Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

Active discussions
WikiProject Astronomy

(Main / Talk)


(Main / Talk)


(Main / Talk)


(Main / Talk)


(Main / Talk)


(Main / Talk)


(Main / Talk)


(Main / Talk)


(Main / Talk)


(Main / Talk)


(Main / Talk)

WikiProject Astronomy (Rated Project-class)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Extremely weird pageviewsEdit

This is a weird question but does anybody have an idea of what is going on at Skathi (moon)? Since December this random stub has gotten a ridiculous volume of pageviews, totally unique in its history as a page. Over the past month this landed it in the third position of most popular pages in this WikiProject, above pages like Earth and Isaac Newton. Last month, 1 view went to this page for every 20,000 views that went to any other English Wikipedia page. And yet I have absolutely no idea what is causing the surge. There's no news or media event I can figure out that could have caused it (and it would have to be a huge media event to drive page views for half a year -- page view spikes from things like major elections usually only last 2-3 days, and are never as much as half a million views in a month). Nothing has changed about this moon in the past few months, and it's not people looking for the goddess with the same name. What gives? Is this a faulty page view measurement, or some kind of very successful and sustained automated pinging? If people are genuinely so interested in this random moon, then this is an important page for us to improve, but I just can't believe that these are actual organic page views. - Astrophobe (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Still no idea at all what's going on here, and I have to assume it's some kind of automated attack with unclear motivation. But just in case even a tiny percentage of these hits are real people looking for information, I've given Skathi (moon) the old WP:BB treatment. More eyes (and thoughts on this situation) are naturally appreciated. - Astrophobe (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes that's odd. I don't see any obvious reason for the traffic. Maybe an Admin has some tools that will let them analyze the page hits further? Praemonitus (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I get excited when one of my near-Earth asteroid articles reaches 25,000 hits/day, but that is very rare and is always because of sensational press coverage. Most of the lesser known NEA articles seem to reach at best 700 hits/day. -- Kheider (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I totally agree. Unless we find that, say, Taylor Swift has been posting once a day about this moon since December, I think these simply cannot be real hits. I even looked to see if some pseudoscientist with a big following had attributed magical powers to this moon, but no dice. - Astrophobe (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
No idea why that's happening. There's an even split between desktop and mobile views too, which would be unusual for an automated tool. Maybe worth asking at WP:VPT? Modest Genius talk 17:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. I thought that was really weird too -- if this is an artificial bombardment of some sort, and I think it simply has to be, someone is putting a fair bit of time and effort into it. WP:VPT is a great suggestion, I'll take this there now. - Astrophobe (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Two months later, the page views are over 70k per day [1]. In May it was the 26th most popular article on enwiki [2], which is ridiculous. The bug report [3] seems to have ground to a halt. Modest Genius talk 11:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm curious about the solution to this puzzle; should be easy enough for some admin that has access to the user agents of the visitors. My guess is that an app uses this page as an automatic test for internet connectivity, and as the app increased in popularity so did the page views. The funny thing is that if this is true, they would have chosen this page precisely because it was tiny, and now Astrophobe's considerable expansion is making them waste a lot of bandwidth. Tercer (talk) 11:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
That was an excellent expansion and it's now deservedly a GA. So at least these mysterious page viewers might be seeing a decent article. Modest Genius talk 13:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I find it extremely unlikely that these page views are from humans looking at the article. Tercer (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Hah, thanks Modest Genius. Bots have rights too, they deserve to visit a high quality page. As for wasting the bandwith of people who are freeloading off of wikimedia resources without permission or (evidently) even telling anybody, well, maybe that will teach them a thing or two about WP:HERE. Maybe if I add some high resolution videos I could bring it to FA ... - Astrophobe (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I love you Astrophobe. Tercer (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Haha thank you Tercer, that means a lot to me - Astrophobe (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Is the Milky Way 256,000 light years across?Edit

Explorer King is a new user here. Most of his edits were on The articles for the Andromeda and Triangulum galaxies, as well as the Milky Way’s article. He added that the Milky Way was larger than the Andromeda galaxy, basing it on a radius of 129,000 light years. It seems that it came from a news article which says that the Milky Way is larger than the Andromeda, and bases that on a paper about the Milky Way’s Mass. Any thoughts? The Space Enthusiast (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

There's a cited dimension here: Milky_Way#Size_and_mass. There isn't a well-defined edge, so I suppose it depends on how you define it. Praemonitus (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Our galaxy has historically been considered to be quite a bit smaller than M31, ≈half depending on just what you're measuring. More recently, they have been considered to be quite close in mass and overall dimensions. More than one recent estimate makes the Milky Way substantially bigger, but I'm not sure that is considered the consensus yet. The results obviously depend on measurements of different properties of two different objects and most studies tend to measure one or the other, often favouring the one they're measuring and perhaps being semi-blind to studies that would contradict that. I haven't gone through enough recent papers to offer a strong opinion either way. Lithopsian (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Galaxies do not have well-defined edges, so any measurement needs to be accompanied by an indication of which radius is being considered (effective radius, Petrosian radius, Holmberg radius, dark matter core radius etc.) and whether the value has been corrected for inclination. It's only meaningful to compare values that use the same definition of radius. For the Milky Way, things are even more complicated as we're stuck inside of it and cannot measure any of those radii directly. Lithopsian is correct that there is debate as to the exact size of the Milky Way - we know the distance between the Sun and the Galactic Centre fairly well (also sometimes referred to as a radius) but extrapolating the structure in the outer regions is extremely tricky. I think most astronomers still regard Andromeda as bigger than the Milky Way, but not by as much as was thought a few decades ago. More generally, I would avoid taking galaxy radius measurements from popular media sources, as they are unlikely to comprehend the subtleties or state which radius definition is being used. Modest Genius talk 12:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Should we remove the claims that claim the Milky Way is larger than M31? The Space Enthusiast (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we should keep the claim. While there are two sources are being cited stating that Milky Way might be bigger than M31 in the Milky_Way#Size_and_mass page, we should just explicitly state that it's just a speculation Bigboithena (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

NGC 179Edit

Hi, I'm not an astronomer, but I have a concern about NGC 179 especially "This galaxy comprises several stars lost of interstellar matter and it can be possible to flatten more until they will faint." "flattening until they faint" sounds like something in the playground that merits a teacher intervening. ϢereSpielChequers 09:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

WereSpielChequers, I've removed that sentence. Looking at some of the creator's other work, their English is poor enough that it's often hard to understand. As an aside, Betelgeuse was described as "fainting", but I don't think this is related.
I also suspect that NGC 179 fails WP:NASTRO. Simbad gives me 39 articles that mention it, all of which appear to be surveys or catalogues. I haven't gone through each one to look for significant coverage, though. Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I think you're right - I couldn't find any substantial commentary on a quick look. Being in the NGC used to be a free pass on WP:NASTRO but isn't any more. I've tagged with {{notability}}. Modest Genius talk 11:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks both of you, I shall go back to my trawl of "lost of" reassured that we don't know of a beastie out there that is flattening galaxies until they faint. ϢereSpielChequers 14:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Heh, amusing. Praemonitus (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding central star characteristics to {{infobox nebula}}Edit

I propose that we extend {{infobox nebula}} with a new section containing central star characteristics. The proposal can be read and discussed here: Template talk:Infobox nebula § Central star characteristics. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

55701 UkalegonEdit

55701 Ukalegon is a smaller Jupiter trojan that fails notability per WP:DWMP. (JPL · MPC · LCDB · Ferret · AstDyS-2)

Since 2018, I've been trying unsuccessfully to turn the stub into a redirect page but my edits keep getting reverted by the same user (see article's talk page). So maybe somebody else should look into this matter. Rfassbind – talk 23:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it, but it's looking like you've got consensus behind you. Primefac (talk) 09:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
It is non-notable. I'd WP:PROD/WP:AfD it, then let the admins take care of the revert issue. Praemonitus (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Looks non-notable to me. AfD it. Modest Genius talk 11:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Request for input on distinction between solar meridian transit and highest solar altitudeEdit

Would anyone please weigh in at the discussion at Talk:Noon#High noon, particularly with regard to how the nonspecialist terms solar noon and high noon relate to both the time of the Sun's meridian transit and the time of the Sun's highest altitude? Ibadibam (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Weird glitch with Template:SkyEdit

Anyone know why Template:Sky is acting all weird now? It now seems to cut into the top of infoboxes for stars and such, and I recall it being a bit higher up then now. This wasn’t occurring a few days ago. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hrm, no changes to the template in the last few months. I assume you're referring to the difference between (for example) Algol and Antlia, where the former looks right but the latter has the coords in the middle of the title? The articles look to be formatted the same, so I'm not seeing anything layout-wise that would affect things. It might be a change with the base infobox itself (as there have been some changes recently) but I don't know if that would affect the div used by {{sky}}. Primefac (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Weird things happened with both fonts and co-ordinates with this Thursday's MediaWiki update. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Exoplanets merged?Edit

Hello. I have realized the potentially habitable exoplanets GJ 1061 d and c have been merged: I think it's a good idea to have them as separate articles. Any thoughts? They are the 7th and 8th most potentially habitable: And they have been covered in many scientific papers and media. Cheers. ExoEditor 23:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't look like there's enough content to justify separate articles, or demonstrate independent notability per WP:NASTRO. I suggest you work on expanding the existing sections until a WP:SPLIT is required. Modest Genius talk 10:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Transit of Venus Featured article reviewEdit

I have nominated Transit of Venus for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

IC 1101Edit

I'm sorry to start yet another discussion about IC 1101 but this time it is not about the overall size, it is the core size. You see, I found this paper which says that IC 1101 has the largest core of any galaxy. The link is: [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Space Enthusiast (talkcontribs) 01:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Anyone?The Space Enthusiast (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
It's unclear what your question is. You've already added that result to the IC 1101 article and cited the same paper (currently ref 10). Modest Genius talk 11:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


I am an inexperienced user who revived WikiProject Rocketry. Could some experienced editors please put it on their watchlist and help out? StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 15:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Helium rain experiment draftEdit

Just for any editors who pass this, I started a draft (Draft:Helium rain experiments) based on some experiments that showed the possibility of "helium rain" inside gas giants. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Currently it reads like a press release. Immicibility of helium and hydrogen under pressure has been known for years. So it is undue highlighting the researchers. "Rain" on these planets is speculation. For rain to be formed there is more than the existence of two phases required. And separation of two liquids is more like cream floating to the surface of milk, or slag from molten metal. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
That's a one sentence sub-stub, that cites a press release, a copy of the same press release on an aggregation website, and a blog (none of those are independent reliable sources). Why would we need a separate article on this? There are already discussions of possible helium rain at Jupiter#Internal_structure and Saturn#Internal_structure. If the new study has contributed anything substantially new to the topic, it can be added to those sections. Modest Genius talk 11:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Most viewed stub in this WikiprojectEdit

Nuclear pasta 13,380 446 Stub --Coin945 (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Not any more. It's clearly not a stub. Praemonitus (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Unnamed crater on GanymedeEdit

I noticed on List of largest craters in the Solar System there is an impact crater on Ganymede that is 15,600 kilometers wide. However on the talk page for that, A user said it was geographically impossible, since Ganymede is only 5,270 kilometers wide. What are your opinions about this? The Space Enthusiast (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The news story[5] says, "The radial extent of the multiring measured along the satellite's surface is 7800km." I suppose if it is measured circumferentially across the sphere from the impact point, it could extend that far. Is it even a crater at that point? Praemonitus (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
The paper is Bibcode:2020Icar..35213941H, published online July 2020. I don't have access to the full text, but from the abstract they seem to be saying that the entire surface of the moon was disrupted by a single impact. That isn't a 'crater' per se, and nor does it have a well-defined size - equivalent area will give you a different value than circumference. I favour not including it in the list. Modest Genius talk 14:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Saying the whole surface is a crater sounds silly to me. I support removing it, too. --mfb (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
To be fair, this will be true of any crater on a spherical body, the area of a Spherical cap is not  , but  . It's just that usually the crater is so much smaller than the body that this difference is negligible. That said, I don't think this feature of Ganymede counts as a "crater". Tercer (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Request for Comment Robert LanzaEdit

There is a Request for Comment about Robert Lanza#Biocentrism that may be of interest to members of the WikiProject: Bibliographies/Science task force. Talk:Robert Lanza#Request For Comment Robert Lanza. I would encourage members of this project to consider participating to add diversity to the discussion. Sapphire41359 (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Return to the project page "WikiProject Astronomy".