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.

Please comment about the proposed H-R diagram insertion on the star page here: Talk:Star#New_Picture. Thank you. — RJH ( talk) 16:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Cluster contains some entries for quantities that are very difficult to actually measure (such as mass and physical radius) and at least one line which seems obscure (V_HB). After checking quite a few entries in Category:Open clusters, it does not look like many quantities aside from the coordinates are ever listed. Would people object if I trimmed the template down to just the constellation, RA, Dec, magnitude, distance, and other names? Dr. Submillimeter 21:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

user:The way, the truth, and the light has proposed that Pinwheel Galaxy be renamed Messier 101 to allow Pinwheel Galaxy to become a dab page. I think s/he wants Triangulum Galaxy to become primary topic of Pinwheel? 132.205.44.134 22:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Response at Talk:Pinwheel Galaxy#Requested move. The way, the truth, and the light 23:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

User:The way, the truth, and the light has also been attempting to insert a phrase into Triangulum Galaxy that names it the "Pinwheel Galaxy". The user does not accept that we have placed a high standard on using reliable references, and the user does not acknowledge the SIMBAD Astronomical Database and the NASA/IPAC Extragalctic Database as reliable references. (Also, please recall the incidents last year with User:Hurricane Devon, this page, and his revisions such as this version of Messier 109.) The user has been disruptive enough that I have been discussing the issue with User:Irishguy. Also note that the user has been blocked for being disruptive elsewhere in Wikipedia. Dr. Submillimeter 08:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added 'Pinwheel Galaxy' as an alternate name, explaining that it also commonly refers to M101. You are misrepresenting me. As far as the other claims I'm not going to reply at this thread, which should never have been created. The way, the truth, and the light 08:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This discussion was closed as "no consensus". Dr. Submillimeter 09:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I added references to the article about Amalthea (moon), rewrote it and requested scientific peer review. So your comments and suggestions are welcome. Ruslik 10:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I nominated article about Amalthea for good article status. Please, review it. Ruslik 12:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Constellations need cleanup. Anyone interested in participating in a new Constellations Task Force?? Said: Rursus 21:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you proposing that needs cleaning up, since WikiProject Constellations was folded into this wikiproject? I personally think that Chinese Constellations need work, since they are used in mass media references in East Asia, and popular astronomy articles. 70.51.11.143 22:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest taking one of the most solid and well-constructed constellation article, such as Orion (constellation), and bringing it up to good article status... and perhaps even making it featured article. That'll produce a gold standard for the rest of the constellation articles, and it might even be an interesting task. Thanks. — RJH ( talk) 18:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused about something. The {{ Galaxy}} template uses the parameter z. On the galaxy pages, however, the values are listed in units of km/s (whereas z is dimensionless). Is it supposed to be ( redshift) z or the radial velocity? If the later, why not use rv and link accordingly? Thanks. — RJH ( talk) 19:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Just think of z as an abbreviation for redshift, and do not worry about the units. When the units are in km/s, the infobox entry usually specifically states this. We also probably want to use km/s for nearby objects (where z becomes a very small value with little physical meaning to the average reader) and the dimensionless version for distant objects (where velocities in km/s stop making sense). Dr. Submillimeter 20:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I added a brief explanation to the {{ galaxy}} template page. — RJH ( talk) 22:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been having disagreements with User:The way, the truth, and the light over some of the language referring to the Triangulum Galaxy as the "Pinwheel Galaxy". I have offered a compormise at Talk:Triangulum Galaxy#Compromise proposal. Additional feedback from users (including users with anonymous IP addresses) would be appreciated. Dr. Submillimeter 10:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at NGC 2264 and its associated pages ( Cone Nebula, Christmas Tree Cluster, Fox Fur Nebula, Snowflake Cluster, and Philippine Nebula). A lot of this is the work of User:Acom. At the very least, the images with added text look horrible, and the navigation template looks unnecessary. It's also difficult or impossible to identify some of these things using SIMBAD. Some of the objects appear to have names taken from NASA press releases, which is a bad idea (recall the problems with Large Pathetic Galaxy). What are other people's thoughts? Dr. Submillimeter 13:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Philippine Nebula is now up for deletion. This was clearly a neologism, and the article contains no useful information. A couple of these other articles may follow. Dr. Submillimeter 14:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the process for deleting a template? Is "ugly" a valid criteria :) As far as the names are concerned, they look recent. The names are certainly not "official" or even well known, but they do seem to be catching on. See: [1] [2] I'd prefer to see all the articles merged into NGC 2264 with just a single infobox for 2264. The rest of the material including images and description as subsections. -- mikeu 15:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I was rather surprised to find Christmas Tree Nebula in SIMBAD. Still I'd be tempted to merge them (except Cone) until such time that there is enough sources to write more than a stub and the specific names have gained more widespread use.-- mikeu 15:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Templates can be deleted at WP:TFD. I am inclined to merge the articles to NGC 2264 myself, but first I want to get feedback from other people and watch the AfD on Philippine Nebula develop. Dr. Submillimeter 21:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've done a quick rewrite of the template so that it looks semi-decent. It should definitely be passed through WP:TfD if the articles are merged, though, which looks to be the best approach here. The images should ideally be deleted with extreme prejudice as soon as possible... Mike Peel 22:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:NGC2264.jpg and Image:NGC2264 Name.jpg, both of which were formerly in the template, are now nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Feel free to vomit comment. (Other images should also be nominated for deletion.) Dr. Submillimeter 09:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Location NGC2264.jpg, Image:Compare neb map.jpg, Image:Location NGC2264.jpg, Image:NGC 2264.jpg, Image:Compare neb map2.jpg and Image:Location NGC2264 2.jpg - are these actually free images? Does anyone know the source material that User:Acom and User:Z2 edited? 132.205.44.134 22:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:NGC 2264.jpg this is very ugly... 132.205.44.134 22:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that most NASA monikers for things should exist as redirects (or article titles) with mentions in the articles, as science writers will frequently use NASA as an authoritative source, and the common public uses NASA as one. 132.205.44.134 22:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The NASA nicknames (when they actually appear to be used as such) should indeed probably be kept as redirects. However, recall the problem with Large Pathetic Galaxy, where someone wrote a Wikipedia article based on a press release that described a star cluster in the Milky Way as a "large, pathetic galaxy". The creator of Large Pathetic Galaxy thought that this was actually the name of the object. The actual name was something complex; I think it was a 2MASS designation. Anyhow, the article was so awful that it was deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 09:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Since this is one physical object, it may as well be one article. 'Cone' and 'Christmas Tree' appear to be established names for parts of the complex; the others should be kept as redirects only. The way, the truth, and the light 09:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Compare neb map.jpg by User:Z2 still has the Philippines on it. If we're not using it, perhaps it should be deleted as orphaned image? Same goes for Image:Location NGC2264.jpg. 70.55.86.83 15:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently " Satellite" was renamed Artificial Satellite at some point. 132.205.44.134 21:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It's now back at Satellite. The way, the truth, and the light 09:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Having looked at a lot of images by user Acom... it seems as though he likes garish typography and loud clashing colors. Just about everything contributed is GFDL-self tagged. Exactly how much modification is required before IP rules say you've created something totally new? From my standpoint, it seems like the majority of contributions may be copyright violations (ie. if you sample sound in a rap song by messing with an LP on a turntable, you still have to pay royalties)... User:Acom's user page doesn't say much about him. 132.205.44.134 23:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like copyvio to me. I wouldn't mind if all his images were deleted. The way, the truth, and the light 09:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated Template:Satellites 0f 2003 EL61 and Template:2003 EL61 Satellites for deletion. 132.205.44.134 23:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at Polar-ring galaxy? It seems to require some work. 132.205.44.134 23:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Both images by User:Acom ( Image:Form-PRG.jpg and Image:TPRG1137.jpg) have been nominated for deletion. These scientifically inaccurate images are harmful to Wikipedia. Dr. Submillimeter 09:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The table also needs work, as it subtypes polar ring galaxies, without explanatory text in the article describing what the subtypes are. 132.205.44.134 22:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the article while heavily relying on references from the literature. (Half of the article is comprised of references.) I removed a lot of the useless discussion ("things move really slowly when galaxies interact") and the table of red links that contained lots of speculation and loose associations. It is now a short but respectable article.

I suspect that someone has simulated these types of mergers, although I did not find anything by Joshua Barnes. It would be worth looking for journal articles newer than 1990. Dr. Submillimeter 09:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Terrestrial planets - do we need this category? I wonder if we could confirm the composition of extrasolar planets that might be terrestrial anytime soon. 132.205.44.134 23:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This page doesn't have an AfD noticeboard, so I'll post it here:

• 11 May – Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies, ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies)

Speedy category rename is listed for Category:Astronomy institutes 132.205.44.134 16:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

One user is making large-scale revisions to the Milky Way article's organization. Unfortunately it is not entirely clear that these are helpful. If you could, I'd appreciate it if you could comment on the article's talk page. — RJH ( talk) 21:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. — RJH ( talk) 21:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I'm trying to sort out the mess at the end of the Oort Cloud article, and have put a potential rewrite on the article's talk page. Any feedback would be most welcome - I've read the literature in an attempt to sort this out, but the outer solar system isn't my usual territory. Chrislintott 18:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Earth-Moon space Orbit comparison was prodded by User:Swpb on May 14. 132.205.44.134 22:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The content appears mostly redundant with Delta-v budget, and the later does a better job of covering the topic. — RJH ( talk) 20:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody have an objection to me adding the following two optional data fields to the {{ Starbox detail}} template?

where g is in cms unit. The values for these parameters are available for many stars, so it seems like a worthwhile addition. Thank you for your feedback. — RJH ( talk) 22:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a good definition of micro-turbulence anywhere? Isn't it a little specialist? Chrislintott 12:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

For how many stars have these quantities been measured or calculated? If this has only been measured/calculated in a few stars, then it would be best to leave it out. If it has been measured/calculated for hundreds or thousands of stars, then I think it would be appropriate to add this. (Some of the nebulae and star cluster templates contain entries that are clearly not measured or calculated for most objects. I have already removed some of these template lines.) Dr. Submillimeter 07:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

For "log g" a tonne. A search on "log g" and star" turn up 210,000 ghits, and it seems to come up in virtually every technical reference I search on specific stars. It is less frequent for micro-turbulence (49,000 ghits), but is not uncommon. Perhaps an article for micro-turbulence would be satisfactory? — RJH ( talk) 22:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think an article for micro-turbulence would be a good start Chrislintott 05:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it's in my to-do file. Stub article: Microturbulence — RJH ( talk) 18:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

RJH did not quite answer my question. He found quite a few references that discuss the microturbulence and surface gravity of stars (which I would expect). However, can he or anyone else either find tabulated values for large numbers of stars (in catalogs, for example) or simple mathematical formulae that can be used to calculate these values for large numbers of stars based on other existing data? If the quantities are only measured or calculated for a handful of stars, then it is not worth including in the infobox. Dr. Submillimeter 11:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

From a casual search I turned up a few sample tables of log g:

• http://exoplanets.org/stars.shtml
• http://bifrost.cwru.edu/nstars/GiantTables/GiantIndex.htm
• http://www.ucm.es/info/Astrof/ellipt/tables/refsall.tab
• http://www.sdss.org/dr4/products/value_added/wdcat/dr1/NEWwdDAS.table.DR1.html
• http://www.sdss.org/dr4/products/value_added/wdcat/dr1/NEWwdDBS.table.DR1.html
• http://www.eso.org/projects/vlti/publink/2004/calibrators_pke.pdf
• http://www.ast.obs-mip.fr/users/leborgne/stelib/stars.html
• http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992A&AS...95..273C

You can also try using Simbad to search on a star and then select "display all measurements". But I don't expect to find ξ as readily available. — RJH ( talk) 18:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added log g to {{ Starbox detail}} as an optional argument. Spacepotato 00:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Microturbulent velocity is an unfortunately necessary free parameter that is either assumed or comes out of just about every stellar abundance determination. It arises in the radiative transfer formalism as a contribution to the velocity dispersion of the line absorbers which is not natural damping or thermal doppler broadening ... intuitively, small-scale turbulence is one physical phenomenon that can do this, but it is far from being the only one (for example, hyperfine structure in the spectral line can be incorporated into an analysis as an additional "microturbulent" line broadening). The physical meaning of the term is usually glossed over for this reason. I am not aware of any systematic studies for explicitly determination of the microturbulent velocities, though there are detailed line-profile analyses published, studies of the velocity fields in stellar photospheres. It is generally true that among cool stars (spectral class G and cooler) more luminous stars are found to have higher microturbulent velocities than less luminous stars, but I would hesitate to make any blanket statements beyond that. (The Sun and other dwarfs are usually quoted with values between 0.5 and 1.5 km/s; regular giants (luminosity class III) usually have values between 1.5 and 3 km/s; supergiants go up to 5 km/s or so.) The microturbulent velocities are always listed in abundance studies because it is a necessary parameter in the abundance fit, but other than as an absurdity check no one considers these parameters fundamental or particularly well determined; in a way, it may be best to characterize them as something between a stellar property and a feature of the analysis procedure. In general, I think these microturbulence numbers are not things that ought to be quoted with an object because of the dicey physical interpretation of the parameter.

I see you've created an article for microturbulence ... I'll take that in hand at some point. I think it'd be better to have it be a section in an article (that doesn't exist at this point) titled "Curve of Growth", which was the earliest and simplest form of stellar abundance analysis as done back in the 1960s. The microturbulent velocity is an explicit parameter in the curve of growth formalism. I'll haul out my old notes and see if I can cobble that together in the not very distant future. BSVulturis 22:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. Yes we can probably not bother with listing the microturbulence value in the starbox. But I'd still like to include log g as it seems to be frequently mentioned as one of the fundamental stellar parameters. (Looks like it has already been included by Space Spud up above.) — RJH ( talk) 22:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that log g is worth having. It is, of course, a combination of stellar mass and radius, quantities which aren't commonly available separately. BSVulturis 14:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Solar system warming was sent to WP:AFD, and it looks like an edit/revert war in the history. 132.205.44.134 23:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The redirect Great Barred Spiral Galaxy has been nominated for deletion. This is a leftover from the days of User:Hurricane Devon. Please go comment. Dr. Submillimeter 18:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I listed a image of the galaxy cluster Cl 0024+17 taken by the Hubble Space Telescope to see if it should be a Featured picture candidates or not, It is listed here Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Dark matter your input is appreciated. ▪◦▪ ≡ЅiREX≡ ^Talk 02:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I requested scienific peer review of the article about Rings of Jupiter. Any comments are welcome. Ruslik 11:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a peer review request of this (relatively) nearby binary star system (and Type Ia supernova candidate) at Wikipedia:Peer review/IK Pegasi. Comments appreciated. — RJH ( talk) 18:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Uranus has survived WP:ACID and is this week's collaboration. If anyone is able to help improve it, it would be appreciated. — Pious 7 02:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects/RDLog, you can see that many more of User:Acom's images have been deleted or are nominated for deletion. I just nominated Image:El61moonsifo.gif and Image:NeptuneMoonsinfo.jpg for deletion because of multiple problems (particularly the unreferenced information in the image captions). It may be worth reviewing all of User:Acom's images to see if any of them are useful for Wikipedia. Dr. Submillimeter 08:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no desire to save Acom's ugly images which have no chance of being accepted into any article. But I would say that you should have nominated all the images as one request, so anyone could comment easily (comments here won't be considered by the closing admin). The way, the truth, and the light 11:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The images do seem to be somewhat lacking in quality, aesthetic appeal or usefulness (although the last two might be useful on certain types of garrish web sites). There is a policy for combining deletion nominations (at least for AfD's) described here: Template:AfD footer (multiple). But it does not appear to be relevant for images. — RJH ( talk) 21:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I could have done this as a multiple nomination, but the reasons for deleting these images vary enough that I though it would be appropriate to list them separately. Listing too many things together can cause problems, as I have found at WP:CFD. Dr. Submillimeter 11:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes that's true. I've never been a big fan of the grouped deletion approach, although I can certainly see the need. — RJH ( talk) 18:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The article about Amalthea (moon) has been listed as a good article now. Ruslik 13:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Great; nice work! I am surprised to see that Io (moon) and Europa (moon) aren't GA'd yet, although they look fairly close. — RJH ( talk) 19:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Location Monoceros.jpg looks like a scan from a book or map. I'm thinking it's a copyright violation. 70.55.86.83 15:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Another image by this contributor, Image:Location NGC2264.jpg, looks a little too professional as well to be GDFL. (Although I'd be hard-pressed to find the original source.) — RJH ( talk) 19:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I recognize the star chart used for Image:Location Monoceros.jpg, and I have a print version of it, although I cannot recall its name at this time. It is indeed a copyright violation. Note that PP3 can be used to create star charts with no problems regarding copyrights. This software has already been used to create the maps used in many articles about constellations; see Fornax, for example. Image:Location NGC2264.jpg looks like something related to the Philippine Nebula article that was recently annhilated. The image is not being used, and it should probably be deleted anyway. Dr. Submillimeter 11:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I nominated Image:Location Monoceros.jpg, Image:Location NGC2264.jpg, and Image:Compare neb map.jpg up for deletion. The three images together appear to have been for use in the deleted Philippine Nebula article. Please comment at WP:IFD if you are interested. Dr. Submillimeter 14:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Found an unusual article, Planetary-size comparison, which in a previous incarnation was redirected as a fork. Looks like it might be cleaned up into a reasonable article for the Simple English Wikipedia? 70.55.86.19 05:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planetary-size comparison. The way, the truth, and the light 07:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is getting fairly unwieldy. It may be time for another archival of older topics. — RJH ( talk) 15:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The January-April contents have been archived. — RJH ( talk) 16:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I nominated the article for FA status. Please, participate. Ruslik 13:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A problem has arisen with the names of the articles and categories on stars of specific spectral types. The problem is that the articles and categories have been named using common names that are not actually used by the professional astronomers who classify these objects. For example, see blue dwarf and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue dwarf for a small example of the problem. The entire category tree in Category:Stars by spectral type as well as many of the articles on individual spectral classes of stars may need to be overhauled to avoid similar problems in the future. (For example, try finding "orange giant" in the scientific literature.)

One possible solution would be to rename everything using the scientific designations. Hence, orange giant up above would be renamed Type-K III star, and Category:Orange giants would be renamed Category:Type-K III stars. The old article names can be kept as redirects to the new articles, and descriptions of the stars in layman's terms can be placed in the categories. Some exceptions can be made for general classes of objects that are referred to by their common names in the scientific literature (such as red giant and white dwarf), but these articles should be rewritten to include objects of multiple spectral classes if appropriate (so blue giant should cover O and B stars). The one drawback to this system is that the scientific names may not seem as user-friendly to readers who do not like technical names, but clarity seems much more important.

What are other people's thoughts on this proposal? Dr. Submillimeter 08:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd never seen the expression "blue dwarf" used in the popular astronomy literature up until it appeared on wikipedia. To me it just looks like a pair of adjectives strung together. Your suggested category renaming sounds good to me as it leaves no room for ambiguity or confusion. For the articles, my preference would be to explain everything once on the stellar classification page, rather than having an n × m array of articles for each spectral and luminosity class combination. — RJH ( talk) 15:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

However, a lot can be said about stars of some spectral classes. At the very least, it is possible to write extensive descriptions of the spectral lines. Some stars are also used as standards (such as A0 V stars), and other stars are primary targets for searching for exoplanets (such as G V stars). Hence, I would recommend keeping articles on specific classes of stars. Dr. Submillimeter 16:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

True. It might also make sense to turn those into forked articles from the Stellar_classification#Spectral_types sub-sections. — RJH ( talk) 16:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that something needs to be done to standardize the article names. Would there be redirects from the common name to the new scheme? In addition to Blue giant there is also a stub for OB star. BTW, Orange giant currently redirects to Giant star so it doesn't look like a rename to Type-K III star would work for that one example. There are a few stubs with names like Yellow-white dwarf and Blue-white dwarf.-- mikeu 19:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, redirects would be used from the common names to the scientific names where appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 20:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the categories themselves should be category:Class-III stars, Class-0 stars in Category:Stars by luminosity class. Redirects should be used from the common names, and the common-named categories should exist as category-redirects template:categoryredirect. 132.205.44.134 23:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

A parallel category structure for luminosity classes can be created easily enough (if one does not already exist). Dr. Submillimeter 06:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

They do exist, as categoryredirects. category:Class-0 stars, category:Class-I stars, category:Class-II stars, ... ; these category names would mesh better with your proposal to use category:Type-K III stars, etc. 132.205.44.134 03:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Names along the lines of Type-K III star are impenetrably technical to the non-astronomer. I would suggest names like K-type giant, M-type subdwarf, etc., which are both common in the literature and less forbidding. For the same reason I oppose the renaming of the luminosity classes. Spacepotato 01:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the common names for luminosity classes are still ambiguous, which is why they need to be renamed. For example, renaming Category:Blue dwarfs as Category:O-type dwarfs will still lead to confusion, whereas renaming it to Category:Type-O V stars will be unambiguous. A text explanation can always be added to the categories to explain the luminosity classifications. Dr. Submillimeter 06:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A text explanation should be added to the categories in any case. What ambiguity do you perceive in O-type dwarf? Spacepotato 08:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Does "O-type dwarf" refer to an O main sequence star or an O white dwarf? This is part of the problem with understanding the blue dwarf article and the corresponding category. It is also unclear whether some of these terms (such as "bright giants" for type-II stars) are commonly used in the scientific literature. On the other hand, if an object is designated as "O V" in the literature, then listing it in an "O V-type stars" category makes sense. (Also, some objects may only be designated as "O".) Dr. Submillimeter 10:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

1. O-type dwarf cannot refer to a white dwarf as white dwarfs are not classified using the MKK system, but with the Sion-Greenstein system (e.g., DA4, DB5, DZ7, etc.) A brief literature search confirms this. In fact, I believe that O-type dwarf refers unambiguously to luminosity class V.
2. Likewise, a literature search [3] confirms that bright giant, as well as the other luminosity class names (hypergiant, supergiant, giant, subgiant, dwarf, and subdwarf) are commonly used in the literature.
3. As for what is to be done with stars with unknown luminosity classes, clearly, a star known only to be of (for example) spectral type O should be placed in the existing category Type-O stars and not subcategorized further. Spacepotato 00:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of the fields in the planetary infoboxes don't appear all that useful to me as they are derived from the other parameters and they aren't information that readers would normally have an interest. In particular:

• Semi-minor axis
• Orbital circumference
• Orbital area

Looking on the Template:Infobox_Planet description, there appear to be a number of parameters that are no longer used: various months, land and water area, apparent magnitude, angular size, &c. On the other hand, the infoboxes don't include the magnetic field strength or peak wind speeds, which might be of interest. — RJH ( talk) 16:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The template was designed to hold information about _every_ planet. So we obviously want land and water area in it for its incantation on Earth; apparent magnitude and angular size are of use for the other local planets (although they do vary, so how much use these actually are is debatable). The parameters aren't compulsory (i.e. they don't show up unless you set them to something), so I don't think that it's a big problem to have parameters in the template that aren't used much.

With the magnetic field strength and peak wind speeds suggestions: these probably should be on the template (although would mean wind speed be more appropriate than the peak?). Mike Peel 16:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay you've addressed my second topic but not the first. If you want to leave the three bulleted items in the templates, that's fine by me. But still I don't see a need to list those three items on the planet pages. It's needlessly taking up space and adds virtually nothing. Is there a justification? Otherwise we could keep endlessly adding minutiae to those tables. — RJH ( talk) 20:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping that someone else would chime in there... :) I'm not sure. If they are removed, then someone needs to run through all of the articles checking to see if the parameters are in use on any pages. Mike Peel 20:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree with RJHall on the orbital parameters; parameters that are derived from other parameters and that provide little additional detail, such as the ones he identified above, should be removed from the templates. Dr. Submillimeter 08:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering about the presence of pages about small private observatories such as Desert Beaver Observatory. There is a long list of them at Wikipedia:Most_wanted_articles#Astronomy. If an observatory has no information besides the names of the observers, the asteroid discoveries, and the location, should we just consolidate it on a list page? ( This page gives their ID's and coordinates, for example.) If so, what should the page be called? Thanks. — RJH ( talk) 20:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I can think of several possible ways of approaching this:

• A List of private astronomical observatories, in a similar fashion to List of astronomical observatories
• An article on Private astronomical observatory, describing what they are and why they exist, plus a list of notable observatories.

The contents of either of these pages could then include a table listing the observatory name, location, main astronomers and notable discoveries. The latter seems to me to be the better approach. The existing articles, and the article titles on the most wanted articles list, could then be set as redirects to this article unless sufficient content could be written for any of them. Mike Peel 20:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the place to start then is a new section on the rather meager Observatory page concerning private observatories? I'll have a look around and see what I can find on the subject. Thanks. — RJH ( talk) 22:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well there's plenty about individual observatories, but little about the general topic. I didn't even find a good definition of a private observatory. Apparently government-owned, public universities can have private observatories, for example, and there are also mixed public/private observatories. — RJH ( talk) 18:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears that this field has been added to the {{ Starbox astrometry}} box without discussion. (By user:BlueEarth.) It doesn't seem to be beneficial. I'm wondering if there was a reason why it has been added? — RJH ( talk) 20:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

More changes have been made to this template; this time adding space velocity. I think this may not be beneficial since space velocity is not readily available, but the fields are being displayed anyway. I temporarily reverted the template and invited the editor here to discuss the subject. — RJH ( talk) 20:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The values for proper motion and radial motion are sufficient. Note that User:BlueEarth is the same person who created subterrestrial planet, planetary mass type, and some other unreferenced articles that were quickly deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 20:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Galactic coordinate and space velocity are sourced datas from SIMBAD and ARICNS respectively. The reason why I added these because the datas in wikipedia templates should be as many and complex as possible. Wikipedia is the best encyclopedias in the world! BlueEarth 00:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that's OK if I add space velocity back to the template? BlueEarth 00:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to these data. Also, I think there's no particular need to ask before adding optional arguments to the {{Starbox}} templates, within reason, as this has no effect on articles where they're not used. (The space velocity field that BlueEarth added was being displayed because of a programming error—a pipe (|) was omitted after the first occurrence of space_v_w.) Spacepotato 01:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

By the same argument, there's no reason to ask before removing them from the templates either. To me, building consensus is a sanity check and helps keep things more stable. But otherwise, space velocity may be of some interest to the readers (although they'll surely be puzzled by the individual U/V/W values, rather than giving a net velocity.) — RJH ( talk) 18:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The situations differ in that removing an argument from the template will remove it from the infobox wherever it is used. I agree that removing an argument which is never used makes no difference. Spacepotato 22:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course if this hypothetical individual felt that the argument was not serving a useful purpose and was taking up unnecessary space on various star pages, then I doubt that he or she would regret not seeing it displayed. No matter. — RJH ( talk) 18:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not opposed to including the space velocity, as long as it stays hidden when it's not in use. Sorry for the dispute. — RJH ( talk) 21:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

While it is possible to find galactic coordinates for every star in the sky without too much difficulty and while it may not be too difficult to find space velocities for many nearby stars, I do not think that adding this information is necessary. The quantities are really just coordinate and velocity information expressed in a different way. They add very little in terms of understanding the objects. Moreover, adding too much information to the infoboxes will make them cluttered and difficult to read. It is possible to add very large amounts of data (such as B1950 coordinates, supergalactic coordinates, velocities relative to several frames of motion, apparent and absolute magnitudes in U, B, V, R, I, J, H, and K bands as well as 12, 25, 60, and 100 microns and 20 cm wavelengths, and about 10-20 catalog designations) to the infoboxes; constraints need to be placed somewhere or else the infoboxes will become sprawling messes. Hence, I suggest leaving out the galactic coordinate and space velocity information. Dr. Submillimeter 10:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed galactic coordinate from the template. BlueEarth 21:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Updating all the stellar coordinate information for a future epoch revision is going to be a significant headache. Hopefully there will be some means to automate the process down the road. — RJH ( talk) 18:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you heard anything about the J2050 coordinate system? I haven't. It's probably far off into the future. Dr. Submillimeter 19:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

True. For some reason I thought the coordinates were updated every decade. — RJH ( talk) 19:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Astronomer vs Amateur has been nominated for deletion. Please go express your opinion if you are interested. Dr. Submillimeter 15:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

user:Astroguy2 has requested interstellar planetary mass object be renamed as rogue planet. 132.205.44.134 22:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have placed a template:notability tag on Speculation that Iapetus is artificial. 132.205.44.134 22:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes it seems to be pretty much Cydonia Mensae-style wild speculation by a noted eccentric and conspiracy theorist Richard C. Hoagland. But it may still satisfy WP:N just through the level of coverage it has received. (20,700 ghits for "alien iapetus", for example.) A possibility would be to merge it with Saturn's moons in fiction. ;-) — RJH ( talk) 21:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The Cydonian plain has tonnes of alien autopsy type TV shows about it. I don't recall seeing such for Iapetus... perhaps we need a Moons of the Solar System in mythology... I agree with 132.205.44.134, in that it doesn't seem very notable. 70.55.87.222 18:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The new datas: density and surface gravity have been added to Starbox detail by BlueEarth and Spacepotato respectively. BlueEarth 00:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I added surface gravity on May 28 pursuant to the discussion above. Spacepotato 00:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we need the density entry? This really does not say much of anything about the stars that is not stated by the radius and mass estimates (and the masses are probably just estimates from the spectral types). Unless anyone objects strongly, I will remove it. Dr. Submillimeter 10:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Density is mass divided by volume or mass divided by radius cubed. Density is related to surface gravity. The reason why I add density is because I want to or maybe used for classifying stars. BlueEarth 16:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

While density may be easy to calculate, we cannot add every single possible quantity that could be calculated or measured to these infoboxes (see the discussion above). If it is going to be included, the justification needs to be better than "I am using it for my own studies". The quantity needs to be relevant to other people as well. What are other people's thought? Dr. Submillimeter 16:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Density seems a little problematic to me since it varies by radius in main sequence stars. So listing an average value may not really be telling the reader a whole lot. (Perhaps core density would though? But I'm not sure where you'd get that value, other than from papers on stellar models.) The density values might be of more interest for white dwarfs and neutron stars, but since they're degenerate bodies anyway those values can probably just as easily be described on those main topic pages. — RJH ( talk) 18:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I now think that adding density to the template is a bad idea. I am removing it from the template. Dr. Submillimeter 22:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I added two new color indices: r-i and v-r. BlueEarth 00:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like it would be a problem, although it probably won't be of much interest to most people. I think r-i was suggested during the original starbox discussions but it ended up being removed for some reason. — RJH ( talk) 18:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

There are two article on AfD that you may be intersted in knowing about:

• Blue dwarf ( discussion)
• Planetary-size comparison ( discussion)

-- EMS | Talk 17:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Template:Types of nebula. Dr. Submillimeter 09:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This article has been nominated for FA status. Please feel free to leave useful comments. ( Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/IK Pegasi). Thank you. — RJH ( talk) 19:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This article has been promoted to FA. — RJH ( talk) 18:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The stub template Template:Main-star-stub is missing an image. Could someone fix this? Also, is it necessary to have separate stub boxes for different types of stars? It might be worth deleting this and using Template:Star-stub. Dr. Submillimeter 12:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The image that is now missing was deleted from Commons yesterday under the rationale SOHO is an ESA / NASA collaboration and their work is generally non-commercial. I'm not entirely sure what the above is meant to mean, and why that alone is a good reason for deletion of the image. Richard B 13:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

While NASA images are public domain, the same is not necessarily true for ESA images. You may want to check the restrictions on using SOHO images. (This is why I never upload images to Wikimedia.) Dr. Submillimeter 14:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced it with a Hubble photo of Sirius that was already on the Sirius page. Feel free to replace it with something else. Richard B 17:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion on blue dwarf led to the article being deleted. Following that, we still have a few articles with confusing common names. I will propose to rename these in a couple of days, but for now, I would like to pose the following options for comments:

Option 1

White main sequence star → A V star

Blue-white dwarf → B V star

Yellow-white dwarf → F V star

Yellow dwarf → G V star

Orange dwarf → K V star

Option 2

White main sequence star → A-type dwarf

Blue-white dwarf → B-type dwarf

Yellow-white dwarf → F-type dwarf

Yellow dwarf → G-type dwarf

Orange dwarf → K-type dwarf

I prefer Option 1, as the name is unambiguous. It is clear that the term is applicable to main sequence stars. Another option would be to use "X-type dwarf star". Please comment here. The names chosen for these articles will be the basis for choosing names for the categories later.

Note that a few articles that correspond to terms commonly used throughout astronomy (such as red supergiant, red giant, blue giant, and red dwarf) have been written so that the terms apply to objects with multiple spectral types. Those articles should not be renamed. Dr. Submillimeter 13:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Option 1. Also I've had at least one complaint in the past about my use of "type" rather than "class". — RJH ( talk) 17:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I checked how the terms are used in abstracts listed by the ADS Abstract Service. "X-type" (with or without the hyphen) is commonly used to describe stars by their spectral type. However, "class X" may be used to describe stars by their luminosity class. Dr. Submillimeter 17:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup. — RJH ( talk) 21:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Option 1 is ideal. It should be done without haste. -- ScienceApologist 21:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Option 1 looks better. 132.205.93.83 01:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have submitted Io (moon) for a Scientific Peer Review. Any comments on further improve the article, particularly along the lines of the points mentioned on the peer review discussion page, would be much appreciated. Let's try to get another moon to featured article status (or in this case, back to featured article status). -- Volcanopele 20:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

More "Aspects" tables have been showing up on various asteroid tables. (They show on a wikipedia search for the keywords "aspects asteroid".) I believe there was a prior consensus that they would be removed as non-encyclopedic, among other objections. Anyway, hopefully nobody will object if I start ripping those out where I find them. — RJH ( talk) 22:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. Dr. Submillimeter 23:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Done, at least for the moment. — RJH ( talk) 16:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Merging astronomy and astrophysics. Dr. Submillimeter 23:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Tiamat (hypothetical planet) has been requested for deletion at WP:AFD by User:JoshuaZ. 132.205.44.134 02:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have again nominated Template:Types of nebula for deletion. The first discussion closed with no other comments to keep or delete this template. I really think that this template is HARMFUL in that it suggests that nebulae can be divided into different "types" when no real classification system exists for nebulae. It was generated by a person with no college education who, while well-intentioned, had not thought of the problems that this template could cause. It should be destroyed.

Please comment at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 25. Dr. Submillimeter 10:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The table on the project page that lists articles and their ratings currently says that all our articles have no importance, and does not show any other possible importance ratings. I would fix this myself, but I'm not sure how one is supposed to go about doing so. Vsst 17:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The consensus here is to avoid using the importance ratings. Is your proposal along these lines? Dr. Submillimeter 18:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware of the consensus to avoid using the importance ratings, but I have no problem with it. However, it is somewhat confusing to have a table that lists all articles as having no importance. Is there a way to edit it so that it does not mention any importance ratings, rather than listing all articles as having no importance? Vsst 18:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that table is maintained by a bot, but I don't know who controls that process. Personally I just stopped looking at the main project page due to the irritating format. ;-) — RJH ( talk) 15:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Constellations in popular culture has been nominated for deletion. 132.205.44.5 19:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I made a couple of revisions to {{ Starbox astrometry}} template:

1. Per the earlier discussion, I restored the Space Velocity rows (with correction to logic). It seemed logical to me that they should come after the parallax row rather than before the proper motion values.
2. For compactness, I moved the "RA/Dec." labels of Proper Motion to the left-hand column, with the text right-aligned.

Let me know if these changes are objectionable and I'll revert. Thank you! — RJH ( talk) 19:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The space velocity values are dependent on measurements of the distance and proper motion. I am generally against including such quantities in templates, as the information is redundant with other template data and as the accuracy of the values are dependent on the accuracy of the other two values. An additional problem is that the velocity, which is probably defined relative to the Earth, may not necessarily be very meaningful to anyone except the expert and may mislead the non-expert. Do we really need it in the template? Dr. Submillimeter 20:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There seemed to be no objection to adding Space Velocity during the earlier discussion: two people were in favor of it. There is also the occasional article (such as Sigma Draconis) where the space velocity is of interest. But I'm fine with it either way. I would like to retain the Proper Motion formatting however, as it helps with the table proportions in cases of large proper motions. — RJH ( talk) 16:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The template was reverted by user BlueEarth (who must be an Admin since he/she subsequently removed the revision), so the changes are no longer visible. Fair enough, I'll await the outcome. Here is an example of the format to show the column alignment (arbitrary UVW values):

List of asteroids was nominated for deletion at WP:AFD by user:Cerejota as listcruft: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of asteroids. 132.205.44.5 21:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Closed as status "keep" on the 22nd. — RJH ( talk) 17:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I requested peer review of Callisto (moon of Jupiter). Any comments are appreciated. Ruslik 16:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

List of astronomical topics and List of astronomical topics 2 have been nominated for deletion. Note list 2 is very very long and recently created. List 1 is what was used before the invention of categories. 70.55.91.131 08:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I hope this is the right place to post this, anyway, the Large Magellanic Cloud and Small Magellanic Cloud articles are in need of some attention. Specifically, nobody seems to know how big they are. There's been several contradictory and probably erroneous figures put up (some by me), ranging from 5,000 to 35,000 LYs (for the LMC). Now, in going through a few Websites I've found various estimates for the LMC, this site [4] says 39,000 LYs, this site [5] says "about 30,000 LYs", this page mentions the LMC being "about 7 kiloparsecs" which is about 23,000 LYs, this NASA page [6] says "Spanning about 15,000 light-years or so", etc. The Celestia Astronomy programme I have says the LMC is 32,000 LYs in Diameter. As for the SMC, well this site (listed above again) [7] says it's "3 kpc" which is about 10,000 LYs, this page [8] also says 10,000 LYs, while Celestia says it's about 19,000 LYs big. This page (again listed above) [9] ambiguously says it's "under 20,000 lightyears in diameter". So, as you can see it's all quite confusing, can anyone clear things up? Does anybody know the diameters of the Magellanic Clouds? Or at-least where to get the information? Thanks. -- Hibernian 15:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well they do have fuzzy borders, so it probably depends on what you mean by "size". Perhaps some decrease in luminosity is used, such as the half-light radius for globular clusters? You might take a look at the NED entry and then query some of the external sources. The PGC, for example, gives an angular size of 1056.9 × 910.6 arcmin. A Vizier query of the "Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies" gives the log of the "apparent major isophotal diameter" (D25) = 3.81 (or 645.6 arcmin, which matches the listed value in the NED). The log of the "isophotal diameter ratio" is 0.07 (or a ratio of 1.17, which gives the smaller dimension of 551 arcmin). You should be able to use the distance estimate to compute a size. I'm not sure how to correlate the two differing angular sizes, however. — RJH ( talk) 17:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well that doesn't really help me very much. I need some definitive source stating their sizes, or even just a size range, say "20,000 to 40,000 Lys" or something like that. But I can't seem to even get that, isn't there some generally accepted size in academia? And if so doesn't anyone know it? I've asked the same question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy, maybe someone there will be able to shed some light on it. In the mean time what do you suggest be done about the erroneous figures that are currently up there? -- Hibernian 17:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Per this, with angular size=1056.9 arcmin and distance=160000 ly, I get 49582 ly, or about 50,000 ly after rounding off. With 645.6 arcmin the value comes to ~30,000 ly. There's no reason you couldn't document where you got the angular size and how you derived the actual size in the footnotes. — RJH ( talk) 17:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I added a diameter estimate to the LMC article. A similar edit to the SMC might be in order. WilliamKF 21:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Comets in popular culture has been nominated for deletion by user:Eyrian at 19:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC). The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comets in popular culture. 132.205.44.5 22:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Serendipodous suggests that Solar nebula be renamed Nebular hypothesis. 70.51.8.214 07:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion at: Talk:Solar_nebula#Move_request — RJH ( talk) 15:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Chaos syndrome has proposed that List of stars with confirmed extrasolar planets be renamed as List of published extrasolar planets. (though there also happens to be a List of unconfirmed exoplanets, which contains published but unconfirmed planets...) . 70.51.8.214 07:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Astronomical names in popular culture has been nominated for deletion by user:Eyrian. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astronomical names in popular culture. 132.205.44.5 22:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Speculation that Iapetus is artificial has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speculation that Iapetus is artificial by User:Radiant!. 132.205.44.5 22:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

User:RobertG has nominated Category:People with craters of the Moon named after them for conversion into the list List of people with craters of the Moon named after them. 132.205.44.5 23:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a list that is redundant with entries under List of craters on the Moon, very incomplete and completely unreferenced. I'm not sure I understand the benefit. Perhaps if it were organized on the basis of profession or nation-of-origin it would provide a value add? — RJH ( talk) 20:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Extrasolar planets with unofficial names was created by user:Zazaban on 15 August 2007 and then nominated for deletion by user:ProveIt on 18 August 2007. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_18#Category:Extrasolar_planets_with_unofficial_names for the deletion discussion. 70.51.11.13 07:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see the point of the category... 70.51.11.13 07:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of the orbital elements that are listed for each of the planets appear a tad superfluous, at least in my opinion. They are:

• Semi-minor axis (b derived from a and e)
• Orbital circumference (derived from a and e)
• Orbital area (derived from a and b; hence a and e)

Is there a strong desire to retain these parameters? I'm not sure that they are providing benefit, but they are adding perhaps unnecessary bloat to the Planetary infoboxes. — RJH ( talk) —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:54, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

I think it would be nice to have semi-minor axis and orbital circumference, especially since I'd prefer not to dig out a calculator to figure it out each time. 132.205.44.5 22:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

When the value of the semi-major axis or ellipticity is changed (because of a reference update) is somebody going to re-compute the values? I'm trying to reference the orbital parameters on the Earth page, which come from some unknown source and are of unlikely precision. So both a and e will be changing. — RJH ( talk) 15:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Can't a template autocalculate it from the values entered, or am I ascribing too much power to wikimedia templates? 132.205.44.5 16:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You might like to have a look at what has been done over at the giant planets, using HORIZONS. Deuar 20:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes a template could be a beneficial, if feasible. Otherwise a citation should be necessary to demonstrate that the value was computed correctly. — RJH ( talk) 20:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A citation seems excessive for what are simple mathematical mnipulations. In my experience, these sort of quantities are usually only explicitly given in amateur or educational sources anyway, which are on average no more reliable than wikipedia itself. If something is not crystal clear about the calculation it can be explained in a footnote. Deuar 12:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

They do add unnecessary bloat, and they're not the only ones; There is more discussion on these issues at Template talk:Infobox Planet#Proposed cleanup/additions. However, 132.205.44.5 does have a point. Orbital circumference is particularly tricky to calculate, because an accurate value requires an elliptic integral (see ellipse#Circumference). Deuar 20:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of them. They only serve to prove we can do mathematics, and aren't particularly useful or generally tabulated in sets of orbital elements. Chaos syndrome 20:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears that an anonymous individual has been adding invented names to some of the star articles. Examples include Proxima Ophiuchi ( Barnard's star), Proxima Ursae Majoris ( Lalande 21185) and Proxima Ceti A/B ( Luyten 726-8). As far as I know these have no historical basis. But they do appear on the following unsigned web site: http://closeststars.com/ . It almost looks as if somebody has an agenda to promote these apparent astronomical neologisms... — RJH ( talk)

If there is no objection, I'd like to remove those entries. Anybody? — RJH ( talk) 21:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take that as "no objection". — RJH ( talk) 17:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I added the four types of SNRs. Looking for someone to review it to make sure I covered all the bases, as well as readability and format. Thanks, CarpD, 8/24/07.

• David Darling also lists something called plerions. — RJH ( talk) 20:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Added the different types of CVs in the discussion section. I did not know how to incorporate it into the article, due to the article being unorganized.

• NASA learning center

Thanks, CarpD, 24/8/07.

The article could use a back-link to variable star. Thanks. — RJH ( talk) 20:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeking consensus at MOSNUM talk for a change in the wording to allow contributors, by consensus only, to use unconverted metrics in scientific articles. Your opinions are invited. Tony 15:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

What is the best way to cite information in an infobox? I personally prefer putting <ref> tags on each element, which is usually fine. Unfortunately, if you do this for calculated elements (e.g. putting a <ref> tag in the parallax field of a star infobox) causes the calculation to go wrong. Is it possible to extract the number part and drop the <ref> tag when doing the calculation? Chaos syndrome 21:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by the "calculation"? Is it something done automatically by the template? if so, a solution would be to make two paremeters in the template e.g. parralax and parralax_ref, the second being used only if a reference is actually known, in the format parralax_ref=<ref> ... </ref>. This kind of idea is used in Template:Infobox Planet, but to generate collective references for a number of fields. Deuar 21:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant: if you put a value in the parallax field, the distance in parsecs and light years is automatically calculated. Well, thanks for pointing out the obvious solution... I was too busy trying to think of how to do it a "clever" way. Chaos syndrome 22:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Found some information on the Photometric filters and the different designation and values. I am unfamiliar on how to fix the references with the "#" sign in front. Thanks, CarpD, 26/8/07. —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:10, August 26, 2007 (UTC).

Great Comet of 1882 is currently under review at Wikipedia:Good article review. If any members would like help keep this a good article please see the comments on the Good article review page. T Rex | talk 19:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, I have added inline citations to it to address the issue raised. WilliamKF 04:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)