Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:AST)
Latest comment: 4 hours ago by Parejkoj in topic Life_habitable_zones is WP:SYNTH?
MainTalkAstronomical objects
Article ratingsImage reviewPopular pagesMembersWikidata
WikiProject iconAstronomy Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Authority control on minor planets? edit

What do we think of adding JPL Small-Body Database SPK-ID (P716), Minor Planet Center body ID (P5736), and other relevant identifiers to the {{Authority control}} template, in either the existing AC section "Other", or in a new section called "Scientific"?

{{JPL small body}}, {{NeoDys}}, and other templates exist, but they each require separate placement on each page, while {{Authority control}} would be able to capture all current and future database inclusions, and automatically display them compactly at the bottom of the page. I'm not suggesting {{Authority control}} replace {{JPL small body}}, etc., since they provide much more info, but that {{Authority control}} be used regardless.

Courtesy ping to Rfassbind ~ I hope he is well and chooses to return to editing.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  18:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The one benefit I see from that is it centralizes the link to the DBs, so it is easier to update across multiple articles. Praemonitus (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Putting this on my TODO list.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  17:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Done   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kreutz sungrazer edit


is anyone interested in commenting on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kreutz sungrazer/archive1? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This probably needs just one last little push to be concluded successfully. XOR'easter (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GRSI model and new article sections edit

There's a new page about the GRSI_model and several astronomy/cosmology articles have new sections linking to Duer's work. I recall various pure-GR approaches in the past but I'm not familiar enough with that field to know whether any of them got any real traction. This one doesn't seem to have, and the papers are mostly self-cites (plus a very strong "this is wrong" critique that wasn't linked). It doesn't seem notable enough to be worthy of an article and subsections; anyone else familiar with this? - Parejkoj (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Parejkoj: I'm inclined to use AfD, but you should have asked this question to WT:PHYS. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 11:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've AfD'ed it now, and I'll link it from talk Physics: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GRSI model. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of exoplanets discovered by the Kepler space telescope needs to be rebuilt from scratch edit

A user discovered a fatal error that will require the table in the sub-lists to be rebuilt from scratch. The reference column is offset, and some entries (such as the mass of Kepler-46b) are wrong. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 07:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

a suggestion for a small change edit


... an edit by which a new section -- (called "a suggestion for a small change") -- was added to the "Talk:" page for the [article about the] "Hertzsprung–Russell diagram".

Any comments? Mike Schwartz (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

X-ray telescope article merge edit

Hello there! There are three articles that I think should be merged as their scope is mostly the same: X-ray telescope, X-ray space telescope, and X-ray astronomy detector. The second article also has a long list, that mostly duplicate List of X-ray space telescopes, and the list itself is mostly a duplicate of List_of_space_telescopes#X-ray. What do you think? Artem.G (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like you're already doing the merge, but I think that's a good idea. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Advertising inserted by user:Solophi at Hawking star edit

Solophi (talk · contribs) inserted a further reading to a religious philosophy book published by Solophi as an "early reference" [1] at Hawking star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an astrophysics article. This seems like advertising. I have deleted the link -- (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FWIW, at talk:Hawking star, (talk · contribs) is arguing for its inclusion, as well as at user talk:Solophi -- (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FAR for Galaxy edit

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)Reply[reply]

It is now in a FARC discussion and could use some more input, particularly on the topic of new discoveries in the last decade. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are two {{citation needed}} tags as yet unaddressed and a list under "Magnetic fields" that should be prosified. XOR'easter (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Σ Eridani#Requested move 6 January 2024 edit


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Σ Eridani#Requested move 6 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move at Talk:List of natural satellites#Requested move 9 January 2024 edit


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of natural satellites#Requested move 9 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move at Talk:G Doradus#Requested move 1 January 2024 edit


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:G Doradus#Requested move 1 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Escape velocity#Requested move 11 January 2024 edit


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Escape velocity#Requested move 11 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Infobox change edit

There is a discussion about changing infobox colours for planets. Please join in the discussion here. Primefac (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Choosing a standard img size for infobox planet edit

1400+ articles (mostly asteroids, but also some comets, moons and TNOs) still had the infobox img size set locally from years ago when that was necessary. Mostly the number was just copied over from the sample box, which was at various times set from 250 to 265 px -- that is, they were mostly cruft. I stripped most of them out so that the template default size would be used. A question though is what default size would work best. I assume we'd want something almost the width of the info box; i.e., as big as possible without causing the info box to take up more space, but also accommodate ppl with vision impairments by sizing the img relative to the reader's pref rather than absolute pixels, which is deprecated for accessibility reasons. Scaling at 1.33 seems to work well. Is that okay? — kwami (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Planetary habitability in the Solar System edit

Hi all. There is an ongoing discussion on whether the Planetary habitability in the Solar System article should have a section discussing the habitability of the Sun. Please join in here. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Imperial/U.S. customary units in the infobox edit

Should imperial/U.S. customary units be present in the infobox of astronomical objects in general?

  • Option 1: No for all articles
  • Option 2: Yes for info cited to sources that only use imperial units, otherwise no
  • Option 3: Yes for all articles

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Context: Right now, the use of imperial/U.S. customary units are inconsistent among articles (for example, Sun, Mars, Earth and has imperial conversions, but Pluto, Mercury (planet) and Ceres (dwarf planet) don't). For articles that do use imperial/U.S. customary units, they also have SI conversions and often uses {{convert}} template.
CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MOS:UNITS applies, with the alternative being units conventional to astronomy. Praemonitus (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If so then all U.S. customary units be removed from these articles. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Specifically for science articles (not necessarily for biographies or histories), per MOS:CONVERSIONS: " science-related articles, supplying such conversion is not required unless there is some special reason to do so." To avoid conflict, I'd include the linked policy in the edit notes. Also, I'd hesitate to apply this to the Earth article. Praemonitus (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Doesn't matter if it's US/NASA. The issue is fidelity to the data. If a US source publishes in metric, we should use metric. If a UK source publishes in imperial, so should we. — kwami (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. We are not writing ransom notes with words cut out of other publications. We are giving coherent explanations that are based on reliable sources. To make our articles coherent, we should choose units appropriate to the article, and give the most appropriate unit first. If the unit given in a source is different from what we choose to list first, we can use the convert template in a way that the value copied from the source listed first and the converted value is given first. Since this thread is about infoboxes, it isn't even necessary to give the value from the source in the box at all, so long as it is in the body of the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's what I said, at least for the original data appearing first. Unless we explain that the figure given second is primary, and not just added because someone wanted to plaster imperial all over WP. We don't want someone coming by and deleting the data because that's all they think it is. — kwami (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
{{convert}} has a function of just displaying the output. So it is possible to conserve the original data in some way. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Astronomy data is often published with excessive numbers of digits; far more than is justified by the margin of error. I don't think we need to worry about the accuracy of the conversions. The appearance of excessive accuracy can be misleading in and of itself. We're not an original source for this data, and often we can get by with presenting rounded values. Praemonitus (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. That's very often the case, and in such cases conversion errors are not an issue. If we have something at ridiculous (and spurious) precision in imperial, then I have no problem simply converting to metric and ignoring the published units. But not infrequently, especially with initial news reports and even beyond that with crude estimates, data is published to very few sigfigs in imperial, and we do introduce a significant error when converting. Say, the impact of an asteroid est. to be 10 miles in diameter -- what do we convert that to? 15 km? 20 km? Usually I see a misleading 16 km, a precision that is not justified by the source. — kwami (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, {{convert}} can be helpful here, by using "round=5" or "round=25" to round to the nearest .5 or .25. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed. I just think that in such cases we need to be clear to the reader that the source data is in imperial, not that we just decided to add a conversion to imperial. — kwami (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option 2 seems the right solution to me. If the referenced source is in miles, we should give that value in the infobox for verification, along with a km conversion. If the source was in km, there's no need for miles. A conversion into au or pc might be more useful anyway, depending on context. The sentence about 'science-related articles' in MOS:CONVERSIONS applies and makes sense to me. Modest Genius talk 11:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's a problem though with the wording of Option 2: "Yes for info cited to sources that only use imperial units, otherwise no."
The problem is that sources often include a conversion to metric with spurious precision (e.g. 10mi/16km, where the 10mi is the original number and only an estimate), and the wording of Option 2 means we'd cite only that conversion. That conflicts with the spirit of the MOS warning "Be careful especially when your source has already converted from the units you're now converting back to." That's not just a potential problem with converting back, but with dropping the original number and citing only the converted value. In my example, we shouldn't cite "16 km", but rather something more like "10 mi (10-20 km)" or "10 mi (approx. 15 km)", or even just "10-20 km" or "approx. 15 km". — kwami (talk) 12:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delisting enhanced color image "Neptune Full.jpg" on Commons edit

I have nominated the image File:Neptune Full.jpg for Featured Picture delisting on Wikimedia Commons. Comments and votes are highly welcome. Nrco0e (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed deletion of Cis-Neptunian object edit


The article Cis-Neptunian object has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This classification is seldom used by researchers, does not appear to be a consensus classification, and is largely redundant. On NASA ADS, only one search result for "cis-Neptunian object" is relevant to the term, out of four total results.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

I shall ping the active WikiProject contributors @Kwamikagami, Double sharp, Kheider, Serendipodous, Headbomb, Ruslik0, Exoplanetaryscience, AstroChara, Tom.Reding, WolfmanSF, CactiStaccingCrane, LaundryPizza03, Praemonitus, XOR'easter, and C messier:. Nrco0e (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Nrco0e. Double sharp (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with the deletion of this page. Interestingly, even someone from 2009 in the Talk page wasn't sure what the page was made for either. AstroChara (talk) 04:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we don't use the terms in our articles, where we might want a blue link for clarification, then it should probably be moved to Wiktionary. — kwami (talk) 06:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree, Wiktionary is a good spot for this. Double sharp (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am ok with it being deleted. I generically consider such objects to be traditional centaurs. -- Kheider (talk) 10:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I too. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Constellation navbox edit

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)Reply[reply]

The {{Pegasus (constellation)}} navbox has been converted to a {{Constellation navbox}}. It looks like {{Monoceros}}, {{Ophiuchus}}, {{Orion (constellation)}}, {{Sagittarius (constellation)}}, {{Serpens}}, and {{Taurus (constellation)}} still need to be converted. Praemonitus (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redundant planet topics edit

We now have articles for mega-Earth, super-Earth, and sub-Neptune. They seem a bit redundant. Praemonitus (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In sources that use both terms, super-Earth and sub-Neptune are mutually exclusive - a sub-Neptune is larger than a super-Earth. I could support merging mega-Earth into super-Earth, and sub-Neptune into mini-Neptune. SevenSpheres (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, merging would likely make them simpler to support and add some clarity. Praemonitus (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose merging Mega-Earths are more massive than super-Earths and indeed can be more massive than Neptune. Also sub-Neptunes are not necessarily anything like Neptune so are not always Mini-Neptunes. Some mega-Earths could be considered as Super-Neptunes and sub-Neptunes at the same time because they have a larger mass than Neptune but a smaller radius. Fdfexoex (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry but your statement just further obfuscates the subject, at least for me. Do consensus opinions even exist? We do have a list of planet types article, which doesn't have separate rows for sub-Neptune or mega-Earth. Perhaps we could start there? It is very poorly cited. Praemonitus (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That list also doesn't have rows for Super-Neptune or Super-puff or Ultra-short period planet or Ultra-hot Jupiter. Fdfexoex (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought "super-puff" is a joke, but it seems to be a real term, used by NASA, and several real articles published in Nature. Artem.G (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be handy if there were a mass (or size?) vs. density chart that divided up the various definitions, but I haven't been able to find one. Praemonitus (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
caltech says that "A super-puff is a planet with a super-Earth mass (less than 5 M⊕) but a gas giant radius (larger than 5 R⊕). If you plot them on a mass-radius diagram with other known exoplanets, they are clearly outliers. Their mean density can be as low as 0.1 or 0.01 gcm^-3 (similar to the density of cotton candy). This is one or even two orders of magnitude lower than most exoplanets", and they have a mass/radius plot. Artem.G (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To my knowledge, a tentative consensus exists wherein a super-Earth is relatively volatile-poor (and therefore more "Earthlike," I guess) whereas a mini/sub-Neptune is more volatile rich and generally compositionally similar to the ice giants of our Solar System. Of course, no formal definition exists and our knowledge of specific exoplanets is often very poor; I will also put out a disclaimer that exoplanets are far from my strength. However, from what I have seen, the two categories do carry different (albeit informal) connotations when used in scicomm and in literature. ArkHyena (talk) 07:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, there is no consensus on the use of these terms, even among experts. Different researchers use different terminology for the same objects. I think most agree that super-Earths and sub-Neptunes are separated by the radius valley, but there's even debate on whether the radius valley is a real thing or just a projection of a 'density gap'. The other terms do not have widely accepted definitions; each group or study states its own definition, or simply uses the terms without definition. It's a real mess, that will probably take researchers a decade to sort out. Maybe we should have some form of overview article, types of exoplanet or similar, where these issues could be discussed? Modest Genius talk 12:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assistance adding Carl Sagan to Academy of Achievement awardees? edit

Hi all! I would like to add Carl Sagan - plus some other notable figures - to the list of Academy of Achievement awardees. I’ll leave this to the discretion of other editors because I work for the organization. Talk:Academy_of_Achievement#Additional_Names_for_Awardees_Table Jarc12030 (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remaining pictures uploaded by Celestialobjects edit

Even after an arduous admin review and mass deletion about a year ago I am quite surprised that there are still a lot of pictures uploaded by this guy that are still used in many articles, like the Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall, Giant GRB Ring, Saraswati Supercluster, and U1.11, of which I have all removed from the articles.

Apparently, the mass deletion review did not heed Nrco0e's (another user that I also see some works being problematic) request of deleting all of this user's uploads, and so we still see a LOT of his misleading pictures. Keep in mind that even after all of this, he still uploads a lot of planet images as late as 15 August 2023, eight months after he was apprehended, which I am almost certain is made using a software like Universe Sandbox, of which he has not linked in the description.

A bit of help to remove the images uploaded by this guy to various astronomy articles, as well as to launch another mass deletion of his uploads in Commons that somehow got missed, to finally remove all the images lacking scientific merit once and for all.

Thoughts? SkyFlubbler (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, all of the Celestialobjects stuff should be deleted. Please get that process started. - Parejkoj (talk) 08:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn't look like the image license matches a speedy deletion criteria, per WP:SPEEDY. Praemonitus (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SkyFlubbler: You said some of my image uploads are problematic? Could you point out which ones? I'll gladly delete them---I do admit that some of my old graphics like that one eTNOs orbital diagram are questionable, but I haven't gotten around to deleting them yet. Nrco0e (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yup, there are a lot of files. But that will be a discussion for another day. I am still contemplating after all the edits lost that I have done for a second mass delete. SkyFlubbler (talk) 04:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

God damnit! (pardon for profanity but NGGGGH!), after an hour of editing the nomination request, all of it got deleted by my stupid phone lagging. The files are too many (like probably there is 500 of them?). I think I will try again in draft before submitting. This will take a while. SkyFlubbler (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh my! Don't worry, we'll get this fixed! The Space Enthusiast (talk) 05:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Name conflicts with minor planets#Requested move 29 January 2024 edit


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Name conflicts with minor planets#Requested move 29 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. NasssaNsertalk 10:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Norma cluster vs Norma Cluster? edit

I thought perhaps "Norma" was a cluster, so Norma Cluster should be named Norma cluster according to WP:NCCAPS. But I've found sources that used "Norma Cluster" and other that use "Norma cluster". So perhaps the proper name of the thing is "Norma Cluster"? Is there any astronomical naming convention source that says one way or another? Johnjbarton (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, "Norma Cluster" should be capitalized as a proper name. Norma is the name of the constellation it's in, like the Virgo Cluster or the Andromeda Galaxy. SevenSpheres (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Do you know of any sources that discuss this convention? Johnjbarton (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SevenSpheres is correct. The phrase 'Norma cluster' (a common noun) could refer to any cluster of stars or galaxies located in the constellation Norma. The 'Norma Cluster' (a proper noun) refers to a specific galaxy cluster. Any book on English grammar or style will confirm that proper nouns are capitalised, and our MOS agrees. For a more Earthly comparison, compare 'a Washington monument' to 'the Washington Monument'. Modest Genius talk 14:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Alpha Cephei#Requested move 4 February 2024 edit


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Alpha Cephei#Requested move 4 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 16:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I listed some redirects at "Redirects for discussion" edit

I put some redirects (Betria and Gatria) in redirects for discussion. The discussion can be found in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 13#Betria. Everyone can join the discussion to decide the fate of these redirects. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move at Talk:List of solar eclipses in antiquity#Requested move 16 February 2024 edit


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of solar eclipses in antiquity#Requested move 16 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stellar mass limits edit

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)Reply[reply]

Yes, that is my understanding too. Here's a possible ref. that discusses both limits:
Illari, Phyllis (February 1, 2019). "Mechanisms, Models and Laws in Understanding Supernovae". Journal for General Philosophy of Science. 50: 63–84. doi:10.1007/s10838-018-9435-y.
Praemonitus (talk) 06:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I made changes to both pages using that ref. Please check. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe the first sentence of the "Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit" section on the Chandrasekhar limit article is inaccurate. Praemonitus (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any hints on what you think is inaccurate? The sentence is:
  • Hydrogen-burning stars heavier than the Chandrasekhar limit continue to compress, overcoming the electron degeneracy pressure.
Johnjbarton (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well the exception applies to the degenerate cores of massive stars, not hydrogen-fusing stars that have a little more mass than the Sun. See neutron star for example. Praemonitus (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm. I suppose that both limits are really models based on the final state stability. So the mass that they refer to is final state mass.
But in both cases the initial state is a massive star and that mass determines the final state right? You can't get to degenerate core of a massive star unless you start with a massive star. Some range of masses result in white dwarf, some in neutron stars, some black holes (and some not yet settled intermediate values). All of the end states are stable (absent eg binary). What is the role of the degenerate core mass?
Or maybe you are objecting to "hydrogen-burning"? That's fair since my sentence implies a starting state mass limit which I think is not correct. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right. I wouldn't mention hydrogen fusion. Maybe "stellar remnant"? In type Ia supernova you can exceed the limit via a double white dwarf merger. If Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit is at the low end of the estimates, two sufficiently massive white dwarfs could merge to form a neutron star.[2] Praemonitus (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Life_habitable_zones is WP:SYNTH? edit

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)Reply[reply]