Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Solar System/Archive 2

Abolition of WikiProject Space

The RfC over the fate of WikiProject Space came to the consensus of abolishing the project, removing it as a parent to the projects below it, with not a single comment in favour of its retention. As a result that project will be wound-down allowing Astronomy, Solar System and Spaceflight to become the lead projects in their area as has been pretty much de facto the case for some time on the Astronomy side. As a result it's probably a good idea if we modify some of this project, like the navbox for example, to fit this. ChiZeroOne (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record, there is a proposal that WikiProject Solar System should become a child project of WikiProject Astronomical Objects. Comments on this proposal are requested, it is on the same discussion page that the RFC was on. --GW… 17:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Jupiter Proposal

In keeping with my eventual goal of having a daughter WikiProject for each of the eight major planets, I have proposed a new WikiProject for the planet Jupiter here. Feel free to drop on by and join up...--Novus Orator 09:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel it is not required. This project itself is poorly monitored, having daughter projects is going to be much more difficult. Fir, we need to get more members to this project. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 11:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that more members for the parent project are required before adding daughter projects. I do think that having smaller WikiProjects that support and report to a parent project improves morale and increases the likelihood of work getting done. My one WikiProject per planet proposal is looking far ahead as the main project (hopefully) expands. WikiProject Jupiter will be the present focus..--Novus Orator 06:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

133P/Elst-Pizarro vs 7968 Elst-Pizarro

I notice that on 12 January 2010, SatyrTN moved 133P/Elst-Pizarro to 7968 Elst-Pizarro stating that the "Minor Planet Center recommends to list objects, both designated as asteroids and comets, as asteroids." The MPC Dual status page states, "astrometric observations of these objects should be reported under the minor planet designation." But Wikipedia:Article titles states, "Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject". Both Hsieh and Jewitt seem to refer to the object more often by the cometary name. So 133P would seem (IMHO) to be the common name. JPL only refers to the asteroid name even when you specify 133P. Google search "7968 Elst-Pizarro" = 16,700 results; "133P/Elst-Pizarro" = 42,200 results. This could come to down to Wikipedia practices vs IAU/JPL practices. Which name should Wikipedia use as primary? -- Kheider (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think 7968 Elst-Pizarro—the official name. Goodle search is not a reliable indicator. Ruslik_Zero 20:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Taskforce Jupiter

Taskforce Jupiter is curious if anyone would like to propose a collaboration "roadmap" of how the resources of the WikiProject Solar System could be used to improve the efficiency in the daughter WikiProjects and Taskforces. Please post your suggestions here.--Novus Orator 09:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

P:MARS

I have just finished cleaning up the above Portal. Please come check it out and offer comments or questions on the talk page of the Portal.--Novus Orator 11:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Single-apparition comets

I was wondering if the Category:Single-apparition comets or Category:Unbound comets would be useful for comets not expected to return to the inner solar system such as C/1980 E1, C/2009 R1, C/1956 R1, C/2007 F1 (LONEOS), C/2001 Q4 (NEAT), and C/1970 K1. -- Kheider (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Scope of Project

A question, would planetary scientists be within the scope of the project? Peter Francis, Ralph Baldwin, Graham Ryder and the winners of the Barringer Medal for instance. Dbigwood (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why not: WP:Astronomy seems to take an interest in astronomers. Have a look at these prizewinners to consider. Iridia (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost

Hello,
My name is Thomas888b (Say Hi), I am here representing the Wikipedia Signpost. We would like to interview a few of your key members for the April 04 edition of the Signpost. If you are interested, please could you reply on my talkpage?

Thanks,
Thomas888b (Say Hi) 19:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The interview will be published in the April 04 edition of the signpost -- Thomas888b (Say Hi) 20:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates now support more identifiers

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

• {{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Space template has been nominated for deletion

FYI, I have nominated {{WikiProject Space}} for deletion since the abolishment WP:SPACE and the removal the template. The discussion is here. JJ98 (Talk) 21:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 41#Bibcode bot

I've made a request for a bot to try and guess bibcodes for the most popular astronomy journals / journals with the biggest presence in the ADSABS database. Feedback is welcome. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Asteroid capture

Asteroid capture is a mess. It needs rewriting by someone who knows the subject a bit better than I do. —Tamfang (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Temporary satellite capture (TSC) also needs to be mentioned in that article. -- Kheider (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

New stub types

Hi all - just a heads-up that two new stub types relating to your project have just been created:

• {{Solar-eclipse-stub}} / Category:Solar eclipse stubs and
• {{Lunar-eclipse-stub}} / Category:Lunar eclipse stubs

The first of these should greatly reduce the nmber of stubs loose in the main Category:Astronomy stubs and will be a subcategory of it - the second will be a subcategory of the existing Category:Moon stubs. Any help youn can give in moving articles over to the new stub types will be greatly appreciated, though much of it will be done by WP:WikiProject Stub sorting. If you've got any comments or questions, please drop a note at WT:WSS. Thanks - and I hope the new stub types are useful to you! Grutness...wha? 02:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

A couple more astronomy-related stub types have been proposed at WP:WSS, as well - input from your WikiProject would be very welcome here! Grutness...wha? 11:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

History of Mars

History of Mars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated for deletion. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

1999 LE31

It's my first asteroid article. Could someone please give it a quick look-see? Many thanks if you can. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Mercury's magnetic field

Hello, this is one of the recent members of WikiProject Solar System, SpaceChimp1992, I'm the creator of the article Terraforming of Europa (moon), and I would like to ask your consent on a Mercury's magnetic field page. I'm sure it will be different than just re-stating what's on the article mainspace on Mercury (planet)#Magnetic field and magnetosphere, there will be magnetic field strength, magnetic field detection and magnetic poles, discovery, etc. Send a response and see if it's okay with you! --SpaceChimp1992 (talk) 11:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't need our permission to create an article; create it, then we'll see if it needs to be redirected back. I'm sure it will be fine. Serendi^podous 12:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, thank you! Hey, I've already created my article! Wanna go check it out (and help with it as well)? The article's here: link. SpaceChimp1992 (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Geologic history of Mars

Hello, there, good Wikipedians! I was wondering if I could create an article about the geologic history of Mars, since I saw a template regarding that the page Geology of Mars should be split into multiple articles. I will make sure that the article is different than just re-stating what's on the artice mainspace on Geology of Mars (I will include Prenoachian, Noachian, etc.). I am asking for your consent. Please respond! Love, SpaceChimp1992 (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Why not ask at Talk:Geology of Mars? (it seems the split banner was posted without discussion)

Also read the new article Noachian, and Schaffman's comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Mars.

Hope that helps.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Generic Celestia asteroid texture

Generic Celestia asteroid texture

Any file with this texture is probably a fake Celestia artist's impression and can (usually) be removed. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello from WP:ECLIPSES and the demise of WikiProject Space

The Eclipses Wikiproject has been revived, but I have some confusion as to whose child project it should be. I found evidence that I was once a child of space, but then perhaps was moved over to be a child of WP:SOLAR. Since it used to be a child of space, i made it a child of astronomy. What do you folks think? Should Eclipses be a child of Solar? I guess that makes more sense to me since Astronomy is so broad. I'm not having any luck recruiting members. Seems like folks are only interested in eclipses during eclipse seasons. Especially during lunar eclipses. Hopefully not a sign of total lack of interest. Cheers. --TimL (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Nicholson crater on Mars

The crater completely closed depression is at least 2000 m deeper than the surrounding lowest terrains. This seems to limit the possibilities of water erosion : any free water if not fully flooding the structure would tend at least to make a lake. In the first case erosion possibilities are very limited and in the case of lake nearly only shore wave-erosion possibilities are left, tracing precise horizontal belt levels (nothing similar is visible here). The global morphology of that huge central peak is in fact very similar to that of fluid lavas of hawaîan type. The full form divides in 6 main mounds (one including the main peak - only feature with rocky aspect). The mounds are separated by undulating depressions whith striated surfaces which seem to correspond internally to the most fluid parts of the extrusion. The type of erosion visible here looks very much like auto-erosion by differential flowing even internal flowing similar to lava tubes (some of the channels which produce the "piemont" deposits on the south eastern foot of the structure look a lot like lava tubes as well as the channel features wich decorates the croup of the eastern mound). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.21.152.184 (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

discussion on comet names

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#comet_names, regarding the usage of hyphens or dashes in comet names. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Near Earth Asteroid Reconnaissance Project

Does this group really exist? Les Golden has been blocked for sock puppetry. -- 14:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Near Earth Asteroid Reconnaissance Project -- Kheider (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Dwarf planets - what is the standard for Wikipedia labelling an object as a DP?

I would really appreciate as much input as possible at Talk:Dwarf planet to help resolve a dispute over what objects we are labelling as dwarf planets. Wikipedia has generally used the IAU as the guide, saying that there are five objects (Pluto, Eris, Haumea, Makemake, and Ceres) currently categorized as dwarf planets with numerous others as likely candidates. Kwamikagami has been repeatedly changing this to add four other bodies (Sedna, Quaoar, Orcus, and 2007 OR10) based on astronomer Mike Brown's web posts. There is an active discussion on the DP talk page, but Kwamikagami is continuing to change articles to his version even while the discussion is under way. (I have been reverting back to the existing consensus version repeatedly, but cannot see this as a viable long-term solution and thus would like to get as wide a consensus as possible to resolve this.) Thanks in advance. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

User is factory creating articles for un-notable objects

There is a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#User is factory creating articles for un-notable objects regarding the notability of, in particular, minor planet articles. They are debating a notability threshold. If you have an interest, you may want to participate. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

1992 QB1 data mis-match

Some of the data listed in the article about 1992 QB1 does not correspond to the same items in the TransNeptunian Object interactive table (e.g. i= 9 degrees in article, i = 2 degrees in table). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.241.196 (talk) 12:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

1992 QB1 has an inclination of 2. -- Kheider (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Comet/Asteroid missions

A discussion is open on Category:Comet/Asteroid missions, which is proposed for renaming. Any insights from members of this project are most welcome.- choster (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of the far future

is currently undergoing FLC here. As this really needs reviewers I was hoping a member of this Wikiproject might be able to offer their opinion. Serendi^podous 20:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Moon

Portal:Moon is up for peer review. Please comment here. Thanks. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 21:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Solar eclipse

I have nominated Solar eclipse for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKiernan (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

NARA on-wiki ExtravaSCANza participation

Please see User:The ed17/NARA to brainstorm ideas and a structure on how we can help make the National Archives ExtravaSCANza a success, in the hope that such events will continue in the future. Day one is devoted to spaceflight, so this will obliquely affect y'all! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Astroid of August 10 1972

On August 10, 1972 I was the fire lookout on Dunn Peak mountain lookout on the St. Joe National Forest in northern Idaho. While watching for fire to the south west, a fireball streaked across the sky from the south moving north. I immediately called the lookout on Middle Sister lookout (to the southeast of Dunn Peak and about 15 miles away) he also witnessed the event, his name was Rod Landbloom. We were able to plot the location and it did pass directly between Dunn Peak and Middle Sister mountains. I recorded the information in the official lookout log book, which is the property of and held by the U.S. Forest Service. It is possible the Middle Sister lookout did the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donldhammond (talk • contribs) 17:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That is known as The Great Daylight 1972 Fireball. -- Kheider (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons' problems with some astronomical image

There is an ongoing effort by some admins on commons to delete all MESSENGER and New Horizons images. (See here and here). I think this is not justified because they use very specious interpretation of their image use policies. I think the astronomical community needs to know and participate in all those discussions. Ruslik_Zero 09:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

2012 United Kingdom Meteorite event

I know the current title is incorrect so can an expert please review the 2012 United Kingdom Meteorite event article and move it. --Racklever (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Ecliptic / Earth's orbit

We currently have at least 3 articles on the subject: Earth's_orbit Ecliptic Plane_of_the_ecliptic. There is astrology content in one or more of them. Any thoughts on consolidating these?

Speaking of astrology, I see considerable astrology content in many planetary/Solar System articles (for instance, ephemeris). What's the consensus on it? I prefer not to mix astronomy and astrology. Tfr000 (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Merged Plane_of_the_ecliptic into Ecliptic and did much re-writing. Earth's_orbit has some merit as a separate article, as there are things about the orbit which have little to do with the ecliptic (for instance, orbital elements). Tfr000 (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Secular variations of the planetary orbits

Secular_variations_of_the_planetary_orbits The article is not about secular variations. It is about perturbations and the French VSOP. Secular variations are non-periodic changes in the elements that result from an averaging of perturbations as the bodies occupy every possible configuration over very long periods. Does anyone know what the intent of this article was? Tfr000 (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Moved the article to VSOP_(planets). Tfr000 (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Giant impact hypothesis

The high-importance article Giant impact hypothesis is at a decent level of development, but it could really use some further improvement by an editor with strong knowledge of planetary geology (particularly regarding the compositional issues). Might somebody in this project have an interest in taking a look? This could make a very nice front page article some day.

Thank you! Regards, RJH (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Venus-Earth near resonance?

Is it possible to talk about near resonance (or commensurability) between Venus and the Earth? See the discussion here, please. Thank you very much. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Conflicting info (tallest mountain in the solar system)

Rheasilvia and Olympus Mons are listed (depending on article) as tallest mountain in the solar system. Both near 14 miles. See also Stratovolcano & Shield Volcano. Guy M (can't login via my portable device)  _{Guy M | Talk}  05:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, Rheasilvia wins, by a nose. It was only really documented this year/end of last year, and took the crown from Mt. Olympus, so it's no great surprise this hasn't sunk in to the wider community yet (I only saw this stuff at a conference in April). Mt. Olympus remains the largest mountain on a planet though (obviously). DanHobley (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The data under Shield volcano is just wrong. I've found previous stuff scattered round WP fairly liberally; I imagine there's an incorrect/out of date source lurking out on the internet somewhere. I'm taking action.DanHobley (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Use of Color

O=MC⁴ 21:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

"Happy Face" Crater Greets MGS at the Start of the Mapping

O=MC^{4Orschstaffer/Principal},This is a school assignment♭,

Presently I am researching/developing a WikiProject for a classroom assignment. Please be patient with my attempt to Improve the several Wikimedia Foundation Projects within the global Wiki interface.

...more Greetings from the desk of: O=MC^{4Orschstaffer/Principal}

Astronomy, Solar System and Astronomical objects member numbers require verifying, other member counts and activity statuses are correct as of 25 March 2011.

WikiProjects - Directory of Space-related WikiProjects
Members - Complete member lists of all Astronomy-related WikiProjects
Portals - List of space-related portals.

Use of Color

at the bottom of the dark background, considerations should be taken for those with certain color restrictions in the sight. Non-friendly font/background colors.! User:Orschstaffer/Classroom O=MC^{4 Orschstaffer/Principal}, This is a school assignment O=MC⁴ 21:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Jupiter family comet

Jupiter family comet currently redirects to List of periodic comets, a page that contains no information about the term. You are invited to participate in the discussion about the redirect and where information should be added - see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Jupiter family comet. Thryduulf (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Curiosity rover

Hey all. The Curiosity rover article was split earlier today (6 Aug 2012), AFTER the successful landing of the rover on Mars, hived off from the more spacecraft-related and spaceflight-mission-related article Mars Science Laboratory. (This is a result of a consensus developed on the MSL Talk page after approx. 24 July, and finished up about a week prior to the landing.) So now the rover article is a robotics article and a planetary science article, and not really a spaceflight article, while the MSL article retains the spaceflight/spacecraft aspects of the complicated mission.

• It would be very useful to have some Solar System science-oriented eyes on the split to see if the planetary science is handled/summarized well, following the split.
• Also, an editor has suggested on the Talk:Curiosity rover page that the on-wiki location of the data should be discussed.

Anyone want to help out? Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

De-capitalising Trojan

Can someone please explain the logic of this? If they were called Londoners instead of Trojans, would there be any debate about keeping them capitalised? Serendi^podous 18:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Mars Photos: Please Return to Genuine

Mars sky is not blue, so this image: 'File:Mars Viking 21i093.png' is too obviously adulterated. In Wikipedia I expect scientific accuracy - yet instead, the Mars vibe was totally lost by the unnecessary processing of this photograph - making it look like Arizona, or the Gobi, and unlike itself. Genuine science is better served by more genuine photographs like: File:Viking2 frost enhance.jpg , which is excellent.

This 'Viking2 frost enhance.jpg' photo, or 'File:Ice on Mars Utopia Planitia (PIA00571).jpg' , or a photo of like or more genuine accuracy/quality should be used in this comprehensive 'Timeline of discoveries of water on Mars' , as well as in the document-quality Water on Mars article, and in the many other articles where a genuine image belongs, i.e. :

• Exploration of Mars
• Geology
• Mars
• Planetary surface
• Timeline of discoveries of water on Mars
• Utopia Planitia
• Viking 2
• Water on Mars
• Portal:Mars/Selected picture/December 2008

in order to CREDIBLY illustrate "Frost at the landing site" [of Viking 2] on planet Mars, -- instead of the unsubstantiated * 'File:Mars Viking 21i093.png' . (I mean it literally: there is no substance (component/concentration) in the Mars atmosphere - in our day and age - to transmit anything even remotely similar to such a width and evenness of blue to the human eye.)

On the other hand I compliment Roel van der Hoorn for working on the picture the way he did: his artificially colorized version illustrates a dream some people have for Mars' future.

MocuAed (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

(I took the liberty of reformatting your links for greater convenience.) False color does not necessarily imply adulteration, you know. How to map the camera's bits to human-compatible colors can be a vexing problem. I heard someone say, soon after the Viking landing, that we did not know what color the sky was because – if I remember right – there was no reference palette in view of the camera. —Tamfang (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Doing this is a deliberate choice on the part of NASA, and is in no way misleading, as long as the images are tagged "normalized to terrestrial white light illumination", or something equivalent. NASA in fact often releases both images. The problem is that our eyes are evolved to see colors best under Earth illumination conditions, so using "natural" (still not natural really, lots of processing is still needed) red illumination just results in lack of contrast and pictures that are harder to interpret. Adjusting levels to Earthlike light makes colour contrast appear in the rocks and means that something that has the colour of a basalt on Earth is likely to actually be a basalt. I don't see a problem here at all as long as the appropriate figure captions are used. DanHobley (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

{{JPL small body}} links

There's a discussion going on about whether or not to include links to discovery/orbit diagrams/physical parameters/etc... in the JPL database ext link template.

• 2867 Steins at the JPL Small-Body Database

i.e. [1] vs [2]. Please comment at Template talk:JPL small body. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Comet-Halley's-tail-NASA-1986-b&w.jpg

File:Comet-Halley's-tail-NASA-1986-b&w.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 08:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Problem/incoherence on List of minor planets

Sorry for my english :) I found a problem on page List of minor planets/145101–145200 and on page List of minor planets/145201–145300, on the first page , last planets is 145200 - 2005 JR32 May 4, 2005 Socorro LINEAR, on second page first planets is 145200 - 2004 JA32 May 3, 2004 Monroe, North Carolina Spacewatch: same number but different data can someone check it? --ValterVB (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed the problem --ValterVB (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Northwest Africa 7034

Northwest Africa 7034 is currently up for review for DYK. Is is also tagged by this project. --Tobias1984 (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Micrometeorite

Micrometeorite is up for DYK review. Could somebody add a section about micrometeorites on the Moon and Mars? --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Vulcan fringe theories

Can some of you briefly add Vulcan (hypothetical planet) to your watchlist for a few weeks? Mseanbrown is trying to add fringe theories / weasel words / original research to the article. -- Kheider (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

4179 Toutatis (Chang'e 2).jpg

image:4179 Toutatis (Chang'e 2).jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

S/2011 (134340) 1

S/2011 (134340) 1 has been proposed to be renamed "Vulcan", see talk:S/2011 (134340) 1 -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

List of cloud types

List of cloud types has a section on "other planets", but it's rather sparse, do we have an article for Clouds outside the Earth ? Particularly, the cloud types article is missing Titan, Triton (cryovolcanic clouds), Io (volcanic clouds); -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Mars categories under proposal to merge

Category:Mars spacecraft has been proposed to be merged to Category:Missions to Mars, see WP:CFDALL -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Minor planet new names

Hi, help me please. I would like the other name some minor planet. References: (14181) Koromházi, or Dictionary of Minor Planets Names - (14181) Koromházi

• 14181 Koromházi go to (14181) Koromházi,
• 23718 Horgos, 28196 Szeged, 28492 Marik, 31872 Terkán, 37432 Piszkéstető, 38442 Szilárd, 39971 József, 44479 Olaheszter,
• 45300 Thewrewk, 53029 Wodetzky, 64974 Savaria, 67308 Öveges, 68144 Mizser, 72071 Gábor, 73511 Lovas, 75555 Wonaszek, 75570 Jenőwigner, 75823 Csokonai,
• 82071 Debrecen, 82092 Kalocsa, 82656 Puskás, 84919 Karinthy, 84921 Morkoláb, 84995 Zselic, 84996 Hortobágy, 86196 Specula, 89973 Aranyjános, 90370 Jókaimór,
• 90376 Kossuth, 91024 Széchenyi, 95179 Berkó, 106869 Irinyi, 107052 Aquincum, 111468 Alba Regia, 111570 Ágasvár, 111594 Ráktanya, 113202 Kisslászló, 113203 Szabó
• 113214 Vinkó, 114987 Tittel, 114990 Szeidl, 114991 Balázs, 115058 Tassantal, 115885 Ganz, 117086 Lóczy, 117711 Degenfeld, 117712 Podmaniczky, 117713 Kövesligethy
• 117714 Kiskartal 125071 Lugosi, 126245 Kandókálmán, 129259 Tapolca, 131762 Csonka, 131763 Donátbánki, 132718 Kemény, 157141 Sopron.

Thank you, Módis Ágnes Vadszederke (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:NCASTRO#Asteroids. Our naming guide specifies that named objects should be without parentheses, and unnamed objects should have parentheses. So, please don't change the above article names. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I see, but a case in point the older asteroid article (285264) 1998 QF5, its names since 2011. Módis Ágnes Vadszederke (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean..."1998 QF5" has not been formally named, thus it's numerical designation is in parentheses. From your above list, "Koromházi" *has* been formally named, thus by our guideline it's numerical designation is *not* in parentheses. I'm sorry if I'm not being clear. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Good, thank you Huntster. Módis Ágnes Vadszederke (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Concerns for an early Mars sample return for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Concerns for an early Mars sample return is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concerns for an early Mars sample return until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Warren Platts (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

New stub article: Amazonian

Hi guys. Long time no contribute. Sorry. I've just boldly seized the page Amazonian, torn out the redirect to the Amazon DAB page that was all that was there before, and slapped up a stub for the Martian geological period. I just can't believe we didn't have this before!

Please head over and get expanding. I will slowly, but would welcome more enthusiastic/rapid input. Thanks! (Notice duplicated over at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mars) DanHobley (talk) 06:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

An editor has deleted nearly all my contributions from Manned missions to Mars and for the Mars project

Just want to draw your attention to this. He won an AfD against me for my article on concerns for an early Mars sample return, and declared that it was his intention to remove all my contributions from the Mars project, which he has now done (removed nearly all).

For details of what he has deleted so far (along with one other editor), see User talk:Robertinventor#Other sections deleted by the opposing editor

See also: Contamination Concerns section - how it came about as a response to a request to restore balance to an article perceived by other editors as imbalanced

I believe this amounts to censorship of wikipedia as there is now, as far as I know, no mention in the Mars Project of concerns about forward contamination issues for Mars, hardly any mention of backward contamination concerns (and that biased), and no mention of recent research since Phoenix in 2008 on the possibility for present day habitability of the surface of Mars for micro-organisms. Robert Walker (talk) 10:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Minor planet lists

FYI, we are having a discussion at WT:WikiProject Astronomical objects about this -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing topics page

I have updated Missing topics about astronomy and other space-related topics - Skysmith (talk) 08:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Official quadrangle names for Mercury

If asked a question about official quadrangle names for Mercury at Talk:List of quadrangles on Mercury#Official quadrangle names. Would anyone here be able to answer that question, or suggest where I should ask? Carcharoth (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Solar eclipse2

{{Infobox Solar eclipse2}} has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.181.39 (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Constants

I'm sure this has been discussed before. Would it be possible to maintain (under lock preferably) a series of various astronomical constants. These would be to some agreed precision. They would need to be used by more than (say) five articles.

For example, for the case below, I put {{User:Student7/earth's mass}}:

Earth's mass is User:Student7/earth's mass.

There may be several methods of expressing mass. This would be allowed for in the named "constant." e.g. "earth's mass kg."

These would be listed in an article so that readers and well as editors could see them.

The topic arose when an editor found a discrepancy between articles about earth's mass, but it could have occurred anyplace. Student7 (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like the kind of thing that WikiData would be perfect for. See WP:Wikidata#Infoboxes (Phase 2) and an example.

Earth (at wikidata:Q2) doesn't have a mass parameter yet - I'll see if I can work out if the property exists, or where it's meant to be suggested...

Ok, after much searching, and finally giving up and asking on IRC, I've learned that the "Number datatype" hasn't been fully implemented yet, but "mass" is on the waiting list (wikidata:Wikidata:Property_proposal/Pending/2#Mass) for when it is functional. –Quiddity (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Help requested with updating the To-do list

On the "to-do" list, the first one on the list is Beagle (crater). I have edited this page and have expanded it to the point where I think it would be a start level page, and have changed the class it is in myself, however, it is still marked as a stub on the to-do list. I don't know if this list only shows up on mine, or if it appears on everybody's who goes to this page, but could somebody who knows what they are doing please let me know how to fix it, I am still new here and haven't figured out how to do most of the things yet. == Researching Wikipedia ==

Hi, I am a PhD student at University College London (UK), researching the collective production of knowledge. Wikipedia is my main case study. The WikiProject Solar System is my main observation deck on the activity of Wikipedians at the moment. Since you're one of the assistant coordinators, it would be great if we could talk. Would you be able/willing to talk to me about your activity on Wikipedia?

I have submitted my project to the Wikipedia research committee for guidance. You can find the full summary here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Sociotechnical_epistemology:_how_do_we_foster_good_practices_in_collective_knowledge-production%3F

There's more on my user page and you can ask me any questions. We can discuss identification, uses of data and so forth before talking as well. If you're interested, you can contact me via my Talk page, or by emailing me at elena.falco.18@ucl.ac.uk

ElenaFalco (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)ElenaFalco 9:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

@Owllord97: Someone said to me years ago, "You're not a real Wikipedian until you've made, and learned from, 50 mistakes". Curiosity and helpfulness are always appreciated!

On-topic: The to-do list component of this WikiProject banner template is actually quite hard to find & access, so don't feel bad about the confusion - you can edit it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Solar System/to do. (I found it via examining the code in the {{WikiProject Solar System}} template).

As for whether the article is now beyond stub-level, I'm not a regular at this WikiProject, so I'll leave it to someone else to advise. HTH. –Quiddity (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Quality Assessment is no longer accurate

While updating the to-do list, I have run across the article "Ascraeus Mons" in the high importance stubs section, which is no longer a stub but a C-class. It shows the possiblity that many other articles in this section are no longer correct, but I don't know how to change it, so if anyone knows, please review the articles at least in the high and mid importance areas and update their status. Owllord97 (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Theia and Aten asteroids

Hello, WikiProject Solar System. You have new messages at WT:ASTRO.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI, there's a notice at WT:Astronomical Objects about Theia and Aten asteroid lists.

Moved to WT:ASTRO

-- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hotspot infoboxen

FYI, {{Infobox hotspot custom}} and {{Infobox moon hot spot data}} are under discussion, see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_18 -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

"Jupiter Trojan"

The usage of Jupiter Trojan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Jupiter Trojan -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Occultation

Am I right to suspect that the upcoming occultation of Regulus by 163 Erigone belongs here rather than in eclipses? Jim.henderson (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

 Yes, eclipse as the name suggest is event related with obscuring of light from one heavenly body by another whereas occultation is an event that occurs when one object is hidden by another object. On 20 March 2014, Asteroid 163 Erigone is expected to occult the Star Regulus. Happy Skywatching! - Ninney (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

the military geography of the solar system

The solar system is an environment that affects human activities in this medium in many ways. One of these human activities are those that are classified as "military activities." The elements of the solar system that affects human activities, including military operations, will also affect all human activities in the solar system in general. The military geography of the solar system is, therefore, a metaphor for any human activities that will take place in the interplanetary medium and the celestial bodies that inhabit it. This is an analysis of the natural and cultural geographic factors that will affect all manner of human activity in the solar system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.194.4 (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

{{Lunar coords and quad cat}}

Template:Lunar coords and quad cat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for merger. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 06:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

In defense of the Mars Ocean Hypothesis setting the historic record straight and awarding priority on this hypothesis to Brandenburg

Dear Wikipedia editors, I commend you for setting the academic record straight and crediting me as the first person to propose the “Mars Paleo-Ocean Hypothesis” as is the truth. No doubt you are being pressured by minions of JPL the Planetary Society and MSSS (Malin Space Science Systems) to change the Wikipedia article to either remove or minimize the importance of my 1986 “The Paleo-Ocean of Mars “ paper. You are facing this pressure because I am Cydonia Investigator.

However, I now provide more historic background on the paleo-ocean hypothesis, so you can understand my priority in this, which was established 28 years ago, in 1986. This is a dispute over the Academic Integrity of Mars science in this country, nothing less. So please be steadfast.

The Mars Paleo-Ocean hypothesis was presented in July 1986 at the MECA ( Mars: Evolution of its Climate and Atmosphere) Symposium at the Smithsonian Museum in Washington DC. I gave this oral talk, backed up by many view-graphs in July 1986 to an audience of approximately 300 of the nation’s leading Mars scientists. My extended abstract was part of the printed Proceedings handed out at the Conference. I did this at the personal urging of the late Mars scientist Hal Masursky. books.google.com/books/about/Mars.html?id=A9wmGwAACAAJ Title, Mars: Evolution of Its Climate and Atmosphere : Abstracts of a MECA Symposium Held in Washington on July 17-19, 1986. Issue 87, Part 1 of LPI technical ...

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987meca.symp...20B

The extended abstract was published as part of the on-site symposium handout proceedings. http://books.google.com/books?id=i5sUAQAAMAAJ&q=bibliogroup:%22LPI+Technical+Report%22&dq=bibliogroup:%22LPI+Technical+Report%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=g5fvU8vmNMS3yASx84CQDQ&ved=0CEUQ6AEwCQ

See page 11 and page 20-22 The Mars community, despite witnessing the talk and asking many questions afterwards, either treats the hypothesis as “ex nilhilito” ( out of the vacuum) or tries to credit Barbel Luchiita , ( a fine scholar and scientist who does not claim this hypothesis ) who spoke only of mud flows on the northern plains at the Lunar and Planetary science conference in March 1986 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JB091iB13p0E166/abstract

published nov 30 1986

While she speaks of the possibility of an ocean in the November 1986 JGR publication, this was only after my presentation at the MECA and my extended abstract publication in the on-site MECA conference proceedings.

Some also try to credit T.J. Parker

http://books.google.com/books?id=i5sUAQAAMAAJ&q=bibliogroup:%22LPI+Technical+Report%22&dq=bibliogroup:%22LPI+Technical+Report%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=g5fvU8vmNMS3yASx84CQDQ&ved=0CEUQ6AEwCQ

page 97 Who spoke in passing of “lakes and seas” on Mars at the same MECA Symposium in July 1986 , not an ocean filling the Northern Plains of Mars, just before my presentation.

The fact that the Mars community would participate in this “conspiracy of silence” for 28 years regarding the origin of the Mars Paleo-Ocean Hypothesis shows the power of Money to corrupt academic integrity ( JPL , whose management carries a vendetta against me because of my public role in the Cydonia investigations, as I indicated previously)

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_05_1_brandenburg.pdf

(JPL largely controls who gets Mars research grants) and also the bitter vehemence of the opponents of Cydonia investigations, such as held by everyone who works for MSSS (Malin Space Science Systems) , who is apparently JPLs favorite subcontractor.

Thus, Wikipedia has been drawn into a nasty little academic dispute over priority on Mars. However, its pettiness aside, this dispute is really about academic integrity and the nature of historic truth.

Therefore, be steadfast, and defend the truth as you can see reflected in the historic record, and do not give in to the forces of a “conspiracy of silence” on Mars. Be steadfast therefore and defend the truth.

Sincerely John Brandenburg PhD 75.100.92.117 (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Solar activity, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by Evad37 [talk] 00:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

"Solar Physics"

The usage of Solar Physics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Solar Physics (journal) -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 08:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Solar System articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Moon-related images

FYI, several images on Commons have come up for discussion at WT:MOON that may be of interest to you. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Earth and the definite article

There has been a discussion at Talk:Earth about whether or not to use the definite article when talking about planet Earth. That discussion has seen remarkably little input from people listed in this WikiProject. Anyone interested in chiming in? --JorisvS (talk) 12:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Uncertainties in radius, mass, density, and semi-major axis

List of Solar System objects by size currently includes most of the uncertainties of the radii of the best-known objects, but notably lacking are those of Earth and the Moon, also from the infoboxes in their articles. More often, the uncertainties in those objects' densities and especially mass are missing.

Similarly, the uncertainty in the semi-major axes of those objects is normally missing. I have already found that the Moon's is known to near-millimeter precision and increasing at 3.8 cm/year, but strangely I have so far failed to dig up a more precise value of its semi-major axis than the one listed in its infobox. Moreover, the Moon's semi-major axis listed in orbit of the Moon is quite different from the one in its infobox, which means at least one of them is dead wrong.

Does anyone know of one or more sources that list these so that these can be added? --JorisvS (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Astronomical unit

There's a discussion at talk:Astronomical unit where the abbreviation/unit symbol of this unit is under discussion -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

A cryovolcano

i think this should improve im currently having a project and research and i need this badly so please can you put more accurate facts and videos or images and overview about the ice volcano — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.6.181.50 (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, the cryovolcano article is awaiting attention from experts since 2008. Perhaps with your message someone will expand it. Tetra quark ^(talk) 11:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Mars lead image

In case anyone missed it, there is currently a discussion on the Mars talk page about what the lead image should be. Come offer your preferences and reasoning to help build a consensus! A2soup (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

"Ceres"

The primary topic of "Ceres" is under discussion, see talk:Ceres (dwarf planet) -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Mars craters question

Hi all, I've been fixing/updating some of the Mars crater articles, and I have come to realize that 90% of them are one-paragraph stubs that do little more than give the information found in the List of craters on Mars (for example, Hadley (crater) duplicates the information in List of craters on Mars: H-N). Is it worth having stubs for hundreds of craters, or should we really only keep the notable ones that have significant coverage? I wanted to get your opinions before I started a big AfD/redirect campaign. Cheers. Primefac (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the guy who created Hadley (crater) is still active. I'm not sure if he made lots of the other crater articles, but his rationale for creating him would certainly be valuable here. @Jimmarsmars: You there? A2soup (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I did a lot of crater articles, mostly because I thought that was what was wanted. Some of the craters have some special significance. Most have not been investigated very much. What I tried to do was put what was know about each crater together: location, size, when named. I also found pictures of nearly all in at least CTX images which are quite good. Some also had HiRISE images. I'm active in the HiWish program so I submitted many suggestions for images to be taken in and around many craters. That's all I could easily do at this time. Someone could go through and state what age the craters are and what type of geology is present. I was thinking that perhaps elementary school students could use what is there to write reports. Having spend hundreds of hours on writing articles for over 100 craters, I hope you guys do not decide to just delete them all due to not enough information.Jimmarsmars (talk) 01:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Jimmarsmars, while I certainly do not want to downplay the effort you have put into writing these articles, my question was more along the lines of "what makes this crater interesting?" If the only information on the page is the same information that can be found on the "List of craters" page, then what's the point? Yes, I know it can be expanded in the future, but if the only thing on the page is location and a few pictures, it might as well be a redirect to the main list. I am certainly not saying that every article you have written should be a redirect, but more that not every one of them needs to be a full article. Primefac (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds to me like the slightly stubby articles are fine, but perhaps what you need is a template similar to Template:Map_projection (which deals with a bunch of slightly stubby map projection articles) to link them together nicely. Then you can have them organized by region, by size, by anything else you think. EdwardLane (talk) 10:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to WP:NASTRO

Currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (astronomical objects)#Proposed Changes. WikiProject Solar System's input is requested.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  18:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The rings in the formation of planetary systems

On the history of predicting the existence of the rings in the formation of planetary systems: Gladyshev, G.P. (2015) Physicochemical Stages of Evolution: Ring-Like Structures in the Universe. Natural Science, 7, 266-269. htt85.140.248.205 (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)p://www.scirp.org/Jou85.140.248.205 (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)rnal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=56399#.VVnqN7ntmko

Discussion about lead image for Earth

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Earth about what the lead image for Earth should be. Images are very subjective, so more voices to help build consensus will be especially valuable. Come by to give your preference on the existing candidates or to propose a new candidate (with an explanation for why it is better than the existing candidates). Thanks! A2soup (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

A large number of asteroids up for deletion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1692 Subbotina were a large list of asteroid articles have been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1769 Carlostorres -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 08:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

And also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1579 Herrick -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 08:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

As well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4058 Cecilgreen -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

A large number of asteroids have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 3 -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

More asteroids are up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 11 -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 09:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

As well as relistings for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 12 -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 09:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• See WP:DSS for more nominations -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that a new column is added to all those List of Minor Planets tables, saying where the body lies (e.g. main asteroid belt, trans-neptunian, etc)--feline1 (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a great idea. I agree with WP:NASTRO's redirect-to-list policy for minor planets, and adding basic info to the lists complements that approach, and will probably also quell some debate over WP:NASTRO.

Discussion on WT:AST about recent Pluto articles

I have started a discussion here about some recently-created articles about features Pluto and Charon. Input would be appreciated. Primefac (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Asteroid lists

FYI, asteroid lists are being discussed at WT:ASTRO -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

images of Saturn's moons

NOTE, there is a posting about images being added to Saturn's moons at WT:ASTRO -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

"Eris"

The usage and primary topic of Eris is under discussion, see talk:Eris (dwarf planet) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

the military geography of the solar system

The solar system is an environment that affects human activities in this medium in many ways. One of these human activities are those that are classified as "military activities." The elements of the solar system that affects human activities, including military operations, will also affect all human activities in the solar system in general. The military geography of the solar system is, therefore, a metaphor for any human activities that will take place in the interplanetary medium and the celestial bodies that inhabit it. This is an analysis of the natural and cultural geographic factors that will affect all manner of human activity in the solar system.

Increase in water mass (Kilotons or whatever) at the earth's equatorial bulge due to centripetal forces only (no tidal effects yet).

Hi, perhaps if someone can answer or help me to answer this question it may eventually add a little extra dimension to the topic of calculating the earth's equatorial bulge due to centripetal forces. 

Q. I would like to roughly dimensionalize the cross-sectional area of the water mass (sea or ocean) that is directly involved with the physics of calculating the amount of the earth's equatorial bulge due to centripetal forces only (for now). As I understand from reading the Wikipedia article on centripetal bulge effect on the earth's diameter at the equator, the difference between the diameters measured 1)at the equator and 2)the other measurement polar-axially, is approx. 42.72 km (26.54 mi).

There is no indication that I can tell concerning how far away from equatorial center-line (both sides of the imaginary line please) this diameter "bulge" increase, tapers off from the maximum averaged value cited above. My mind wants to assume a typical Gaussian distribution, away from equatorial center-line, but I have no clue as to how to determine how far away from equatorial center-line does the distribution have to go (Gaussian RMS) expressed in terms of km or miles, for it to become virtually insignificant (asymptotic)?

What I am looking for is a fairly straightforward way to calculate the area under the bell curve so I can plug in water density and come up with a predicted (projected) value for the amount of mass increase at the equator, due to a projected global rise in sea levels due to polar ice melt.

After knowing this value, I will then need to muddy the waters a little bit further by adding in the effects lunar sidereal rotation, creating the "rolling tides" effect due to mutual gravitation between the earth and its moon.

Is there anybody mathematically inclined and not challenged like I am, who would care to lend me a great big helping hand figuring all this out?? There is a reason behind all this madness, trust me.

mrc109 Mrc109 (talk) 07:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

"Ceres"

The usage and primary topic of Ceres is under discussion, see talk:Ceres (dwarf planet) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Mars navigation template

In my opinion, Mars could have had better navigation templates. Input is welcome at Template talk:Mars --Njardarlogar (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Merge discussion at Talk:Life on Europa

There is a discussion at Talk:Life on Europa about whether to merge Life on Europa into Europa (moon) that could use some reasoned input to help establish consensus. A2soup (talk) 07:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Content discussion at Rosetta (spacecraft)

There is a discussion currently taking place upon the inclusion or removal of a section of content regarding this spacecraft. Your input is requested. Primefac (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

White House Astronomy Night

I've created a new article on White House Astronomy Night.

Suggestions for additional WP:RS sources would be appreciated, at Talk:White House Astronomy Night.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Enceladus

I have nominated Enceladus for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKay (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

discussion on the categorization of astronomical bodies at WP:AST

available here. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Time in a bottle

Following a request here, maybe somebody can help? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Venus

I have nominated Venus for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Anon 09:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Because you are listed as one of minor planet Sedna's wikiprojects

Minor planet 90377 Sedna > Sedna (minor planet) discussion taking place at Talk:90377_Sedna#Odd_name. Please join in if it catches your fancy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Minor Planet Lists and Other Lists - need context

Hi Solar System Folks.

I stumbled across one of your minor planets lists by accident and briefly at first thought it was a list of extra solar planets being discovered.

May I suggest you include a piece of text in all your lists, not just planet lists, at the top, could be a template of course, explaining which solar system the list refers to.

Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 08:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Climate change denial

There is a RfC at Talk:Climate change denial. Please contribute if you are interested. Biscuittin (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Now at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology. Biscuittin (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

AFD for pages describing Transits

A number of pages have been nominated for deletion; they are pages that describe the "Transit of X from Y". Please feel free to discuss these nominations at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transit of Venus from Uranus. Primefac (talk) 05:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Assistance

I resolved some of the issues/added information for the pages Jupiter, Europa, and especially List of quadrangles on Europa. The last one was orphaned and did not have many links to other articles. I added a link from "Europa" and Quadrangles to it, and linked it to Jupiter. Just thought I'd let everyone know. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two Inch Man (talk • contribs) 02:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Solar System banner inconsistencies on Minor Planet talk pages

I haven't seen much consistency when it comes to the placement of the {{WikiProject Solar System}} banner on MP articles and #Rs. Some have it, some don't. Some that have it omit the |class= and |importance= parameters. And some that do list parameters leave |importance= blank (i.e. Talk:(343158) 2009 HC82). These could very well have been placed/omitted intentionally. If they were not, however, I'd like to standardize them across the MP pages in a "lowest common denominator" sort of way: like by placing the banner on all MPs without listing any parameters, or with blank parameters. I await further instructions.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It's fine to place the empty template on those talk pages. Most of the time when class and importance are left blank it is because the editor doesn't know how to appropriate categorize the article. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

As far as importance ratings go, I'll check for an existing {{WPAstro}} and use its importance rating on {{WPSS}}. Otherwise, I'll just add an empty {{WikiProject Solar System|class=<class>|importance=Low}}.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Tom.Reding, it isn't really a bad thing to leave the parameters blank. Doing so sorts them into Category:Unassessed Solar System articles of Unknown-importance and Category:Unknown-importance Solar System articles, so knowledgeable editors can properly sort them later. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Huntster, I see. Before doing so I must say that there're ~22,000 MP pages (mostly #Rs) which aren't tagged with {{WPSS}}, so those unassessed cats will become quite backlogged. As long as this is the desired effect, I'm ok with it. As an alternative, though, would you rather I assign class & Low importance to the #Rs only, and leave the parameters blank for articles, or simply leave all new banners blank for all pages, as originally indicated?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Tom.Reding, well, I learned something new. For redirects, use {{WikiProject Solar System|class=redirect}} with no importance set (it will automatically assign to "NA"). See Talk:Pluto (dwarf planet) for example. Seems to me that's the best way to handle those. For actual articles, including the parameters but leaving them blank seems appropriate, though you're certainly welcome to assess the articles for the ones you're comfortable with. I admit I got out of the classification business a very long time ago, which is why I forgot that the Redirect param existed. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Huntster, yes there is a certain amount of automation built into these banners which I haven't really explored in detail until just now, either. Apparently, {{WPSS}} will even auto-classify #Rs, but not non-#Rs. Because of this, #Rs are able to be auto-assessed as Low if |class is omitted, null, or |class=Redirect. This definitely seems like the best solution ({{WPSS}} without parameters, or {{WPSS}} with null parameters (I'll go with this, the latter)) for all pages, since they will only automatically populate the unassessed/unknown-importance categories if/when they are turned into articles, not while they are #Rs. Doing so will not produce a hefty backlog, which I incorrectly assumed above and have now struck.

If Since {{WPAstro}} behaves the same way, I'll format them similarly to {{WPSS}} for #Rs.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Tom.Reding, I'm sure you will, but for redundancy sake, try a short run of redirects to make sure the behaviour is consistent and that they do properly auto-populate as expected. I love our templates, but you know they sometimes react in weird ways. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Will do (as usual).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Solar system task force

I have proposed to make WikiProject Solar System into a task force of WikiProject Astronomical objects. You can join the discussion here. MartinZ02 (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

That would only seem to make sense if doing so would provide some tangible benefit to WikiProject Solar System. Otherwise it's an unnecessary change. Praemonitus (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Addition of centaurs to File:Euler diagram of solar system bodies.svg

Discussion at WT:ASTRO#Addition of centaurs to File:Euler diagram of solar system bodies.svg.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

"Mercury"

The usage and primary topic of "Mercury" is under discussion, see Talk:Mercury (planet) -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect date in table Future Transits of Mercury

The last date in the table is 2008 May 12. This date is not a future date as are the others. This maybe was meant to read 2108 May 12? Dream7184 (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)dream7184

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that History of the constellations, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

request review of 12P/Pons-Brooks

I have overhauled the 12P/Pons-Brooks comet article based on a Korean journal from 2007. The wiki article is currently marked "start-class" but it's much more than that now. I am not in this WikiProject, since the Solar System isn't my main focus, so I'm putting it to the group...

I refer to Korean, Chinese, and Vietnamese sources here. I am neither Korean, Chinese, nor Vietnamese and I speak none of these languages. (I used secondary sources and squinted at least one star chart.) So if we have any readers of any of these languages, there is much room in the article for improvement. Also, I'm sure they'd love to read translations of this new page in their own Wikipedia sites.

--Zimriel (talk) 01:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Ganymede Lander/Laplas-P mission

Hello,

I've created a new section about naming issues of an upcoming mission about Ganymede. You can answer here. — Foldo ^(talk) 18:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feldo (talk • contribs)

Notice about adminship to participants at this project

Many participants here create a lot of content, may have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

(2060) 95P/Chiron (1977 UB)

Does anyone have photos for Chiron? Commons doesn't have that, and neither does our article 2060 Chiron (there's an artist's impression in the infobox)

I seem to recall it was photographed by HST before, but I can't find those.

-- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 07:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Solar System/Archive 2/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Solar System.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Solar System, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Mars Tectonics

Interesting article, virtually all by one author and parts read like an essay. Doug Weller talk 10:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Rename discussion at Geyser (Mars)

A rename discussion is underway at Geyser (Mars), proposing that both Geyser (Mars) and Gully (Mars) be renamed Martian Geysers and Martian Gullies, respectively. The discussion could benefit from additional eyes. DanHobley (talk) 09:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

List of people with craters of the Moon named after them and List of craters on Mars named after people

The discussion at Talk:List of people with craters of the Moon named after them#Requested move 28 September 2017 regarding proposed renaming of the two main headers listed above, may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 15:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

List of craters on Mars named after people

The discussion at Talk:List of craters on Mars named after people#Requested move 28 October 2017 regarding proposed renaming of the main header listed above, may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 01:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Change in sunspot numbers

There is a discussion that has been started at Talk:Solar cycle 2, and your input is requested. It involves a change made to the sunspot numbers. Primefac (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

JPL Horizons an unreliable source

There is a discussion going on at Talk:ʻOumuamua#Is the Inbound Velocity table original research? to prevent the use of JPL Horizons to compute anything on Wikipedia. This action could do serious harm to the computation of the orbital period of Oort Cloud comets. For Oort cloud comets the orbit *MUST* be computed at epochs when the comet is outside the planetary region (say epoch 1950 and epoch 2050). A generic link to the JPL Small-Body Database or the Minor Planet Center will be unreliable as it will be defined while inside the planetary system, near perihelion, as a generic one-size-fits-all solution. Perhaps most the important section is the Threaded discussion were it looks like someone is trying to create a Wiki-wide policy. -- Kheider (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Uranus jokes

We have nothing about jokes about Uranus anywhere on Wikipedia, except for the Uranus in fiction entry about the planet being renamed “Urectum” and a role in the Captain Underpants series. Per “anus”, this would clearly be toilet humor. This issue has also been raised at WikiProject Comedy. 165.91.12.97 (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Uranus#In culture mentions this cliché. More detail could go into an article about astronomical tropes. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, I added the info to Toilet humour. 108.210.217.202 (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Please come and help...

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet) in fiction#Requested move 29 December 2017, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Your opinion and rationale are needed so a decision can be made. Thank you and Happy New Year to All!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  06:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Change of source for number of comets & minor planets/asteroids for Solar System

A proposal to change the source for number of comets & minor planets/asteroids for the article Solar System is placed at Talk:Solar_System#Change_of_source_for_number_of_comets_&_minor_planets/asteroids. Request comments on the topic please. AshLin (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Entire 'Minor planets by source of name' category tree at CfD

@ Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 26#Minor planets by source of name.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)