Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Image:060227comet.jpg nominated for deletion

FYI, I have nominated the above Commons image file used in Comet Hyakutake for deletion. Briefly, I doubt it is freely licensed by NASA. 84user (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sunrise (telescope)

Hi I wanted to ask if somebody can have a look on the new Sunrise (telescope)? It is a new balloon based solar telescope on its maiden flight from sweden to canada.--Stone (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Barnstar-shooting-star.png

File:Barnstar-shooting-star.png has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 05:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

why? and where is the talk page? Ti-30X (talk) 04:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

FFD discussions only last one week, after one week, images are either kept or deleted. In this case, the image was transferred to Wikimedia Commons. The closed discussion exists at: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 28. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Asteroid

I have done a GA Reassessment of the article, Asteroid as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found that the article does not meet the current GA Criteria. As such I have held the article for a week pending fixes. My review can be found here. I am notifying all interested projects about this. If you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs work. It's probably a strong B class article at present.—RJH (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Possibly delete page, Intermediate-mass X-ray binary

As I moved it into its own section under X-ray binary. ThanksMarasama (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No need to delete. I redirected it. Ruslik_Zero 18:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Marasama (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus Please

In the article Physics of the Impossible a single editor removed material that I believe, very much enhanced this article. The other editor’s view is that the removed material was off topic. My view is that it is very much on topic.

The current article is here: (current)

The version which I restored is at my sub page here: (restored)

Everything that was removed is related to the book. This is because, as the author writes: “The material in this book ranges over many fields and disciplines, as well as the work of many outstanding scientists.” There is a two and one half page list of the individuals, “who have graciously given their time for lengthy interviews, consultations, and interesting, stimulating conversations.” Most on this list happen to be scientists. I listed only the first 22 individuals and these are scientists. In addition, I linked their names to their biography on Wikipedia. I also listed each scientist’s fields of specialties. Many on the list in the article have more than one field of specialty (view here), and hence this reflects the breadth of knowledge contained in this book. If you look at this section in the restored article you will see what I mean.

In addition, before this material was removed by the one editor, the article was much more interactive. It was also more in line with the intent of Wikipedia that that the readers (as well as the editors) have a satisfying experience with Wikipedia. One aspect of this more satisfying experience is being able to access the knowledge that is available at Wikipedia on the sciences, and, perhaps, the mathematics. So, I linked not only the names on the list, but also many of their scientific disciplines to the respective Wikipedia article. Accessing this knowledge supports the following WikiProjects and their respective portals: (there are more I am sure)

• WikiProject Astronomy
• WikiProject Books
• WikiProject Physics
• WikiProject Space
• WikiProject History of Science
• WikiProject Science
• WikiProject Mathematics
• WikiProject Technology
• WikiProject Computing
• WikiProject Computer Science
• WikiProject Engineering

Also, there were graphics that were removed which support the article and the concepts in the book. I believe these should be restored as well. These are on the restored article page, at my sub page. The captions of the graphics show that the book is grounded in real science. If you scroll through the restored article you will see the variety of graphics. I believe these enhance the article aesthetically, as well as help to give a clearer picture of the concepts contained in the book and the article.

Lastly, there were external links that were removed which reflect the concepts in the book. These external links were removed as though they were not relevant. For example, I will list some of the external links, and then the page number in the book, to which each link is related:

• Solar sails: pp. 152, 158 - 159, 166, 172…
• Space elevators: pp. 165 – 169
• Black holes: 156, 232, 235 – 236…
• Travel at the speed of light: 159 – 161, 163 – 165, 169 – 170…

Unfortunately the external links that were removed are going to have to be restored one at a time, because they cannot be cut and pasted back from the revision history without some distortion. I think these external links should also, be restored to the article.

I think the bottom line is, let common sense decide. Even Wikipedia guidelines say that they are just guidelines, not letter of the law.

I would appreciate a consensus on whether or not to keep the removed material. Please place your comments here: Consensus please. This is on the talk page of Physics of the Impossible.

Thanks for your time Ti-30X (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Bottom importance

I think this project should add the {{Bottom-importance}} level to importance assessment. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Would would we put in there?—RJH (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of "low" importance articles, I think that should be split in two, with less important things placed into "bottom". Mostly peripherally related topics, that seem like they should be tagged with {{astronomy}} but are of very low import. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 05:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Say if a local weekly astronomy stargazing column were notable enough to have an article, it's not all that important to astronomy overall, usually. Or junk astronomy that matters to rational skepticism, but which is otherwise crank. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 05:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

So perhaps articles like GCSE Astronomy and Google Mars. It makes sense to me.—RJH (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

So... can someone set up the categories and put in a edit request for the template? 76.66.196.218 (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I posted a template update request here. Once that is complete, the categories should be simple to implement.—RJH (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There hasn't been any response and the template is locked.—RJH (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: this change has been implemented.—RJH (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

asteroids

There is the beginnings of a discussion on my talk page, at User talk:DGG#Asteroid stubs. DGG (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There's also a discussion on this at WT:ASTRO, currently occupying most of the talk page. 76.66.203.200 (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Beyond The Milky Way

Beyond The Milky Way has been nominated for deletion . 76.66.203.200 (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikisky, step two: The SuperCOSMOS Sky Surveys (SSS)

I inform you that we have obtained an OTRS ticket for all the images available on The SuperCOSMOS Sky Surveys (SSS): all b/w sky survey is available for us. Images are only for no-commercial purposes. this is the second step (out of 3) for obtaining the full permission to upload images from Wikisky.

{{permissionOTRS|2009052010051757}}

Depending on the project, you may use one of this different acknowledgement:

"Use of DSS images is courtesy of the UK Schmidt Telescope (copyright in which is owned by the Science and Technology Facilities Council of the UK and the Anglo-Australian Telescope Board) and the Digitized Sky Survey created by the Space Telescope Science Institute, operated by AURA, Inc, for NASA, and are reproduced here with permission from the Royal Observatory Edinburgh."

"Use of SSS images is courtesy of the UK Schmidt Telescope (copyright in which is owned by the Science and Technology Facilities Council of the UK and the Anglo-Australian Telescope Board) and the Southern Sky Survey as created by the SuperCOSMOS measuring machine and are reproduced here with permission from the Royal Observatory Edinburgh."

You can upload the images only on Wikipedia, on Commons they are not allowed. Enjoy. --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 11:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

They can be uploaded here only as fair use images. This could be done even without this "non-commercial" license. So, this license is useless. Ruslik_Zero 13:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

We prefer to have the permission from the author, because the fair use can became a Damocles' sword (expecially in the countries in which fair use is not allowed). --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 04:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Was it not possible to get them to release the content under a free license (CC-BY-SA etc.)? Mike Peel (talk) 10:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Map of the Night Sky

Map of the Night Sky has been prodded for deletion. 76.66.203.200 (talk) 09:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a merge with Star chart would work? No matter.—RJH (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

A redirect would work better, if we even need one, since the content is unsourced, and some editors have voiced concerns that other content contributed by the author may be copyvios. 70.29.208.69 (talk) 05:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Volcanically active worlds

Volcanically active worlds has been prodded for deletion. 70.29.208.69 (talk) 05:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Adding to wikiproject physics and astronomy?

Is there any guideline anywhere for whether a topic should be added to one wikiproject or another, or is it expected that many topics will fall under both headings? I have added a few articles recently to wikiproject astronomy which already belonged to physics because I felt that wikiproject astronomy was more appropriate, but I have not removed any wikiproject tags. It occurred to me though that since there are so many topics which could easily belong to either that there might be a policy somewhere about choosing one or the other. James McBride (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

There are many topics that belong under both, indeed there's a {{WikiProject Astronomy|astrophysics=yes}} option. 70.29.208.69 (talk) 06:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

When in doubt place both and don't assess the physics one. It'll show up on the unassessed physics articles, and someone will review it in a few days.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Geomagnetic storm → Geomagnetic solar storm

A WP:RM requested move has been filed to rename Geomagnetic storm → Geomagnetic solar storm

70.29.208.69 (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes to popular pages lists

There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:

• The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
• The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
• I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - tools:~alexz/pop/.
  • This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
  • This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
  • There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
• The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
• The data is now retained indefinitely.
• The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
• Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" - [1]

-- Mr.Z-man 23:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Jodrell Bank Observatory GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Jodrell Bank Observatory for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Image Review

Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Image Review was used in 2007 to both request and review images that could appear on articles. Nothing new has been discussed since 2007, but it seems to me it was a better way to review controversial images and their placements than edit warring.

This Wikiproject's second paragraph links to it; should Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects do so too?

What prompted me to add this note here and at WikiProject Astronomical objects is Talk:Gliese 581#RFC. -84user (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Article title date formats

I recently noticed that solar eclipse articles follow a Solar eclipse of Month Date, Year format, while lunar eclipse articles follow a Month year lunar eclipse format. I also ended up today at Talk:Jupiter 2009 impact, where we've been discussing a good format for the article title.

My first question is, would it be a good idea to have (or, is there already) a standard format for disambiguating articles on astronomic events by date? Maybe I just need to loosen up, but I feel like a standard format might make article categorization, organization, and linking easier. If there's already a standard, please let me know. Otherwise, is this page as good a place as any to have that conversation?

A more minor, slightly more technical question is, why do we include the date on the solar eclipse articles, and not on the lunar articles? If my limited understanding of astronomy is correct, isn't it equally impossible to have more than one eclipse of either kind in one month? Omitting the date would have the added benefit of side-stepping the cultural argument of whether "Month Date, Year" or "Date Month year" is "better". --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Omitting the date would have the added benefit of side-stepping the cultural argument of whether "Month Date, Year" or "Date Month year" is "better" - yes, but you're still stuck with the "Year, Month, Day : Hour.Minute.Second" people; and they actually have good points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.48.96 (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the best place to ask this but I'm asking here. Articles about things located in our sky that have coordinates, at least all I've looked at, when one clicks on the coordinates it goes direct to one site eg Orion coordinates go to here. Things on the surface of the Moon and Mars go to a "Geohack" page, albeit a short one, like places on the Earths surface do. On Google Earth one can look at the Moon, Mars, and the sky coordinates, in addition to Earth. From a Wiki article one can access Google Earth to look at a feature on Mars via the Geohack page by clicking the coordinates link at the top. But you cannot access Google Earth sky map from the coordinates in an article about something in our sky.

I think we should have a Geohack page for the sky so we can look at astronomical features in more than one mapping system such as this one and Google Earth and any more that exist, the same as we have for Earth, Mars and Moon. Do users think this is a good idea, and is it possible, can anyone create it. Comments/Thoughts people. Carlwev (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes! — Aldaron • T/C 20:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Naked-eye planet

Naked-eye planet has been proposed to be renamed. 76.66.192.64 (talk) 08:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of CMBR

This review is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007. Cosmic microwave background radiation has been reassessed and will be placed on hold until issues can be addressed. If an editor does not express interest in addressing these issues within seven days, the article will be delisted and reassessed as B-Class. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 20:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's a B-class article. Some time back I tried to bring it up to snuff, but that got derailed by unfortunate rewrites of the lead of the "Relationship to the Big Bang" section. Good luck.—RJH (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, Andromeda Galaxy has also been placed on hold. Hold time can be extended if an editor expresses an interest in improving either of these articles within a timely manner. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 20:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That page is a little more tractable, in part because it was in good shape at one point. I'll take a look at it. Never mind, I couldn't find a source for the last paragraph in the "Nucleus" section.—RJH (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I addressed the issues in the "Nucleus" section. As far as I know, the very last sentence about lack of evidence for mergers at larger radii in the bulge is incorrect. In fact, the higher level of mass in stars in Andromeda relative to the Milky Way is due in part to lack of mergers in the Milky Way as compared to Andromeda. Perhaps the original editor who added the merger line was making a more subtle statement than that? I am not sure. Over the next couple of days, I'll go ahead and try add citations for the three other statements marked as needing a citation. James McBride (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I was wondering if there were any inaccuracies in it. I didn't take the time to check the facts, but the overall quality of the article usually indicates whether I should even bother to check them. Nine out of ten articles are delisted for lack of cites and poor introduction length, at least in my experience. If those areas are good, then usually the rest of the criteria are good as well. If there are any more changes, keep me updated over at the assessment page, Talk:Andromeda Galaxy/GA1. Thanks. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 03:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.—RJH (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Potential hoax: Anti-sidereal time?

I don't think it is, but I just want to check. (Well not hoax per WP:HOAX, I just mean something dubious/non-mainstream) Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Canes II Group

I found the names of all the galaxies in the cluster, but am unsure whether or not to include them all, since even though I made the table collapsible it still takes up a lot of room...Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 05:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If the current table is your total table, it's not very big, if you look at the tables used in the list of exoplanets, or other articles, they are much much larger. It need not be collapsed at all. 76.66.193.221 (talk) 06:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 01:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this notable: Vacuum genesis?

I'm not a cosmologist, but this doesn't seem to be a mainstream or notable hypothesis about how the Big Bang got about. Opinions? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 12:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing notable. Should be deleted. Ruslik_Zero 13:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright, send to AfD. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 13:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Cat's Eye Nebula

I have nominated Cat's Eye Nebula 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Tom B (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hipparcos

This may not be the place to add this note but Hipparcos has 16 sections and 42 inline citations but is only rated start class. Why isn't it rated higher than that? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Warner and Swasey Observatory

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Warner and Swasey Observatory/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Roche limit

Anyone here know what the Roche limit is? Roche limit has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Of course we know! But please sign your posts with ~~~~, so we can see what year it was nominated. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 15:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

2004!? ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 15:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nebula article needs a serious rework

I am going to make an attempt to redo the nebula page. The contents are not only incomplete, but incorrect. I will try to correct it. Though I do not currently have any source to cite other than the ones there.

• My Plan
  • Description
  • Types
    • Diffuse (encompass Bright & Reflection)
    • Planetary Nebula / Protoplanetary Nebula (PPN)
      • Super Planetary Nebula link
    • Supernova Remnant / Hypernova Remanat (theory)
    • Dark
  • Other types that qualify
    • Pinwheel (dated, are galaxies), but what about the ones around WR stars?
    • Herbig Haro (HH)
    • Hot Corino, heated gas around PMS stars.
    • Materials around shell stars?
    • Infrared Cirrus?
    • Hypervelocity Clouds? (LVC, IVC, HVC)
    • Intergalactic Clouds? ie. Smith's Cloud
    • X-ray Nebula (XRN)
    • Pulsar Wind Nebula (PWN)
    • Bok globule
    • Cometary globule

Please reply if you have any questions or can help. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree it does need improvement, so thanks for giving is a go. At the highest level you might want to split the article into broad sections based on how the nebulae are formed (i.e. primarily from stellar emissions or from gravitational clumping). It would also be good to include some history and describe how they are observed and charted.—RJH (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. But not skillful in that yet. (-_-). So, first I'll try to fix what's there and then divide up to detail once the layout is done. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually Planetary and Protoplanetary nebulae are completely different from each other and in no case should be treated in one section. Ruslik_Zero 18:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Sorry, was confused myself. Ruslik_Zero 18:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Just adding 2 more items I read as I prepare. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

A small advice: work up the article around the main types, based on general type, and build the main discourse around them: observational similarities and differences, then creation mechanism theories. I would maybe use a main taxonomy of:

• young star nebulae:

• HI dark nebulae,
• YSO nebulosities (HH, Hot Corino, various kinds),
• HII bright nebulae,
• reflection nebulae,

• old star nebulae:

• planetary nebulae (incl. PPNs),
• supernova remnants,
• other ejecta (the rest!),

A complement would be to add the observational history:

1. {nebulae} - anything fuzzy,
2. {nebulae} \ {open star clusters} - star clusters removed,
3. {nebulae} \ {globular clusters} - globular clusters removed,
4. {nebulae} \ {galaxies} - galaxies removed,

the rest are the current nebulae: anything gaseous or dusteous. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 15:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that is an interesting way to group them. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Added 2 more items, Bok globules & cometary goblues. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sloppily sourced edit to several astronomy articles

While searching for information on inequalities of satellite motion, I stumbled across a sloppy edit which appears to have propagated to several astronomy related articles. The edits in question were meant to be citations to this web page, but link instead to this one. Some of them have also copied an incomplete title of one of Laplace's works from the cited page. The title given on the web page is Inequalities of Jupiter and Saturn's, which might have been meant to refer to either Le mémoir sur les inégalités des planéts et des satellites of 1785 or La théorie de Jupiter et de Saturne of 1786. Articles affected include Astrometry, Astronomy in medieval Islam, Physics in medieval Islam, Egyptian astronomy, and Ibn Yunus. I have partly corrected the citations in the Astrometry article, but since I don't know what work is being referred to I was unable to correct the incomplete title. I don't currently have the time or energy to wade systematically through the rest of the articles to correct them all, but I thought that some members of Project Astronomy might be interested in helping correct some of them.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have now corrected the erroneous external links in all the above articles, and tagged all occurrences of the incomplete title that I was able to find.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Astroblemes

Category:Astroblemes has been nominated for merger at WP:CFD

76.66.192.144 (talk) 05:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete all astronomy organisations?

Seems that (probably following an ongoing deletion discussion here), User:RadioFan has decided to prod about three dozen articles on astronomy organisations: link. Someone here might be interested. Shreevatsa (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of his selections are weird. AAVSO? How's that not notable? 76.66.192.144 (talk) 04:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

These were blanket PRODs, even the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada was PRODed! I've removed them all. Mass blanket PRODding is not the way to go. I have nothing against the deletion of truely non-notable organization, but cramming all of these discussions in 1 week is not manageable. I noticed Radiofan of this. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI - Category:Earth Impact Database fully populated

I posted a note on WikiProject Geology which may be of interest here because it's planetary science... Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology#FYI - Category:Earth Impact Database fully populated. Ikluft (talk) 08:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Retrograde and direct motion IMHO needs clarification

Retrograde orbit redirects to Retrograde and direct motion. With the recent press on WASP-17b, we can expect interest in this subject.
The article covers both "apparent retrograde motion" e.g, as seen from Earth, and "true" retrograde orbit, but IMHO it does not distinguish and explain these adequately for lay researchers.
IMHO, it would very likely be better to have separate articles on apparent retrograde motion and "true" retrograde orbit. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Under way. Retrograde and direct motion split into Direct motion, Retrograde motion and Apparent retrograde motion.

But there is a problem. What is the generally accepted definition of retrograde motion (and therefore of direct motion)? It could be: (a) opposite to the rotational direction of its primary, (b) opposite to most of the other bodies within the same system, (c) opposite to the conjectural angular momentum of the system's formation or (d) something else. This definition should take into account: Venus, Triton, Haley's Comet, Kapteyn's Star, NGC 7331 and WASP-17b. All of these have been refered to in Wikipedia as having some form of retrograde motion. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 04:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The article originally said it was opposite to most of the other objects in a system, however this definition is not adequate as most of the moons of a planet may be described as retrograde meaning opposite to the rotation of the planet. Also in the WASP-17 system the word "most" doesn't apply: there are only two objects that have been identified: the star and the planet and WASP-17b is described as being retrograde because it orbits opposite to the star's rotation. So then it seemed "opposite to rotational direction of its primary" would be the best definition and Venus, and Halley's comet would both fit this with the primary being the sun. Triton would fit this definition with the primary being Neptune. Then there is the galaxy NGC 7331 in which the whole central bulge is rotating against the rest of the disk and yet the research paper on describes the bulge as being retrograde to the disk. So "opposite to the conjectural angular momentum of the system's formation" would be more appropriate, but what about Uranus which since being knocked over is retrograde to the Sun: retrograde moons of Uranus would be in the direction of the inital angular momentum of the Uranian system. Basically you can't use the word retrograde without saying what it is retrograde to, although most of the time it means opposite the rotation of the primary. Zbayz (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes all three definitions a),b),c) coincide, in which case there is no ambiguity. Zbayz (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, how about this for the lead definition in Retrograde motion: Retrograde motion means moving in the opposite direction to something else (clockwise or anticlockwise depending on your point of view). When talking about celestial bodies, Retrograde motion usually means motion against the rotation of the primary (which is probably the same direction as the angular momentum when the system formed.)

Retrograde motion is the opposite of direct or prograde motion. Motion can refer to the rotation of a single body about its axis or the orbit of one celestial body about another. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, but replace "probably" with "likely". Zbayz (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Opinions on renaming categories with "craters" to "impact craters"?

See the similarly-named discussion at WP:GEOLOGY. Up to 76 categories would be involved if consensus is to go forward. Ikluft (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Lunar images

Category:Lunar images has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 04:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The category isn't empty any more. I did a search (advanced search set for the File namespace, search terms "lunar" and "moon" on separate runs) and found 17 images to add to the category, some which had been removed from it before. There are *many* more images that can be found and added with that search for anyone who's interested - I didn't even try to get them all. Ikluft (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Astronomy Australia Limited

Astronomy Australia Limited has been prodded for deletion. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 03:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI - proposed renaming for Category:Craters hierarchy of 76 impact crater-related categories

FYI - see the CFR renaming discussion. Ikluft (talk) 09:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done The renaming succeeded. Thank you to everyone who participated. Ikluft (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Subaru Telescope updated

I revamped and fleshed out the Subaru Telescope article. (I work there, though not in the public info department.) I also noted on the "talk" page for that observatory (and some others on Mauna Kea) that *technically*, you have to have a commercial photography permit from the Hawaii state film office before taking any photos in the Mauna Kea astronomy precinct that you plan to use commercially, or make available for commercial use. (Submitting them to Wikipedia does make them available for commercial use.) Further, if your photos show any observatories, you need permission from the observatories too. I asked our public info officer whether there were any "official" photos that could be made available, but she indicated that she wants to let Wikipedians do their own things (as in, she doesn't care if somebody's so-so vacation snapshots get submitted) rather than having any "authority" involved.

If anyone else in WP:A has further info on Subaru that I've omitted, please update/edit as appropriate.

Since I've worked at other Mauna Kea facilities, I'm also a little curious whether there's a "standard" set of sections for articles about telescopes/observatories. An overview makes sense; a list of instruments makes sense... maybe a list of major discoveries? I may be able to flesh out some more pages.

Dan (talk) 05:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Portal

I'm saddened by the fact that this portal is very slow on news and such. To me it feels like there is a very very very small group of people dedicated to keeping it running... I'm not sure if I need to ask this but can I help with anything? (also could there be an article of the week instead of article of the month? I gladly manage it, but I'm not sure if I have the experience.) Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 05:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by portal? Portal:Astronomy? Ruslik_Zero 07:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I would really like to help it. Do I need permission for that? Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 02:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You do not need a permission. However, if you want to make major changes, it is better to post them on the talk page for discussion before implementation. Ruslik_Zero 08:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright just checking! Thank you! Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 21:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Extragalactic exoplanet

There's a new article, Extragalactic exoplanet. I was wondering about the utility of such an article... since it's a dicdef with a verbose list attached of two planets, neither of which are confirmed, only suspected. It survived a prod deletion request. 76.66.200.21 (talk) 04:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Zodiac templates

While doing some cleanup, I found a malformed template, {{Ecliptical constellations}}, which I fixed some markup errors on (which is how I discovered it), and noticed that it was "split" from {{Zodiac}}. Frankly, I don't see the new template (it was created at the end of August 2009) having any use over the old template {{Zodiac}}. If no one objects, I will send it to WP:TFD for deletion. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 06:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 12 76.66.196.139 (talk) 05:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Missing (highly-cited) physics & astronomy related journals

See WT:PHYS#Missing (highly-cited) physics & astronomy related journals. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Discoverers of extrasolar planets

Should Category:Discoverers of extrasolar planets contain only astronomers, or should it also contain search teams/projects/surveys? Most of the categories in the heirarchy only contain astronomers, but there is one "cousin" category that only contains observatories. The category as it is now currently contains all astronomers except one search program. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It should contain only people, not organizations, in my opinion. Ruslik_Zero 15:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Category suggestion?

How about a Category:locations for astronomy ?

While I was catdifusing/cleaning up Category:Astronomy, I couldn't diffuse Astronomy in Chile or Ridge A, and I noticed Category:Astronomy protected areas of South Africa. So... a new category for locations might be in order, containing these three, and Category:astronomical observatories and Category:Astronomy museums ...

76.66.196.139 (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Nicholas U. Mayall

Hello,

I'm requesting peer review on astronomer Nicholas U. Mayall in the hopes of making it a Good Article. Please provide your feedback. Thanks.

WilliamKF (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Astronomical coordinates cleanup.

See Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 30#Unify astronomical coordinates for more info and give feedback. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTICE. RFC: Changes to Naming policies which may affect WikiProject naming conventions.

Following recent changes by some editors to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy page, a Referral For Comment, (RFC) is now being held to debate the removal of the passage specifying that individual WikiProject and other naming conventions are able to make exceptions to the standard policy of using Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles.

This WikiProject is being notified since it operates such a specific naming convention. Editors are invited to comment on the proposed change at this location. Xandar 00:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The above "notification" is a grossly biased misrepresentation of the changes under discussion. The old version of the naming conventions policy tried to lay down binding rules; we don't work that way, so it was necessary also to make explicit exceptions. The new version articulates principles, and allows for consensus to establish how they should be applied. Thus there is no longer any need for exceptions. In fact, making exceptions is nonsense, since there are no rules to make exceptions to. These changes are good for specific conventions. Xandar is trying to induce moral panic in those who stand to gain the most from this. Xandar is only opposed to the new version because he thinks the wording, not the general thrust, weakens his position in a dispute unrelated to this RfC. Don't be fooled. Hesperian 02:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No. Don't be fooled. The proposed wording change is shown at the RFC linked in my post above. The removal of the "exceptions" phrase is a very significant change. The policy never stated that it consisted of "rules" before, and it still doesn't. However it remains policy. Simply stating a personal view that titling a section "principles" changes the status of the policy page, is one not even accepted by many editors on Hesperians side. There is already an attempt to use the principle of no exceptions to the "use common name" policy to radically change the Naming conflict page, and one of the proposers of this change has indicated that the guidance on flora is also targetted. The change is in my view an attempt to impose a rigid, top-down policy on naming which ignores what wikipedia editors on the ground find most useful. Xandar 03:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Extraterrestrial geographic coordinate templates

{{Moon}} and {{Coor Mars}} have been nominated for deletion at WP:TFD. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 16

76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

astro

After deleting Category:Pages within the scope of WikiProject Physics (WP Astronomy Banner) as an empty category, TimothyRias wrote a message in my talk page that the template "is used for a legacy feature of the {{astronomy}} template, which allows the astro=yes switch to tag articles which should also have the {{physics}} template. This category lists the articles that use that switch (which should then be tagged and assessed.) If this seems like a roundabout way of doing things, thats because it is. But as long as that option exists on the {{astronomy}} template, this category should exist to record its use."'.

So there are some things:

• This parameter doesn't appear in the manual and it's use is not explained,
• None used this parameter the last 20 days at least.
• I think this parameter totally unnecessary. If an article was to be tagged additionally with another banner then this is what it has to be done. I see no reason that some editors add the parameter and other finish the job.

I wrote the same message some days ago in Template talk:Astronomy and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. I've been addressed that this is the right place to discuss it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Jupiter mass

User:Serendipodous merged Jupiter mass into the planet Jupiter.

Someone reverted him, but he's still trying to push it through at the Jupiter talk page, complaining that there has always been resistance.

I said, "What reasons can be given, other than Jupiter mass being a stub, for a unit of measurement to be merged into an article about a planet?" - but he still came back at me. I am not going to exhaust myself explaining the simplest of things to the ... He is unable to listen to reason, perhaps weight of numbers will dissuade if not persuade him. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to have a separate article on Jupiter mass; this permits the reader to quickly find out what this mass unit is, without having to wade through the very long article Jupiter, most of which is not relevant to the mass unit. Spacepotato (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are continue to attack other editors and strongly advise you to stop disruption. Ruslik_Zero 19:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Astronomical system of units

User:HarryAlffa has proposed that solar mass , jupiter mass , earth mass , lunar mass all be merged into Astronomical system of units. see Talk:Astronomical system of units.

76.66.196.139 (talk) 06:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Planetary nebula

I have nominated Planetary nebula 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Tom B (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Royal College Astronomical Society

Royal College Astronomical Society has been prodded for deletion, additionally, there is a possible copyright violation warning on the page. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 02:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem particularly notable.—RJH (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Lists of named stars by constellation

See Category:List of the star names by constellation ; these list articles seem to be in need of help, since they're built like a name dictionary, and in current form would be more suitable to be transwikied to Wiktionary instead of being articles here...

76.66.197.30 (talk) 11:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Bareket observatory

Hi,

Expert assistance is needed at Bareket observatory. Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Bottom Category

Well I started putting articles about education-oriented observatories and minor amateur astronomical societies in the Bottom importance category for WP:Astro, but that seems to be stirring ill feelings with at least one amateur astronomer. What do you think? Should everything be lumped under Low in order not to antagonize some people? Certainly some pages have a lower Low importance than others, but I didn't think the rating was all that important. It seems to be mainly for identifying high and top priority pages (or at least that's how I use it). Thoughts?—RJH (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I definitely think that "bottom" importance should remain. But, perhaps what's necessary is a separate importance rating scheme for amateur astronomy... since importance in amateur stargazing is vastly different in many cases from astronomy in general, professional astronomy, etc. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 05:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but that would require some wikipedians to set up a separate project. For the moment I just moved most of the amateur astronomy stuff to the low category. Hope that works for everybody. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, a task force can also assign importances... if so, then we'd set up an Amateur Astronomy TF or WorkGroup... 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Great Wall in Arp 272 article

Could someone in the know disambiguate "Great Wall" as it appears in Arp 272. The "450 million light years from Earth" would seem to suggest CfA2 Great Wall (as would the redirect Great Wall (astronomy), however the "largest known structure in the universe" would seem to suggest Sloan Great Wall. Thanks. -- ToE^T 03:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It's part of the Hercules Cluster, which is part of the CfA2 Great Wall... 76.66.197.30 (talk) 06:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

NGC redirects

Wikipedia has 679 Astronomy articles or redirects starting with "NGC ", such as the article NGC 17 or the redirect NGC 1952 → Crab Nebula. It also has 176 "NGC" redirects without the space, such as NGC17 and NGC1952. WP:ALLORNOTHING aside, the 25% representation seems like a bad idea, as it is enough for a user to build the false expectation that all of our NGC object articles can be reached that way. A quick search online shows the "no space" usage less common, but not uncommon. (E.g., 10,000 "NGC1952" vs. 35,000 "NGC 1952" via Google.) Given the potential use of these "no space" redirect I was considering creating the missing 75%, but I wanted to check with this project first.

There is also the question of how they should be tagged. Is the "no space" form actually incorrect or just an alternative form? In other words, {{R from incorrect name}} or {{R from alternative name}}? Additionally, if we choose the latter, should a {{R unprintworthy}} be included to prevent both "NGC 17" and "NGC17" from showing up on a list? ( {{R from incorrect name}} automatically includes Category:Unprintworthy redirects.)

Finally, there are two hyphenated redirects NGC-1128 & NGC-246. Should they just be deleted? -- ToE^T 06:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be good to be consistent and used the spaced form, but keep the non-spaced form as a redirect.—RJH (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I am inclined to create the missing ones and tag all without a space as "{{R from alternative name}}{{R unprintworthy}}" unless there is an indication that missing the space makes it fundamentally incorrect. -- ToE^T 07:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Could someone take a look please?

Hi, I declined two speedy deletions on articles Solar eclipse of May 10, 2013 & Solar eclipse of July 2, 2019 as they were being worked on and the quality of other eclipse articles. I am slightly concerned however they are being created to promote an external website replacing others, and not sure if you guys create articles for every eclipse etc. See editors talk page here for more info. Could someone more familiar than myself with the project take a look and let me know your thoughts please? Regards ^Khukri 12:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at both and (other than the really strange posts on the talk pages I took off) they didn't seem to be advertising another website within the article. However I am going to look at the external link and check if it is necessary. Thank you for pointing that out. Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 00:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the site and it was not really advertising anything. It showed the trajectory of the eclipse and not anything else. Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 00:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks for that, rather someone else in the know takes a look than me trying to make an educated guess. The comment you left on the guys talk page about it's coming, was his message after he'd left a {{hangon}} when someone wanted to speedy the articles. Cheers ^Khukri 07:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

They seem harmless enough. But you might want to cite them with the appropriate sub-page[s] from the NASA solar eclipse site. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

NGC 7822

I think it would be of benefit to begin a wiki entry on the famed young open cluster NGC 7822, today's APOD, and include redirects to it from Berkeley 59 and Sharpless 171. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.161.127 (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

you can create the article yourself at WP:AFC using the article creation wizard there. 76.66.194.183 (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, the APOD link is http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap091018.html 76.66.194.183 (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Lists of minor planets by number

I think someone made a hash of these lists back in June... some were renamed, some weren't, and the redirects from old to new names were deleted in some cases... 76.66.194.183 (talk) 02:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Flares

We now have an article superflare, but we have no corresponding article on the general subject of stellar flares, only the specific article on solar flares... it would be nice if someone could write one up. I'm not confident on the matter myself, so I won't be writing one up, unless a stub is all you want. 76.66.194.183 (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Aren't they really the same thing? I'm not really sure how it would differ from other normal stars. Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 23:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think they are similar, but there can be some differences,[2] [3] and those differences can say something interesting. :-) There is some information on stellar activity on the stellar magnetic field article, but it can be significantly improved. We've also got a starspot article.—RJH (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Those are very interesting! I'm glad our Sun isn't shooting out any monster flares... Maybe stellar flares could be addressed in a section of the solar flare article? I'm worried that a stellar flare article might become a stub or low-class article. That is, until we can study these extra-solar flares in great detail (or Sol decides to shoot out a few monster flares @.@) Thanks for pointing those out! Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 17:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Stellar flare I think should be a separate article, since WP:NOTPAPER, and I think solar flare should focus on the Sun, so as to not lose focus. An overview article for solar flare, superflare and flare star at stellar flare would be better. 76.66.194.183 (talk) 05:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I would absolutely love to see a separate article on it, but I worry about the amount of information it would contain, because, as I said before, it might become a stub. Also when we have plenty of information then I can be moved into its own article. I think of Solar flare as a type of temporary housing, benefiting from the little bit of info while allowing it to grow. Although Wikipedia does not have any limits, does any encyclopedia look good when it covers brief topics on a single page? I hope one day we can make a beautiful article out of stellar flare (mainly because they peak my interest when it comes to planetary development around active stars), but I cannot imagine we have enough information. Could it be a separate article right now? Of course. But it would not contain a lot of info. I think that it would be best to put it with solar flare for now just to make that article look better and keep from having more stubs. Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 23:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it being a stub. We've already got thousands of those under the Astronomy category.—RJH (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Leonids meteor shower

A spectacular Leonids meteor shower will occur November 10-21, 2009 with a peak - November 17 Watch Out for Leonids 2009 Meteor Shower which may produce upwards of 500 meteors per hour - NASA. Can this article be updated for this date for In the news.SriMesh | talk 21:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Peer revie of Nicholas U. Mayall (astronomer)

Hello,

Please take a look at Nicholas Mayall biography of astronomer for peer review and possible featured article or good article.

Thanks.

WilliamKF (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

List of solar eclipses

Is there any good reason that List of solar eclipses redirects to List of solar eclipses in the 21st century, not some other list or to a list of lists? Nyttend (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a WAG that it was done because the lists are now in a template form: Template:Solar eclipses. But you could always create a Lists of eclipses article and redirect the link to there.—RJH (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've rebuilt it, since the template seems to be missing half the list articles, so the list article now lists things, and the template will still need to be fixed. 76.66.195.206 (talk) 04:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

GMRT

I've added a reference [4] to the claim "largest array of radio telescopes in the world", however, it is from Times of India and I don't particularly trust them. Can anyone get a more reliable citation supporting (or refuting) this claim?

SPat ^talk 09:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I greatly doubt it's larger than the Very Long Baseline Array... but some people don't consider that a single telescope array... It's definitely not having the largest single dish... which is still the Aricebo Observatory... 76.66.195.206 (talk) 06:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I doubt the VLBA qualifies as one "telescope", though the notion is a bit vague at this point. VLBI observations are done at several places, including GMRT.
SPat ^talk 12:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Per this (section 2, paragraph 2), it looks like their claim is to be the world's largest telescope operating at metre wavelengths.—RJH (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, that article and a few others it cites are in major Astronomy journals and should qualify as reliable sources.
SPat ^talk 01:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

X-ray astronomy

Perhaps it's time to create a Category:X-ray astronomy to clean up Category:X-rays ? 70.29.209.91 (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay.—RJH (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

All articles now assessed

As of this moment, all of the articles that were in "Category:Unassessed Astronomy articles" have received an assessment. Phew!!! Anyway, hopefully it should be fairly easy to keep up now. There seem to be only a handful of unassessed articles added per week. (I am finding quite a few worthwhile astronomy articles that don't have assessment templates though.)—RJH (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Congrats from the physics project :P. Assessing 10K+ articles ain't a small feat. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hum... actually you still have about 400 to go. See Category:Unassessed Astronomy articles of Unknown-importance. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I checked those earlier but they all appear to be redirects, categories, images, templates, &c. I'm not sure why they are ending up in that category.—RJH (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the function of WPBANNERMETA changed at some point... 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, then I'll fix this post-haste. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the rows on the "Assessment categories" pull-down table add up? I'm just wondering why, for example, there are differences in the sums for the FL row compared to the main table. The assessment categories only show 2 with low ratings, while the main table shows 3. (Maybe they were run at different times?) Also it lists the row total as 7, but only 5 are shown. Just wondering. Thanks. :-) —RJH (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Aah that's a manual thing. The "PAGESINCATEGORY" magic word doesn't count articles in a predictable way, so you have to adjust numbers manually. Apparently it's been a while since it's been adjusted. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It's also a result of some contamination because {{WP Space}} doesn't cross-categorize like {{WP Astronomy}} does. I've notified the folks at the WP Space banner. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I finished cleaning up Category:Start-Class Astronomy articles of Unknown-importance so now it is essentially all bottom dweller articles. I'm not sure why the "bottom" category isn't getting populated by those articles though. Shrug.—RJH (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Étoiles invitées de 1592

There's a long frWP sarticle on this that might well merit translation. DGG ( talk ) 14:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I've had some good results requesting translations at Wikipedia:Translation.—RJH (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There's also the articles... fr:Étoiles invitées de 837 ; fr:Étoile invitée de 369 ; fr:Étoile invitée de l'an -4 ; fr:Étoile invitée de 70 - 70.29.209.91 (talk) 05:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have an English title for this? "1592's guest stars" isn't a very nice title, though I suppose it works. 70.29.209.91 (talk) 04:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If someone could start a stub (like .... In 1592 Korean astronomers recorded four guest stars {{astro-stub}} )... I notice that the sole reference is in English on the French article... 70.29.209.91 (talk) 04:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a decent reference here that doesn't appear to be sourced in the French language article:

Stephenson, F. R.; Yau, K. K. C. (1987). "Four Korean Guest Stars Observed in 1592AD". Royal Astronomical Society Quarterly Journal. 28 (4): 431–444. Bibcode:1987QJRAS..28..431S. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

—RJH (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Star

Friends, I have created a new portal named star few weeks ago. Please help it make stronger. Extra999 (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If you wouldn't mind filling in all the redlinks with blank pages, atleast, then I can help, as an IP editor, I cannot create pages. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 05:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if anybody is maintaining Portal:Astronomy?—RJH (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It gets updated... though that might not be what you mean. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You can compare it withPortal:Mars. And this portal is good enough and is maintained by the user Awolf002 and me. I had added a new topic on the disscussion of the portal. --Extra999 (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It has become so fashionable to open new portals. So, I also created a new one: Portal:Uranus. Any suggestions are welcome. Ruslik_Zero 20:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprise the moon doesn't have a portal. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 07:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It'd be interesting if we could combine them all into a tabbed portal.—RJH (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The French Wikipedia has a nice tab-bar that we could use... fr:Modèle:Début des onglets - fr:Modèle:Fin_des_onglets - fr:Modèle:Onglet

If someone good with template coding and a working knowledge of french wants to give it a try.

65.94.252.195 (talk) 06:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

A nice example of the french tabbar is at fr:Portail:Montréal/Onglets - 65.94.252.195 (talk) 07:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Give it a try... Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Portaltest - tabbar portals - looks very bad, because it's not in Portalspace on live portals, and as such I've transcluded the portals, and it doesn't work properly depending on how the portal was coded. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 07:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, either of those would work. I wonder though whether they would support multi-row tabbing so that the entries don't get too crowded? Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

X-ray astronomy

Can someone look at X-ray astronomy? It ballooned from 13k to nearly 200k in the last couple of months. At 200k, it's rather large for a single article.

Several of the X-ray astronomy related articles (Stellar X-ray astronomy, Solar X-ray astronomy, X-ray telescope, ...) seem to be very repetitive of other articles, and some have sections called "Featurette" which don't look like any other Wikipedia article I've seen...

76.66.197.2 (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes that looks excessively long for an article. It looks like there's already a tag, so I'll just put something on the talk page.—RJH (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Marshallsumter(talk) has suggested an organization (after having done a tremendous amount of work in the past couple of months), and I have just proposed a somewhat different one on the article talk page. Now that we have such a large amount of material, this seems to be the right time to think about the overall organization, and a good time for other editors to weigh in. Thanks -- Wwheaton (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Meteorite articles

I recently created the Bovedy Meteorite article. Would someone mind clarifying the article titles we should be using for meteorite articles? The Meteoritical Bulletin calls it Bovedy as an "official" name. Should I rename the article to Bovedy (meteorite) instead? Alastairward (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that the version Bovedy (meteorite) would be better. Falls are named for their geographic discovery location, after all. But there does seem to be considerable variation: if you look at other well-known examples, eg. Allende meteorite, Canyon Diablo (meteorite), Hoba meteorite, there is quite a lot of variation. (Maybe it's time for some standardization?) Iridia (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not very important but...

Could you take a look at this and give your opinion on whether bibcodes should be presented (in citations) as BIBCODE 01234567 or bibcode:01234567 instead of the current Bibcode: 01234567. Thanks. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

COROT-5b

Is www.exoplanet.eu a reliable source? It is giving co-ordinates for COROT-5, on http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=CoRoT-5. CS Miller (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

These coordinates, and most of the rest of the data on the star, are the same as in A&A 506, 281-286 (2009) (doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200911902), Table 2. Spacepotato (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

<edit conflict> :I'd say so: exoplanet.eu are a good clearinghouse, used by researchers as a quick-check reference. That website references the original paper for CoRoT-5 as well: I'd cite that in preference, if you want stellar coordinates etc., since that's a peer-reviewed paper. Iridia (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thought so. I see some one has already updated the COROT-5 and COROT-5b pages. I've updated the COROT page. Could someone check that I've not made a mistake please? CS Miller (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the co-ords for the COROT-5 and COROT-5b pages were approx. Could someone check these as well, and that the constellation is still Monoceros? CS Miller (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI

FYI, wikt:optical astronomy is up for deletion at wikt: Wiktionary. (a sense is up for deletion, not the entire page)... you might be interested.

76.66.197.2 (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Astronomy

I think Portal:Astronomy has become good enough to be a featured portal. --User:Extra999 (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If you think it meets the criteria, see Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates for the nomination process. Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have posted here so that different users could also suggest and we would take the final decision. -- Extra999 (Extra999) 20:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Number of arms of Milky Way

The article Milky Way was recently changed to say the the number of arms is 2 rather than the traditional 4. The reference given for this was a single research paper, which to my mind leaves the possibility that this is out of the mainstream and not the consensus of most astronomers. So are 2 arms now generally considered accurate, is it still 4, or is it uncertain at this point? It wouldn't be a big deal but this fact is used in other articles.--RDBury (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it two main arms, two other major arms, several spurs, two short arms that form the bar, ...  ? 76.66.194.23 (talk) 06:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll interpret that to mean that it's difficult to fix a precise number so the articles that give one should be vague instead. Thanks.--RDBury (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This press release (bottom third) now suggests there are four arms, rather than two. Sounds like the total is still up in the air.—RJH (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I changed the article where this came up to say 'several'. I also found an article where the number was given as 'approximately 12' and changed that as well. Thanks for the help.--RDBury (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Spiral galaxy COI

Could someone more knowledgable than I please have a look at spiral galaxy#Gravitationally aligned rosettes? This entire section, in addition to an unsourced disparaging remark of the conventional density wave theory, was added by User:RQG (who is also the primary author of the paper to which it is sourced). The content also displaced the old description of alternative models. Now this obviously constitutes WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to a new and unreviewed theory. While I don't think the theory is a crank theory, I also don't think it should be promoted in the way it currently is. Expert help is needed to decide what to do. There is an abortive thread at Talk:Spiral galaxy#New Explanation for Spiral Structure on this very issue. Thanks, Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: following edits by Dicklyon and myself, the section under discussion has been reverted to an earlier revision (an action that I do not fully endorse, but that seemed the only logical measure given Dick's feeling that it is better to remove the COI material while it is under discussion). I have adjusted the link in my original post to point to the last version of the article that had still had the full potentially objectionable content. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

An additional note, there is a suggestion by RQG (talk · contribs) to rewrite Density wave theory according to the newly published paper, see Talk:Density wave theory.

76.66.202.219 (talk) 11:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Book-Class

Just to let you know I've implemented the book-class for the Astronomy project. To clarify, the book-class is much like the template-class but for Wikipedia-Books. I also coordinate the WikiPedia-Books project, and the general idea is that specialized projects (in this case the Astronomy Project) take care of merging books, deletion, content decisions, etc. Eventually there probably will be a "Books for discussion" process that would be incorporated in the Article Alerts. (If you know about other projects that would like the book-class [Solar System? Space?], let me know).

There's an article in this week Signpost if you aren't familiar with Wikipedia-Books and classes in general. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 06:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I've created WP:Books/Hydrogen as an example book (took me about 4 minutes, so it's probably not perfect, and some stuff is probably irrelevant, while other is missing) based off Category:Hydrogen and Category:Isotopes of hydrogen.

The easiest way to create books is to enable the "book-creator" (click on "Create a book" on the print/export toolbox on the left), then go to a category like Category:Helium and click on "Add this category to your book"). Give some structure (chapters), and you're pretty much done.

There are others ways to edit books (see Help:Books for more.) If you have questions, just ask and I'll answer. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 06:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

FAC Nicholas Mayall needs help with prose

Hi,

The article on the astronomer Nicholas Mayall is currently under FAC, but there is objection to it needing improved prose. Please come assist if you are able. Thanks.

WilliamKF (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A-Class articles

I've noticed that WP:Astronomy has no "A-class" articles, but many FA and GA class articles. (There are seven subcategories of the A class category, all empty, giving the misleading count of "7") Perhaps some GA articles should be promoted to A? 76.66.192.35 (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Could someone review this edit.

I'm pretty sure it's a good-faith mistake. But it might also be a correction. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I reverted as 28 billion ly distance refers to the co-moving distance. Ruslik_Zero 18:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

23 Librae / 61 Viriginis planets

The Anglo-Australian Observatory have found a second planet around 23 Librae, it's a approximately 1MJ, with a 14-year orbit period, and 3 planets around 61 Virginis, with masses ranging from 5.3 to 24.9 ME. The press release is pretty vague [5], however the papers go into more details [6] (23 Librae), [7] (61 Virginis). AAO have also found three planets around HD 1461, details to follow. CS Miller (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

61 Virginis and HD 1461 have been updated, 23 Librae hasn't. CS Miller (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Updated. — Aldaron • T/C 05:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Liège Space Center

• I have made an article Liège Space Center, by translating fr:Centre spatial de Liège. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• fr:Centre spatial de Toulouse needs to be translated to English. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Centre spatial de Toulouse redirects to fr:Centre national d'études spatiales, and we already have an article about the CNES. 76.66.194.220 (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Distribution of importance ratings

The current WP:ASTRO importance scale has resulted in a distribution that is very bottom heavy. That is, there are large numbers of 'Low' importance articles and decreasing numbers as the importance increases. I think this is mainly because of the huge numbers of astronomical object articles that are stubs and have no journal articles cited. (Particularly stars, extrasolar planets and minor planets.) Are we okay with the way that the ratings are being distributed? If not, then some other distinguishing criteria may be needed, and it is unclear to me what that criteria would be. Should more of the 'High' rated articles be moved to the 'Top' category? How about 'Medium' to 'High'? Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's normal that most of the articles are rated low, as for other ratings, if we established task forces, there will be other importance rating used for other articles... like Task Force Popular Astronomy and Task Force Amateur Astronomy would definitely have different importance factors than regular astronomy. 76.66.194.220 (talk) 06:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggested taskforces:

1. Popular Astronomy

   for things like Carl Sagan's TV show "Cosmos" where they would be of high importance

2. Amateur Astronomy

   popular skygazing targets, etc would have different importances

3. Ethnoastronomy and traditional astronomy
4. Archaeastronomy and history of astronomy (jointly shared with WP:Archaeology and WP:HistoryOfScience)
5. Astrophysics and cosmology (jointly shared with WP:Physics)
6. "Scientific astrology" (jointly shared with WP:Astrology)

   Kepler was also an astrologer who used accurate (instead of formulaic, as modern western astrologers do) measurments of the sky... so "factors" of observation would affect "predictions" (unlike in modern astrology, where nothing in the sky affects a prediction since modern atrologers don't know what end of a telescope is what)

7. astrosciences - astrochemistry, xenobiology, exogeography, extrameteorology, cosmic geology, etc
8. publications, data, books, journals
9. biography (jointly shared with WP:BIO)
10. telescopes, equipment, technology and engineering
11. facilities, space observatories, institutions, organizations

I suggest so many task forces, since {{WPJ}} has a million of them, and they facilitate multiple ratings for them.

76.66.194.220 (talk) 06:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Grading articles for multiple task forces would be a labor of dedication on somebody's part. I can certainly see where an astronomy topic only grades out low in general, but gets top marks within a particular task force. So it might be useful for identifying the top/high articles in particular areas that aren't necessarily high overall. —RJH (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Field of Streams

There is a requested move to replace the astronomy article Field of Streams with the cartoon TV episode article Field of Streams (The Cleveland Show) , seemingly wanting to delete the astronomy article, since the nominator claims the astronomy article is a redirect to the TV episode (which it isn't). See Talk:Field of Streams (The Cleveland Show)

76.66.194.220 (talk) 06:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:49, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

yellow in astronomy

Yellow is currently being worked on - can anyone spruce up Yellow#Astronomy nicely? and add any other examples (apart from the obvious sun and G stars) Casliber (talk · contribs)

Picture of Palitzsch or Delisle?

File:Joseph Nicolas Delisle.jpg. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-03t20:10z

Review on East-Asian Planet Search Network

I updated the page by adding the discovery of a companion. A request to review of the update to make sure I did not make a mistake. Thanks, Marasama 23:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Rename category

Category:Space telescopes is being considered for renaming to Category:Space observatories because for example the Kepler mission and the PLATO (spacecraft) are not telescopes. Cospmi (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 4#Category:Space telescopes.—RJH (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Except that "Kepler" is a telescope. You couldn't use a photometer in a useful manner without a telescope. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Cospmi

Can someone look over Cospmi (talk · contribs) ? This user has no edit history except in 2010, and has been doing advanced edits, and has renamed {{Space telescopes}} to {{Space observatories}}, without discussion (the edit summary of Kepler being a photometer and not a telescope is not heartening). 76.66.197.17 (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a wild guess that's a sock account for somebody who has worked on extrasolar planet articles.—RJH (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Not all observatories listed their are telescopes (Uhuru is not). In addition many of them had several instruments, not all of them telescopes. So "Space observatories" is better. Ruslik_Zero 20:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)