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.
Should Artist's Impression images that be used on Article Pages?
Latest comment: 8 years ago92 comments28 people in discussion
There is an argument going on created by a user who believe that many planetary images are speculative and inappropriate for use on an encyclopedia. I do not want to argue with him so I'm seeking everyone's opinion and I want to do it in a democratic way. Do you want to keep or remove images like the one below (which are only a sample) from article pages and lists. Currently only selective pages are having the images striped and I belive either all the speculative images go or none. All the non speculative images can stay. The current definition of a speculative image from this persion as I understand it are "Images that contain unconfirmed details, patterns, or features of a planet or substellar object (Brown Dwarf)."
Sample of considered speculative (that needs to go if remove is chosen):
Sample of considered non Speculative (those that can stay if remove is chosen):
So what do you think should artists impressions go or not? Note the images are not a complete list there are more.
Vote Keep to keep them or Remove to remove them. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
So far Keep has the largest so that is what I will be implementing.
An RfC is closed, usually by an uninvolved admin, after evaluating the merit of the arguments presented by all the editors who commented on the RfC, and not just by counting voices.
I suggest you revert your recent changes (announcing that the RfC is over) and let the process complete normally. “WarKosign” 19:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
You also need to restore the RfC tag, so it can be closed properly. Note that it's possible for a non-admin to close a discussion, but it should be done by an non-involved editor and only when the result is obvious. “WarKosign” 21:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
Keep - I decided to test the educated guess that was made with my grandfather. I asked him if he believes that the GJ 667 Cc's sunset is how the planet actually looks he said that he doesn't believe that that is how the planet looks like because we simply don't have the technology to see the planet as a blue marble nevermind as standing on the surface. Because of this I don't believe that these images are really being misinterpreted as real scientific data unless the person is a 12 year old who believes everything they see. They all list artists impression below them too so that should also lower the chance of it being misinterpreted. Imo this is all nonsense and will require lots of work do something that could be prevented by logic and basic questioning. But that is my two cents. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment: You can not make a blanket decision as a lot of it needs to depend on the quality of the source. I think a lot of artists impressions are made by 12 year olds and you can not compare that to an impression produced by a more reliable source. -- Kheider (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
@Kheider:What about the samples I gave should those be removed? They are all made by NASA/ESO (the top row). People are taking down artists impressions made by official sources. All of the speculative samples are made by official sources that I have listed. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Process comment: Wikipedia is not a democracy, and these decisions can't be made project-wide. It might be possible to form some general guidelines about when to use artist's impressions, but ultimately the decision will be case-by-case and depend upon the consensus in an individual article. I don't have enough information on the specific circumstances which you're referring to to have a reasonable opinion, and I don't think any editor could based on the information provided here. And it appears that you're finding a different forum instead of engaging with the editor(s) with whom you disagree; that is very, very bad practice. Could you point to the specific discussion you're referring to? —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep so long as they clearly state in the article that the image is an artist concept. But agree with Ashill above. — Huntster (t@c) 15:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete nearly all I see little-to-no encyclopedic value in these images. Not only do they not represent what actually is, they tend to quite grossly misrepresent what a real picture of the damned thing would look like anyway. For example File:Kepler-69c-_Super-Venus.jpg shows stars and nebula/dust behind the planet, and there's just no way those would be captured in a real image of any 'super Venus' that we sent a probe at. File:Gliese_667_Cc_sunset.jpg might be a damned pretty planet, but looking at it one could be mislead into thinking there's a) water / liquids b) sedimentation c) tectonic activity / mountain d) that the stars of Gliese 667Cc would have those relative sizes when viewed from the surface e) clouds f) somehow has very sharp non-eroded peaks despite having an atmosphere that would sustain significant winds over timescales long enough for canyons to form g) A very inclined orbit relative to its stars. Sure, some aspect of them might (e.g. Is it a rocky planet? Does it have an atmosphere? How many stars does it have?) be based on data, but that data is very often accompanied by large error bars and/or is in dire need of confirmation.
These image don't belong on Wikipedia because they serve no purpose but to make people go "oooh pretty!". This is what Pluto might have looked according to one person. This is what it might have looked like according to another. If we continue to allow those image, we need to decide which depiction to include, according to the speculations of random people made in light of what is often questionable data. Artist depictions can stay in press releases. Wikipedia should not be a repository of pretty wallpapers. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
As a general rule, I don't see the need to delete them from the Wikimedia Commons servers; they're public domain images and don't have to be used anywhere to stay on the servers. Many of the points you make are entirely fair in individual articles, but the decision about whether any image is useful in any particular article will depend on the context in that article. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 16:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Commons can do what it wants. I'm talking about deleting them from our articles. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete nearly all; agree with everything Headbomb wrote. I can't stress this enough, both here and in other areas of encyclopedic editing: if something is actively misinforming readers, such as these images are, it needs to go, because it undermines our purpose of the encyclopedia, which is to provide accurate information. These images do not provide the former; they give the reader inaccurate information, which undermines Wikipedia and makes it unreliable. I don't even see how this is a debate, honestly. As Headbomb mentions, pretty images go to flickr, not here. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep on a case-by-case basis, rather than applying a blanket deletion. A few editor's banal lack of appreciation for artistic expression should not be used as a reason to turn Wikipedia into a bland, boring, vanilla read. As long as the illustration is not blatantly misinformative, it has a role in encouraging further exploration of the subject. Praemonitus (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
This is hardly a 'banal lack of appreciation', these images are blatantly misinformative. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Need to determine on cases by case basis as they vary wildly in accuracy. Overall I am dubious of the value of many. Size comparisons are good. I think we need to have the discussion where the images are. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Praemonitus and Casliber. Going around and removing them all is borderline reckless. -- Kheider (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete Remove unless it meets certain criteria (listed below). As other party to the original discussion, I would have appreciated being informed about the discussion here when it was posted. The original discussion can be found at Talk:Gliese 667 Cc#Image Controversy and a similar earlier discussion (they blend together a bit) is at Talk:MOA-2007-BLG-192Lb#Artist.27s impressions and exoplanets. I have made very detailed (perhaps too detailed) arguments for my position on those pages, and I won't repost them again here. The main points are:
Artist's impressions are usually responsibly used to portray subjects about which a significant amount is known but no image is available for whatever reason. As a result, while the average reader can expect some speculation in an artist's impression, it should be accurate (or at least based on substantial evidence) in its broad strokes and prominent features. This is not the case for many exoplanet impressions, and they are therefore inconsistent with the usual responsible use of artist's impression.
MOS notes that "images should look like what they are meant to illustrate". This is also cannot be reasonably expected to be the case for most exoplanet impressions. This guideline is meant to ensure that images have encyclopedic value.
Keeping these points in mind, the following sorts of artist's impressions are generally acceptable:
Size comparisons are A-OK: they show only known features with no speculative features.
Artist's impressions based primarily on known (or reasonably suspected) features of the object are okay as long as they make that feature more prominent than the speculative bits. This image is borderline but okay since the exoplanet is known to be blue. This is the responsible way to use artist's impressions. A2soup (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I think this makes a lot of sense as general criteria, and I'd emphasize that it's a case-by-case decision. There certainly are cases in which artist's impressions are useful as long as the caption is very clear about what they are (and preferably briefly state the assumptions used in making the impression). As in everything, the use of these impressions depends on context, and any global assertions that all should go or all should stay are just inappropriate. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 23:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I would argue that no amount of clarity about the nature of an artist's impression makes it appropriate for an encyclopedia if it depicts essentially no known or well-evidenced features of an object while also depicting many highly speculative features. But yes, I agree on the general point that discussion-terminating global assertions are inappropriate. Though at the same time, it is also inappropriate to have an RfC on every contested image removal, so it's not a bad idea to build consensus around a few general guidelines, so that discussion can focus on borderline images and special cases. That was the intention of my points above (which I realize now are written in a somewhat too authoritative style-- they reflect only my personal beliefs at this time) . A2soup (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Treat on a case by case basis A white sphere comparing an exoplanet to Earth certainly is appropriate, since it is a size comparison. A picture of a purple planet is not appropriate since that contains WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. There is no way to tell what color the planet is. Similarly weather bands, since on our giant planets, Neptune and Uranus have few noticeable banding, and Saturn is rather muted. We should be guided by WP:OR and remove any original research images. If the artistic impression is in black-and-white and based on albedo estimates, then that's fine, but coloration should not be involved. -- `67.70.32.20 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand WP:OR. Original research only applies to Wikipedia editors. If another source conducts original research and we use it as a citation or use the image, that's fine from a policy point of view. The question here is whether we want to include these artist's impressions as an editorial matter; the original research policy has no bearing one way or the other. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 13:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
OR applies to images created by Wikipedia editors. Many exoplanet images are generated by Wikipedia editors from some program they have, which is completely OR unless backed up with proper sources. If the artistic impression comes from a non-RS source, then if it doesn't match the data known about the planet in question, WP:HOAX we are misleading our audience by providing false facts. If the reliable source itself provides the artistic impression, then I would hesitate to use it if it doesn't match the known characteristics of the world. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Can you clarify if by "doesn't match the known characteristics of the world" you mean actively inconsistent with known characteristics or simply depicting characteristics for which there is no evidence? A2soup (talk) 06:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, both. Though depicting characteristics which are derived from an analogous situation (such as a Solar System planet) or from planetary theory, given the boundary conditions of the observed characteristics would be the allowable artistic leeway. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
67.70.32.20 -- Baaaad white sphere ... that one seems an example of misuse as the Kepler-186f image is then reused for Kepler-438b and re-labelled as 438b. While a 1.12 Earth and 1.17 Earth is not much difference, it is not the image that the second labelling says it is. I think the 'obviously illustration' argument is better given in the Kepler-186f image about orbits with labeling in the image so it could not be mislabelled, and that the white ball image is something that both articles should remove. Markbassett (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Remove in general, keep on a case by case. I started reading this RFC thinking I'd come down the other way but I'm conviced by HeadBomb and A2Soup that a lot of these images are actively misleading. I like A2Soups basic points as a guideline for inclusion and I would favour an essay or guideline being drawn up to help people assess whether any given artists impression is of encyclopedic value. For instance I don't know enough about what is known about the first two planets shown as speculative to know whether or not the image is encyclopedically valuable or not. But I would look to see whether RS confirmed atmosphere, clouds and coloration because those are the 3 key features I see from those 2 images. SPACKlick (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep in general, provided that all artists impressions are clearly and unambiguously identified as such at the start of the caption. Reasonable scientifically-informed inferences or even best guesses made by reliable sources are fine to include in an encyclopaedia, so long as they are indicated as such. Making up our own would be original research, but if a reliable source has published them then WP:OR does not apply. Modest Geniustalk 13:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
In my experience, the "reliable sources" creating these images do not feel obliged to make them reasonable scientifically-informed inferences. File:Gliese_667_Cc_sunset.jpg is from the ESO, but is based on nothing but the planet's mass and distance from its star. The size (and therefore density), composition, and atmospheric features of the exoplanet are unknown. If the planet is rocky, if it contains water, if that water is in a pure form and not hydrates or something, if it has an atmosphere similar to Earth's (so that the pressure/temperature for liquid water is right), and if is has active geology, then that image would be reasonably scientifically informed. But none of those things are known or even reasonably suspected from the current data, and yet the ESO publishes this image. Honestly, I think they are trying to get the public excited about their work, but their goals are different from ours in that department. Their status as a scientifically respected source does not automatically make their images responsible or acceptable here-- we should judge them ourselves. A2soup (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
It's an "artist's impression", which should make it clear to the reader that it is a work of the artist's imagination. It's not absurdly unrealistic and I don't believe it is creating a misleading impression. But if there's a concern that it is doing so, then that can be made clear in the caption. Praemonitus (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
@Praemonitus: I guess I just wonder why you think that works of artists' imaginations are appropriate for Wikipedia articles? A2soup (talk) 04:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
That is not our problem. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - a tertiary source which reports claims made by reliable sources of primary and secondary literature. It is not our job to seek the truth. If the researchers involved were satisfied by the artist's impression (which they must have been if they approved the release), as are reliable observatory/university/institute sources, then why should we believe we know more about the topic than they do? Modest Geniustalk 10:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
The issue is that the PR people/researchers who probably sign off on the press releases are not trying to accurately depict the planet, nor are they terribly concerned about misleading readers. They are trying to get the public excited about their work, and do not claim to be accurately representing the planet. We have different goals from them; we want to inform readers by accurately representing our article subjects. Our differing goals and intentions mean that just because they publish the image does not mean it belongs here. As an analogy, researchers often publish highly technical figures, none of which end up on Wikipedia. The figures don't end up on Wikipedia because our goals are again different in this case; they are trying to communicate with peers, we are trying to be more accessible. The principle is that we need to judge whether images from scientific sources are appropriate-- their source does not automatically merit their inclusion. A2soup (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
You're shifting attention away from the issue - should we ban artists impressions of exoplanets? If you want to proceed with your analogy: we have no blanket ban on technical figures (whether original or recreated), instead their inclusion or not is left up to individual editorial judgement, discussed on a case-by-case basis on the article talk page. The same should be true for artists impressions of anything, including exoplanets. There's no need for a ban. Modest Geniustalk 09:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Woah, there. This comment is the first time anyone has said "ban" in this discussion-- neither I nor anyone else is advocating a ban AFAIK. The issue is under what conditions the use of an artist's impression is acceptable, so your argument and my response above about scientific sources are very pertinent, not shifting attention away from the issue at all. This started when I removed several dozen images on 7th-8th July, on a case-by-case basis, leaving behind some images that I felt were okay. The editor who started this RfC disagreed with my removal of File:Gliese_667_Cc_sunset.jpg in particular. What do you think of that image? Please look at my main comment in this discussion to see my position on this, which is far from a ban on artist's impressions. What do you think of the ideas in that comment? A2soup (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The RfC says 'all the speculative images go or none'. So if the decision is to remove them all, that's a ban - whether you use that word or not. Given that we're discussing a general policy, I don't feel it is productive to get into discussions about individual images here. Indeed, I advocated holding those discussions on the relevant article talk page. Some images are inappropriate, others are not. That determination should be made on a case-by-case basis, not a blanket ban. Modest Geniustalk 16:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand why the RfC poster presented the issue as all or nothing; that was unhelpful. Which artists' impressions are appropriate for Wikipedia is not an all-or-nothing question-- more nuanced inclusion guidelines are possible and preferred, and many people (including myself) have articulated ideas for more nuanced guidelines in this RfC. It is good to have a central discussion about these distinctions because of the great number of cases involved. It wastes everybody's time to have dozens of identical discussions. Two discussions on individual cases have already occurred, and one of them prompted this RfC. Those cases are at Talk:Gliese 667 Cc#Image Controversy and Talk:MOA-2007-BLG-192Lb#Artist.27s impressions and exoplanets. Given the discussion of individual cases that has already occurred, what general guidelines do you think would be good? In other words, would you have kept the images removed in those two cases, and why? A2soup (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep if image is appropriate. Clarify their speculative nature. KieranTribe 11:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Since the disagreement is over what "appropriate" means in these cases, maybe you could clarify what you mean by that? A2soup (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Based on scientific basis. KieranTribe 13:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
You're being vague, overly emotive, and appear to be employing hyperbole to win an argument. Exactly how many cases are you talking about, and how many of those appear inappropriate? Praemonitus (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
If they're appropriate to the article (the image is based off what knowledge we have of them) then keep. Otherwise, remove. We're not an art gallery. KieranTribe 09:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete most of these, but judge them individually. Images in an article should be for illustrating facts presented in an article, not for drama. Thus the one of the tailed planet passing in front of the star should stay, but the overly dramatic one of clouds and canyons and two red suns in the sky really does need to go. ReykYO! 20:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep- if from a scientific source such as NASA or ESA or scholarly references support the concept in the image, but delete if no scholarly source supports the concept in the image.}} Waters.Justin (talk) 04:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC) Updated opinions - Policy Option 1. Keep the artistic renditions if they substantially conform with the data and the caption describes the content that is speculative. The negative is that following this rule may remain controversial, lead to time-consuming future debates on how many speculation disclosures to add to the caption, and make the image caption cluttered with speculative guessing disclosures. Policy Option 2. Keep an image on an article only if every geological and astronomical feature has been confirmed with a greater than likely chance of accuracy. The only exception is to display a gallery of outdated speculative images once the accuracy appearance has been confirmed. I now support Policy Option 2 because I believe it will be an easier policy to follow. Waters.Justin (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
The trick is that scientific sources often publish images not supported by scholarly references. What do you think about File:Gliese_667_Cc_sunset.jpg from the European Southern Observatory, which has been discussed here extensively? A2soup (talk) 04:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree. The fact that an artist's impression is published in a NASA or ESO press release is no guarantee that it is remotely representative of anything except the artist's imagination and the opinion of the press officer that it might attract some viewers. Lithopsian (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah I see this in all areas of science - you don't have to go far before someone (probably unconsciously) throws decent process thinking out the window to either make some odd pronouncement or artistic venture that defies logic....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep as long as clearly identified as an artists's impression and unless image is definitely misleading - so review on a case-by-case basis. We don't disallow all artist's impressions in other areas of Wikipedia - they are widely used in articles on fossil animals, historical events and people. Almost every illustration in Battle of Agincourt, for example, is an artists's impression and the article would be poorer without them. I see no reason to make a special policy for astronomy articles. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The Agincourt pictures are artworks for the sake of art, not scientific representation. The telestrator type schematic is a schematic (thus like our orbit diagrams). Many of these planet pictures are misleading, as they have unsupportable coloration that does not show any link to some real life reason why they should be such colors (and with no examples of such colors that are known, they are quite speculative). They would need to be converted to B&W to get rid of that kind of speculation. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The same can be said of illustrations of long extinct animals, such as dinosaurs. It is understood that the color schemes are speculative by the artist; there's no need to convert them to b&w for the sake of being fastidious. Just stating they are "artist's impressions" should be sufficient. Praemonitus (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Extinct animals are extrapolated from living relatives, and are frequently B&W sketches. How does a purple planet or similar "artistic ideas" extrapolate from known examples? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Only true if there is a living relative. The fact that some are B&W is a choice of media by the artist; it wasn't something that we forced on the artistic interpretation. As for the purple planet... why not? Mars has blue sunsets. Praemonitus (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
This comment perfectly exemplifies my fears about how these images can be misleading. The technique you link has never been used (to my knowledge), but the colored artists' impressions may lead readers (and you?) think that it has, and that we know more about these planets than we do. The color of a planet's sunset viewed from its surface has nothing to do with the planet's apparent color but, again, these images seem to have misled you into thinking that blue sunsets on Mars have something to do with planets appearing blue. If you, someone who has clearly thought a lot about this, are misled like this, how can we expect the average reader to fare?
You're leaping to the wrong conclusion. So much so that I hardly know how to respond. Ah well. Praemonitus (talk) 03:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
As for artists' impressions of extinct animals, while they certainly have speculative features, they are based on known skeletons, fossil impressions, and/or living relatives. I would keep most of them under the suggestion in my main comment here: "Artist's impressions based primarily on known (or reasonably suspected) features of the object are okay as long as they make that feature more prominent than the speculative bits." Aside from the separate point about art vs. scientific representation, most/all of the Agincourt images could also stay under this guideline. Most exoplanet images, and all the ones that I removed, fail this guideline since they are based on nothing but the planet's mass/size. I'm not opposed to responsible artist's impressions, just baseless ones. A2soup (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep. Per WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE, "images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic images". Clearly indicated artistic impression of an alien planet is more illustrative than the best available "real" image showing a blurry dot. “WarKosign” 15:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
But most of the impressions are based on no evidence and very likely look nothing like what they are meant to illustrate. Doesn't this violate the quoted guideline? A2soup (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think so. Technically they are provably non-authentic images, which means they are "not provably authentic", therefore they are allowed by MoS as long as they look reasonably close to what they are trying to illustrate. With virtually infinite number of planets, there have to be planets looking very much like these images. For example, an article is about Circumstellar habitable zone could show a drawing of some Earth-like planet with a caption "artist's impression of a habitable planet in the Goldilocks zone". Similarly, an article about red dwarf could contain a view from a planet showing a red sun, with the caption "artist's impression of a planet orbiting a red dwarf". The purpose of these images is only to provide illustration, bobody expects them to provide any specific details, only to look plausible and not contradict established facts. “WarKosign” 20:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Even with infinite planets, there are some things (certain colorations, banding patterns) that are actually impossible, but I do see your point for general pages. All of the images removed to date, however, have been from the pages of specific exoplanets. What do you think about that re WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE? A2soup (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
As I wrote, the image must not contradict established facts. If an image uses coloration that is known to be incorrect then it is unacceptable, otherwise - what's the harm? Obviously almost everything in the image is guesswork, but if it gets a few major facts right - such as the number, sizes and colors of the stars, presence of atmosphere, etc - then in my opinion having the image is better than not. “WarKosign” 21:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
"as long as they look reasonably close to what they are trying to illustrate." And that's the thing. These do not look 'reasonably close'. Compare to this depiction of Shaka Zulu. Shaka Zulu was an African ruler from the early 1800s, and it's very reasonable to assume he was dressed in some form of early 1800s Zulu warrior garb, given he was himself a warrior. Contrast this to File:Gliese_667_Cc_sunset.jpg, which I as mentioned before might be a damned pretty planet, there are zero indication that a) it possess water / liquids b) there is a sedimentation process on the surface c) that is has (or had) tectonic activity / mountains d) that the stars of Gliese 667Cc would have those relative sizes when viewed from the surface e) that it atmosphere contains clouds f) somehow has very sharp non-eroded peaks despite having an atmosphere that would sustain significant winds over timescales long enough for canyons to form g) A very inclined orbit relative to its stars. Generally speaking, other than the thing being round, the error bars mean we rarely know even basic things such as is the planet rocky or gaseous. And inferring any more than that is pure and baseless speculation. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
And yet reliable sources, such as ESO or NASA consider these images valuable and release them. As long as there is no information that the planet in question *doesn't* have all the features that you derived from the image, it is an acceptable artistic representation. Marking it as artistic should prevent anybody from preforming the analysis that you just did. “WarKosign” 21:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep in general. MOS:IMAGES requires that images "look like" the object in question, not the same as. So long as that requirement is satisfied and the caption explains that the image is a speculative impression then I don't see the problem.Levelledout (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
And some of us are saying, they do not 'look like' what they would appear as, because we have not enough data to actually tell what they look like. (Thus maps like "here be dragons" and lost continents like "High Brazil", which look nothing like real maps we have now) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 08:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Remove from top - I've seen so many artist impressions through the decades, and they are never even close to what we eventually find. I would allow none of them near the top of an article. However, what I might do is have a specific "Artist's impression" section where two or three examples would be shown as to what it "might" look like. With it's own section there should be no mistake by readers as to the intention of the pictures. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested, someone has initiated discussion at Talk:Eris_(dwarf_planet)#Artists_impressions about the ones used on that page, so maybe people can take a look at an actual example and see how they feel. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep all. I do not see anything bad with them. Ruslik_Zero 20:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Remove most. Wikipedia should present verifiable facts. Including works of fiction, even if labelled as such, does not help readers and damages the reputation of Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 06:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Keep - However, it should be clearly stated that these images are artist impressions. As per WP:IRELEV images should resemble what they are meant to be illustrated. In my opinion, it's absurd to use blurred telescopic images if it's not even possible to distinguish features of the subject matter. -- Chamith(talk) 03:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Keep Why are we removing artist's impressions suddenly? Sure, maybe the inaccurate ones should be deleted, but the accurate ones? I loved those articles, but now some of them are boring! I get that they aren't photos, but... some of them are accurate. I see some of the very accurate artist's impressions gone from articles, and I certainly don't like the sound of that! But I'm all ready to get banned from Wikipedia now, so just feel free to ban my if you hate my opinions. Exoplanet Expert (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Can you supply some examples of very accurate artist's impressions that have been removed? I don't ask this question in the "I'm proving you wrong because you can't give any examples" way; I sincerely want to see which accurate artist's impressions have been removed to help me (and others) formulate an artist's impression inclusion guideline that avoids such removals. Also, no one's going to ban you for your opinions-- only behavior can get you blocked/banned. A2soup (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Remove and then some - up to the group, but I feel that WikiProject Astronomy should craft an advice position here and I'd recommend it be to seek to exclusively use images from or about actual astronomy. Whether that is an X-ray image or composed data like Martian dichotomy or people and instruments, and even diagrams like Trojan (astronomy) seem fine but that's about it. I'm definately against the purely speculative being mixed with real as making for a loss of credibility and confusion. I'm even disinclined to see non-speculative artwork 'based on data' examples of size comparison or dust trail as just line-bending confusions unless the item is somehow key in actual Astronomy discussions it seems not needed as not actually part of Astronomy and not promoting actual astronomy. The eye candy speculative art seems to me belonging to Space art or Martian canals or Martians, so the question comes down to if wikiproject astronomy includes those as well. Markbassett (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose this proposal At bottom, this (keep or remove) is the wrong question. There is an alternative below that suggests establishing a requirement that images come from a reliable source. That question has much more potential for establishing a useful guideline on images for the project. I suggest that attention should be turned there. Evensteven (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Discussion of compromises/resolutions
Comment - There is no agreement in this discussion, but the views range from allowing artistic impressions to only allowing images that are entirely based on evidence. A policy that could be a compromise between these views is to allow artistic impressions only when (1) every speculation is disclosed and (2) a more evidence-based image is not available. Waters.Justin (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I would propose a slightly different compromise, in some ways more accepting and in some ways more strict. The requirement to disclose every speculation would result in overlong, disputed captions that would serve as battlegrounds. I would suggest that we allow artist's impressions only if (1) a more evidence-based image is not available, (2) they were published by a reliable source, and (3) the first phrase of the caption is "An artist's impression of...". Point (2) is obviously the crucial and potentially controversial one. In my judgement, none of the reasoned arguments in this discussion for artist's impressions indicated that Celestia images generated by random editors would be acceptable, and that is what 95% of the images I removed were. A2soup (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Whilst I agree with those points as a basis for discussion, I still disagree that it is necessary to impose any sort of rule on this. They're already covered by MOS:IMAGES and can be discussed on a case-by-case basis. Modest Geniustalk 07:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you really not see the value in establishing consensus in a central place, rather than having a long, acrimonious discussion on every talk page? I interpret MOS:IMAGES to mean that any image in which speculative features are more prominent than non-speculative features should go. Other people here obviously interpret it differently. Why should we restate our disagreement on every talk page? We've stated it here, and we can reach a consensus here because of the broad participation, something that is not possible between just two editors on a talk page. If we don't establish a guideline, then I will go about removing more images than some people here are okay with (although probably fewer than some others would remove), and when someone objects, whether the image remains will be determined by whoever is the more skillful and persistent edit warrior, or whoever happens to get a favorable third opinion, because we fundamentally disagree. Why not reach a central compromise that everyone can follow? Discussions will still be possible if someone thinks an image is a special case for whatever reason. A2soup (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I think A2soup's compromise will be easier to implement, and will lead to just one or two artist's impressions in all but the longest articles. With a blanket keep or blanket delete, there will be too many special cases: readers will either be misled, confused or denied illustration and inspiration. (Therefore I won't respond in the survey section above.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
There is no consensus, therefore the result should be to continue with the status quo. If you want to propose a different solution, it would need a new discussion and !vote. Modest Geniustalk 09:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
The status quo is tons of random Celestia images and clumsy photoshops from non-expert editors, some highly speculative images from reliable sources, and a few partially evidence-based images from reliable sources. While there is no overall consensus, I see no reasoned arguments in the many posts here for keeping the first category of images. A lack of complete agreement does not mean that nothing can be drawn from the discussion. You yourself stated: "Making up our own would be original research, but if a reliable source has published them then WP:OR does not apply." This comment (and your arguments in general) were important in informing the compromise that I proposed. Do you have any arguments for keeping the first category of images, or any ways in which you would modify the compromise I proposed? A2soup (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I rather think that the original proposal was a bit hard-line: keep or remove. With no clear choice between the absolutes here, I tend to agree that the discussion need not be entirely wasted if a more moderate approach can be taken that might prove generally acceptable. I am of the opinion that the artwork in articles generally ought to be informative in the best manner that is available, meaning not speculative if actual ones are taken, and based on the best information we have if "speculation" is what we are reduced to. I like very much the idea that speculative art should at least have been published by a reliable source, and would even support requiring (or at least recommending) that it is confirmed that the image is representative of our best information. I hestitate to say the art ought to be "representative", because non-representational artistic techniques can convey meaningful things even if they differ from what a photograph would reveal. But I do think that the art work should be competent or professional-looking, and I think we can run into real problems enforcing standards if any editor can submit his/her own work in that medium. We don't allow that for text. Neither should we for images. And let's consider this new "compromise". Evensteven (talk) 03:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Certainly. Take the discussion on board, formulate a new proposal, and take another straw poll. If the compromise really does fit the thoughts of those commenting above, it will pass easily. Modest Geniustalk 09:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I think that an outright requirement that images be from a reliable source goes too far. It's always a subjective, case-by-case determination. In general, the more the image is an impression, the more important it is that it be directly from a reliable source. Diagrams representing real (verifiable) data created by Wikipedia editors and other non-reliable sources are clearly fine. And diagrams largely based on real data with some interpolation could be viewed as artist's impressions but are probably OK despite not being from a reliable source (eg File:rotation curve (Milky Way).JPG at right). So where do we draw the line? I think any set of bright-line rules will be unworkable and problematic in practice. Just use Wikipedia editors' editorial judgement inline with existing guidelines. But I generally agree that this proposal is a good starting point for a possible consensus, taking on the discussion above. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment - I've ignored this discussion for a while to see how this would play out (Seems like the most controversial RfC I've ever seen) but I know who the person who forced me to do this is and they know very well who they are but now trying to hold back just to let the community to play out but when I saw this users proposal I almost fell out of my seat (Here is the quote I will explain why I fell off after):
I would suggest that we allow artist's impressions only if (1) a more evidence-based image is not available, (2) they were published by a reliable source, and (3) the first phrase of the caption is "An artist's impression of..."
So why did I fall of my seat? Well Ironically this person started the argument on the Talk:Gliese_667_Cc page by removing an image from an reliable source, ESO to be exact. When I pointed this out this person flipped and said the following (quote):
3. The ESO has different goals and standards than Wikipedia. In addition to informing the public, they benefit from good PR and public excitement, which can lead to more funding. They therefore have a vested interest in publishing exciting images. Wikipedia's purpose is to inform it's readers with as much accurate information as possible. The image here conveys no accurate information, and indeed conveys a good deal of very probably inaccurate information.
"Facepalm" Lets not talk about Wikipedia's Goals and standards Vs. ESO's because I would likely to be banned. But lets just say this if you reference Wikipedia on your papers in University you get a 0 and maybe a laugh in the face from your prof. That wouldn't happen with ESO or NASA. Anyhow I wont go further in that. So now we have a proposal from a person who says if there isn't an evidence based picture than one from a reliable source is fine but takes down an image from a reliable source because ESO's goals are only to make money and that Wikipedia's goals are far superior? Really is this where this is going? I'm sorry if I offended anyone but I just had to point this out. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
EDIT
none of the reasoned arguments in this discussion for artist's impressions indicated that Celestia images generated by random editors would be acceptable, and that is what 95% of the images I removed were.
I appreciate that, but then you also said that this image is acceptable, when we have this image which has both the speculative part as well as the fact that it is from a Celestia or a Celestia-like application. I just pointed this out in case this was going to be used in defense. And I assume that the last 5% includes the attempted removal of Gliese 667 Cc's image (I appreciate that you are no longer removing this image). Please people no fence sitting or position swapping make up your minds! PS Also other people I find are starting to abuse this argument. One person was angry at me that I put a size comparison for KOI-3010.01 and it was just me reusing the Kepler-10b size comparison since they have a very similar radius. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I am trying to work towards a solution, not defend my initial opinions the the bitter end. Pointing out differences between my actions/arguments before and after the discussion misses the point entirely-- this discussion is about resolving the disagreement, not winning the argument. If the choice were mine alone, I would follow the guidelines that I proposed in my first post in this discussion, namely: "Artist's impressions based primarily on known (or reasonably suspected) features of the object are okay as long as they make that feature more prominent than the speculative bits." However, the choice is not mine alone, and after having read and taken into account the comments in this discussion, I proposed the compromise that you quoted above as a way to best satisfy everyone and comply with policy, in particular WP:OR. I stand by all my comments-- my personal opinions have not changed, but my later statements have been in defense of a compromise that I am trying to develop rather than in defense of my personal opinions.
Let's be constructive: what do you think of the proposed compromise? A2soup (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
@A2soup: I do like the part of your amendments statement saying that images should be from reliable source's rather than from planetary Simulation applications. Evidence seems to be a little of a far stretch mostly because then planets confirmed via radial velocity would have no size comparisons because we simply do not know how large the planet is only its mass is known. Of course there has been size comparisons but they are all generally complicated and unpleasing to look at. Size comparisons of course don't need to be created by reliable sources but they should be using information from reliable sources (However most size comparisons that we could possibly need are already here so all we need to really do is reuse them which we already do.). The "unconstructive" criticism part that really could still be applied to your compromised views are really the fact that you were boasting how you were taking down celestia images and previously clamed that they were "OK". -Davidbuddy9 (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the response! To clarify about the the Celestia image you mentioned: I initially decided to let it stay because it contained no speculation since it depicts no features at all besides sphericity. My concern is that the images might be misleading, and I don't think that is a danger if no features of the planet are depicted. Do you (and anyone else reading this discussion) think it would be best to remove all Celestia images as a matter of course, or is it okay to leave these images if they depict no features, as is the case with the image mentioned above? I can see good arguments both ways and would be fine with either choice. A2soup (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
@A2soup: I would say remove them all. If the planet had an odd sphericity I think a reliable source would make an artists impression, otherwise all (exo)planets are genuinely spherical. I would rather put a size comparison either by creating an image or (and more simply) use the Planetary radius Template to generate a size comparison. I fixed a few bugs in the template so It should be working better now and I see really no reason why not to use it (as long as the radius is confirmed). Davidbuddy9 (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: if a "planet" has an "odd sphericity" (which I assume means something not quite spherical), then it is not a planet. A dwarf planet maybe. But beyond a certain mass, gravity pulls even solid masses into an approximately spherical shape, where the approximation is proportionally very small. Rotation alone produces unequal tidal stresses (with the star) in the planetary material otherwise, yielding friction therefore heat, then melting, then reshaping. (There might be other mechanisms as well; I don't know.) I believe that this is guaranteed to happen for anything large enough to qualify as a planet. Evensteven (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Update - Since it got a few positive responses, the compromise I proposed above has been converted into a draft guideline at Wikipedia:Artist's impressions of exoplanets. Any further discussion of it would probably be better conducted on its talk page rather than here. Thanks everyone for their input! A2soup (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Second discussion: Prefixes for light-year
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The first discussion shifts the issue to the standard symbol for light-year, however, let's now focus on adding SI prefixes to light-year.
The paragraph on the Light-year article concerning the use of SI prefixes has been deleted due to lack of reference. I propose an option to any article:
{{convert | ### | Kpc/Mpc/Gpc | ly | abbr=on}}
This format gives light-year at scientific notation with the point after the first significant digit; in contrast to some articles whose multiplier is thousands or millions only and not on the correct notation. SkyFlubbler(talk) 04:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
DYK fact-check Heino Falcke
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I recently created the article Heino Falcke and nominated it for DYK, see Template:Did you know nominations/Heino Falcke. However, the article is outside my area of expertise, I was wondering whether someone would be willing to do a quick fact-check of the DYK-fact, and whether I represented it correctly. Thanks in advance, Crispulop (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
The basic fact is correct. The term was coined from the German word blitz, meaning a lightning flash. Blitzars occur when a neutron star exceeds its maximum allowed mass, which can theoretically occur if it is rotating. When the rotation slows (eg. by magnetic braking) then it will spontaneously collapse to form a black hole. This mechanism is one possible explanation for fast radio bursts, wide spectrum radio events lasting just a few milliseconds. The paper was co-authored with Luciano Rezolla. The Wikipedia blitzar article itself is poor, for example two of its handful of references are actually to the same paper, and a third to a PR piece about the article. This is very recent research, but ADS shows 55 citations of the paper. Lithopsian (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the speedy response and explanation, fascinating material. I'm glad I formulated it correctly. Crispulop (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
K, F, and E-corona
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I was perusing WP:RA when I noticed that K-corona, F-corona, and E-corona had requests. A quick look at Corona shows that they each have a sentence in the lead, but nothing else. Personally knowing only what was already in the article, I thought I'd do some digging. A search for K-corona shows mainly the same as what's in Corona (with little extra information), though admittedly I only skimmed the first page of Google hits. Is it worth making articles for these three areas of the corona or area they really little more than dictionary definitions? Should I just make them into redirects to Corona? Primefac (talk) 10:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
EDIT: obviously the three layers are important, as I'm finding based on a Web of Science search, but they seem to just be useful for measuring various aspects of the sun. Maybe a single article that covers all three and their uses, with a {{main}} tag on Corona? Primefac (talk) 10:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
AfD
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There is a deletion discussion regarding the Giant GRB Ring, which falls into our purview and could use extra input. Primefac (talk) 10:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
AfD for Alpha Centauri Bc
Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
The outcome was "no consensus". Praemonitus (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, a stupid outcome, given that the result appears to have been based on the !vote tally and not the arguments given. Of course, I realise I am slightly biased, but oh well. Primefac (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Right now it's not a very good article since it lacks any information on how it was "discovered". But eventually science will resolve the issue. Praemonitus (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
WP:NASTRO is pretty clear that unless that resolution exists, there shouldn't be an article. I'm half-tempted to re-nominate it since there was no consensus. Primefac (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
WP:NASTRO doesn't override WP:GNG. There appear to be sufficient independent and reliable sources available to establish notability. Praemonitus (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago15 comments9 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus to use Gliese. The majority opinion cites consistency in naming as the main reason to do so. AlbinoFerret 15:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm re-requesting a consensus about changing GJ and Gl short forms into Gliese for consistency, and policy wise reasons.
1st According to WP:NC article names should be consistent with similar articles 'GJ' and 'Gl' is short for 'Gliese' and most articles on Wikipedia use the word 'Gliese' over 'GJ' and you can clearly see this on the Gliese Exoplanet Catagory or on the Gliese Catalogue of Nearby Stars If you remember from the inital consensus here objects with 4 digits should be called GJ and objects with 3 digits should bear the title 'Gliese'. This is not the case, there articles such as GJ 180 that are triple digit entries and use the GJ acronym rather than the Gliese and vise versa for quadruple digit numbers. Even if this was all perfect all entries in the Gliese catalog would not have a consistent name.
2nd According to MoS "An acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page". I'm only asking for the article title to bear the name Gliese rather than GJ just for consistency in category lists however it should be mentioned in the beginning of an article as well. I understand the concern with using this point is that we will have to change all HD entries to Henry Draper entries however this is not a discussion about the HD Catalog. But MoS also states that an acronym can be used if the object is best known by it or if it is a ship. Ever since the discoveries (and disputes) of Gliese 581 c, Gliese 581 d, Gliese 581 g, Gliese 667 Cc the word Gliese is more known to everyday people than GJ which was not the case when the previous consensus took place. We also know that all Gliese entries are not ships so that one can be ruled out as well.
Other reasons I heard is that other websites and catalogs use GJ instead of Gliese. I will tell everyone what I was told when I used the other sources excuse "Wikipedia has different goals, policies, and standards than other sources." The changed name would fit better with other Exoplanets and stellar objects that are in the Gliese Catalog. Agian this is all about consistency, being consistent with everything else in the same catalog should really not be something disputable. Also note were not abbreviating anything in the Kepler Catalog either. -Davidbuddy9 (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Use "Gliese" then we don't have to mess with which are considered "Gl" which are considered "GJ" -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Comments:
The differing prefixes reflect that the stars were included in different editions of the catalogues, published by different authors. GJ is thus distinct from Gliese because it also includes Jahreiss.
The cutoff point is not the number of digits, but which version it was first included in. Confusingly later editions used decimals to insert extra stars into the sorted list, rather than continuing the numbering.
Note on Name: the following acronyms are used: Gl Gliese: CNS2,=1969VeARI..22....1G GJ Gliese & Jahreiss, A&AS, 38, 423 (1979) Wo Woolley et al., Roy. Obs. Ann. No. 5 (1970) NN newly added stars (number added at CDS) See the Nomemclature Note above !
which when read with the surrounding material and source paper means splitting the names based on which catalogue they first appeared in.
We already use differing prefixes for HD and HDE stars, which is a similar example of a catalogue that was later extended.
All of which just shows that the waters are muddy. We could either follow the Gliese/GJ split by catalogue version, as consistent with most scientific usage and the example of the HD catalogue, or we could standardise everything to GJ which is consistent with SIMBAD and simpler. What I don't think we can do is standardise everything to Gliese, as a) no-one else does this and b) it's inaccurate as Jahreiss' GJ stars weren't in Gliese's catalogue. Modest Geniustalk 11:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment: I agree, the Gleise designation should just be used to refer to entries in the 1969 catalog.[1]Praemonitus (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I don't care which way this proposal goes, and will abide by whatever consensus is found here. However, according to the document you linked, it seems we should not use any GJ numbers in the 3000s and 4000s here as article titles since their use is discouraged, and that such articles should be moved to an alternate title. Thoughts? StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Use "Gliese", It appears to me that GJ is just an expansion of the Gliese (Gl/GL) catalog and we should use the base catalogs name. It seems so complicated that this set of numbers would have to be named GJ because they are in the Gliese+Jahreiss expansion and others called NSC because they are used in that expansion. I think we should call all of them by the base catalog name (Gliese) and none of the extension, expansion, or addition names that could be very complicated and confusing especially for newbies. And Gl is short for Gliese too which means that they should be renamed to Gliese to better comply with MoS. That is my two cents. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Even the 3rd edition Gliese Catalogue doesn't take that approach. Praemonitus (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean by not taking that approach? Davidbuddy9 (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment - I was contacted by the feedback request service and invited to participate in this discussion as a non-involved science editor. I can see that the discussion is going in the right direction and that all involved are acting in good faith and are notably civil and courteous with each other. I can only offer my opinion and please feel free to consider it or not...
All involved appear to be quite knowledgeable on this topic and its associated articles. I am not. I edit primarily on topics related to pathogenic bacteria. But I see the same problem in my own editing that I see here. We get caught up in the lingo associated with our field of 'expertise' and sometimes forget that our articles need to be intelligible to eighth graders.
You, the experts (sincerely) are quite delighted to be able to discuss the finer points of astronomy along with the nomenclature and definitions. Frankly, I can barely follow the points being made. I did read as many articles that I could and finally discovered that we are talking about the nomenclature of stars/star systems.
I believe that this article, this topic and associated articles can both satisfy the expert and the eighth grader. Leave or make the article title something that the eighth grader can find with a simple search and handle the alternate names of the star systems with redirects. Introduce the article's topic with the simplest lede possible and then create the detail for the experts and define acronyms. That is about as simple as my opinion can get. I hope you are comfortable with reading this and I do hope that I was able to help. I look forward to more discussion on this. Best Regards,
I have added "Star Catalog" to the title to avoid further confusion. I apologize for not doing that initially. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 03:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Use "Gliese", SIMBAD clearly states: GJ (Gliese+Jahreiss)= Gl = Gls = Gliese = (NN) = (NSC). As for why Gliese? Because MoS clear states that we should not use acronyms in articles and this doesn't count for any of the exceptions. QuentinQuade (talk) 03:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
That SIMBAD entry means that it recognises them as being valid search terms for entries in the catalogue. It does not mean that they are completely equivalent. Indeed it lists GJ first and all of the later entries on that page say 'equivalent to GJ' or 'prefer GJ'. Clearly GJ is its preferred format. That MOS page simply says that the acronym should be explained at first use, and also article titles should follow primary usage. We're discussing that that primary usage is. Modest Geniustalk 16:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah ok thanks for the info. Speaking if "Primary usage", MoS does have rules with using acronyms in page titles. "In general, if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognize the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title." -MoS. So do you think someone who knows a thing or two about the Gliese catalog (or even just know some exoplanets particularly the possibly habitable ones) will only be able to recognize it only by GJ or Gl? I personally don't, especially with the discovery of many potentially habitable exoplanets in the catalog that are listed as "Gliese" (ex. Gliese 581 dGliese 667 CcGliese 832 c etc). There is only a few that are listed as GJ and it is likely that Gliese is more widely accepted because of these new planets. Just look at the new potentially habitable exoplanets discovered are the Gliese's are GJ's QuentinQuade (talk) 03:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
Latest comment: 8 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion
I have drafted a guideline about when artist's impressions of exoplanets are appropriate for inclusion: Wikipedia:Artist's impressions of exoplanets. The guideline is based on the discussion in the recent RfC on this subject and on Wikipedia policy, in particular WP:OR. Before formally requesting an RfC on the guideline, I want to give people here an opportunity give their input.
Any feedback, suggestions, and improvements would be much appreciated. Feel free to make wording and organization improvements, but please discuss any substantive changes on the talk page before making them. I will formally put the guideline up for an RfC if/when it appears that people here are generally satisfied with it. Thanks! A2soup (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I think this proposal is good. I do fear that this guideline, particularly since it is limited to exoplanets, is an example of instruction creep, though I think it's probably helpful enough to be worthwhile. But the ideas in the guideline aren't really specific to exoplanet artist's impressions.
The guideline uses "reliable source" in a different way than Wikipedia; "non-scientific print or online media" is certainly a reliable source by Wikipedia's definition, so the guideline should either be changed to allow images from non-scientific media (though in practice such images will rarely be free anyway) or to be more restrictive about the kind of source but not use the word "reliable source" or specifically discriminate amongst reliable sources. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 12:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I reworded that part about reliable sources so that non-scientific print or online media count as reliable sources but are to be "treated with caution". I'm not too concerned because, as you say, images from such sources are almost never free anyways. Regarding your first point, the page has been moved to Wikipedia:Artist's impressions of astronomical objects following discussion on the talk page and your comments here. Thanks for taking to time looking it over and comment! A2soup (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I think the guideline for an artist's impression of an astronomical object or phenomenon should just be "don't use images that contradict established scientific data about the object". Tagging the image with "artist's impression" should cover the rest. Praemonitus (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
We already had a consensus about this and I think we're going to stick with what was concluded in the consensus. (AKA Reliable sources, no Celestia/Astronomy program screenshots and "artist's impression" caption). Thank you for your feedback both here and in the consensus. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I saw no such consensus during the prior discussion; just a lot of disagreement. It appears to constitute a consensus of two editors. Praemonitus (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Weak oppose for now as being too restrictive. Artists's illustrations are not the same as scientific publications and should not be restricted based on the same criteria. I'd prefer to see an order of preference for illustration sources, then only prohibit images based upon contradiction with established scientific data, copyright violations, clearly amateurish technique/poor taste, or consensus. Praemonitus (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The draft guideline is overly verbose and includes lots of extraneous material, but I agree with points 1 and 3. Point 2 I think is over the top, and the text partially contradicts it by explaining that it's not a requirement after all. Editors would want to include suitable real data anyway if they are available. Praemonitus is correct that there was no clear consensus in the earlier discussion, but that doesn't mean we should dismiss constructive proposals such as this one. I could support a guideline that only included the current points 1 and 3, plus the definition of an artists' impression. Modest Geniustalk 15:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
@Modest Genius: Thanks for the feedback. I see what you mean about point 2 being partially contradicted by the text. What do you think about removing it but leaving the text about making a more evidence-based image the lead image if available intact?
Re extraneous material, I feel that the first para is valuable because it explains to people why their image was removed, rather than the bitey "this is just how it is" impression that many guidelines have. The last para is there to encourage discussion and common sense application of the guideline, given the very real (if rare) possibility of an excellent, evidence-based amateur artist's impression. I was inspired to include it by the amateur impressions on Life on Mars. I suppose the para about strict interpretation of reliable source kind of extraneous, but I feel that calling out Celestia specifically is important, since some might regard it as reliable, and I think the part about encouraging caution with non-scientific media is important to have. Thoughts?
Re verbosity, feel free to fix it if you can do so while preserving clarity. A2soup (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Could you disambiguate the meaning of 'no more' in item 2? Some readers may be confused. Praemonitus (talk) 02:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Item 2 has been removed because it was redundant with the text below, so the phrase "no more" no longer appears. Does this clear up the confusion? A2soup (talk) 02:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Re the intro to the inclusion guideline, which currently reads "In general, an artist’s impression of an astronomical object is acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia only if:". This intro rather conflicts with the last paragraph, which makes it clear that guidelines are not absolute. I would suggest that the last two words be replaced with "when".
I also sympathize somewhat with Praemonitus' comment above about being too restrictive, although I don't go so far as liking the idea of an "order of preference". I think if point #1, that images from RSes are generally acceptable, is taken as a kind of standard, then we should be able to argue readily for inclusion of other images that meet the commonly-found quality that comes from RSes. The only workable way to achieve a consensus here is, I think, to remain somewhat loose in term of hard-and-fast rules, but to set a measuring stick in place against which we can do some comparing in making decisions on specific cases. Evensteven (talk) 04:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I worry that by replacing "only if" with "when", it turns into inclusion criteria without any potential for exclusion. The point of the guideline is very much to exclude speculative non-RS images. The caveat at the end allows, as an exception, non-RS images that are informative, minimal speculation, primarily depicting known features (this is intentionally a bit vague to encourage discussion). If File:Gliese_667_Cc_sunset.jpg were from a non-RS, it would be excluded under the guideline. I feel that this double standard is warranted because good speculation requires considerable judgment and familiarity with the subject, something we can expect only from reliable sources and should not pretend to have as non-experts per WP:OR. With this explanation, is it loose enough as it stands, or do you want more wiggle room? A2soup (talk) 08:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, my comment above was just a thought, and after some hours, I'm not as sure of it. Let it remain here in case anyone likes it enough to defend it, but I take your point as well and wouldn't want to object. Evensteven (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
The depreciation was agreed to in 2014; this discussion is about whether to uphold that decision. Primefac (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
The {{cite doi}} system turns Wikipedia into a DOI database, since the bot that maintains the DOI citation template generates a new subtemplate for each time a new DOI is used, as {{cite doi/doinumberhere}} containing citation information, instead of replacing the {{cite doi}} with a {{cite journal}} transclusion on the page it is used on. Since many items have DOIs as well as other UIDs such as PubMed IDs, we have multiple different sets of the same information in the various databases that the various bots generate for each of these template systems, depending on which bot created what subtemplate into which database entry on whichever template system the bot maintains. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
{{cite journal|doi=...}} does the same job but better, and avoids creating huge numbers of subtemplates. I'm glad {{cite doi}} is being killed off. Nothing has changed since the previous discussion. Modest Geniustalk 10:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Top-cited missing journals
Latest comment: 8 years ago20 comments5 people in discussion
WP:JCW, a compilation of 'journal' citation on Wikipedia has recently been updated (see old thread). The top-cited missing journals/works of astronomy are
If members of this project could help writing those articles, that would be much appreciated. See our journal-writing guide at WP:JWG for help on writing these articles. Note that some of these might be better as sections of another article (usually publisher, or affiliated society), similar to Australia_ICOMOS#Historic_Environment. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Good point about the DAB. I'll go through the ambiguous ones, see if I can determine exactly which Bulletin it is, and create a disambig for the BAS. Primefac (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society should only be a reliable source in very limited circumstances (such as to support a statement that "So and so presented result XYZ at a AAS meeting in 19XX"). It's just publishing un-reviewed abstracts of talks or posters given at American Astronomical Society meetings, which do not have written proceedings. Such material will be published in a peer-reviewed journal if it has been completed to the point of being usable as a source, in which case the journal article should be the source, not the AAS abstract. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Every Bulletin of the Astronomical Society I looked at was really Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society. There are many others in various countries, but I've never seen this name used baldly for any of them. Lithopsian (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
So far in my changes I'm finding that you're correct. To add weight to that, most of the adsabs I'm finding actually do list it as just the "Bulletin of the Astronomical Society." I'm holding off changing the rest until I can find one that isn't BAAS. Primefac (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I've been through 3/4 of the publications and no indication it's anything other than BAAS. Creatind redirect. Primefac (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The Catalogue of Eggen's UBV data. SIMBAD is a bit of a quirk. It isn't really a journal at all, never even officially published. ADS just put that in the journal name because there is nothing else. It is a one-off data source, probably only common in Wikipedia because numerous articles quote UBV data from it (although it has been superceded). I don't know what you link it to, probably nothing as all the citations most likely are already linked directly to the bibcode for it. Lithopsian (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
It isn't really a SIMBAD thing, although the catalogue is available on SIMBAD. It is just a single star catalogue with no actual journal. On ADS, the publication is actually listed as Catalogue of Eggen's UBV data., 0 (1986). The origin field is SIMBAD though, which is kind of a publisher field. Lithopsian (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
CDS/ADC Collection of Electronic Catalogues is another one with origin SIMBAD. Lithopsian (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Based on an impact factor search and a general lack of anything (other than Springer's own page on the publication), I do not think Solar System Research meets WP:JOURNALCRIT. If anything, it would only be a stub. I don't even know if it can be redirected to Springer itself, since there doesn't seem to be a specific list of publications. Primefac (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Springer says it's published by Pleiades Publishing which seems to be an imprint of Maik NAUKA which means it's likely Russian-based for the most part. And given that it's been around since 1967, I would be really, really surprised that it doesn't pass WP:NJOURNALS...
The maik.ru site wasn't loading properly for me when I last looked, and I thought that a less-than-one score wasn't good, but clearly I am mistaken (which is why I posted here). Will do some more digging. Primefac (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I've moved the list to a separate page, linked above, so that it will persist when this page is archived, and can be more easily linked-to. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Stub's been created. I'm finding a great lack of information, though I'll try searching Russian sites next. Primefac (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
What is going on with the Kepler q17_DR24 Report?
Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
The new q1_q17_dr24_koi report published yesterday updated many KOI planets parameters. Most noticeably KOI-7599.01 now has a radius of 6140 Earth Radii / 558.18 Jupiter Radii / 56.2 Solar radii. For comparison the parent star has a radius of 97.68 Earth Radii / 8.88 Jupiter Radii / 0.893 Solar Radii. Something is clearly not correct with the data. Also note that before DR 24 the planet had a radius of 3.42 Earth Radii. Anybody knows what is going on with the new Kepler Data? I dont think its possible for planets to be larger than their parent stars.
Have you tried asking NASA's Twitter account? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
@67.70.32.190: No I have not. But the PDF's for the report still list the old 3.42 radius (Here is the pdf. Go to page 2 and look for Rp (Rp=Radius Planet)). However the archive here still lists the radius as 6140.44+2544 −577.6. I know the PDF is correct in this case because the values from the PDF match exactly with both what was here on Wikipedia and the previous report (here). However KOI-7296.01 on the other hand has either both the wrong values use and the PDF is wrong or the Values in the archive is correct and the new PDF is very wrong. I know the PDF (here) is very wrong becuase it gives us information for a planet in the system that doesn't even exist nevermind KOI-7296.01. (Page 1 on the report even says that It's not a KOI). You can also tell that it's giving info for the wrong planet because the KOI-7296.01 is not even highlighted. Only If I can get my hands on the PDF report (From q17_DR24) for KOI-7296.01 that has KOI-7296.01 highlited I could confirm if the Archive is correct or not but until then the values from the last report of KOI-7296.01 will continue to be used as we cannot just trust the Archive because of other cases I already explained. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
PS I found a report that looks good here for KOI-7296.01 And I can confirm agian that the paramiters of the Archive are incorrect once agian. However I still cannot understand the other planet in the system, that has a shorter orbital period than KOI-7296.01 (The orbital Period is very similar to Earth but because this is a larger star It would be too hot). Davidbuddy9 (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's possible for the least massive red dwarfs (R ~ 0.087 solar radii) to have a lower radius than Jupiter (R ~ 0.10 solar radii). Perhaps the planet is a hot jupiter with an expanded atmosphere? Praemonitus (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
@Praemonitus: But the planet has a radius 558.18 times that of Jupiter! The star its an F-type star with a radius 8.88 times that of Jupiter! That would not be possible in any terms. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I was merely addressing your assertion that, "I dont think its possible for planets to be larger than their parent stars". Presumably it's either an error or the event has some other explanation. Perhaps they've discovered two similar planets orbiting closely around each other? Praemonitus (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
.JPG)
