Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

Add topic
Active discussions
WikiProject
Astronomy


(Main / Talk)

Importance
ratings


(Main / Talk)

Article
ratings


(Main / Talk)

Image
review


(Main / Talk)

Astronomical
objects


(Main / Talk)

Constellations


(Main / Talk)

Cosmology


(Main / Talk)

Eclipses


(Main / Talk)

Popular
pages


(Main / Talk)

Members


(Main / Talk)

WikiData


(Main / Talk)

WikiProject Astronomy (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
 

Stupendously large black holeEdit

There appears to be only one primary source for this term[1], and then a mountain of coverage of this one source in the woo-woo science press because the name is so cool. But does it really warrant a separate page? PianoDan (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC) PianoDan (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I would say that definitely does not deserve a separate article. Given that only one article uses the term, I'd argue it probably doesn't deserve a mention at Supermassive Black Hole, either (it's got two sentences there). Please file an AfD for that page. - Parejkoj (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I found only one use of this neologism by an independent team Bibcode:2021JCAP...06..022A, the rest were all by the two researchers that proposed it. That's not enough to establish notability. It's a very new article so it might be worth engaging with the author before prodding or taking to AfD. Modest Genius talk 15:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
The term is also mentioned in the introduction section of List of most massive black holes. I believe merge/redirect there or to supermassive black hole is preferable to deletion; while it may not be a notable neologism, some press coverage makes it a plausible search term. Complex/Rational 15:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree that merge / redirect is probably the best choice. Between those two potential targets, I'd lean towards supermassive blackhole, but I'd like to hear others' opinions before I go ahead and do it. PianoDan (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Good point on pinging the author. @ZaperaWiki44:, do you want to weigh in here? PianoDan (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree this doesn't rate a separate article. It is just going to be AfD'd at some point. Praemonitus (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I did however say in the edit summary that I wasn't done with the page yet (but I guess no one may have put any attention to this summary), so not yet willing to let it being nuked prematurely until it's entirely done, but was expecting a possibility that some may try to oppose the idea of creating this as a page, even when I was still working on the page as it was not completed yet. Also, that 2021 paper is not the sole study to talk about the "Stupendously large black holes" (in which I know it would typically make less sense to have a separate article if the subject was based on one sole source) since there's also few more papers and as well as few more studies that were brought in the topic, with some of their interesting info that were brought into press releases which are not always reliable though, but can still be mentioned in Wikipedia. With more interesting info based on the 2021 paper which also quoted some older papers, that's why I created this article (though I could have created a section for another page but didn't thought about that, and might be too large for that) and I was also trying to find an enough number of references to add into this page if it was worth to be a separate article.
But if you don't really like having that subject being a seperate article, I would at best merge with another page that is more suitable for it, meaning rework that article as an shorter but still expanding section for the List of most massive black holes, but at the cost to likely rewrite the Introduction section in some style of the prelist sections of the List of largest galaxies page. Unfortunately, merging with supermassive black hole is a less better idea as it was noted there's different ways about how SLABs, including that they could have been formed within galactic nuclei. However, it was suggest that it would be reasonable to think there's likely an upper limit for the mass of black hole in general given the stability of their accretion disks and the current age of the universe, though few may able to break the rule via merging with other large black holes (during galaxy collision) and might happen as a result of the collapsing of some galaxy superclusters in the far future. It was therefore believed that SLAB were seeded by primordial black holes, and that the existence of SLABs of many hundreds of billion M might mostly depends on the primordial black hole hypothesis being correct or not (sure likely either nobody or not enough people here has read the paper). That's also why merging with primordial black hole page may be a slightly better idea, even though at least the SLAB topic can still have a mention in the supermassive black hole or the other of these two said pages, though I still don't think it's an option safer than moving to List of most massive black holes.
So, my best and safest option is either keeping the page or merging (redirecting, moving) it with the List of most massive black holes, if willing the rewrite the Introduction section or even create a subsection there instead, as I mentioned. Merging with the supermassive black hole or the primordial black hole is not a really good option, but can still be decent at best especially for the latter. However, casually choosing that page as redirect without merging with another page, or deleting it, by even going as far as entirely ignore the whole Stupendously large black hole subject and removing and act like if that topic never ever existed, is probably a good candidate to be the worst (unfair and dumbest) of these options about where this page will go here, and I do easily disagree with it whatsover with reasons not to do so. Simply you can say I might do agree and do disagree both partially at the same time with this topic. ZaperaWiki44(/Contribs) 21:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not ignoring this discussion, but I'm pretty busy this week. I'll come back to it in a few days and see what the page looks like. I'm still strongly leaning towards a merge and redirect. PianoDan (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I'll just add my 2 cents that "SLAB" does not warrant having its own article. It is a new term (TOOSOON) that has barely been used outside of the group of authors that proposed the term. In any case it is just a subcategory of SMBH, and deserves at most a sentence or so in the SMBH article. For that matter, "ultramassive black holes" also should not have its own article either: that's just another subcategory of SMBH, so I would prefer to see "ultramassive black hole" also just redirect to the SMBH article with a brief definition and description there. Aldebarium (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Carr, Bernard; et al. (February 2021). "Constraints on Stupendously Large Black Holes". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 501 (2): 2029–2043. arXiv:2008.08077. Bibcode:2020MNRAS.tmp.3429C. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3651.

Definitely not deserving to have its own article at the moment, as the coverage about the subject remains very little and limited to the author and some media outlets. I don't recommend merging it with the List of most massive black holes as that list's main purpose is keeping records, not lengthy discussions of the subject. For the time being, it must be a redirect to Supermassive black hole with at least a subsection mentioning it. SkyFlubbler (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion petered out, but consensus seems clear. The only commentor who thinks this article should exist is the page creator - everyone else favours removing it. I'll turn it into a redirect. Modest Genius talk 12:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for having been gone for a long moment, and not having left another reply. Anyways, I already did changed my mind about what I replied earlier (I did clearly says either "keep" or "merge or redirect to the List of most massive black holes", not only "keep"). So, I thought that we should merge and redirect to the "List of most massive black holes", because I've took inspiration from the "List of largest galaxies" page when it was used to have long pre-list discussions of the subject including the evolution of supergiant galaxies, but that was before when majority of these got removed because it was meant to keep records as it's a list, and readers would just only care about the records, and not an unnecessary long discussion of the subject. That decision was also due to that I thought it was better to redirect to this page or the "Primordial black hole" than the "Supermassive black hole" page (with the latter, as I thought, should mostly refer to the normal [non-primordial] SMBHs, which typically cannot exceed approx. 5×1010 M [50 billion] which was represented as the upper limit for at least SMBHs with a surrounding accretion disk depending on the stability of the latter), given that SLABs have different ways of how they were formed, although most of them would be likely seeded by primordial black holes (for the largest ones) as stated in the 2021 paper. This is why I did once recommended to redirect and merge with "Primordial black hole" instead of the "Supermassive black hole" page. And well, for the "delete" part, nothing to say because I still disagree as the most harsh and worst (dumbest) decision. But now, I already did see why the best is to merge with "Supermassive black hole" page. Speaking of this, I've already been going to expand the "Supermassive black hole" page while I was gone, including adding topic about sub-categories for the SBMH, including the "Stupendously large black hole" (will be the same case for many other pages, but not using sandbox but something else).
@Aldebarium: For that matter, I've honestly enjoying and agreed with the reply about the "Ultramassive black hole" page, I'm in favor of strongly thinking of leaning towards a merge and redirect to "Supermassive black hole" article for the this page as well, since just like the SLAB, UMBH is just another subcategory for the SMBH, while some paper are still refering to any BHs above (5–10)×109 M (5–10 billion) just as SMBHs, including central black holes inside TON 618 and Phoenix Cluster. And the "UMBH" is even not notable enough to deserve a separate article either, and its article is already small enough to instead be a retirect and a sub-section for the "Supermassive black hole" page, like the "SLAB" article. If you want to discuss about that, go talk in the SkyFlubbler's Ultramassive black hole topic. ZaperaWiki44(/Contribs) 22:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I see that User:ZaperaWiki44 made some major changes to Supermassive Black Hole, including adding significant sections for "ultramassive" and "stupendously large". The latter definitely shouldn't have a whole section (I deleted what was added), as noted in the consensus above, and the former probably shouldn't either: I only count between 5-10 articles using that term on arXiv. I've deleted the "stupendously large" section, and am tempted to delete the ultramassive section as well. I also think many of the rewording changes are less clear than the original: copy editing is in order. - Parejkoj (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

RfC: inconsistency with the planetary system around SolEdit

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.
The vote is 12-8 in favour of option B, but of course the decision isn't a !vote count only. Basically I agree that the change from "the" to "our" is not a large one in this context and, unless aliens read Wikipedia, which I hope they do carefully, it is not violating NPOV, the usual reason why first-person pronouns are discouraged, as for now we only live in one planetary system, the Solar System.

Arguments were raised about whether there is one Solar System or multiple solar systems in the Milky Way. Sometimes "solar" and "planetary" are used interchangeably. ESA uses "solar systems" in the sense of multiple planetary systems, though NASA states there is only one (official) Solar System in the Milky Way, and all other systems are called "planetary" not "solar". I found no guidance from the IAU on that topic, so here we are. There doesn't appear to be a strong case to shun all usage of the expression "solar system" in relation to other planetary systems, but it could be better for us as we reduce ambiguity in that way.

MOS:OUR (and WP:PRONOUN, based on the MOS guideline) are the closest to answering this question. Both state that it is generally inappropriate to narrate the article from the first person. There was an attempt to use the "figurative use" exception, but it lacked details. Besides, figurative language is commonly used to convey difficult topics in an easy-to-digest manner, and there doesn't appear to be any argument that changing "our" to "the" will complicate the understanding of the lead. Also, local consensus should not normally override policies and guidelines.

Therefore, the rough consensus that we should use the Solar System throughout (option B) is established in this discussion. (non-admin closure) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


Currently articles are inconsistent with the naming of the aforementioned planetary system, here are two examples:

Milky Way
The Milky Way is the galaxy that includes our Solar System <!--NOTE: Please do not change the lead sentence(s) without consulting the discussion page first. The lead sentence has been discussed and there is general consensus that this is the best one for now. Thanks.-->
Sun
The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System <!-- Please don't change "the" to "our" — there is only one "Solar System", and thus "the" is correct. See Talk page for this article and Solar System. -->

Both articles (and more) had had multiple RfCs in their talk pages, but most of them ended with no consensus.

  • Option A: Use our Solar System.[1]
  • Option B: Use the Solar System.
  • Option C: Keep the status quo, decide in a case-by-case basis.

Betseg (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

OpinionsEdit

  • I support option B because of the reason listed in Sun's comment. Betseg (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • B "our Solar System" is actually grammatically incorrect, since there is only one Solar System. All other such systems are in fact planetary systems, even though they may be called solar systems as shorthand. Plus, I like the standardization, and the idea that Wikipedia could be read by aliens without them finding it human centric. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 05:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    It's certainly not "grammatically" incorrect, because either an article or a pronoun may come before a noun; both are grammatically correct. I think perhaps you meant, "factually incorrect". (But is it?) Secondly, I know of no Wikipedia guideline or policy that would support the OP argument that the "comment" in the Sun article is a reason to prefer that formulation over any other. Rather to the contrary, since Wikipedia is not a reliable source, that comment can be safely ignored, as far as what reliable sources have to say about this question. Mathglot (talk) 05:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • C. This will generate a lot of drama for no gain. As you have noticed yourself, this has already been discussed to death. At the end of the day, context matters. In the Milky Way case, the emphasis is in singling out our Solar System from the multiple solar systems it contains, so a bit of redundancy is fine. In the Sun case, on the contrary, we want to emphasize the difference between "a sun" and "the Sun", so the definite article is more appropriate. Tercer (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • C It's a bit of sophistry to say there's only one solar system. Even in sources that know the difference, I commonly see "solar system" as a synonym of planetary system. I try to use "planetary system" myself, but I need to consciously correct myself, because what I read is so often the opposite. The same's going to be true of our readers. We can't expect them to distinguish the Solar system from a planetary/solar system purely on capitalization without context to dab. — kwami (talk) 08:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • C, although I am personally favour B being used on the 'Milky Way' article since 'Solar System' as a proper noun can only be idiomatic in English to refer to the Solar System. That said, 'our Solar System' is perfectly grammatical, though a little cutesy, and option B seems to me to be style-guide creep. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • C, because it has existing consensus, and no policy-based argument has been given in favor of either 'A' or 'B'. Mathglot (talk) 09:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • B, as @Betseg said. Ps: on it.wiki we never use our. -- Windino [Rec] 10:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • We have no blanket rule against 1st and 2nd-person pronouns on en.wiki; cf. MOS:OUR: 'But some such forms are acceptable in certain figurative uses.' I personally don't think the case for using 'our' with 'Solar System' is good, but I don't see that a general case has been made of the kind that would be appropriate for the MOS, let alone that the additional guidance is good to add. I'd prefer us to tackle these on a case-by-case basis with the MoS as is. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    Hi, @Charles Stewart. It is not a rule for us (it.wiki). The reasoning is: ours assumes that there is something (i.e. the solar system) appartening to someone else. Or not ours. Is it logically correct? Bye :) Windino [Rec] 20:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
  • B per WP:PRONOUN. Praemonitus (talk) 12:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • B per MOS:OUR; first- and second-person pronouns (especially those referring to the audience) are generally inappropriate in formal prose. Complex/Rational 19:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • B as Wikipedia should not use "our" "we" "us" in articles, especially as in later centuries it will be read by people outside the Solar System. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
  • B, not a fan of personal pronouns in Wikipedia prose.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
  • B, fits Wikipedia's prose style. Some1 (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
  • B, as this is the only Solar System where Wikipedians are and where it is accessed from. No prejudice against looking at this again if/when Wikipedians are out of this Solar System and/or access Wikipedia outside this Solar System, but even then "our" would not be the solution. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
  • B. The Solar System is a proper noun, and no-one owns it. Other solar systems are usually referred to as planetary systems. Modest Genius talk 16:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
  • C the delineation won't be noticed by the majority of readers. Seeing responses here show that there is little consensus. Sergeant Curious (talk) 06:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
  • C. There is no need to prescribe consistency across all articles on this matter. "Inconsistency" between different articles is a non-problem. There is especially no need to invite mass edits, as a declaration that one phrasing is wrong and the other is right inevitably invites. We do not have a blanket rule against we/us/our, as Charles Stewart (Chalst) explains above. Applying MOS:STYLERET is appropriate. Adumbrativus (talk) 04:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
  • C I think that in the vast majority of cases, the article's context will make it clear that "the solar system" means "our solar system" and vice versa. In the rare cases when it might be ambiguous, that can be addressed on a case-by-case basis.PopePompus (talk) 04:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
  • C The example of the Milky-Way is sufficient for me to like option C.Gusfriend (talk) 07:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
  • B. The Solar System is the system in which we live. This is a proper name, so we do not need to use the "our" modifier. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
  • B. Because I also think this is the correct way of expressing it. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

ReferencesEdit

  1. ^ Sorted alphabetically.
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.

Please comment at this Rfd for 'Earth-moon system'Edit

Unlike other similarly worded redirects, Earth-moon system redirects to a different target article. Your comments at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 14#Earth-moon system would be appreciated. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The result was a retarget of the redirect. Praemonitus (talk) 15:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Template discussion noticeEdit

There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates § need a template about an infobox template that could probably use more than just my input from an astro perspective. Ta. Primefac (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Unreliable source widely used in astronomy-relatged articles?Edit

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#cseligman.com. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Notability for Martian cratersEdit

I feel like I bring this up every once in a while, but I can't find it in the archives of here, WT:ASTRO, or WT:SOLAR, and NASTRO is a bit quiet on the subject of features on astronomical objects. Basically, my concern is that we have dozens (if not hundreds) of single-sentence stubs that are little more than the prose version of the related table, plus a gallery of images. Take for example Peridier (crater), Inuvik (crater), or any of the other half-dozen I pseudo-randomly chose from the List of craters on Mars (I did avoid the ones I knew were notable). Do we really need these articles, or should they be redirected back to the parent article, much like the hundreds of others I created a few years back? Primefac (talk) 10:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Redirect – These hundreds of stubs have bothered me for a long while as well, and I would support a deletion of many of them. As it stands, they are data points rather than encyclopedic subjects. I love a well-written article about a crater, but if all we got is coordinates and who it was named after, then that can be done in a list. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Rather than delete, I recommend a redirect to the appropriate list article section. For example, Chatturat (crater) could be redirected to List of craters on Mars: A–G#C. If such an article has only one or two sentences and has just a single reference that is not a dedicated study, I'd likely support such a redirect. Otherwise, perhaps it warrants more investigation? There's no benefit in maintaining the article just to display an orbital image. Praemonitus (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
I have to ask if everyone really agrees with the assertion "There's no benefit in maintaining the article just to display an orbital image." Jstuby (talk) 13:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I do. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia which is supposed to contain informative articles. It is not a collection of images or a mirror that duplicates content on a NASA image search page. See WP:NOTGALLERY point 4. Modest Genius talk 13:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I have let Jstuby (who creates a ton of these sub-stubs) know about this discussion, but if they are the only voice of opposition I'll probably start redirecting these next week some time. Primefac (talk) 09:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation to discuss, Primefac. I agree that redirect to list for any stub created is better than deletion. I've been meaning to discuss this generally and have mentioned it before. I think the criteria for notability of craters should be changed. The criteria could be slightly different for different bodies such as Mercury, Mars, the moon, etc. But fundamentally I think any complex crater should be considered notable. Complex craters have central peaks or peak rings. By that criterion the crater Peridier (crater) would be retained as an article, but Chatturat (crater) would be redirected, for example. The larger craters are more likely to be written about in the scientific literature so this criteria may be "automatically" true in a sense, but I think it should be explicit. I think using simple diameter of a crater is not the right way to go as 1) Onset of complexity occurs over a range of diameters, and 2) onset of complexity is different on different planets, primarily but not entirely based on gravity. Another tricky element to this is the fact that some complex craters can appear to be "simple" (without a peak) because the peak has been buried by sediment (like Palos, probably) or lava (like Plato on the moon). I have other points to make about IAU's criteria for naming that could come into it but that would clutter up this particular comment so I will make it later. Jstuby (talk) 11:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

To have a standalone article we should have substantial writings on the topic. Perhaps 2 paragraphs are enough. To meet GNG then this should be more than one source, not by the same author. At least it is easy to be independent of topic. But for craters on Earth, there are speculative ones, and so must be supported by a secondary source if there id doubt they exist. But this means that size or mountains cannot really determine whether an article should be written. And does a map that includes the crater count? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Consensus seems to be that maps showing craters do not count. Neither do tables or figures, and even when craters are mentioned in passing in an article, that does not count. I disagree with all of it, but that is consensus. To me the problem is a crater has to be pretty weird in some way for it to be the subject of its own article or book. I agree there are speculative ones on Earth because they can be eroded or buried, as they can be on Mars to a lesser extent, and your comment is not irrelevant, but Martian craters are not yet subject to the kind of verification process that can occur on Earth (drilling, geophysics, etc.), so maybe it is not as comparable of a point. Jstuby (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
From my perspective, it's the same as the trans-Neptunian objects or minor planets, in that the simple existence of the object in a table (or two) does not mean we need an article. So I do agree with the above that if there are 2-3 actual papers written about the crater (not just listing it) then it's a reasonable page to keep. The information is still being stored in the list pages for Mars, so we're not strictly losing any information (other than the pretty pictures). Primefac (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I wonder if Commons should set up a project to make it easier to link features with images thereof. Then again, I suppose this is exactly what Wikidata is designed for. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Features on astronomical bodies other than Earth fall outside the scopes of WP:NASTRO and WP:GEOLAND, therefore WP:GNG applies. To justify an article, there must be multiple reliable sources that provide significant commentary on the feature (not just a single sentence, table entry, or label on a map), that are independent of the researchers who discovered or named the feature. Furthermore, it must be evident from the article itself whether the feature satisfies those requirements e.g. by citing those sources. If not, and a brief search fails to show up any suitable sources, the article should be redirected to a relevant list. Modest Genius talk 15:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Redirect. For the avoidance of doubt, I support redirecting any and all of these craters that fail GNG to a list entry. That will have to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Modest Genius talk 10:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I support redirecting most of these stub crater articles as many of them fail WP:NASTRO in their current form. However, if referenced content can be added and notability is shown, many of these articles could be kept. Even so, I think a lot of them are going to be redirected. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 12:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep them all, the articles show images of the crater, discuss their namesakes, and add to the overall presentation of the planet Mars. Of course there will not be independent sources for each crater, the New York Times won't be doing an article on, say Peridier (crater), the first page linked above, but the page is sourced and includes photographs of the crater which define the article. Since these are long-term pages, and nothing is really broken, let's let them remain in Wikipedia's well-written and extensive Mars article collection. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep them all per Randy Kryn. As the years go by, we will be discovering more details about these named craters. Let's not bury them in a list. Jusdafax (talk) 06:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
    If and when that happens, the redirects can be converted back into articles. We don't keep articles on non-notable footballers who only have a database entry just because they might become notable in the future; why are these any different? Primefac (talk) 09:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
    Because they are articles about Martian geographical sites, with images and notes. As for notability, do you expect the New York Times to print a full article on each crater to establish further notability? Nothing broken here. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
    Primefac is correct. Notability requires substantial coverage in independent sources now, not potential coverage at some hypothetical point in the future. If no-one has ever written anything substantive about the crater, it is not notable per WP:GNG. 'images and notes' don't change that. Modest Genius talk 11:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
    You and Primefac are incorrect, these pages are notable as stand-alone and verified geographical sites with both graphic information, details of namesakes, and additional information. I noticed that not all editors (or any?) who've began the pages have been notified. If editors here, WikiProject Astronomy of all places to be doing this destructive deletion run, insist on removing these Mars-relevant long-term pages, please at least make a point of going through each one and notifying their authors of this intention. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
    I'll note that a bold redirection of articles is not destructive, and is easily undone. I recognize that it would be frustrating if this happened with hundreds of articles, so it would indeed be useful to make sure we have many eyes on this conversation. However, it's not a "destructive deletion run" if they are all turned into redirects. If we can write encyclopedically about a geographical feature, I'm sure someone will come along, undo the redirect, and expand the article with more detail. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

File:Thelocalgroup.pngEdit

An IP user added a huge graphic, essentially a poster-style schema for the Local Group, to several articles related to that topic:

The IP who added this image is likely the same as the user who uploaded it to Commons (Pabloillustrations (talk · contribs)), as they added other images by the same user, including terribly unencyclopedic representations of Big Rip and Jamais vu. At Commons, I have nominated several of their uploads for deletion for this reason. My hunch for this specific image would be to remove all copies except at the main article, as it is too large and broad in scope. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 10:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

This feels rather a lot like self-promotion, given the links to "support the artist" and their various social media accounts. The existing graphic we have at the top shows the galactic context much better, and isn't overburdened with huge amounts of text. - Parejkoj (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
@Parejkoj: Thanks, removed or replaced from all. Would you like to take a bash at the user's uploads on Wikipedia and at Commons?
I also note that there is no map analogous to File:Satellite Galaxies.svg for the Andromeda Galaxy's satellites. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 17:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
@Parejkoj and LaundryPizza03: I would like to add that his artworks are a lot more problematic besides self-promotion and overabundance in Wikipedia pages. I sincerely apologize if my explanation's tone comes off as accusatory.
Recently Pablo Carlos Budassi has been adding all of his own original artworks and infographics to astronomy pages like Huge-LQG, GN-z11, Mini-Neptune, and PSR B1257+12. While I normally wouldn't mind these since I'm sure that he is contributing in good faith, my biggest issue with his artworks is the blatant lack of scientific accuracy and merit, as well as potential copyvios. Take these files for example: File:Fomalhaut.png, File:Powehi.png, File:Phobos moon black background.png, File:Ceres black background.png, File:Pluto black background.png, and File:Ganymede.png—all of these are (non-scientifically) retouched and highly saturated space photographs that he publishes as entirely his own. For other astronomical objects that do not have high-resolution images, he represents them with unrealistically saturated colors like in File:Gonggong.png, File:Haumea black background.png, and File:Sedna.png (it's impossible for Solar System objects' tholins to appear this red to the human eye). Too add more, his representation of 2010 TK7 in File:2010tk7 black background.png is misleading as he uses a photograph of 243 Ida without explanation. The photographs of Ida, Earth, and Moon (note how their phases don't match) are not credited—the description simply saying that this image is photoshopped is not a good rationale for keeping this on Commons.
More problems arise in his artworks when you consider copyright–he tends to pass off others' artworks as his own (example: File:Ginan star.png comes from ESO/M. Kornmesser and File:Asteroid belt landscape.png comes from NASA/JPL-Caltech) or cut-and-paste others' artworks into his own (example: File:Delta pavonis.png where he has rotated and shifted the hue of the planets from NASA/Ames/JPL-Caltech). Even if the source images may be published in the public domain, it still wouldn't be right to pass them off as your own. Some of his artworks have been rendered in SpaceEngine, which has a license that requires crediting the program. His SpaceEngine renderings File:Hygiea (fake image).png and File:Betelgeuse star.png do not mention SpaceEngine anywhere in their descriptions.
He uploads all of his artworks on his Celestialobjects account on Commons, if you wish to investigate further. However, before you take matters into your own hands, I believe it's best to contact him directly about this. Nrco0e (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
And not to report to WP:ANI or c:COM:ANI? I'd also start purging enwiki of the images uploaded to Commons under the Pabloillustrations or Celestialobjects usernames, as I recently did at Orders of magnitude (length) for an unreadable and artistic representation of the various length scales. Images not used anywhere else can then be nominated for deletion at Commons. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 08:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Ultramassive black holeEdit

While we're here with successfully merging Stupendously large black hole with Supermassive black hole, we might as well also include this one.

Same reasoning as above; invoking WP:TOOSOON. In addition the article itself is poorly written with weasel-worded phrases and lack of consistency. SkyFlubbler (talk) 09:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with that (and have done so); the information in Special:PermaLink/1118422008 (the last non-redirect version of the article in question) is the same as what is in Supermassive black hole § Description (permalink). Primefac (talk) 09:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Quasar tsunami (red link)Edit

Kinda fits with the above, so ++ topical. Anyway, I've seen several scientists refer to this phenomenon, which clearly is beyond just jetseses. Maybe I missed mention of this on the project, but in any case, should this be a standalone page, or failing that, a section somewhere? Just a mention? And so on. Top google result is a barebone NASA Image of the Day entry from Dec 2020, which reads (in part) as follows:

Using the unique capabilities of NASA's Hubble Space Telescope, a team of astronomers has discovered the most energetic outflows ever witnessed in the universe. They emanate from quasars and tear across interstellar space like tsunamis, wreaking havoc on the galaxies in which the quasars live. From: https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/quasars-rip-across-galaxies-like-tsunamis

The rest of the entry discusses the illustration, which would be cool if we could use. Haven't really looked at substantive sourcing beyond that, which at this point I leave to folks more familiar with the scholarship than myself. So, standalone page? Section? Fleeting mention? WP:TOONSTOWN? Et cetera, etc. Comments welcome. El_C 18:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The article looks too sensationalist. Some scientists are simply trying to promote their work by making such outlandish claims. Quasar winds are certainly nothing new. Ruslik_Zero 18:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
I actually don't invoke simple NASA press releases alone to be the basis for an article's existence. It is just on par with other news outlets, who made some ridiculous claims before.
That being said, "quasar tsunami" just looks like an overhyped AGN outburst. This is nothing new and we definitely have seen a lot of them. It's just a common thing they do. SkyFlubbler (talk) 01:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Which, by the way, the term "AGN outburst" is used in several papers. This one has 114 citations and this one has 55. SkyFlubbler (talk) 01:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
SkyFlubbler, I don't think a NASA press release on astro stuff is on par with other mainstream press releases, I think it's silly to say that. But I also wouldn't necessarily stake an article creation on one, either. Which is why I asked: standalone page? Section? Fleeting mention? So, don't get fixated by the red link in the header; rather, look to the substance of my note.
Also, wrt to an AGN outburst, it would be interesting to understand what the distinction is, if any. Also also, for accessibility, where, and how, it's mentioned on the project, if you know. For eg., a ctrl.F for 'outburst' on Active galactic nucleus shows it appearing zero times, while 'burst' appears one time ("nuclear starbursts"). Cheers! El_C 03:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
"Quasar tsunami" is a neologism that has not been widely adopted by astronomers. It does not meet WP:NASTRO. NASA engages in self-promotional press releases just like any other organisation - those are not independent sources, so cannot be used to establish notability. Even that PR image caption (not a full press release) only says 'like tsunamis', never using the phrase 'quasar tsunami'. I don't think there's enough usage to even justify one sentence in an article.
"AGN outburst" on the other hand is a widely used term, adopted in the peer-reviewed literature for over a decade. I'm surprised we don't have a section of active galactic nucleus explaining outbursts. Maybe raise that on the article talk page? Modest Genius talk 12:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the education, everyone. That this [meteorological] term is indeed a neologism is fine, and to me, not of much import. What is important, however, is the physical phenomenon itself; that it gets coverage on the project. If the phenomenon is known as AGN burst, that's aight, but the point is that it's still a distinct phenomenon (i.e. not merely a jet). So allowing our readership access to that information by, well, adding it, is something I encourage anyone with a good grasp of the material to do. Thanks again! El_C 23:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Category:Astronomical objects by source of name has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:Astronomical objects by source of name has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cambalachero (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

TRAPPIST-1Edit

Greetings, is anyone interested in bringing TRAPPIST-1 to featured article status? I tried twice but from the comments at WP:FAC it seems like someone needs to copyedit/review it on understandable-ity-for-general-audiences, as noted at Talk:TRAPPIST-1#Third attempt on prose. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd recommend bringing it up to GA status. FA requires more effort than it's really worth. Praemonitus (talk) 01:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Martian canals needs attention. (citations)Edit

Martian canals probably gets a fair number of hits.

The article has been tagged with "needs additional citations for verification" since September 2019.

I'm guessing that adding those cites would be fairly simple.

Anybody?

- 189.122.243.241 (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Stephenson 2 DFK 49Edit

Hello everyone, if you can improve my article over here, it will be a big help. Thanks! --The Space Enthusiast (talk) 11:11, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Talk: List of largest known starsEdit

User:SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer has repeatedly stated to remove Stephenson 2-18 from the list. However, several users, including myself, have responded and supported St2-18's status on the list. We tried to convince him that "uncertainties" weren't enough to remove it from the list, as its massive radius (~2,150 Rsol) was verifiable, supported by the Laws of the universe and hard math, and in a reliable source, but he kept on going about the radius being too large and above the limit for star sizes. As the discussion is becoming very tiring (and annoying), I have extended the discussion here so more people can be involved. This will hopefully result in a faster consensus. Thanks, and if you can, respond. -The Space Enthusiast (talk) 03:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree, the discussion is getting very annoying and I also hope for a faster consensus. And even if you do decide to just keep St2-18 on the list there would probably not be another discussion like ‘Stephenson 2-18 (aGaIn)’. I will then probably wait for another size estimate to come in a paper. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer (talk) 07:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
For the record, the last time there were article-related issues with Stephenson 2-18 was back in May, so I think it would be more appropriate to view this post as a request for further comment and nothing more. Primefac (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Frankly that list is just a waste of effort. The margin of errors are so large that the ordering probably isn't even close to correct. Besides that, what is the list telling the reader that is useful? Praemonitus (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Well, the last time I brought up deletion I read the general consensus as being that it was a notable topic. Primefac (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Notability doesn't always mean interesting or useful. It is what it is, I suppose. Praemonitus (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for PlanetEdit

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Planet/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)