The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This page 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. |
Harald Khan Ճ pointed out a possible issue with NGC 1300, NGC 1365, and possibly some others being misclassified as ring galaxies. The NED database lists the type of these as including "(R')" so I wonder does that mean they are ringed galaxies or ring galaxies? Harald wrote on this subject:
Please assist. Thanks. WilliamKF ( talk) 20:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Category:Gamma ray bursts has been proposed to be renamed at WP:CFD to Category:Gamma-ray bursts, and appropriate subcategories. 76.66.198.171 ( talk) 08:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Someone might want to look at PSR B1259-63, it's a CarloscomB article, so it had grammar errors making it hard to read. A comment from the talk page states that it's factually wrong, so I've done some corrections on it to remove the false data, and excessive category subscriptions. 76.66.198.171 ( talk) 08:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I wonder whether it may instead be better to expand the scope of the article to the complete pulsar+Be star system. Is there a designation that applies to both, so we could put the article there? Icalanise ( talk) 11:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Solar core has been proposed to be renamed Stellar core at WP:RM 76.66.198.171 ( talk) 05:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
An anonymous editor is insistent upon adding a proviso to the first paragraph of this article regarding the "possible hypothetical" nature of dark matter. It has been discussed before and I think the consensus was just to state "dark matter" as one of the components (and thereby ignore MOND, &c.) The current discussion is at Talk:Galaxy#Dark_matter. Please take a look and help us reach consensus. Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 21:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
OH masers was recently turned into a redirect to Hydroxyl radical, after having been a very short stub for quite a while. 76.66.198.171 ( talk) 22:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Currently in progress at Wikipedia:Peer review/Epsilon Eridani/archive1.— RJH ( talk) 21:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Currently in progress at Wikipedia:Peer review/Jupiter Trojan/archive1.— RJH ( talk) 22:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
A problem has become more and more pressing on the List of most luminous stars, which is in danger of turning into an embarrassing mess. See here for further discussion. Thanks — Wwheaton ( talk) 22:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I added this to the article on Habitability of Red dwarf systems. As it is original I thought I would ask serious scientists to look at it and decide whether or not to keep it. Proxima Centauri 2 ( talk) 19:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The article is a featured article candidate now. You can comment here. Ruslik ( talk) 18:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if we shouldn't create a {{ nebula-stub}} ? 76.66.193.90 ( talk) 06:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Suggested format for {{ nebula-stub}}:
Using Category:Nebulae stubs as its matching category
76.66.193.90 ( talk) 07:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
So it's been a week, and I've just posted this proposal at WP:WPSS 76.66.193.90 ( talk) 08:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, the template {{ nebula-stub}} and category Category:nebula stubs have been created, and an initial set of articles have been tagged. 76.66.201.179 ( talk) 10:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Did anyone notice Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery and subcategories? Are we going to use this categorization scheme? 76.66.193.90 ( talk) 12:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I am having a disagreement with User:Rotational over WP:LAYOUT, since he's using the 4th level heading, and I'm trying to correct it with the 2nd level heading format, at Barnard 68.
Additionally, I think it needs cleanup, since it appears to contain generic information about dark nebulae that would better be off in the type article. 76.66.193.90 ( talk) 05:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I did some moving, removing and layouting. Debresser ( talk) 21:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Rotational was officially warned. Barnard 68 has temporarily been protected. Rotational removed the whole thing from his talk page. Debresser ( talk) 17:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Considering Rotational's preference for level-4 headers, he's also reverted my change to NGC 2818 to have level-2 headers (like other articles across Wikipedia). I've left a note at WP:Village Pump requesting community input on the issue. 76.66.193.90 ( talk) 06:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot ( Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Everyone loves this so far, so I don't see why you wouldn't love it as well. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
At WP:CFD a rename has been requested for Category:Eponyms of Trans-Neptunian objects to Category:Eponyms of trans-Neptunian objects
76.66.193.90 ( talk) 06:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Category:Eponyms of Trans-Neptunian objects has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.193.90 ( talk) 06:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
It would probably be a good idea to get the 100 top articles in Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Popular pages to a B-class or better (other than those that are ephemerally in the top 100 because of recent news)... 76.66.193.90 ( talk) 07:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Category:Transiting planets → Category:Transiting exoplanets has been proposed at WP:CFD, to exclude Mercury and Venus. 76.66.201.179 ( talk) 04:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
A change was recently implemented in the {{ Infobox Planet}} that is causing infobox reference notes to appear at the bottom of the infobox, rather than at the end of the article. If you would like to express an opinion on this, I believe it was discussed here: Template talk:Infobox Planet#Planned update to fix references in 10.2C788_asteroid_articles. Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 19:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
This one just popped up on several star articles:
It's under Category:Ufology of course.— RJH ( talk) 21:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated the redirect A Capricorni for deletion at WP:RFD, because it's a latin letter redirect to a greek letter starname, which is inappropriate, since Bayer designation stars also use upper and lower case latin letters for names. Note that α Capricorni already exists as a redirect. 76.66.201.179 ( talk) 12:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
While cleaning up entries at Category:Bayer objects, I had a thought that it might be a good idea to create a Category:Objects named with variable star designations to complement it. 76.66.201.179 ( talk) 13:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
(Cross posted from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Need_information_from_an_Icarus_article) I'm hoping someone here has access to this journal article:
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)If you do, I'd like to know if it provides a classification of asteroid 243 Ida, when the spectroscopic measurements were taken, and what pages of the article the information appears on. Thank you. Wronkiew ( talk) 00:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Some people might want to look over wikt:Appendix:Astronomical terms. 76.66.201.179 ( talk) 13:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
FYI Special:AllPages/HR, many of the HR redirects and articles need disambiguation (hatnotes most likely) to point to the star's information, since most appear to be articles or redirects to legislation introduced in the US Congress' House of Representatives. 76.66.201.179 ( talk) 10:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
[1] etc 76.66.201.179 ( talk) 10:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a List of HR objects to go with Bright Star Catalogue and Category:HR objects should also exist? 76.66.193.69 ( talk) 12:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
A bunch of planets named with "Corot-Exo-xxxx" have been proposed to be renamed
COROT-Exo-1 → COROT-1 COROT-Exo-1b → COROT-1b COROT-Exo-2b → COROT-2b COROT-Exo-3b → COROT-3b COROT-Exo-4 → COROT-4 COROT-Exo-4b → COROT-4b COROT-Exo-5b → COROT-5b COROT-Exo-6b → COROT-6b COROT-Exo-7b → COROT-7b
See Talk:COROT-Exo-1
76.66.201.179 ( talk) 06:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Twin Quasar was renamed to Twin QSO, and the notation was changed for the image pair from QSO to SBS, a couple of days ago. The name change was because it is more common to say the second form than the first... but since in the world at large, it's more common to call it the Twin Quasar... this doesn't seem like an uncontroversial move. I can't find usage of the SBS or TXS notational formats in Google Scholar for this particular quasar either. Should the changes be reverted to the previous form? (would require a pagemove back for the article name)
76.66.201.179 ( talk) 07:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Well since apparently posting stuff on this talk page appears to get attention but putting stuff on this project's Rename/delete/merger log doesn't (so does that mean no-one has the log on their watchlist?), I'll point out here that I've proposed a merger of HD 80606, HD 80607 and Struve 1341. Discussion is here, one of the issues is what to name the merged article if the merger goes ahead. Icalanise ( talk) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that user:Icalanise moved PSR B1829-10 to PSR B1829−10, does that mean that all articles should be moved from the ASCII minus sign "-" to the Unicode minus sign "−" , which have negative declinations as part of their article names? 76.66.201.179 ( talk) 06:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi there all. Over at the Simple English Wikipedia, we have started writing a lot of articles about asteroids and other various phenomena that have to deal with space. If you would like to help, we can always use some more active editors to help expand or write more asteroid/other space phenomena articles there. Cheers, Razor flame 17:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Imitating the successful project Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates, the template {{ Sky}} has been created. Now, only is transcluded in few articles, but if the number increases, it could be the starting point of a database of all articles in Wikipedia about astronomical objects. Now, the template only links to a sky map, but the same code could let:
Telescopi ( talk) 19:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
GeoTemplate}}
do?Hi all, does anyone know if this idea is generally accepted in the astronomical community? I had not heard it before but sounded fascinating... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Greetings! I've submitted GRB 970508 for FAC here. Unless I am mistaken, this is the first GRB to have been brought to FAC, so I'd really like to set a good example for future articles. For that reason, I would appreciate any and all comments you guys have for the article. Thanks! -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
C/1978 A1 and Great Comet of 1771 have been nominated for deletion. They are redirects, and their target doesn't say anything about these comets. 76.66.193.69 ( talk) 04:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
This page 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. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This page 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. |
Harald Khan Ճ pointed out a possible issue with NGC 1300, NGC 1365, and possibly some others being misclassified as ring galaxies. The NED database lists the type of these as including "(R')" so I wonder does that mean they are ringed galaxies or ring galaxies? Harald wrote on this subject:
Please assist. Thanks. WilliamKF ( talk) 20:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Category:Gamma ray bursts has been proposed to be renamed at WP:CFD to Category:Gamma-ray bursts, and appropriate subcategories. 76.66.198.171 ( talk) 08:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Someone might want to look at PSR B1259-63, it's a CarloscomB article, so it had grammar errors making it hard to read. A comment from the talk page states that it's factually wrong, so I've done some corrections on it to remove the false data, and excessive category subscriptions. 76.66.198.171 ( talk) 08:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I wonder whether it may instead be better to expand the scope of the article to the complete pulsar+Be star system. Is there a designation that applies to both, so we could put the article there? Icalanise ( talk) 11:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Solar core has been proposed to be renamed Stellar core at WP:RM 76.66.198.171 ( talk) 05:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
An anonymous editor is insistent upon adding a proviso to the first paragraph of this article regarding the "possible hypothetical" nature of dark matter. It has been discussed before and I think the consensus was just to state "dark matter" as one of the components (and thereby ignore MOND, &c.) The current discussion is at Talk:Galaxy#Dark_matter. Please take a look and help us reach consensus. Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 21:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
OH masers was recently turned into a redirect to Hydroxyl radical, after having been a very short stub for quite a while. 76.66.198.171 ( talk) 22:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Currently in progress at Wikipedia:Peer review/Epsilon Eridani/archive1.— RJH ( talk) 21:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Currently in progress at Wikipedia:Peer review/Jupiter Trojan/archive1.— RJH ( talk) 22:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
A problem has become more and more pressing on the List of most luminous stars, which is in danger of turning into an embarrassing mess. See here for further discussion. Thanks — Wwheaton ( talk) 22:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I added this to the article on Habitability of Red dwarf systems. As it is original I thought I would ask serious scientists to look at it and decide whether or not to keep it. Proxima Centauri 2 ( talk) 19:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The article is a featured article candidate now. You can comment here. Ruslik ( talk) 18:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if we shouldn't create a {{ nebula-stub}} ? 76.66.193.90 ( talk) 06:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Suggested format for {{ nebula-stub}}:
Using Category:Nebulae stubs as its matching category
76.66.193.90 ( talk) 07:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
So it's been a week, and I've just posted this proposal at WP:WPSS 76.66.193.90 ( talk) 08:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, the template {{ nebula-stub}} and category Category:nebula stubs have been created, and an initial set of articles have been tagged. 76.66.201.179 ( talk) 10:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Did anyone notice Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery and subcategories? Are we going to use this categorization scheme? 76.66.193.90 ( talk) 12:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I am having a disagreement with User:Rotational over WP:LAYOUT, since he's using the 4th level heading, and I'm trying to correct it with the 2nd level heading format, at Barnard 68.
Additionally, I think it needs cleanup, since it appears to contain generic information about dark nebulae that would better be off in the type article. 76.66.193.90 ( talk) 05:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I did some moving, removing and layouting. Debresser ( talk) 21:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Rotational was officially warned. Barnard 68 has temporarily been protected. Rotational removed the whole thing from his talk page. Debresser ( talk) 17:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Considering Rotational's preference for level-4 headers, he's also reverted my change to NGC 2818 to have level-2 headers (like other articles across Wikipedia). I've left a note at WP:Village Pump requesting community input on the issue. 76.66.193.90 ( talk) 06:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot ( Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Everyone loves this so far, so I don't see why you wouldn't love it as well. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
At WP:CFD a rename has been requested for Category:Eponyms of Trans-Neptunian objects to Category:Eponyms of trans-Neptunian objects
76.66.193.90 ( talk) 06:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Category:Eponyms of Trans-Neptunian objects has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.193.90 ( talk) 06:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
It would probably be a good idea to get the 100 top articles in Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Popular pages to a B-class or better (other than those that are ephemerally in the top 100 because of recent news)... 76.66.193.90 ( talk) 07:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Category:Transiting planets → Category:Transiting exoplanets has been proposed at WP:CFD, to exclude Mercury and Venus. 76.66.201.179 ( talk) 04:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
A change was recently implemented in the {{ Infobox Planet}} that is causing infobox reference notes to appear at the bottom of the infobox, rather than at the end of the article. If you would like to express an opinion on this, I believe it was discussed here: Template talk:Infobox Planet#Planned update to fix references in 10.2C788_asteroid_articles. Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 19:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
This one just popped up on several star articles:
It's under Category:Ufology of course.— RJH ( talk) 21:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated the redirect A Capricorni for deletion at WP:RFD, because it's a latin letter redirect to a greek letter starname, which is inappropriate, since Bayer designation stars also use upper and lower case latin letters for names. Note that α Capricorni already exists as a redirect. 76.66.201.179 ( talk) 12:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
While cleaning up entries at Category:Bayer objects, I had a thought that it might be a good idea to create a Category:Objects named with variable star designations to complement it. 76.66.201.179 ( talk) 13:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
(Cross posted from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Need_information_from_an_Icarus_article) I'm hoping someone here has access to this journal article:
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)If you do, I'd like to know if it provides a classification of asteroid 243 Ida, when the spectroscopic measurements were taken, and what pages of the article the information appears on. Thank you. Wronkiew ( talk) 00:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Some people might want to look over wikt:Appendix:Astronomical terms. 76.66.201.179 ( talk) 13:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
FYI Special:AllPages/HR, many of the HR redirects and articles need disambiguation (hatnotes most likely) to point to the star's information, since most appear to be articles or redirects to legislation introduced in the US Congress' House of Representatives. 76.66.201.179 ( talk) 10:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
[1] etc 76.66.201.179 ( talk) 10:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a List of HR objects to go with Bright Star Catalogue and Category:HR objects should also exist? 76.66.193.69 ( talk) 12:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
A bunch of planets named with "Corot-Exo-xxxx" have been proposed to be renamed
COROT-Exo-1 → COROT-1 COROT-Exo-1b → COROT-1b COROT-Exo-2b → COROT-2b COROT-Exo-3b → COROT-3b COROT-Exo-4 → COROT-4 COROT-Exo-4b → COROT-4b COROT-Exo-5b → COROT-5b COROT-Exo-6b → COROT-6b COROT-Exo-7b → COROT-7b
See Talk:COROT-Exo-1
76.66.201.179 ( talk) 06:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Twin Quasar was renamed to Twin QSO, and the notation was changed for the image pair from QSO to SBS, a couple of days ago. The name change was because it is more common to say the second form than the first... but since in the world at large, it's more common to call it the Twin Quasar... this doesn't seem like an uncontroversial move. I can't find usage of the SBS or TXS notational formats in Google Scholar for this particular quasar either. Should the changes be reverted to the previous form? (would require a pagemove back for the article name)
76.66.201.179 ( talk) 07:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Well since apparently posting stuff on this talk page appears to get attention but putting stuff on this project's Rename/delete/merger log doesn't (so does that mean no-one has the log on their watchlist?), I'll point out here that I've proposed a merger of HD 80606, HD 80607 and Struve 1341. Discussion is here, one of the issues is what to name the merged article if the merger goes ahead. Icalanise ( talk) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that user:Icalanise moved PSR B1829-10 to PSR B1829−10, does that mean that all articles should be moved from the ASCII minus sign "-" to the Unicode minus sign "−" , which have negative declinations as part of their article names? 76.66.201.179 ( talk) 06:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi there all. Over at the Simple English Wikipedia, we have started writing a lot of articles about asteroids and other various phenomena that have to deal with space. If you would like to help, we can always use some more active editors to help expand or write more asteroid/other space phenomena articles there. Cheers, Razor flame 17:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Imitating the successful project Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates, the template {{ Sky}} has been created. Now, only is transcluded in few articles, but if the number increases, it could be the starting point of a database of all articles in Wikipedia about astronomical objects. Now, the template only links to a sky map, but the same code could let:
Telescopi ( talk) 19:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
GeoTemplate}}
do?Hi all, does anyone know if this idea is generally accepted in the astronomical community? I had not heard it before but sounded fascinating... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Greetings! I've submitted GRB 970508 for FAC here. Unless I am mistaken, this is the first GRB to have been brought to FAC, so I'd really like to set a good example for future articles. For that reason, I would appreciate any and all comments you guys have for the article. Thanks! -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
C/1978 A1 and Great Comet of 1771 have been nominated for deletion. They are redirects, and their target doesn't say anything about these comets. 76.66.193.69 ( talk) 04:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
This page 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. |