Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28→Archive 30

Distance of galaxies

@AlphaBetaGamma01: has created quite a few articles on galaxies, but what struck me was the very high precision in the distance to these galaxies. NGC 320 is "253.085 million light years away", NGC 319 is "318.907 million light years away", and so on (I think it starts at NGC 270, his older articles at first glance don't have the distance). I was not aware that we could measure the distance to other galaxies with a precision of 1000 light years, and most other sources gives distances with a precision of +- 5 million light year instead. The sources in the articles at first glance don't contain these distances either. Opinions? Fram (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

There have been a whole bunch of NGC stubs created recently by semi-automated copying of data from external databases. The distance is apparently calculated from a redshift value and of course the accuracy is nowhere near the precision quoted. I've been slapped down before for questioning the value of this mass creation effort, so this is just my personal opinion. Lithopsian (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, there's no way the distances are known that precisely. Sounds like an automated calculation is ignoring uncertainty at some stage (mostly likely the uncertainty on the Hubble constant). I notice that these distances do not give a reference, or specify which of the distance measures in cosmology they are using. Just as a comparison, the NED entry for NGC 320 gives Hubble flow distances from 71-76 Mpc, all with uncertainties of 5 Mpc or so, and no redshift-independent distances at all. Even that's probably an underestimate, as it assumes a cosmology. @AlphaBetaGamma01: should stop this false precision and ensure that references are given for any quoted distance. Modest Genius talk 13:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The listed value for NGC 320 corresponds to 77.6 Mpc, which doesn't appear on the NED page. Possibly then it is a typo, or OR. Praemonitus (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Using {{convert}} would also help. Modest Genius talk 17:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Does NGC 320 even meet NASTRO? I completely agree with the above (that unusually precise information should be double-checked), but I think we might need to seriously consider if this information is worth having in standalone articles, especially if it more-or-less duplicates the information found in List of NGC objects and related lists. Primefac (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
There are a few scholarly ghits that make mention of it, so it could be marginally notable in the sense of satisfying WP:GNG. Importance-wise, it appears to be scrapping the bottom of the barrel. Praemonitus (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Annoyingly, WP:NASTCRIT criterion #2 explicitly states that inclusion of an object in the NGC is sufficient to pass NASTRO. I'm not convinced that's a good idea, but it's the current guideline. Modest Genius talk 11:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
And there's your problem right there. Only another 13,000 meaningless stubs to go ... Lithopsian (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Ugh. I guess, at the very least, they should be accurate stubs. Going to be a pain to go through them all. Primefac (talk)
There are about 8k objects with an NGC number (if we exclude the IC), and 9k with HR numbers, so I suppose it roughly balances the number of stars and galaxies with automatic notability. There's a bit better justification for HR, given that they're at least visible to the naked eye, but personally I wouldn't have given either of them a free pass. Modest Genius talk 11:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
It's not really a free pass, only a lower likelihood of needing to be challenged. At any rate, perhaps it's still helpful in terms of incentivizing the focus on objects that are more likely to have substantial sources. Praemonitus (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I've been making my way across a few pages, with a recent focus on trying to make some nice, up-to-date images and figures for articles within my expertise. I came across the gallery of the Swedish Solar Telescope, which includes some outstanding high-resolution images and videos of the solar surface, arguably better than what can be achieved using NASA material (which is usually public domain) from e.g. SDO. I'm wondering if anyone knows if their current "license" is suitable for Wikipedia/Wikicommons. It reads:

The images and movies found here are free for publication provided that proper credits are given.

Credits

Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all images were observed with the Swedish 1-m Solar Telescope (SST). The SST is operated on the island of La Palma by the Institute for Solar Physics in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias.

The Institute for Solar Physics is a national research infrastructure under the Swedish Research Council. It is managed as an independent institute associated with Stockholm University through its Department of Astronomy.

Please credit the telescope and the Institute for Solar Physics as well as the observers for the individual images. Observers come from our own staff as well as from many visiting groups.

If not acceptable as is, I'm happy to contact the people who maintain the gallery to ask about Wiki-friendly things that could be done. (I can think of several options.) Also, if there's another forum where I should ask, let me know. Warrickball (talk) 08:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

We also need explicit permission to allow derivatives. You can ask them to license content under a CC-BY-SA-4.0 license. (or CC-BY-4.0)Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The 4.0 license would only be necessary if it were on Commons. If it were uploaded as fair use for that specific article, then it would stay on Wikipedia itself with the proper disclaimers/attribution. Primefac (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The problem with that is whether or not an individual image cannot be freely sourced elsewhere. Even if the SST image were vastly superior, an inferior (even vastly inferior) public domain image from Hubble or any of the myriad other sources available would have to be used and would invalidate any fair use claim. So, don't think about mass uploading material from the SST site...any image used would have to be carefully checked to ensure no alternative is available or could be made available. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for all the quick responses. I'm slowly coming to understand what Wikipedia requires as far as the imagery goes. I interpret the spirit of their credits page as being similar to CC-BY but I'll get in touch with them to see if (a) they are happy to change the license themselves or (b) if they could upload material to Wikicommons themselves, and declare it CC-BY there. I won't upload anything until it's very clear that the license is suitable.Warrickball (talk) 08:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Warrickball, if they change things on their own website that would be great, but uploading to Commons themselves could be problematic since there's no good way of verifying the identity of the uploader. Rather, they could submit a ticket through our OTRS system from a verifiable email address noting that a specific user account was authorised. Or, better yet, they could do as SpaceX did and submit a ticket stating that images located in specific locations are licensed a certain way, and a license template could then be developed. There's a bit more to it, but the OTRS page should give you a very good idea of how to proceed. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
So, Huntster, would it suffice for them to say on their credits page that the images and movies are released under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA? I can see how the OTRS works for single files but I'm not sure how it's going to make it easy to upload anything any user finds in the SST gallery. The extra spanner is that I suspect some credit is due to the original observer, and it might be difficult to track each individual down... Warrickball (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Warrickball, sorry for the response delay, got super busy at work. If they don't have an issue with a blanket declaration for the existing images on their site, then yes, they could easily just add a line to that "Image and movie galleries" page stating which license should be applied. However, they may not feel comfortable with blanket declarations. As an alternative, they could leave existing material alone (aka not freely licensed) and simply apply individual licenses to new images moving forward. This allows them to go back to old images and selectively license them...or not, if they don't have the time to do so. (edit, this really shouldn't be too hard, as I just realised their last update was in 2010 and there aren't that many released images in the gallery.) Make sense? — Huntster (t @ c) 21:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Huntster, thanks for the explainer, and no need to apologise! I'll see which option suits them best. Thanks again for all the input. Warrickball (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Free bibcodes

BTW, as of last week, we can now flag free bibcodes (and other identifiers) with |bibcode-access=free. This should be used when the ADSABS database has a free full version hosted on it, and will display a green lock next to the bibcode to tell readers they can freely access a full version. See Urca process for an example of where this is used.

See also The Signpost article on the topic and two relevant RFCs. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

What if a version is available from arXiv? (The ADS info page sometimes has links to an arXiv page if one is available) -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 07:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
If you add the arXiv entry to the citation template, then the arXiv link appears with the green lock to indicate open access. Warrickball (talk) 08:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Seems reasonable if its kept up to date. Are these automatically flagged as free whenever ADS itself marks them as free (i.e. links in green)? If not, is that something User:Bibcode Bot could do? Modest Genius talk 12:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
It is something bibcode bot could do, if I can find a way to revive it. The bot broke after an API update. This also works for other free identifiers (like |doi-access=free), but those can't be detected by bibcode bot. User:OAbot however, should be able to help there. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Would the bot scrape the ADS page for free access links? If so, would it then be able to add arXiv links found on the ADS pages to the citations? (obviously, assuming the bot can be revived) -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
That's what Bibcode Bot did, adding arxiv/bibcode/doi based on the adsabs database. If revived, that's what it would do again, but I'd also try to update it to flag free bibcodes. Won't be possible to flag free dois/other identifiers with Bibcode bot however, since it only draws from the ADSABS database. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't realise that Bibcode Bot was down. That's a shame, it was very useful. It does rather demonstrate the dangers of relying on bots to maintain these lock icons. Modest Genius talk 15:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Celestial longitude

I would like to ask for comments on or replies to Talk:Celestial longitude#Content of this article. Thanks. Iceblock (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Cleaning up fringe astronomy topics

Redshift quantization was recently significantly modified by User:Watchman21. It did need a cleanup, but it now reads as if this were an active topic of research, and cites several recent very fringe papers that have basically no citations. I rephrased the end of intro to more strongly make it clear the status of the topic, but does someone with more time want to clear up the rest of it per WP:FRINGE? There are some other fringe astronomy articles that could use a similar pruning to better reflect their actual status. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Comets in China

There is a deletion discussion pertaining to Comet appearances in china. Your input is requested here. Primefac (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikimedia blog post on supermoon

I was contacted by the Wikimedia communications team, asking for comment on the recent interest in our supermoon article. The resulting blog post may be of interest to members of this project. Modest Genius talk 17:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Exoplanet

Exoplanet is at Featured Article Review - Wikipedia:Featured article review/Exoplanet/archive1 - if folks can improve it or comment on its suitability please do so. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks to User:Mark viking and User talk:70.51.45.100 for the response to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy/Archive_23#Radiation_laws_-_template!

I have created Template:Blackbody radiation laws. Iceblock (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

It looks good, thank you. --Mark viking (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

constellations at GAN

Corvus and Apus are at GAN, if anyone is interested in reviewing them...cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 26 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Planetary Studies Foundation

I put the Planetary Studies Foundation article up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planetary Studies Foundation after a contested prod. I'm a bit conflicted about this one, because there's a good claim of notability (one of the top meteorite collections), but I can't find sources to back that up. I'd hate to have the article deleted just because I missed valid sources, so if anyone can weigh in on it one way of the other I'd be grateful.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Circumpolar stars illustration

Has anybody ran across a suitably licensed illustration similar to the second image on this site: https://www.quora.com/What-are-circumpolar-constellations? I think it would be useful for communicating the concept of circumpolar constellations in a simple manner. I checked the Commons but didn't see anything like that. Perhaps I missed one? Praemonitus (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

"deg" in the names of celestial bodies

I've started a redirect discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016_December_24#BD +20deg307 about a redirect (BD +20deg307) to BD +20°307. To give some background, this was created by User:Eubot, which in 2008 created around a hundred thousand redirects which were simply substituting non-ASCII characters for ASCII ones, such as "ö" to "oe" (not helpful if the original was not a Germanic umlaut, such as in Turkish or Hungarian) and in this case replacing "°" with "deg". I see from the article that it is sometimes called just "BD 20307" and there are redirects of various kinds with "+" and spaces fore and aft. I am just not familiar with astronomical nomenclature so I am wondering if this (and any other on the same pattern) would be valid or nonsense. I'd appreciate your views over at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016_December_24#BD +20deg307. Si Trew (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

{{Infobox open cluster}} proposed merge with {{Infobox astronomical object}}

@ Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 December 25#Template:Infobox open cluster.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Vela Supercluster

I've already created what seems to be an interesting topic, the Vela Supercluster. I found out afterwards that a draft has been created, but it is poorly constructed and I think my version is way better. If you would like to contribute even further, please do. There is a reference already in arXiv along with other news articles. Thanks! SkyFlubbler (talk) 04:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Cool. I've left a note on the draft page so folks know to edit the article. Primefac (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Infobox astronomical survey

I just noticed {{Infobox astronomical survey}} being placed on a ton of surveys by Mike Peel. It's apparently pulling info from Wikidata to populate it, but on pages like Messier object (permanent link) it just throws in an ugly box. Should we wait until the wikidata is better populated before using this? Is it even necessary (i.e. do we need an IB on survey pages)? Primefac (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so in looking through a few more, pages like The Dark Energy Survey actually have it as a decent infobox. Still, I don't think this should just be wantonly thrown around unless it's actually useful. Primefac (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Yup, I've just added it to the survey articles that I could find. I was surprised that there were so many that didn't already have one! It's easy to expand the content on Wikidata, so I'd prefer it if we did that rather than removing them - plus as Wikidata is multilingual, if we're lucky then someone from another language Wikipedia will come along and add the data for us. ;-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
The infobox at Messier object is now rather more complete. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Notable?

Giuseppe Conzo's observatory In ictu oculi (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Doing a quick search suggests that Giuseppe Conzo is notable, so this coulod become part of a new page (move?) on the astronomer. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
The article is rather promotional, and I don't see any reason why the article should stick around. As for Graeme Bartlett's suggestion - no point in moving, as there really isn't much information on Conzo in there. Might as well just start something fresh. Primefac (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I can't assess whether he's notable. But if he is there might be some merit in preserving the page history all in one place by moving it, then blanking out and changing to a BLP? I leave this to those who know something about astronomy. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Looks like a case for {{db-advert}} to be honest. A quick search suggests the man himself isn't notable either - no publications and no media sources about him, just some postings of images he processed (didn't even take). Modest Genius talk 11:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I have WP:PRODed the article. Modest Genius talk 22:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Alpha Centauri → Rigil Kentaurus

So I just found out that several days ago that the IAU officially recognizes the name "Rigil Kentaurus" for Alpha Centauri. If true, this would be a major move.

Here is one link to a news website: http://www.space.com/34835-alpha-centauri-new-star-names.html

Along with it is 227 star names, I think, which someone must search of. I would request a move at Talk:Alpha Centauri. SkyFlubbler (talk) 07:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, here is the 227 star names approved as of December November 24:

https://www.iau.org/public/themes/naming_stars/

SkyFlubbler (talk) 07:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be true: IAU announcement, list of names (both were linked to in the space.com article). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

So I think there would be massive moving in here? Because IAU says before it they only approved 14 star names. So 227 - 14 = 212 moves of star articles here? SkyFlubbler (talk) 08:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Rigil Kentaurus and Toliman have been old proper names for it anyway, so nothing has really changed. 99% of occurrences will still be for Alpha Centauri. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm reading the list wrong, but isn't "Rigil Kentaurus" the approved name only or Alpha Centauri A, just as "Proxima Centauri" is for Alpha Centauri C? (As a random aside, I find it interesting that SIMBAD only recognizes "Rigel Kentaurus"...) — Huntster (t @ c) 10:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that is covered by WP:COMMONNAME. I'm fairly sure the current most commonly used name is Alpha Centauri. ("Alpha Centauri" gets 502,000 ghits; "Rigel Kentaurus" 19,100.) When that changes, we should move the article. Praemonitus (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Of course, and that was my statement in the !vote. My point above is that, according to my reading, renaming the whole article regardless seems inappropriate since the IAU list only applies to the individual stars, not to the system as a whole, which is what the overall article is about. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Technically, the IAU-approved proper name applies only to the primary component of the star system involved, even when not explicitly specified in the published list. And even in cases of telescopic or spectroscopic binaries. It isn't clear just how common that usage will become, but it would put a crimp on renaming articles that address multiple components in a single article. Lithopsian (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. COMMONNAME for the system overrides any approved list for names of individual stars within that system. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Many edits have been made already. The vast majority (all?) of the listed names have been described in the relevant articles and in most lists where the stars occur. No mass renaming, not least for the reasons already discussed. See List of proper names of stars for a starting point if you'd like to make more edits relating to this. There is even an article about the WGSN itself. Lithopsian (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

All this IAU decision does is convey official recognition to already-existing proper names. Existing designations are still valid. Nothing needs to move, unless and until common usage changes per WP:COMMONNAME. It's fine to mention the IAU-approved proper name in the article (the vast majority already do so), and add redirects, but nothing more needs to be done. Modest Genius talk 22:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Odd eclipse page

I stumbled across Historically significant solar eclipses, which has two main issues. First, the entries are all found on the various Lists of solar eclipses; second, none of the entries say why they're historically significant. For the latter, some of them have "references" (the 585BC listing "stopped a battle" according to the sources), but only a very small number. I guess the other is what constitutes "significant"; the simple act of recording an eclipse doesn't really make it significant, which is what most of the sources are. Is this worth redirecting to the aforementioned lists, or is there the possibility that it could be turned into something useful? Primefac (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Despite the title, it looks like the inclusion criteria are a) occurred before 424 BC and b) observations were recorded. Whilst those are objective criteria, it's unclear why 424 BC is chosen. Merging the entries into the List of solar eclipses in antiquity would seem to be the sensible course of action, although that list itself has only nebulous inclusion criteria. Oddly most of the dates on the two lists don't line up, and User talk:Muhammad Umair Mirza has several complaints about invalid dates being added to articles, so it might be worth checking other sources. Modest Genius talk 13:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
PS. The other lists of BC eclipses by century are just calculations, without any evidence that anyone actually saw them. There's value in having a list of observed eclipses in antiquity, hence List of solar eclipses in antiquity. Modest Genius talk 13:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Merger proposed. Primefac (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Rosetta orbits

I came across rosetta (orbit) and thought I'd expand it a bit with some references and background information. However, now that I'm starting to flesh out a new version, it seems like a lot of the "how" is covered in other places (here, there, and everywhere).

At the moment, there aren't any wikilinks to the page, making me question its necessity. Before I get too stuck into the rewrite, I thought I'd get opinions on whether this page should stay as it is and be little more than a "this is what this orbit is called" definition-style article, or should it actually go into the theoretical and mathematical reasons why this orbit arises? Primefac (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that stars follow non-closed rosette type orbits within a cluster, and that clusters follow non-closed rosette type orbits through the galaxy. Is that the same thing as a rosetta orbit? Note also that there is a Klemperer rosette article. Praemonitus (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Ditch it. Or at least redirect it. Rosette orbit is already a redirect to Klemperer rosette. Rosetta seems to be a typo or mis-translation that crops up occasionally. Lithopsian (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The topic of non-Keplerian orbits could stand some more coverage on the orbit article. For example, the box orbit and the horseshoe orbit. Or perhaps have a Non-Keplerian orbit article to complement Kepler orbit? Praemonitus (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Seems like the whole thing could use an eyeball on it. Once I get a chance I'll take a look and see what could possibly be done overall. Primefac (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Missing topics list

My list of missing astronomy topics is updated - Skysmith (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I've added a bunch of redirects, before again running out of steam. Modest Genius talk 16:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, if anybody wants to help with infoboxes/starboxes, I've added a bunch of articles to Category:Astronomy articles needing infoboxes. Loooke (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Merging infoboxes on individual types of objects to Template:Infobox astronomical object?

Hi all. I've been working on wikidata-ifying astronomical infobox templates (e.g., see the use of Template:Infobox telescope at South Pole Telescope), and am starting to work on the astronomical object templates/articles. We currently have different infoboxes for each type of astronomical object (see Category:Astronomy infobox templates / below), which seems rather excessive given that a lot of the parameters are the same across all of them. It would be a lot simpler if we have fewer templates, and just display the object type in the infobox. As such, I think it would be worth merging the following templates into Template:Infobox astronomical object:

An exception is Template:Infobox star as that's rather more complicated. I suspect this should remain separate for now, but I think the overly-complicated starbox system should be deprecated and merged into this (if possible - I need to investigate this in detail). I haven't looked at the extragalactic templates in detail yet, but if they are more difficult to reconcile with the parameters for the Galactic object infoboxes then we could have Template:Infobox extragalactic object instead. Other templates on moving objects, such as Template:Infobox comet, might be better in a Template:Solar system object template - but I think that's something for further in the future.

BTW, we have Template:Infobox astronomical event (mostly wikidata-enabled), and I've merged Template:Infobox gamma-ray burst and Template:Infobox supernova into this, which seems to be working well, although some of the supernova are actually remnants so should have the 'object' infobox in the future.

Thought/comments? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you risk making use and maintenance of the templates too complicated if you try to combine too many types. We should have one template for large associations (galaxies, clusters, &c.), another for stellar systems, and a third for non-stellar objects (planets, moons, minor planets, &c.) Praemonitus (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether we need to have one for large associations, but that's a possibility; I agree with the other two. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes it is too confusing to combine everything into a super template. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Why would it be any more confusing to have one template than it is to have 8? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Large templates tend to have a lot of parameters, so it takes longer to figure out which ones to use and what combinations are allowed. For a busy editor, this is a disadvantage. Praemonitus (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Then do what {{Infobox ship begin}} does and, in the /doc page, lay out code for specific types of objects so end-users can simply copy/paste. It isn't that hard. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
The {{citation}} template is nicely documented, but that doesn't make it easy to use. I'm not seeing any benefit for editors with this proposal. Praemonitus (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
It cannot get much easier than laying out specific template usages for different cases. If we're saying that is too complicated for end users, then what have we been doing with any of the infoboxes all these years? Having over-arching templates like the one proposed enables easier maintenance and standardisation of appearance, and is essentially a one-stop shop for which infobox template should be used in a given case. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, once you merged the mass of templates together into a giant blob of hideous tangled formatting, you probably can't make it any "easier" for editors to use. What it does do though is take extra time for the editor to use, and hopefully once they've wasted enough time doing that they'll be able to use the template. I won't believe that is an improvement, as, for example, I still have issues with the citation template in certain situations. I also don't believe that merging templates together makes them easier to maintain; you've gone from a modular concept to a bloated mass of code, which is considered bad practice in the programming world. At best, your documentation is trying to turn it back into a modular-looking situation, but you could do that more simply through proper documentation of the current templates. But I can see you really want to spend time on these types of meta-activities, so go for it. I'll get out of the way. Praemonitus (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Praemonitus, hey, I'm not trying to dissuade you from discussion! I simply don't understand the argument. I don't understand the "giant blob of hideous tangled formatting"...it's just a list of parameters (there needn't be anything tangled there as opposed to any other infobox), and the /doc page lays out which parameters are most appropriate for a given situation. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, you all made valid points, but don't you guys think this needs a proper analysis (e.g. a quantitative assessment) before any meaningful conclusion can be drawn by folks like me that are not experts on these articles?

Mike Peel, I think initiative should always be supported. Wikipedia needs people like you. However, there are about 1,500 transclusions of these templates. What if people give you a go-ahead for a proposed merger, but then just walk away after voting? Would you be prepared to go all the way, even if unexpected complications require extra work? How many of these nebula/galaxy/quasar articles have you been working on so far? Rfassbind – talk 06:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Rfassbind: That's a lot fewer transclusions than I was expecting! Given that there's around 34,000 astronomical object articles, I was expecting the transclusions here to be around the 10k mark (although a lot of those articles are for solar system objects). The way I'd do the merge would mean that the existing articles wouldn't need to be updated immediately - the existing template calls would be redirected to infobox astronomical object, and all of the existing parameters would be supported. Adding Wikidata support for those parameters would then increase the content in the infoboxes as their Wikidata entries are expanded (working with all other language editions of the articles, rather than duplicating effort adding the information in each language); it would also be easier to add the infobox to more articles by using Wikidata information from the start (as I've been doing with Template:Infobox astronomical survey, mentioned in a section above this).
I don't expect that this will all be done immediately: it's been just over a decade since I started working on astronomical infoboxes (e.g., [1]), so this is quite a long-term project for me. (Sorry for my absence here in the meantime - I got distracted by the organisational side of Wikimedia, but am focusing back on content now.)
I was trying to simplify the infoboxes, e.g. so that the same infobox is used in Messier 1 as in Messier 2, etc., and so that there isn't a mass of wikitext at the top of each article to create the infobox, instead letting us use the form structure at Wikidata. However, if merging them will actually make them more difficult to use (as @Graeme Bartlett and Praemonitus say), then let's leave them where they are and I can enable Wikidata in each of them separately. That will take me a bit more time, as the same change will have to be made in each different infobox, but they'll still be using the same Wikidata properties so it's only a complication on this end. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Mike Peel, I really do appreciate your initiative. However, just because Messier didn't know the difference between a supernova remnant and a globular cluster doesn't mean that all Messier objects should be lumped into a template "fuzzy objects". Don't you think? Comparing {{Infobox nebula}} with {{Infobox galaxy}} (which is not sufficiently documented) I find various differences including used parameters, used values and units, labels, links on labels, and order of parameters. I really start to have doubts about your endeavor after comparing only 2 of 6 proposed template-mergers. Excuse me if I'm wrong, but I think you need to get more familiar with the current status of all astronomical object articles on Wikipedia, before suggesting fundamental changes. For example, you also suggested the creation of a single template for "Solar System objects", which would be the final overkill, after {{Infobox planet}} has already suffered from merging planets, exoplanets and minor planets into one single template. As for the 34,000 objects you mentioned, the majority does not use any (infobox) templates, as they are redirects (mostly of named minor planets), something that is rather obvious, don't you think? Best, Rfassbind – talk 16:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello everyone (I'm kind of late to this conversation, am I?) I agree with Praemonitus and and Rfassbind that this change would make things harder for editors in general. I think the astronomical objects are just too different and varied to be under a single infobox. I like the current system in that it color-codes different objects; putting the objects under one template would make them look all the same. Now, you could try to change the template so that the colors and appearances are different for each type of object, but then that would sort of defeat the purpose of putting them under one template.
P.S. @Mike Peel: I noticed you were quietly changing some of the open cluster templates to {{Infobox astronomical object}} - maybe we should wait till we have a better consensus on this? Loooke (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: Alright my last post was kind of dumb, now I kind of understand what Wikidata is now. I'd prefer it if you enabled Wikidata in them separately, even if it might make more time. I'm not a fan of merging the templates just for the sake of Wikidata-ing the templates. Thanks, Loooke (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, given the feedback I won't merge the templates (or convert any to astronomical object - @Loooke, I only converted a few at the start to test the code, and none since this discussion started), but I will continue to wikidata-ify them individually. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Input requested at Superluminous Supernova

Hi all. Extra input on the SLSNe talk page would be appreciated, particularly in regards to whether it should be in the same article as Hypernovae, or if they are distinct objects. Sam Walton (talk) 11:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

NGC 3198

I've expanded NGC 3198 a little by adding the discovery data, such as there is. It's still only 27 words, though, probably too short to be upgraded from a stub. --Thnidu (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Good stuff. Unfortunately, many astronomical objects will remain permanent stubs; not for lack of trying, but simply because there isn't much detail about them. Primefac (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Whilst that is generally true, this particular galaxy has had several detailed individual studies [2]. Modest Genius talk 16:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Good to know. My comment was meant to be more general (especially since it appears I slightly misread the OP), so it's nice to see that's not the case in this instance. Primefac (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
And a reference too! If just two or three more people added a cited sentence, it would be more than a stub. For example, there have been at least two supernovae found in NGC 3198, studies of extraplanar gas and the dark mass distribution, and a study a Cepheids. Lithopsian (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science promotion

The WikiJournal of Science is a start-up academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's scientific content. It is part of a WikiJournal User Group that includes the flagship WikiJournal of Medicine.[1][2]. Like Wiki.J.Med, it intends to bridge the academia-Wikipedia gap by encouraging contributions by non-Wikipedians, and by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia.

Since it is just starting out, it is looking for contributors in two main areas:

Editors

  • See submissions through external academic peer review
  • Format accepted articles
  • Promote the journal

Authors

  • Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start
  • Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analagous to GA / FA review)
  • Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram

If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.

  1. ^ Shafee, T; Das, D; Masukume, G; Häggström, M (2017). "WikiJournal of Medicine, the first Wikipedia-integrated academic journal". WikiJournal of Medicine. 4. doi:10.15347/wjm/2017.001.
  2. ^ "Wikiversity Journal: A new user group". The Signpost. 2016-06-15.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 10:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I have a problem with this statement: "by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia". While I'm pro science, I don't want to see this effort become overly aggressive and start removing (or excluding) neutral and well sourced content that goes contrary to the current scientific doctrine. An example might be the Alvarez hypothesis, which was initially labelled "some kind of scam". Praemonitus (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the motivation here. In what sense is it a scientific journal? If it isn't one, then the name is highly inappropriate. What service does it provide that isn't already covered by WP:peer review or WP:GA? Modest Genius talk 11:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
As I understand it, the basic idea is to publish review articles that also make good Wikipedia articles. It is a way to get external peer review of content and academic credit for the hard work the authors put into the review/article. We already do something like this with computational biology articles in collaboration with PLoS. See for instance, PLoS Topic Pages for the general approach and Transcriptomics for an example draft article. --Mark viking (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Corvus (constellation)

...is at FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Corvus (constellation)/archive1 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Point particle talk page discussion

There is a discussion taking place here: [3]. This is what it is about: An editor removed the infobox on this page [4] saying " removed figure ((Standard model|cTopic=Background)) which is not a good fit for the topic and content of this article". I reverted [5] with an explanation "Restore image and infobox - this exactly fits with this article. Please open a discussion on the talk page if you still disagree before removing this - thanks".

I was unaware the editor opened a discussion on this on January 20th. Had I known I would have posted here sooner, and responded there sooner. Anyway, hopefully project members will chime in over there. It would be very much appreciated. I mean, I might be wrong about this. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a particle physics topic, not astronomy, so you'll likely get a better response at WT:PHYSICS (which I see you also posted this on). Modest Genius talk 15:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

AfD Pronunciation of Trojan asteroid names

The following articles has been nominated for deletion:

Best, Rfassbind – talk 13:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Hello,
Please note that Astronomical object, 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 00:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Redirect checking

A user has recently created some redirects of a questionable nature, some of which are in this project's purview. Please join in the conversation here. Primefac (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Changes to Template:Starbox character

Don't know how many people watch WT:ASTRO, but there's a discussion currently going on about potential changes to {{starbox character}}. Please join in the conversation. Primefac (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Shortcuts,_revisited

There is currently and RFC on what do do with the shortcuts used for the chemistry-related projects. Please comment. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Artist's impressions

Is there any guidance on the use of artist's impressions for astronomical bodies? I had a feeling that it was considered a bad idea to use an artist's impression as the lead image, but I could be wrong. SpinningSpark 16:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

See WP:ASTROART. —MartinZ02 (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
That's a useful page, but wasn't mentioned on WP:AST. I've added it to the sidebar. Modest Genius talk 18:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Redirects for deletion

I've submitted a number of redirects of star designations to be deleted. I should think they would be obvious to any astronomer, but maybe confusing to others. Typically these are things like A1 Capricorni → alpha1 Capricorni and U Booetis → Upsilon Boötis. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 11 and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 14. Many of these things were deleted in the past. There may be more, but I think I got the worst offenders. Lithopsian (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2017 (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)

CfD nomination of Category:SIPS objects

Category:SIPS objects has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Loooke (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

NASA Press Conference - 22 February

I don't know what this is, but this ought to be interesting, and cause a flurry of activity on Wikipedia. Figure I'd give the heads up so people can prepare. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I do know what this is. Certainly one or two articles will need updating; it might also result in an ITN nomination. That's probably about it. Modest Genius talk 11:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
No new article will be created because of it? That's a bit of a shame, but then again, I didn't really buy into the ALIENS and LIFE HAS BEEN FOUND!1!! mentality some corners of the internet have gone boinkers over it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Rumours are around. Maybe watch this article? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Now announced: Guardian, Paper. There are now seven known exoplanets around Trappist-1. I don't think enough is known about any of them individually to merit separate articles, though I suppose stubs could be created; they already exist for the three planets that were previously known. Modest Genius talk 18:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

TRAPPIST-1d update

As many of you may know, we recently just discovered a lot more about the TRAPPIST-1 system than we originally thought. The thing is one of the planets, TRAPPIST-1d, has been shown to have values vastly different to what was on that article. I have changed what values I can see, but the overall article needs attention from a whole bunch of more recent sources in order to be updated. Considering the current fame of this planetary system, I think it's reasonable Wikipedia should offer up-to-date information on it. Caelus5 (talk) 05:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Planetary systems by number of confirmed planets

Category:Planetary systems by number of confirmed planets has been nominated for deletion. As this is a subject that is becoming increasingly relevant (especially after the announcement on 22nd February of a third planetary system with seven planets, TRAPPIST-1), I want to encourage you to join the discussion. Eynar Oxartum (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I'm not much of an astronomy contributor, but I've been doing a bunch of work on hatnote templates, and recently created {{other stars by Bayer designation}} to standardize some hatnote messages away from using {{for2}}. {{For2}} is undesirable because it relies on custom text, which is bad for maintenance. When I see a pattern of pages using similar custom-text hatnotes like that I try to standardize them towards a new template instead.

I did an initial run through pages transcluding {{for2}} to convert similar messages to use {{other stars by Bayer designation}} instead, and converted around 120 pages. As part of that, I noticed in particular that some of the hatnotes read "other star systems […]" and some read "other stars […]" in their hatnote message. {{Other stars by Bayer designation}} uses "other stars". If people would prefer the "other star systems" messaging, then please edit the template. :)

Pinging Lithopsian as I noticed he did significant work to add or modify many of the hatnotes I converted. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 15:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I found out from one of your edits how to pipe in the standard hatnotes, so I'm unlikely to use for2/about2/etc. again for these cases. Is a separate hatnote to replace the Bayer designation hatnotes really helpful? I believe that all these cases can be edited to use only the {{for}} hatnote instead of {{for2}}. Some information that may be useful to the discussion: the number of these hatnotes is fixed and essentially complete, they're not making any more stars; there are similar but subtly different frequent hatnotes for example V343 Carinae, again a fixed population and largely complete in Wikipedia; there are a few about-distinguish2 hatnotes out there solely because of piping that can probably be converted to about-distinguish; the "other star systems ..." wording would be because the "other stars" may in fact be multiple stars. Some articles for people to compare: Pi3 Orionis, Pi4 Orionis, Zeta1 Antliae, Omega1 Aquarii. Lithopsian (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Starbox astrometry

The {{Starbox astrometry}} template was modified on March 2 to include entries for "Total velocity". Apparently this is a computed heliocentric velocity, which doesn't seem as useful as, say, a Peculiar velocity field. Any concerns? Praemonitus (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Smacks of original research. Can only be calculated by the editor, this piece of data just isn't routinely published. Lithopsian (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Split up List of exoplanets

Hello, WikiProject Astronomy. You have new messages at Talk:List_of_exoplanets#Split_apart.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have asked to split up List of exoplanets into sublists, for the discussion, see talk: List of exoplanets#Split apart -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Moved to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_exoplanets#Split_apart_.5B2017.5D

CfD: Category:Discoveries by institution proposed rename to Category:Search for astronomical objects

@ Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 11#Category:Discoveries by institution.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Capella

..is at FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Capella/archive1 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

March equinox/Vernal equinox

I'd appreciate comment at Talk:March equinox/Archives/2020#Name of article on whether "March equinox" is a term that reliable sources use and whether the term "vernal equinox" is only used to refer to the equinox that occurs in March in the northern hemisphere. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 19:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:CHEMISTRY/WP:CHEMICALS shorcut updated

Note that per this RFC, the shortcuts to WP:CHEMISTRY/WP:CHEMICALS have been updated.

Old discussions have had their shortcuts updated already. If I have made a mistake during an update, feel free to revert. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:57, 23 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) 07:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The only HST images of Chiron I can find are in Bibcode:1997AJ....113..844M, which are not exactly visually striking. There are later spectroscopic measurements but no images. Perhaps you're confusing it with P/2010 A2 (LINEAR), another asteroid/comet dual listing? Modest Genius talk 13:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
A set of actual photos, would be good for the article, not just orbit diagrams and artistic impressions, even if it's just an extended dot with cometary halo. -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 05:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Well feel free to add one if you can find a freely-available version (the figures in the paper are copyrighted). Modest Genius talk 12:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Orbit reference?

Tokovinin and Horch (2016) is referencing "Gatewood, G. & Mason, B. D. 2013, IAUDS, 181, 1" for an orbit determination. However, the latter doesn't show up on Google Scholar. Does anybody know if there is another online source I might check? The IAUDS refers to "Information Circulars of IAU Commission 26" for double stars. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Praemonitus: I think this is the reference. You can find the specific data mentioned in that paper in the final row of page 1. Sam Walton (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
@Samwalton9: – Yes I see it listed. Thank you! Praemonitus (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

List of most luminous stars

There are two issues I'd like to address with this article:

  1. The effective temperature column only goes down to Var A-1. I've found many, if not most of the missing temperature values, should I add them in?
  2. When stars have their constellation in their name, like a Bayer, Flamsteed, or variable star designation, sometimes the constellation is abbreviated (like V429 Car) but sometimes it isn't (like AG Carinae). This should obviously be changed for consistency, but which scheme should we use?

Anyways, thanks in advance. Loooke (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd unabbreviate all Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Either way so long as it is consistent, perhaps only abbreviate if there are cases where the column becomes inconveniently long. There are enough weird acronyms and designations in that column that using official constellations abbreviations isn't going to make things too confusing. As for the temperature, remember that every piece if data that you denormalise into this table will quickly become inconsistent with the linked articles and potentially need independent references to show that it was once valid. Include it only if it materially adds to the table.Lithopsian (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I've went ahead an un-abbreviated them all, since it won't extend the tables. I'm thinking of adding citations for all the temperature values, but I noticed that the distance and apparent magnitude columns also lack citations... Loooke (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Subproject discussion

Sixth Orbit Catalogue

A few days ago the USNO's Sixth Catalog of Orbits of Visual Binary Stars had all of its webpages moved or something, and so now I cannot access it—I just get a 404 error. (For example, the orbits here aren't visible.)

This is quite worrying for me because I rely on this catalogue a lot, and not just on Wikipedia. Is it worth me contacting them over the issue? I know I can just use the archived version but really I prefer the original. Loooke (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I ran into the same issue today, but guessed they have a server down. It would be a concern if the link is permanently dead. Praemonitus (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
It seems to be back up now. Possibly they were doing some weekend maintenance. Praemonitus (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Excellent. Loooke (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Computing semi-major axis in starbox orbit

Here's a suggestion: given a value (in milliarcseconds) for 'parallax' in the 'Starbox astrometry' template and a value (in arc seconds) for 'axis' in the 'Starbox orbit' template, we should be able to automatically compute a value (in AU) for the 'axis_unitless' field in the 'Starbox orbit' template.[6] Praemonitus (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

That would effectively be original research. It relies on a distance (or a parallax as in your equation) which is likely to have been determined by different authors and different methods, quite possibly with contradictory data or results. Just maybe if the parallax (an orbital parallax?) is derived in the same paper as the axis then we might go there, otherwise we should only include what someone else is brave enough to put in print. Despite the way the template was written, the axis of an orbit is most likely to be determined as an absolute measure, with an angular measure sometimes quoted based on that absolute measure. When only an angular measure is known then it is likely to be a separation rather than strictly a semi-major axis. Lithopsian (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay. Praemonitus (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Sigma Draconis

It appears that user user:Dren5144 has been making unsourced OR speculative additions to some astronomy articles. I reverted his edits to Sigma Draconis on the basis of WP:NOR, but the user immediately reverted them without explanation. The edits by this user may bear further examination. Praemonitus (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I've seen this user make several frustrating edits, like this one which was just a removal of a maintenance template, or this one where he/she, while reverting Lithopsian, also added a self-linking redirect. This user doesn't seem to reply to messages on his/her talk page, nor give edit summaries. Loooke (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm the one who turned USNO-A2.0 0600-01400432 into a redirect to Hubble_Ultra-Deep_Field. It was a fairly pointless stub of dubious notability. So to be fair, the link wasn't self-referential the first time it was made, but the revert was half-baked. I also stamped all over the σ Draconis edit earlier so that article is OK at the moment. I just had a quick look through the edit history, going back several years: many edits are useful, a number are "imaginative", none seem malicious but the quality is patchy. Lithopsian (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Epsilon Aurigae/Almaaz

I am wondering about this proper name as I did a lot of digging into star names when I was a kid in the 70s and 80s and I don't remember ever seeing this name used. All the sources (even some reputable) quoting it are very recent and I wonder who originally dug it up (and if it was a hoax or synthesized new/faux old name...like Kraz, Avior, Navi, Regor etc..). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, all of the references to it seem to be fairly modern, which is usually a bad sign. Struve and Lemon (1938) said it was unnamed. Praemonitus (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Allen gives it as Al Maʽaz. One of several Arabic-derived names, never apparently mainstream, and just dug up recently to satisfy the fad for proper names. Lithopsian (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

New version of List of exoplanets

Hey everyone. I'm thinking of updating this list with a draft I made, over at User:Loooke/Exoplanet. (Talk page is here.) It's almost ready to be implemented, I believe, but just to be sure, some comments from you all are appreciated. Thanks in advance. Loooke (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem I have with this type of aggregated data list is that the information can quickly get out of alignment with the referenced data on the star and planet articles. Unfortunately there isn't much that can be done about that, short of some type of comparison bot. Praemonitus (talk) 05:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
We could use Wikidata, which would let us have the information in central one place and then fetch it into the articles whenever it's needed. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
All right, I'm going to go ahead an update the list. Wikidata isn't going to be implemented right now obviously, but I may keep that in mind if I have to update it. Loooke (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that could be a good solution if it works properly. Praemonitus (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Mike Peel/Exoplanets shows the current state of exoplanet information on Wikidata - it knows about 2942 exoplanets so far. More detailed information on each of them is patchy to non-existent, though. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Do we know if the Wikidata lookups are going to be able to handle multiple data sources for the same parameters? Praemonitus (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
On Wikidata, there's no problem with multiple data sources (whether it's different references for each parameter, multiple references for the same parameter, or multiple references for different values of the same parameter). How they are included in the list in my user subpage is more experimental, though, and I'm not sure how well that will handle the references at the current time. But that's something than can be improved over time. :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
The list looks great, but how do you plan to keep it current? The main problem with the current list is not its formatting woes, but rather that the editing community cannot provide a fraction of the effort necessary to keep it anything approaching up-to-date. A2soup (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Not sure at the moment, I haven't exactly thought this through enough. For the short term, manual updates are plausible, since the NASA Exoplanet Archive updates itself weekly. Eventually I'll get bored and I might have to do large-scale changes like this every so often. Loooke (talk)
Having a consistent external database you're drawing it from that structures the data similarly should make it a bit easier at least. A2soup (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm working on some code/a bot that will import the database into Wikidata, and to regularly check that it's up-to-date there. That might provide a good long-term solution. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Excellent. However, I forgot to mention this to you, but while data from the columns are from the NASA Exoplanet Archive, the planetary equilibrium temperature column is from exoplanet.eu and the binary flags are from the Open Exoplanet Catalogue. These columns aren't in the Archive the way I want them to, and this data might have to be extracted by hand, but anyways, thanks for the work. Loooke (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I think it's great to hear that the process will be automized eventually, as I pointed out on that article/list's talk page I've caught a few incorrect date values when I was sorting the list by date. I've fixed the ones that I have noticed, but I don't know how many more incorrect dates there are, but if the process is automized by a bot or Wikidata, we would not have to worry about that. :) Davidbuddy9Talk 07:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
The logic for this is a bit more complicated than I expected, but I'm getting there. I'm currently using HD 109749 b (Q1563091) as the test case, as that's the first match between the NASA database and Wikidata. The edits made to that page by my account today are through the code I'm putting together, starting from a CVS file from the Archive, auto-matching it to relevant Wikidata entry, checking the existing values there and adding a source if they match, or adding the value and the source if not. I'll have to use User:Pi bot and request a bot flag for the full import, but this works for testing purposes. I'm going to focus on the NASA database for now, the other sources can be added later. This is a bit more complex than bot imports to Wikidata normally are, as we need to update it regularly (every week? day?), including updating values as observations improve, and I'm not sure how to handle things if they are manually updated. Maybe I'll have something working comprehensively by the end of the month. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
The NASA Exoplanet Archive updates itself weekly. During these updates they often add new exoplanets, and sometimes update parameters for existing ones. Loooke (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Is there a specific day/time that it updates? If so, then I can set the script running just afterwards. I'm aiming to auto-create new Wikidata entries for new exoplanets so that they are quickly included in the list, but there's a risk that this might create duplicate entries that then have to be manually merged together. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 02:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
BTW, where does the discovery date column come from? It doesn't seem to be in the NASA database. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 02:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what day or time it updates. As for the discovery date, I used the column titled "pl_disc". Thank you. Loooke (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Partial minor planet designation created

See User talk: Tom.Reding#Revise unhelpful potatoes MP#R. Adding it here FYI & for posterity under Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive table of asteroids 1 (eventually) to elucidate the immense saga.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

AfD Colossus Telescope

The following article has been nominated for deletion:

ChiZeroOne (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Ouch! Wade into that quagmire ... Lithopsian (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Please anybody that is interested check carefully. Thanks Quantanew (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


This was merged into Extremely large telescope, though it needs copyediting, since it is no longer a standalone article -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 05:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy/Archive_26&oldid=1146669927"