Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Infoboxes

Infoboxes for irregular satellites

I feel that the standard infobox for moons above is inadequate for the irregular satellites given typically limited amount of available data, very perturbed orbits, numerous assumptions etc. I suggest to adapt a shorter infobox for the irregulars following a few simple guidelines

• Data must be referenced!
  • Use mean orbital elements preferably, if known (helps the grouping; the osculating elements are changing in very short timescales)
  • Use best fit elements otherwise
• Avoid self-calculated items (they are based on assumptions, anyway).
  • The orbital period for mean elements is given from the integrations (irregular satellites orbits are not Keplerian)
  • Peri/apo centres can be given in the main text if they are exceptional
• Physical characteristics are limited to what is typically measured
  • magnitude (absolute,V or R)
  • albedo (typically assumed),
  • diameter (inferred from the albedo)
  • colour (measured for a number of moons)
  • spectral (asteroid) classification (infrared spectra are known in many cases)
  • light curve i.e. rotation period (known for a few)
  • drop mass-related parameters as they are based on the double assumptions of the density and albedo

For a sample please see here. I’d like to apply it first to the Neptune’s irregulars currently without infoboxes anyway. Eurocommuter 13:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

A few questions/criticisms:

• Try to fold the "to the ecliptic" part in with "Inclination".
• I usually see year abbreviated as "yr". I have even used "yr" in my publications.
• Can you find a better phrase for "Is a satellite of"? I would put "Planet".
• How is color specified? Is it something that will be familiar to the general public (and not something like B-V)?
• I hate quantities inferred from other uncertain quantities in an encyclopedic reference. The diameter should be tagged with a footnote if inferred from the albedo.
• Is the spectral type something that will be useful for the general public?
• Does this differ substantially from the infobox for larger moons (the Galilean satellites, Titan, Triton, the Earth's moon)? I would prefer they all be the same.
• Do you have advice on which references to use?

George J. Bendo 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, George. In detail:

• (using a for year) I started from a copy of the existing infobox for the moons; no idea why a was used for years. Will replace, of course.
• (is satellite of) I actually thought by replacing with Neptune X, Jupiter XXII etc.; it gives the planet and spares the listing the formal designation in the main text
• (diameter) I’m fully with you. The diameters come from peer-reviewed paper(s) and are based on the assumed albedo; they will be tagged as such
• (colour)I’ll put for example light red (B-V=0.6 V-R=0.45); (I've used it already in the main text of numerous articles). The link explains the colour index. I’ve contributed substantial material with graphs for colours in Trans-Neptunian Object#Physical characteristics, Centaur (planetoid)#Physical characteristics and irregular natural satellite#Physical characteristics and believe it is an important branch of both observational and theoretical effort. It seems to be also quite intuitive for wide public via graphs
• (Spectral type): we have this item for the asteroids already; the usefulness is to support (or otherwise) the common origin in a break-up of a single progenitor. Often referred to in the groupings of irregulars (e.g. Carme group, Pasiphae group).
• (differences)The box is simply a shorter version of the standard moon box. It avoids calculating items based on assumptions and lists only the data typically known (or hopefully forthcoming) for the small and distant satellites. In the event that other data are available (visit by a spacecraft, occultation?) the shorter infobox will be replaced with the full infobox.

Sources; I’ve got a core list here.

• For the mean parameters the papers use Jacobson (listed on JPL) except for early discovery papers giving the best-fit orbits.
• For colours mostly Grav 2003, some older data from Rettig 2000
• For IR spectra Grav 2004
• For orbital and collisional theories (groupings etc) Nesforny 2003 and 2004
• For discovery and misc Sheppard & Jewitt 2003 and 2004 (with Porco)
• Plus relevant discovery papers from Holman / Gladman.
• For diameters, I suggest Sheppard with 0.04 assumption (the assumption is arguably unsafe for satellites with different colours i.e. potentially different surface characteristics but at least it gives the relative sizes right)

Example of refs: Ananke

I’ll implement your comments in the next draft. Your comments are highly appreciated. TNO infobox could be the next one to be reviewed. Regards Eurocommuter 15:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Edited draft - Eurocommuter 15:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Draft template for the infobox is here. The example of application is there. Eurocommuter 09:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What happened

There is usually a "discover" section in the comet infobox, but it isn't displayed. Why isn't it showing? Also, why isn't there a section for argument of perihelion, etc? Thanks. AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)} 00:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

minor planets example is out of date

The minor planets example is out of date. All or almost all the most significant ones (hundreds) now use Template:Infobox Planet instead. Deuar 16:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge

• can we merge these two articles so they are one? (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 17:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox data for planets

Almost none of the infobox data for the 8 planets show any citations. More often than not the data disagrees with NASA statistics from the External Links, even when the "epoch 2000" is accounted for. Where do the data come from, and how can we check for typos? From my amateur's point of view, it looks as if we need to get the basic facts straight before we worry about comets, asteroids and such. Art LaPella 06:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Too true. It's a paradox - the small bodies no-one apart from a fanatic has ever heard of are well referenced, for larger moons referencing tends to be patchy. For planets, it's a debacle. Similar trends are often seen in other subject areas. Deuar 21:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Move proposal - Template:Infobox Planet

User:Sardanaphalus has proposed moving Template:Infobox Planet to Template:Infobox Nonstellar body (or some other generic term). Please join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox Planet#Template's name. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Styles : Units and S.I. Abbreviations

In all the astronomical Infoboxes available in each of the text boxes using non-astronomical nomenclature and inconsistent units.

Angular separation

The units to describe double stars and binary stars of arcseconds is " or arcsec. The units to describe the apparent dimensions of deep-sky objects I.e. Galaxies. Nebula, etc. is in arcmin or ' . NOT arcmins)

Standard SI units

Use superscript –1, not solidus /, for units: e.g. km s^–1 not km/s.

Standard Units are;

Mean Density g cm^-3 NOT g/cm³

Velocity m s^-2 NOT m/s² OR km s^-2 NOT km/s²

Parallax The unit is in mas. NOT milliarcseconds

Proper Motion mas yr^-1 NOT mas/yr

Age Is either 'a', yr. or years. S.I. standard is "a" However a, in astronomy it can be confused with the semi-major axis 'a' in binaries.

Energy J (Joules) NOT ergs (Non-SI) W (Watts) but sometimes used J.sec^-1

Distances of Astronomical Objects

DIstances

Solar System A.U. not AU, or at least AU. km. (use Scientific Notation i.e. 1.4×10⁹ NOT "Ga"

Stars parsec (pc.) is preferred over light-years (ly.), and pc. over ly.

Planetary Nebulae Distance in kpc.

Globular and Open Clusters Distance in kiloparsec (kpc). NEVER kly (kilolight-years

Milky Way Distance in kiloparsec (kpc). NEVER kly (kilolight-years

Galaxies Megaparsecs (Mpc.) NOT Mly.(Megalight years)

Metallicity

Metallicity

Unit is [X/H] and is a value between whole number and fraction. Ie. 0.20 or 1.25, NOT in %percentage ( often the more specific ratio. I.e. [Fe/H] or [H/He] is used instead of [X/H] )

Binary Stars (Elements)

Orbital elements There are seven elements that describe the orbit. These are in the following order

P Period yr. (years)

T Periastron (Epoch of passage through Periastron) yr,. (years)

a Semi-major axis (in arcsec)

i Inclination (measured in degrees or °)

Ω Descending Node (measured in degrees or °) (If Ω* it is the Ascending Node)|

NOTE : In the Solar System it is called the "Longitude of the Node"

ω Longitude of periastron (measured in degrees or °)

NOTE: Presently Missing in starbox example for visual binary orbit

Ref. [6th Orbit Catalog Text ]

(Units are normally "d" = days, "y" = years, "c" = centuries)

Solar units

Solar Values Ie. Mʘ NOT M_ʘ

Lʘ NOT L_ʘ

Rʘ NOT R_ʘ

NOTE: The < math > equation should be M{\odot}=1.98892\times10^{30}\hbox{ kg}

NOT M{\odot}=1.98892\times10^{30}\hbox{ kg}

The problem is subscripting the solar mass symbol, is that it is the central dot is unable to seen. Difficult to interpret if say the symbol was earth mass (for example)

STARBOX : Catalogue designations

Starbox catalogue should have an order based on order of importance.

Greek designation is first, them Flamsteed Designation next. Then followed by;

HIP FK5 HR HD SAO CP CD LHS Gliese, etc.

NOT in the order: {{ Starbox catalog | | names = α¹ Cen, HIP 71683, FK5 538, HR 5459 HD 128620, SAO 252838

CP -60° 5483  LHS 50, A, Gliese 559A, YPC 3309.00

Expression of uncertainty

According to WP:DATE errors and uncertainty are written as;

"Uncertainties can be written in various ways:; Value/±/uncertainty/×/10n/unit symbol (e.g. 1.534±0.35×10²³ m "

There is not spaces between the number and the error/uncertainty, as they are both implicitly related.

Also If you use scientific notation, according to the WP:MoS should be separated by the 'multiplication sign.

However, the units must be as specified in S.I. units.

I.e, As 1.02 ± 0.08 mas. This should be 1.02±0.08 mas or if need be 1.02±0.08 milliarcsec

Solution

Looking at the astronomical text throughout Wikipedia the units used are very confusing and are non-standard combinations.

I also think this is an important need an WP:Astronomy_Units Page, which gives the uses standard usage, and with a list of redundancy by highest to lowest in preference(s). Adoption can be made from some Astronomical Style Guide, as used with the major journals of astronomical papers. Another good general source and summary is something like "Norton's Star Atlas 2000.0" in the Appendix "Units and Notation"even or the yearly "The Astronomical Almanac."

Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Re your proposals, I have the following comments:

1. The symbol for the Sun is represented in Unicode as U+2609, ☉. It is not the symbol ʘ, Unicode U+0298, used above. This symbol is the bilabial click.

Thanks for the tip. The smaller dot is difficult to see, and can be confused with a degree sign. However, I can't see an alternative.

Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

2. The seven orbital elements in {{Starbox visbin}} are P, a, e, i, Ω, T, and ω. Here, ω, the argument of periastron, is the angle, measured in the plane of the orbit, between periastron and the node [1]. Many sources, including the 6th Orbit Catalog, call this the longitude of periastron, but this seems confusing as the term longitude is also applied [2][3] to the angle ϖ = ω + Ω. The term argument of periastron is unambiguous.

As for the seven orbital elements in {{Starbox visbin}}, the order is what is important. Calculations of ephemerides use the position in order, and because of the ease of confusing Ω and ω, which are co-dependant. P and T set the times of each apastron / periastron in the orbit, 'a' sets the size of the ellipse and e the shape of the ellipse, while 'i' then sets the inclination of the orbital plane.

Hence, the logical order (by reducing certainty by the way) is thus always; P, T, a, e, i, Ω and ω.

(I find it also helps when calculating the rectangular coordinates known as the Thiele-Innes Constants, A,B, F,G (C and H), being depended on i, Ω and ω - whose ellipse size is set in all equations by 'a'. Together these four are known as the 'classical elements.' References to this are "The Binary Stars" by Robert Aitken (1961) pg.81, 92-94 and Wulff D, Heintz "Double Stars" (1975) pg.33

Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Your point is taken, and this is true, however in binary stars the name as given is used. What you are quoting is for planetary bodies not binary stars. I.e. ϖ is never used. The problem actually lies with the Ω, which is the intersection between the projected tangential plane and the true orbital plane. However, unlike bodies in the solar system, Ω as the descending or ascending node, is not usually known, and requires knowledge of the radial velocity to know the orbits orientation and not by the scalar positions. Because of this it is sometimes called as "the nodal point." To remove the ambiguity - hence the term argument - Ω is not 0° to 360°, but is as Ω ≤ 180° (sometimes Ω*). [It is actually unambiguous.]

This is why ϖ = ω + Ω is not used. The difference also is problematic in calculating an ephemeris, as the position angle in the orbit is calculated as tan ( θ - Ω ) = tan ( ν + ω ) × sin i. This otherwise gives a different result.

Furthermore Ω is subject to precession, and is set at an epoch (not necessarily 2000.0)

References to this are "The Binary Stars" by Robert Aitken (1961) pg.78 and Wulff D, Heintz "Double Stars" (1975) pg.32 - both being the definitive source on binary star notation and usage.

Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

3. I agree that it should be specified whether metallicity is M/H, Fe/H, etc.

Agreed. But these are always bracketed ], [X/H] or [Fe/H]. I don't recall [M/H] being used, and I can't remember seeing this (even though it makes sense!). Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

4 For the ordering of designations in the infobox, my preference would be to list the Bayer, Flamsteed and variable star designations first, if present, followed by catalog designations in alphabetical order.

Spacepotato (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll do this if it is decided to create such a page.

Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

New minor planet template

I added a the template Template:mpcat which you can use like this:

Main belt

or like this

Aten

I put it into a few infoboxes in some of the articles I have been working on recently. I am suggesting we begin switching all of the infoboxes over to this new system, as well as ammend the the instructions on the infbox page to include these. Here is a list of articles which use this new system I am proposing: 4660 Nereus, 1862 Apollo,1999 UJ7, as well as about 15 others (check my user page for a list of asteroids using this template). Let me know if you have any ideas to improve the template. -AndrewBuck (talk) 06:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Mean anomaly

I notice that Inforbox planet has a line for "mean anomaly", and maybe others do as well. But what does that mean? At what epoch? The mean anomaly of an object is constantly changin'. If we're gonna put this line, then we should specify the epoch. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 04:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)