Main | Talk |
Astronomical objects ( Talk) |
Eclipses ( Talk) | Article ratings | Image review | Popular pages | Members | Wikidata |
To-do list for WikiProject Astronomy:
|
Astronomy Project‑class | |||||||
|
WikiProject Astronomy was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 14 January 2013. |
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I have nominated Galaxy for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 12:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Should imperial/U.S. customary units be present in the infobox of astronomical objects in general?
CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 04:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm opposed to imperial in general, but we need to keep it when citing values that are given in imperial. The reason is that when we convert to metric, not only may there be rounding errors, but we often change the number of significant digits. And when sources are in imperial, their source data was often in metric and there are already conversion errors involved. Often when we convert back, our figures differ from the original -- that's been a recurring problem with our data. Better to give it in imperial with our metric conversion following in parentheses. Editors will then be aware of the potential for error and try to find the original figures, which should be used instead. When our sources use metric, then we should use metric only, unless our source converted from imperial. In all cases, I think we should attempt to use the original figures, or as close to them as we can find. — kwami ( talk) 23:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
We should be using metric units for everything except for material which is specifically US material. Wikipdia is not owned by the US. It is world wide and vast majority of countries now use metric. Bduke ( talk) 01:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
As a month passes by and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#Imperial/U.S._customary_units_in_the_infobox did not reach to a consensus, I think it is time to ask the wider community.
CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 16:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
My view on each of these proposals:
So if we were to adopt any of these, my !vote would be for a clarified version of the first. A more general comment would be that, as others have observed above, this is spelled out in realistically enough detail already at WP:UNITS, so any guidance specific to this WikiProject should simply be a clarification of what that MOS guidance means specifically for the articles it maintains. It's important not to focus obsessively on problems that don't exist, or don't really manifest in article-space, so unless there is a recurrent problem with editors obsessively adding imperial/USC units to astronomy infoboxes, I'm not sure see a clear use case for this guidance. Archon 2488 ( talk) 15:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
It looks like not all of the constellation navboxes have been fully populated. The {{ Pegasus (constellation)}} navbox, for example, is lacking sections below the stars, including globular clusters and galaxies. (Compare to {{ Andromeda (constellation)}}.) Several such objects are listed at Pegasus (constellation)#Deep-sky objects. It can also include galaxies in Pegasus Galaxy and page links from Category:Pegasus (constellation). Praemonitus ( talk) 16:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
It was my understanding that the Chandrasekhar limit concerns the maximum mass at the process of a star -> white dwarf transition. The end point is stable so the story ends.
Is Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit really analogous, meaning the max mass for star -> neutron star, end of story?
(I'm not really interested in the fine points of how these limits might be changed by better models, but rather just the concept they represent; these pages get edits that want the end points and cross the limits).
Ideal would be a ref. Johnjbarton ( talk) 02:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Some further input on Life_habitable_zones would be useful: the page looks like a WP:SYNTH list, with names that don't necessarily appear in the references and no obvious reason why it couldn't just be folded into Habitable_zone. - Parejkoj ( talk) 18:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
There are three new requested moves at Talk:WD 2359−434, Talk:L 97-12 and Talk:PG 1047+003 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. InTheAstronomy32 ( talk) 16:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Arlo James Barnes 23:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
draft:list of smallest named extraterrestrial craters lemme know what y'all think. Arlo James Barnes 09:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Minor planet articles that might pass NASTRO, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. — a smart kitten[ meow 04:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
For some reason, in the Serpens article infobox there are two images depicting Serpens Caput. As Serpens is a constellation divided into two non-contiguous parts (Serpens Caput and Serpens Cauda), there are two images to represent the two parts, and there should be a third to represent both parts. However, the third image is already duplicating the image of Serpens Caput. On Wikipedia, we have this image which represents the constellation as a whole.
I tried to edit the article, but I couldn't replace the image. Apparently the images are predefined in {{ infobox constellation}}. InTheAstronomy32 ( talk) 19:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:WD 2359−434#Requested move 24 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 16:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
The subject phrase seems to be standard Astronomy lingo for a specific way of defining a galaxy diameter. I assume that this would be defined in an astronomy text. I have none. Any hints on a source for the definition?
Thanks. Johnjbarton ( talk) 04:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm inclined to rate astronomy museums, documentaries, and education programs as of bottom importance. Do you agree? Examples include: Kepler Museum, Our Heavenly Bodies, Category:Astronomy education television series, Category:Astronomy museums, Category:Documentary television series about astronomy. Category:Planetaria are already of bottom importance. Praemonitus ( talk) 17:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Here's a candidate Education block for the importance scale:
Will this work? Praemonitus ( talk) 14:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I am a little bit confused about Draft talk:Andrea Ferrara (astrophysicist) because a sourced page was moved to draft for what sounds like minor reasons that no other users visiting it pointed out (so they don't look critical). I usually don't add information unless it's on third-party sources so I am not going to add more content just because it's on an official website even if I know it's true.
So whoever wants to take care of it further, please do so. Alexmar983 ( talk) 00:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Just to be clear now User:Ldm1954 converted his request to this warning but this is not actually correct to me. I analyzed all sources for months, all other sources are almost from websites of university or institutions where he is actually working. I usualy do not add such content. It's fineI suppose for some of you, I agree that it's there but I focus mostly on content that it's also on third-party sources or peer-reviewed such as in publication. If User:Ldm1954 wants to be more specific and link here all sources he is referring to can add some of them if they are from a thirdpart.-- Alexmar983 ( talk) 00:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
After a protracted argument on the Dyson sphere talk page that seemed to be going nowhere, I decided to consolidate and restate the basic issues concerning this section in general, and one particular instance that has proven especially vexing, as I see them. I hope that members of this and other related WikiProjects might weigh in and give their opinions. P Aculeius ( talk) 18:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello. I am inviting you to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox galaxy for a possible change in some parameters, particularly galaxy diameters. Feel free to add comments. Thanks! SkyFlubbler ( talk) 18:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of July 16, 2186 (2nd nomination), which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Primefac ( talk) 05:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I am looking for a textbook or review to explain superluminal astronomical observations for Faster-than-light#Astronomical_observations. AFAICT astronomers use the term "superluminal" as an observational category and thus the reviews of "superluminal sources" are matter of fact. The non-physical nature of "superluminal" does not even come up since (I assume) "everyone" knows that the term is empirical and no one things the speed of light limit is really exceeded. But I've not found a source that explains the issue. Suggestions? Johnjbarton ( talk) 01:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I put together an early draft of a MoS guide for astronomy under Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Manual of Style. It is intended to embed what has thus far been tribal knowledge for this WikiProject and its associated task forces. For comparison, other such style guides can be viewed under the "By topic area" tab in the infobox. What do you think of this proposed guide? Do you disagree with what is stated? What else should it cover? I'm sure it can be significantly expanded. Thanks. Praemonitus ( talk) 05:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
A style question came up during a recent edit discussion: should infobox data entries preferentially use abbreviations or words? For example, 'Mly' or 'million light years'; 'AU' or 'astronomical unit'; 'Gyr' or 'billion years'; 'g/cm3' or 'grams per cubic centimetre'. In my mind the infobox should be kept compact by sticking to abbreviations, with the word usage being left for the article body. Is there a preference? Praemonitus ( talk) 20:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
It's probably not an issue yet, but should we mention AI-generated illustrations? For example, "AI-generated illustrations should be avoided unless their accuracy is confirmed by an astronomy expert. The AI system may have been trained using copyrighted material, so the legality of such use is unclear." Praemonitus ( talk) 17:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
The guide contained the following entry, which was removed with this edit:
with the comment "I disagree, it is better to directly cite SIMBAD or NED as sources for the infobox, as it makes it easier to verify the information."
I have seen cited data removed from these sources, so they should not be considered stable. An example of this is the coordinate information, which is subject to refinement over time, with the old data being replaced. Instead, in many cases they do provide stable references that can be used to directly cite the data. Hence, I'd caution against using SIMBAD or NED directly.
Are there any concerns about this? Praemonitus ( talk) 12:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
There is this List of missions to Mars, and there are three lists that are mostly duplicates, List of Mars landers, List of Mars orbiters, and List of artificial objects on Mars. I think both can be safely redirected to the main list without any loss of content, with a little merge from the third article (section on garbage on Mars). What do you all think? Artem.G ( talk) 12:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
This is approaching a state in which the featured article review can be closed as kept, but could use some more attention. I recently left some review comments and was requested to leave a note here. Hog Farm Talk 02:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I have heard rumors that wiki-sky, a.k.a. Sky-Map.org, have shut down permanently. The page has long been used by a number of templates, used in thousands of astronomy articles on Wikipedia, in the form of links to a sky map (see Messier 94 and Alpha Centauri as examples; the link to the "coordinates" is at the top of the page). The page is currently offline, and has been for a few days. If this is indeed permanent, as I suspect, then we need a replacement, and some rather high-profile templates have to be edited quickly. Renerpho ( talk) 15:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Currently, there is no C:COM:WikiProject Astronomy, but there is alot of astronomical files and needs for categorization, file description, file name corrections, and perhaps building galleries. There are such wikiprojects on Commons, such as C:COM:WikiProject Aviation. The 2024 Great North American Eclipse talkpage has also been having debates on galleries lately, so building galleries on Commons can alleviate that -- 65.92.247.66 ( talk) 21:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Main | Talk |
Astronomical objects ( Talk) |
Eclipses ( Talk) | Article ratings | Image review | Popular pages | Members | Wikidata |
To-do list for WikiProject Astronomy:
|
Astronomy Project‑class | |||||||
|
WikiProject Astronomy was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 14 January 2013. |
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I have nominated Galaxy for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 12:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Should imperial/U.S. customary units be present in the infobox of astronomical objects in general?
CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 04:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm opposed to imperial in general, but we need to keep it when citing values that are given in imperial. The reason is that when we convert to metric, not only may there be rounding errors, but we often change the number of significant digits. And when sources are in imperial, their source data was often in metric and there are already conversion errors involved. Often when we convert back, our figures differ from the original -- that's been a recurring problem with our data. Better to give it in imperial with our metric conversion following in parentheses. Editors will then be aware of the potential for error and try to find the original figures, which should be used instead. When our sources use metric, then we should use metric only, unless our source converted from imperial. In all cases, I think we should attempt to use the original figures, or as close to them as we can find. — kwami ( talk) 23:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
We should be using metric units for everything except for material which is specifically US material. Wikipdia is not owned by the US. It is world wide and vast majority of countries now use metric. Bduke ( talk) 01:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
As a month passes by and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#Imperial/U.S._customary_units_in_the_infobox did not reach to a consensus, I think it is time to ask the wider community.
CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 16:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
My view on each of these proposals:
So if we were to adopt any of these, my !vote would be for a clarified version of the first. A more general comment would be that, as others have observed above, this is spelled out in realistically enough detail already at WP:UNITS, so any guidance specific to this WikiProject should simply be a clarification of what that MOS guidance means specifically for the articles it maintains. It's important not to focus obsessively on problems that don't exist, or don't really manifest in article-space, so unless there is a recurrent problem with editors obsessively adding imperial/USC units to astronomy infoboxes, I'm not sure see a clear use case for this guidance. Archon 2488 ( talk) 15:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
It looks like not all of the constellation navboxes have been fully populated. The {{ Pegasus (constellation)}} navbox, for example, is lacking sections below the stars, including globular clusters and galaxies. (Compare to {{ Andromeda (constellation)}}.) Several such objects are listed at Pegasus (constellation)#Deep-sky objects. It can also include galaxies in Pegasus Galaxy and page links from Category:Pegasus (constellation). Praemonitus ( talk) 16:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
It was my understanding that the Chandrasekhar limit concerns the maximum mass at the process of a star -> white dwarf transition. The end point is stable so the story ends.
Is Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit really analogous, meaning the max mass for star -> neutron star, end of story?
(I'm not really interested in the fine points of how these limits might be changed by better models, but rather just the concept they represent; these pages get edits that want the end points and cross the limits).
Ideal would be a ref. Johnjbarton ( talk) 02:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Some further input on Life_habitable_zones would be useful: the page looks like a WP:SYNTH list, with names that don't necessarily appear in the references and no obvious reason why it couldn't just be folded into Habitable_zone. - Parejkoj ( talk) 18:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
There are three new requested moves at Talk:WD 2359−434, Talk:L 97-12 and Talk:PG 1047+003 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. InTheAstronomy32 ( talk) 16:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Arlo James Barnes 23:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
draft:list of smallest named extraterrestrial craters lemme know what y'all think. Arlo James Barnes 09:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Minor planet articles that might pass NASTRO, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. — a smart kitten[ meow 04:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
For some reason, in the Serpens article infobox there are two images depicting Serpens Caput. As Serpens is a constellation divided into two non-contiguous parts (Serpens Caput and Serpens Cauda), there are two images to represent the two parts, and there should be a third to represent both parts. However, the third image is already duplicating the image of Serpens Caput. On Wikipedia, we have this image which represents the constellation as a whole.
I tried to edit the article, but I couldn't replace the image. Apparently the images are predefined in {{ infobox constellation}}. InTheAstronomy32 ( talk) 19:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:WD 2359−434#Requested move 24 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 16:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
The subject phrase seems to be standard Astronomy lingo for a specific way of defining a galaxy diameter. I assume that this would be defined in an astronomy text. I have none. Any hints on a source for the definition?
Thanks. Johnjbarton ( talk) 04:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm inclined to rate astronomy museums, documentaries, and education programs as of bottom importance. Do you agree? Examples include: Kepler Museum, Our Heavenly Bodies, Category:Astronomy education television series, Category:Astronomy museums, Category:Documentary television series about astronomy. Category:Planetaria are already of bottom importance. Praemonitus ( talk) 17:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Here's a candidate Education block for the importance scale:
Will this work? Praemonitus ( talk) 14:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I am a little bit confused about Draft talk:Andrea Ferrara (astrophysicist) because a sourced page was moved to draft for what sounds like minor reasons that no other users visiting it pointed out (so they don't look critical). I usually don't add information unless it's on third-party sources so I am not going to add more content just because it's on an official website even if I know it's true.
So whoever wants to take care of it further, please do so. Alexmar983 ( talk) 00:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Just to be clear now User:Ldm1954 converted his request to this warning but this is not actually correct to me. I analyzed all sources for months, all other sources are almost from websites of university or institutions where he is actually working. I usualy do not add such content. It's fineI suppose for some of you, I agree that it's there but I focus mostly on content that it's also on third-party sources or peer-reviewed such as in publication. If User:Ldm1954 wants to be more specific and link here all sources he is referring to can add some of them if they are from a thirdpart.-- Alexmar983 ( talk) 00:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
After a protracted argument on the Dyson sphere talk page that seemed to be going nowhere, I decided to consolidate and restate the basic issues concerning this section in general, and one particular instance that has proven especially vexing, as I see them. I hope that members of this and other related WikiProjects might weigh in and give their opinions. P Aculeius ( talk) 18:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello. I am inviting you to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox galaxy for a possible change in some parameters, particularly galaxy diameters. Feel free to add comments. Thanks! SkyFlubbler ( talk) 18:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of July 16, 2186 (2nd nomination), which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Primefac ( talk) 05:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I am looking for a textbook or review to explain superluminal astronomical observations for Faster-than-light#Astronomical_observations. AFAICT astronomers use the term "superluminal" as an observational category and thus the reviews of "superluminal sources" are matter of fact. The non-physical nature of "superluminal" does not even come up since (I assume) "everyone" knows that the term is empirical and no one things the speed of light limit is really exceeded. But I've not found a source that explains the issue. Suggestions? Johnjbarton ( talk) 01:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I put together an early draft of a MoS guide for astronomy under Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Manual of Style. It is intended to embed what has thus far been tribal knowledge for this WikiProject and its associated task forces. For comparison, other such style guides can be viewed under the "By topic area" tab in the infobox. What do you think of this proposed guide? Do you disagree with what is stated? What else should it cover? I'm sure it can be significantly expanded. Thanks. Praemonitus ( talk) 05:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
A style question came up during a recent edit discussion: should infobox data entries preferentially use abbreviations or words? For example, 'Mly' or 'million light years'; 'AU' or 'astronomical unit'; 'Gyr' or 'billion years'; 'g/cm3' or 'grams per cubic centimetre'. In my mind the infobox should be kept compact by sticking to abbreviations, with the word usage being left for the article body. Is there a preference? Praemonitus ( talk) 20:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
It's probably not an issue yet, but should we mention AI-generated illustrations? For example, "AI-generated illustrations should be avoided unless their accuracy is confirmed by an astronomy expert. The AI system may have been trained using copyrighted material, so the legality of such use is unclear." Praemonitus ( talk) 17:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
The guide contained the following entry, which was removed with this edit:
with the comment "I disagree, it is better to directly cite SIMBAD or NED as sources for the infobox, as it makes it easier to verify the information."
I have seen cited data removed from these sources, so they should not be considered stable. An example of this is the coordinate information, which is subject to refinement over time, with the old data being replaced. Instead, in many cases they do provide stable references that can be used to directly cite the data. Hence, I'd caution against using SIMBAD or NED directly.
Are there any concerns about this? Praemonitus ( talk) 12:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
There is this List of missions to Mars, and there are three lists that are mostly duplicates, List of Mars landers, List of Mars orbiters, and List of artificial objects on Mars. I think both can be safely redirected to the main list without any loss of content, with a little merge from the third article (section on garbage on Mars). What do you all think? Artem.G ( talk) 12:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
This is approaching a state in which the featured article review can be closed as kept, but could use some more attention. I recently left some review comments and was requested to leave a note here. Hog Farm Talk 02:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I have heard rumors that wiki-sky, a.k.a. Sky-Map.org, have shut down permanently. The page has long been used by a number of templates, used in thousands of astronomy articles on Wikipedia, in the form of links to a sky map (see Messier 94 and Alpha Centauri as examples; the link to the "coordinates" is at the top of the page). The page is currently offline, and has been for a few days. If this is indeed permanent, as I suspect, then we need a replacement, and some rather high-profile templates have to be edited quickly. Renerpho ( talk) 15:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Currently, there is no C:COM:WikiProject Astronomy, but there is alot of astronomical files and needs for categorization, file description, file name corrections, and perhaps building galleries. There are such wikiprojects on Commons, such as C:COM:WikiProject Aviation. The 2024 Great North American Eclipse talkpage has also been having debates on galleries lately, so building galleries on Commons can alleviate that -- 65.92.247.66 ( talk) 21:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)