lie near the lower end of the measurement and yet be a solid body. Anyway, just a heads up. — kwami ( talk) 05:58, 3 September 2011 (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 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
OOOOk… sorry if this is un-cyclopedic but for the life of me I can’t remember this… there was a star, called “star of saint catherine” o “saint catherine’s star” because pilgrims going to saint Catherine’s monastery could see it right above the monastery, sparkling and twinkling… anyone knows what the proper name of this star is? I’m looking around on the web and can’t find it, and I have no access to my books for the next weeks… Well, sorry for the semi-unrelated matter, and thanks in advance! Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 15:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the answer but i'm almost sure it was a star, and not a planet... i'm looking it up right now though ;P, thank you! Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 15:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
YES! It's Canopus, thank you RJH! @ChiZeroOne eheheheheh well the important thing is i found the answer ;P i'll squeeze the info into the canopus article too ;P thank you all ! Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 15:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I just created a new article titled G. J. Toomer. Quite a large number of articles link to it, but it's very stubby. Do what you can to improve it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
There's a redirect Extrasolar system ... is this really an appropriate redirect? It points to exoplanet, and not planetary system or star system. Though, in I think, 2004, someone created a whole batch of now-deleted categories that categorized everything outside the Solar System into "extrasolar system", so even the linkage to planets is not automatic since that person from early 00's used a different definition. 65.95.15.144 ( talk) 07:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
There's a question about the Phobos & Deimos orbits at the Graphic Labs. The question is basically if the P&D orbits should pass closer to Jupiter. Reply here or there. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Feedback/Help is welcome. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The new article Lorenzo Iorio was deleted at AfD but then been resurrected through DRV. It seems to have a whole load of problems with sources and a potential conflict of interest. I've tagged a bunch of these and brought up several issues on the talk page; could someone familiar with either his science or the way we handle other articles on current academic astronomers take a look? I'd appreciate a second opinion. Thanks. Modest Genius talk 02:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
The article on Cygnus A states that it was discovered in 1939 by Grote Reber, but doesn't cite any sources. As far as i know/remember, Cygnus A was discovered by Baade and Minkowsky in 1952. I found this http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1999ApJ...525C.569B&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_VIEW&classic=YES Anyone more in the know could shed light on this? Thank you in advance! Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 14:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
"Cygnus A" is a name for a radio source, and the paper you linked to is about identication of optical sources related to radio sources, so one is the discovery of Cygnus A, the radio source, the other is the identification of the optical counterpart of the radio source. In your paper, the sources have already been discovered, so there is no "discovery of a new object" there, just the identification linking an optical object to a radio object. 65.93.13.129 ( talk) 05:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I see, thank you! Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 20:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I've created an article titled Ptolemy's table of chords. It is imperfect in its present form. Work on it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
FYI, I have nominated {{ WikiProject Space}} for deletion since the abolishment of WP:SPACE and the removal the template. The discussion is here. JJ98 ( Talk) 21:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
A very persistent IP editor keeps inserting references to an unrelated anime at Heat death of the universe ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). They're hopping between several IPs, so short of semi-protection there isn't much that can be done beyond reverting. More eyes would be helpful, as I'm sure they'll be back. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 19:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
There are other links in that section concerning fiction; shouldn't those be removed as well? Njardarlogar ( talk) 13:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Astrology is currently protected due to attempts to deny that it's a pseudoscience. Some of the people on the talk page appear to think they are approaching consensus to do the same once it goes off protection. Just a note in case anyone here wants to chime it. — kwami ( talk) 18:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
No matter what we say, every couple months a couple astrologers will get together and claim they have consensus to change it. Basically, I think it would be nice if some of the people on this project would keep it on their watch list to revert non-consensual changes. (Maybe you already do.) I don't expect people to counter the claims on the talk page point by point, which would be a waste of time, but when an alleged "consensus" is developed, it would be nice if a few would chime in and say this has been gone over many times before, and that the current article does reflect consensus. (Though of course any contributions in content would be useful, if you feel it's worth your time.) IOW, basically just policing the article and giving voice to the silent consensus. — kwami ( talk) 04:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{
citation}}, {{
cite journal}}, {{
cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id=
(or worse {{
arxiv|0123.4567}}
|url=
http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567
), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567
, likewise for |id=
and {{
JSTOR|0123456789}}
|url=
http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789
→ |jstor=0123456789
.
The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):
Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah just put the full path.
{{cite journal |author=R. O. Gray ''et al'' |year=2006 |title=Contributions to the Nearby Stars (NStars) Project: Spectroscopy of Stars Earlier than M0 within 40 parsecs: The Southern Sample |journal=Astronomy Journal |volume=132 |issue= |pages=161–170 |arxiv=astro-ph/0603770 |bibcode=2006AJ....132..161G |doi=10.1086/504637 }}
becomes
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help); Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
According to a report at the Fringe theories noticeboard, there is likely to be some enthusiastic editing regarding the influence of the moon on extreme weather and the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami. Opinions on a section recently added to Orbit of the Moon would be welcome at that article's talk page. Also see Supermoon. Johnuniq ( talk) 06:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Big Bang has been requested to be renamed, see Talk:Big Bang. -- 184.144.160.156 ( talk) 13:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I've made a request for a bot to try and guess bibcodes for the most popular astronomy journals / journals with the biggest presence in the ADSABS database. Feedback is welcome. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The List of molecules in interstellar space article contains several molecules that have only been found in circumstellar space. I think it would make sense to rename it to List of interstellar and circumstellar molecules. Before moving this article, I wanted to see if there were any issues you might have. Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 19:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Holy smokes, those citation edit bots are running amuck. This makes it difficult to monitor articles for vandalism. I hope they will be done soon.— RJH ( talk) 22:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Magnetic reconnection#Attempts To Delete Criticism Section could use some input from people familiar with magnetic reconnection and solar physics. Should it be treated as a well-established theory or a developing one? - 2/0 ( cont.) 18:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Taking a look at Special:WhatLinksHere/The Journal of Business reveals very odd results.
For example 90482 Orcus has
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)which is pure nonense. It should be
{{
cite arXiv}}
: |class=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)This seems to affect several infoboxes and is too systematic to be due to random vandalism. It's either a dedicate vandal, or a malfunctioning bot. Someone should look into this (and cleanup the mess, I've done a few, but this is a slow process) Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Supermoon keeps changing between "In astrology" and "In astronomy" every few hours. Any opinion on that? (It said "In astrology and astronomy" at one point) 184.144.166.85 ( talk) 13:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I just started it and could use a little help with the definition. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 02:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia community,
I am very ne wat thgis - just 1 month since registering for a username and findinmg it all a bit daunting. I have written what is intended as a major edit to append to 7604 Kridsadaporn in my user subpage Article draft folder.
I hope that any one that has a few spare moments can comment upon this draft - I am not confident enough to append to that stub as I feel there must be many things to consider or alter before it could be considered being worthy of the quality required to put into main-space articles.
The part that most worries me is perhaps the heading "Discovery and naming" - many Google/translate references to the Thai langauge - I don't know if Google/translate is an acceptable reference source for Wikipedia standards. If not, can I simply leave those references out and leave the text as is ??? - leaving it up to the reader to translate themselves if they need. The reference numbers [8] and [10] are bothering me most.
As mentioned I feel like a bull in a china shop - lacking the sofistication of experienced editors - as mentioned before, its been a single month since first registering at Wikipedia. Hope you can help me, please. --NehruR42 14:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NehruR42 ( talk • contribs)
I shouldn't be saying this, but I have added Gliese 745 to wikipedia. It's a binary red dwarf system in sagittarius. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clammybells ( talk • contribs) 09:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
{{ Red-dwarf-stub}} has been nominated to be renamed, see WP:SFD April 23. 65.94.45.160 ( talk) 10:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
This article is really unbalanced. It used to be called traditional star names, now it's just a section in the renamed article, except there is nothing else. It appears to have been a campaign last year by a user to remove "traditional name" from the titles of several star-related articles, because they are not "traditional in astronomy" (though, I think stars exist outside of astronomy terms as well... in culture, where there are traditions) 65.94.45.160 ( talk) 11:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planetarium hypothesis. Thanks. Jaque Hammer ( talk) 15:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Antigalaxy has been nominated for deletion. 65.94.45.160 ( talk) 06:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
SN 1054 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I came upon this on an "Articles for Translation" page. It is a somewhat awkward translation from French Wikipedia. In a perfect world, it would benefit from the attention of someone who knows both astronomy and French, but the next best thing would be some copy-editing by someone familiar with astronomical terms. Thanks, Jonathanwallace ( talk) 11:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Marion S. (Sally) Oey has been requested to be renamed to Sally Oey by someone claiming to be the astronomer herself. 64.229.100.153 ( talk) 04:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Someone added a flashing dot to the starmap on Epsilon Lyrae. Should we be using that? 64.229.100.153 ( talk) 06:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I just finished citing http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110516080124.htm in updates I applied to Gliese 581. ScienceDaily's article was based on something published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters. According to that ref, "Many now believe that Gliese 581 g may not exist at all. Instead, it may simply be a result of noise in the ultra-fine measurements of stellar 'wobble' needed to detect exoplanets in this system." I'm confident that this detail, once confirmed, will over time make its way into all the relevant articles. But I wanted to draw your attention to the use of File:Gliese581 2010.png in {{ Gliese 581}}. If current consensus questions planet g's existence, I think the template's image should either be removed or at least be switched back to File:Gliese581.png. Thanks. 67.101.6.194 ( talk) 19:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
An editor has posted a request for a Peer Review of the European Southern Observatory article. See Wikipedia:Peer review/European Southern Observatory/archive1. Regards, RJH ( talk) 22:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm posting here on the suggestion of RJH. I am writing a fairly substantial article on stellar core collapse. Because of the scope of this topic, its technical nature in parts, and its connections to numerous fields (physics, astronomy, cosmology) I would like to ask in advance for any users prepared to review it for accuracy, omissions, and "latest research findings" before I move it to mainspace. Would anyone interested or knowledgeable please let me know on my talk page. Estimated timeline - not less than 3 weeks and maybe more as I have a lot left to do before I would feel I've done "all I can".
Thanks for any help you can offer!
FT2 ( Talk | email) 00:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
with the 100th anniversary of AAVSO this year, it might be a good time to improve the article. The current "Astronomy" magazine has a profile on the organization. 65.95.13.213 ( talk) 21:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Guys, can you help expand NGC 4444? I found this a heavily tagged stub. I did some fixes and added some refs but I can't translate some of the astronomy data like coordinates and other stuff.-- Lenticel ( talk) 00:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Orphadeus has made a number of recent additions to Astronomy pages with links to intrinsic redshift/electric universe sites. I've reverted some of them, but a revision war appears to be starting at Metric_expansion_of_space. Suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parejkoj ( talk • contribs) 17:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
This is turning into a revert war, as Orphadeus has not heeded any of my comments on the talk page and continues to misinterpret papers and add non- WP:RS sources. My comments in Talk:Metric_expansion_of_space#Dissent appear to be entirely ignored. Suggestions? - Parejkoj ( talk) 16:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Orphadeus has now completely re-written Extinction_(astronomy) making it full of falsehoods, inaccuracies and misleading statements, and removing most of the valid scientific references and discussion. I have pointed some of these problems out on the talk page, but Orphadeus has not responded to any of my comments on the talk page, and has kept making the same inaccurate changes. Now what? - Parejkoj ( talk) 19:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
There's a dispute in progress at a new article: Center of gravity ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I think it would benefit from more participants (currently there are only three). Melchoir ( talk) 07:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
(Cross-posted from WT:PHYS.)
195.245.149.70 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) has recently made a series of edits to several cosmology articles, mostly concerning heat death and related concepts. It's hard for me to tell whether the edits are legitimate or not; if someone with expertise could look them over, that would be handy. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 16:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi all - just a heads-up that two new stub types relating to your project have just been created:
The first of these should greatly reduce the nmber of stubs loose in the main Category:Astronomy stubs and will be a subcategory of it - the second will be a subcategory of the existing Category:Moon stubs. Any help youn can give in moving articles over to the new stub types will be greatly appreciated, though much of it will be done by WP:WikiProject Stub sorting. If you've got any comments or questions, please drop a note at WT:WSS. Thanks - and I hope the new stub types are useful to you! Grutness... wha? 02:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I've put together a list of articles about astronomical observatories which so far don't have geographical coordinates added at User:The Anome/Observatories without coordinates. If you'd like to add coordinates to these articles, and don't know how to do this already, WP:COORD has advice about how to add them. -- The Anome ( talk) 13:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The usage of Super Nova is under discussion, see Talk:Darius Force.
65.94.47.63 ( talk) 06:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The map image in Solar eclipse of September 26, 2117 is just a red link. Maybe someone who knows how these images are made could do this one (it seems to be the only solar eclipse article with a missing map). -- Zundark ( talk) 12:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
An anon recently commented at Talk:Gamma-ray burst#PBH Evaporation claiming that there is now strong evidence that short-duration bursts are due to primordial black hole evaporation. The link they provide is to a conference paper, not a journal paper, and it doesn't appear to be a survey article (so it reflects one group's opinion rather than academic consensus). That said, astronomy is not my field. Would someone who follows the literature be willing to check to see if consensus has changed in the last few years, and comment at that thread? -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 06:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Gamma-ray burst is today's featured article, some more attention might want to be paid to it for the next few days. 65.94.47.63 ( talk) 05:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Heliosynchronous orbit ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been prodded for deletion. 65.94.47.63 ( talk) 06:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
History of Mars ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated for deletion. 65.94.47.63 ( talk) 05:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Please see:
Template talk:Infobox planet#Diagrams for orbits. Thanks!
—
V = IR (
Talk •
Contribs)
22:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I changed this article to a Start class as it did not seem to fit into the category of a Stub. I am currently working on it for references as it looks like a lot of the references were only placed once in the article by the previous editor(s). A second opinion on it would be nice though. Marx01 Tell me about it 00:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
It is currently rated stub. I think it should be upgraded to start. Also any feedback on the article (is it comprehensible/hopelessly confusing) would be much appreciated! Once I understood what an eclipse season was, eclipse frequency and cyclity made a whole lot more sense. -- TimL ( talk) 03:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The article Newcomb's formula has been nominated for deletion. Your expert recommendations are welcome as to whether this is a notable topic deserving an article by itself, or should redirect to another article – and if so, which one. -- Lambiam 19:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I just created an article, ULAS J1120+0641, about a newly reported quasar with the largest redshift ever measured. It is possible that a mention of this will shortly appear in the In the News section on the front page, so if there are any actual astronomers around who could give this a quick once-over to check for errors, it might perhaps be useful. Regards, Looie496 ( talk) 03:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
This new article GRB 090429B needs a review by somebody in Astronomy. Thanks. Safiel ( talk) 04:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
You might want to pay attention to Gamma-ray burst ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The article has been edited by User:Sehmeet singh ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), the primary author of GRB 090429B, who has repeatedly inserted mentions of it as the most distant object in the universe into the GRB article (not true, there's a z>10 galaxy that was announced a few months ago, which we have an article on). On recent edits [3] he's been using questionable quality references, and poorly cited references to support rewriting the article. 65.93.15.213 ( talk) 06:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I was reading a book about the origin of elements, and it was great reading. I looked for an article in WP that summarized the source of elements, but I could not find one. I see there are a few articles related to the topic: Nucleosynthesis, Big Bang nucleosynthesis, Stellar nucleosynthesis, and Supernova nucleosynthesis. But I was looking for a table/list that enumerated the elements and identified the process that generated them (at least, the most common process). Question: Is there such an article already in WP? Would such an article have merit? I've got a few sources already, but are there additional sources that others can recommend that cover the topic? Thanks. -- Noleander ( talk) 19:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
In the articles about neighbourhoods of the Sun, such as Local Interstellar Cloud, Local Bubble and Orion–Cygnus Arm, I think it would be a great improvement to include some kind of estimate on the number of stars in them. The LB article, for example, opens with an image that while aesthetically pleasing might give a layman the impression that the Sun and β CMa are the only stars there, which is of course terribly wrong. Now, I think I understand that the problem here is that we don't really know enough about these things to be able to say for sure. But even knowing if a star count is closer to 100, 103, 106 or 109 would be great information for those of us who constantly get lost in the vastness of our home galaxy. Perhaps what would be really interesting to know is the approximate proportion of all visible objects (or all objects above some threshold of apparent magnitude) that are located in the region in question. Just a suggestion from someone too ignorant to implement it himself. :) 85.226.206.229 ( talk) 11:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help) (which of course only plots stars that were included in their analysis, the true number would probably be at least ten times that many). The LIC is another issue, because it's not really a region within which stars reside, but a poorly-defined and very difficult to measure cloud of gas.This was brought up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#Astrology, but we though it could use a wider audience. A few users have started adding a lot of astrology stuff to articles about stars, beginning with Algol (see the long discussion at Talk:Algol). User:MakeSense64 noticed some pre-discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astrology#Algol and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astrology#Are the fixed star pages of sole interest to astronomers and not astrologers?. Could some other folks please comment? I pointed out a page specifically devoted to Stars in astrology, but they want to start including such things on the regular pages, which as MakeSense64 pointed out at the bottom of Talk:Algol#Revert, is a significant change from the way other astronomy pages are handled. - Parejkoj ( talk) 18:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Is the ISS as bright as Venus, Brighter or comparable ? Is looking through a telescope at the ISS even astronomy ? is it an astronomical object ? We could use some help here. Anyone got 10 minutes ? Please come to the ISS talk page to help. Penyulap talk 15:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated International Space Station for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Please understand, this is about an effort to improve the article, and get some new blood and new ideas into this article. Penyulap talk 15:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
It's my first asteroid article. Could someone please give it a quick look-see? Many thanks if you can. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 17:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Some editors here may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Eclipses, which is currently undergoing revival. Cheers, Mlm42 ( talk) 20:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated Coordinated Universal Time as a good article. Go to the talk page to evaluate it or offer your views. See the topmost box for a link on how to evaluate the article. Jc3s5h ( talk) 20:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The JCW compilation updated a while ago. Here's the top-cited missing journals that are astronomy-related.
If you're interested to help, Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide has some guidance about how to write an article on journals. Any help you can give would be much appreciated at WP:JOURNALS. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
A number of the articles on Asteroids could do with their hardcoded infoboxes replaced with a version using {{ Infobox planet}}. I've tagged them on the talk pages using {{ Newinfobox}} and the following link lists them all. -- WOSlinker ( talk) 22:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I created this early, but I'm certainly no expert on nucleosynthesis. It would be nice if people could take a glance at it (are there missing articles? does the structure of the book make sense? etc...) and leave feedback at Book talk:Nucleosynthesis . Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
This had ben a "child" project of WikiProject Space which is now defunct and has apparently become WikiProject Astronomy. Thus I have made WikiProject Eclipses a subproject of WikiProject Astronomy. This only shows up in categorization for now, and that is fine. -- TimL ( talk) 20:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
A deletion discussion has been started at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William D. Ferris. Yoninah ( talk) 22:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Is it really needed to create separate crater infobox for Venus and Mercury? Bulwersator ( talk) 11:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
So I suggest to merge "Infobox XXXX crater" to Template:Infobox extraterrestrial impact site as Template:Infobox terrestrial impact site is completely different for following reasons:
There is one problem - "colongitude". There are two solutions:
Opinions? I will invite editors from successful deletion discussion over "Infobox crater" and template creators but I prefer to check, maybe it is competely wrong idea. -- sorry for my poor English, Bulwersator ( talk) 07:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
{{Infobox extraterrestrial impact site}}
is perhaps an over-long name.
Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing);
Andy's talk;
Andy's edits
14:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
{{Infobox impact site}}
as base infobox and {{Infobox terrestrial impact site}}
, maybe {{Infobox lunar impact site}}
as specialized variants?
Bulwersator (
talk)
15:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Ophiuchus#Meaning of zodiacal longitude and sign of the zodiac and indicate if you think the term "zodiacal longitude" means anything at all, and whether the meaning of "sign of the zodiac" is well enough defined to be used as it currently is in the article. Jc3s5h ( talk) 18:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I just finished a version of an article on the potential supernova impostor SN 1961V. I'm not that knowledgeable about astronomy so I'd appreciate it if the more knowledge individual (presumably people here) could take a quick look and help correct any egregious errors. JoshuaZ ( talk) 00:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
can anyone please have a look at the Lemma of the article S/2011 P 1? The designation given there is wrong, as Pluto is no longer considered a Planet. With Pluto being a dwarf planet, the correct designation is "S/2011 (134340) 1". This designation is also confirmed in the IAU release on the discovery of this moon [4]. As IAU is the only authority to asign these provisional designations, the article should be named this way. Please see also Astronomical naming conventions#Natural satellites of planets on this topic. Thanks, -- Spiritus Rector ( talk) 08:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
There are two separate articles, Zeta Apodis and Z Apodis.
It isn't clear if these are two different things.
There is a further confusion, because Ζ Apodis - that is, with a greek Ζ, not a letter Z - redirects to the first one.
If they should be two separate articles, some kind of hatnote might be helpful, such as; "Ζ Apodis" (with the Greek letter Zeta) redirects here. For the star in the constellation of Apus, see Z Apodis (with the letter Z).
If, however, they're the same subect, some kind of merge might be more appropriate.
Could someone who understands such things please sort it out?
Note, this comes from a helpdesk query, [5]. Chzz ► 08:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Three of our articles, moonlight, daylight and lux say that the light of a full moon can attain a level of 1 lux when overhead at tropical latitudes. They all cite the same reference for this claim: "Bunning, Erwin; and Moser, Ilse (April 1969).Interference of moonlight with the photoperiodic measurement of time by plants, and their adaptive reaction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 62 (4): 1018–1022. [9]." That paper says "With the altitude of the moon at 60°, the intensity may reach 0.7 lx.6 With the moon at still higher altitudes in tropical or sub tropical regions, the maximum intensity may reach 1 lx." For the 0.7 lux claim, Bunning and Moser reference a 268 page book, (6) "Sauberer, F. , and O. Hrtel, Pflanze und Strahlung (Leipzig: Akad. Verl. Ges., 1959), p.12."
Other sources give a maximum value for moonlight in the 0.2 to 0.267 lux range, e.g. [10]. The value seems to be of most interest in biology, for the study of light induced behaviors in plants and animals. A Google Scholar search on "moonlight lux" gives many such biology papers a wide range of moonlight values (one as high as 2.2 lux [11]). It there an authoritative source for this number in the astronomical literature? Surely we must have better instrumentation and data than was available in 1959. Not surprisingly, a regular Google search on "moonlight intensity" gives our moonlight article as the top pick. Should we leave this possible dubious claim in the three articles?-- agr ( talk) 02:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Universe Today ("a space and astronomy news site") has been nominated for deletion. I have no view on that, but editors with relevant knowledge might like to comment. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Feedback would be appreciated here. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
There is an RFC on the addition of identifier links to citations by bots. Please comment. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I have rescued from the speedy-deletion pile this article, which was started in February and left in an untidy and incomplete state. I have found a reference which shows it is not a hoax, and it has been reduced to a stub, which could probably be expanded by someone better-qualified. The original author gave it a long list of categories; it would be useful if someone could check whether they all really apply. JohnCD ( talk) 18:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#comet_names, regarding the usage of hyphens or dashes in comet names. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 16:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I just threw up an article on the newly discovered supernova PTF 11kly which I believe to be noteworthy, and something that will attract attention in the next few days (and likely for a long time after). I'm not very much up with astronomy though, so it's just a stub, and I thought I'd let others know! Mostlyharmless ( talk) 08:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
PSR J1719-1438 is in the news because it has a planet said to be made of diamond. The article needs an infobox, which is beyond my ability. Anyone? Speciate ( talk) 02:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Question at Eris talk page. I reverted the POV that Eris is a DO pending discussion here. — kwami ( talk) 07:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the proper location to bring this up, but there seems to be widespread confusion in Astronomy article between the term "equinox" and the term "epoch" when related to coordinates of astronomical objects. The distinction is relatively simple. Equinox refers to the precession of the coordinate system used. Epoch refers to the timing of an event such as an observation. The coordinate system we currently use J2000, uses the equinox as defined at epoch J2000 (= 2000 Jan 1, 12h TT).
The distinction is important, for example in the Hipparcos catalog. In it the coordinate system is equinox J2000 but the epoch of the coordinates is J1991.25. In any other catalog that includes proper motion the epoch is important. It's also important to variable stars, pulsars, neutrino detections from supernovae, etc. I've seen a lot of people wrongly precess coordinates when given a set with an observation epoch attached.
Given the widespread misuse, I know it's not an easy fix. SETIGuy ( talk) 03:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
It strikes me that "equinox" involves the reader selecting from many context sensitive meanings, and the correct meaning actually involves a great deal of shorthand. Apparently, for the meaning being discussed here, "equinox" must take one of a few values generally recognized by the astronomical community, one of which is J2000, and it involves many things other than the direction of the equinox and the time, such as whether the direction of the celestial north pole neglects nutation. Perhaps a term like "standard coordinate frame" would be more appropriate for a general readership. Jc3s5h ( talk) 20:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Mass was off by an order of magnitude according to the link provided in the article. Apparently a corrected error, but both versions lie outside the norm.
A Jan. 2009 archive of the page jibes with our old figures. It has:
In today's version, the order of magnitude has been iterated by one, a number approximated by their 2010 calculations:
The old density was amazingly low (even for a rubble pile), and the corrected density incredibly high (almost solid iron). The greater error bar on the 2011 data though makes it look more reasonable; I suspect (31) may lie near the lower end of the measurement and yet be a solid body. Anyway, just a heads up. — kwami ( talk) 05:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)