Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Rename: Gas giant -> Giant planet

I have proposed that gas giant be renamed to giant planet, since there has been a shift in usage in scientific and general press and research publications since the article was originally written. This shift has been particularly pronounced in the last half-decade. Please lodge your opinion on whether the request is a good idea at talk:gas giant.

70.24.248.23 (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Julian day UT1/TT issue

If someone knowledgeable could have a look at my question at Talk:Julian day#UT1/TT, I'd appreciate it. Cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Minor planets articles - information needed at AN/I

It would be helpful if members of this wikiproject could comment at [1]. The question is about the creation of articles on minor planets, and whether these articles meet the necessary standard of notability. There seems to have been an ongoing discussion within this wikiproject, and a short summary of the status of that discussion would be very helpful. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion has been archived here. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No article ratings table

It looks like the tool that generates the WikiProject's article ratings table must have died. Regards, RJH (talk)

Looks like it is fixed now. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Zodiac

Hi, coming here from a discussion at the fringe theories noticeboard. Attention is being paid to articles on astrology at the moment. I wondered if some of you people wanted to look again at Zodiac to see if the content is what you want. If necessary, a separate Zodiac (astrology) article could be created, or perhaps some material could go into Astrological sign. A clear distinction between astronomy and astrology is essential, I think we all agree. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Itsmejudith. I don't think you can completely separate historical astronomy from astrology; the two had something of an intermixed history for many centuries, particularly in the ancient civilizations. What you can likely separate is the modern astronomical beliefs from astrology. Hence, I agree that it might be a good idea to migrate the modern astrological information into Zodiac (astrology), as you suggest, and let that article develop on its own. I'm not sure that the Zodiac is really all that important in astronomy any more; it should probably mainly be a history article. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks for this advice. I'm mainly interested in the history of astronomy and astrology, so will look to see if the Zodiac article works well as history, and will consider breaking the current astrology out into the separate article - but only if there is enough material to warrant it. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Vetting for Timeline of the Big Bang

An apparently well-meaning IP has changed a few numbers at Timeline of the Big Bang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The new numbers may very well be correct, but should probably be vetted by someone more familiar with the references than I am. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Ultrahigh energy gamma-rays

I noticed a red-link to UHEGR; I looked it up, and thus started writing Ultrahigh energy gamma-ray. However, I've quickly got out of my depth; I'm certainly no expert in this field and although it seems there is very interesting information available about these extraordinarily-high-wave radiation, I'm struggling to understand the papers. So I have a dilemma, because I'd like to make the article at least a little better, but I'm afraid I might not get it right.

So, can anyone please help a little? Apart from the one ref I've given, I was looking at "Ultrahigh energy gamma rays: Carriers of cosmological information" and...well, I'm sure there are many other things that could be mentioned, but you're probably better at finding them than I am.

Thanks, in anticipation, for any help anyone can give - even if it's just to make sure that what I've written so far makes sense. Best,  Chzz  ►  10:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC) I might ask on Physics, too

I made a few, hopefully constructive edits. The article seems fine to me, but I'm not an expert. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

RfC for proposal to promote Notability (astronomical objects) to notability guideline

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(astronomical_objects). Many editors here weighed in during a long discussion. I would like to see as many astronomy editors as possible adding comments to the discussion. AstroCog (talk) 01:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The RfC is in full gear right now, and though there is currently a majority in support of the guideline, there are some strong opposition voices. It would be helpful if I wasn't the only one countering the opposition arguments, and also if more of the WP:ASTRONOMY editors here would weigh in with their support, especially those involved in the discussion to develop the criteria. When countering or replying to opposition comments, please be very civil and level-headed. We'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar! AstroCog (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I've lent my support vote. The main counter-argument here seems to be that WP:N is enough, and that a specialized policy isn't needed. I don't agree, but not sure how to counter. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

An administrator has indicated that they will close the RfC (when prompted) on December 3rd (this Saturday). If anyone from this community hasn't left comments there, now is the time to do it. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 13:53, 30 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. Serendipodous 20:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Kepler

Category:Kepler has been proposed to be renamed, because of its ambiguity. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 05:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Moon

Portal:Moon is up for peer review. Please comment here. Thanks. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 21:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding extrasolar planet articles

An IP made an interesting suggestion regarding a chart from one of the planets orbiting Gliese 581. He (or she) pulled the chart and posted it at this location, recommending it as a means by which one may display information comparing temperatures of a selected extrasolar planet with those of Earth, Venus, and Mars. Would anyone like to weigh in on this? It seems to hold some potential. --Starstriker7(Talk) 19:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Do we need to include Fahrenheit? Regards, RJH (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
♦ For Kepler-11g and Kepler 22b. And that's Equilibrium Temperatures, with references. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 07:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Is this a valid exception to WP:UNITS? Regards, RJH (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Starstriker -- I think that is an excellent idea. N2e (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion and assistance needed in article GRB 101225A(Christmas burst)

Expansion and reference needed for this Gamma ray burst. Dr meetsingh  Talk  08:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi there astronomers. I have been part of a project, funded by the STFC, called "Once Upon a Universe". The project brought together astrophysicists and creative writers to with the aim to create an accesible, dramatic, and accurate account of the story of the big bang. The result of the project can be viewed by following this link. Do you think there are any pages in which it would be suitable as an external link?

Many thanks, Amphibio (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion that prompted this is here, for context. I suggested that A. ask here for a wider discussion. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Looked at this webpage. It's a wordpress blog site, with colorful descriptions of cosmology. No references, no indication of credibility, no names, no easily findable connection to established astronomers, labs, agencies, etc. I'm also put off by the language, seen multiple times on the site, about welcoming "alternate explanations", and another saying, "Disclaimer: it should be understood that the descriptions presented are, in a sense, still theories; alternate ones exist and our current knowledge is subject to change. However, the majority of these theories are widely accepted, and together form a comprehensive narrative of the evolution of our universe". It strikes me as similar to creationist language, unless it's just a clumsy way of reaching out to people skeptical of science. Therefore, I don't see any good place to put this website's linking. AstroCog (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
The types of external links that normally avoided are listed at WP:ELNO. A blog would normally not be appropriate unless it is written by a demonstrated authority. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I also had a look. The contents of the 'Science' pages are just a poorly-explained mish-mash of various ideas from cosmology and early-universe physics. The language is poetic and there are recordings of the content, but neither are conducive to clear simple explanations. There are no useful diagrams or images, and very little hard science. The contents of the 'Stories' pages are a load of short stories and poems loosely inspired by the ideas on the Science pages, but frankly of no use whatsoever to anyone interested in the science (which includes anyone reading the Wikipedia pages on the topic). Whilst I'm glad that the participants apparently had fun creating this website, and some people may enjoy reading the stories, I do hope STFC didn't spend much money on this given that they've been slashing actual science programmes recently. I'm all in favour of outreach, but only if it actually imparts some useful information. The links certainly don't belong on Wikipedia. Modest Genius talk 13:12, 14 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)

Thank you for the notification. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

C/2011 W3 (Lovejoy)

Would anyone well-versed in this subject like to take a crack at fleshing out C/2011 W3 (Lovejoy)? Some sources: [2], [3], [4]. I'm not well-versed in astronomy in general or comets in particular (my contribution was limited to creating a DAB page for it), but given the prominence in the news, the article may be well-visited over the next day or so. TJRC (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

18 hours later, and the article is superbly improved. Thank you to all the editors who cleaned it up and added content and references. TJRC (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I must say, it was as fun to work on the article and watch it progress as it was to watch the progress of the comet itself. Quite a fun few days in astronomy. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Size of the non-observable universe

An anon has started a thread at Talk:Universe#Size of entire universe missing regarding the various size estimates and bounds that have been proposed (which are now mostly at Observable universe). While I'm not convinced that the material is worth covering in depth, they did make a good argument, and I don't have strong feelings about it either way. If anyone else wants to evaluate the situation, be my guest. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 08:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Notability (astronomical objects) promoted to guideline

I just saw that an admin has promoted the essay to guideline. Huzzah! Thanks to all involved, especially those who assisted in its developed here at the WikiProject. Thanks also to those who commented at the RfC, both in support and opposition, because both kinds of comments helped to strengthen the guideline.

Please "watch" the astronomy article alerts for any new PRODs and AfDs. If and when WP:NASTRO is used during one of these processes, we should be there to make sure it is used properly and not abused. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I put in a request at Template talk:Notability#WP:NASTRO to add an 'Astro' option to the {{notability}} template so that the viewers will be directed to more relevant information. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The 'Astro' option has been added to the Notability template. I tested it on 129234 Silly to confirm. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
That's a silly name for an asteroid, no wonder it didn't meet the guideline ;) Modest Genius talk 13:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
After the first 10,000 asteroids were discovered, interest in naming them dropped significantly. -- Kheider (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm surprised that there aren't many 'name an asteroid' scams like those 'name a star' things. I suppose that's because there's at least an official list, which they wouldn't be able to use. But I doubt many gullible punters would notice the difference... Anyway this is getting rather off topic. Modest Genius talk 18:20, 30 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. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Abbreviation trouble

While disambiguation, I've encountered numerous links to GOS, VDB and CGO, plus a couple more that I'm probably forgetting. These all link to disambiguation pages, and none of the entries on those pages have anything to do with Astronomy. For now, I've tagged them as disambiguation needed. What should these link to? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I checked Google and those seem to be astronomy catalogue abbreviations:
  • GOS – Galactic O Star Catalogue[5]
  • VDB – van den Bergh catalogue[6]
  • CGO – Catalogue of Galactic O Stars[7]
They might be a little on the obscure side, so I'd be tempted to get rid of those links on astronomy articles. Regards, RJH (talk)
I agree with RJH - none of those are significant enough to deserve a wikipedia article. But there is an article at List of astronomy acronyms which you could link to, though none of the initialisms given above are even significant enough to have made it onto that list. Modest Genius talk 10:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Found it: List of astronomical catalogues D O N D E groovily Talk to me 16:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Stellar classification explanation request

Hello,

Does anybody know if there is a good web site or freely available paper that explains the current stellar classification scheme? I'm running into classifications such as "kA7hA9mF0 III", "G2 V CH−0.3", or "K1 IIICN+1". I can sort of guess what they mean, but I'd rather have a proper source so I can get it right. Unfortunately, none of the sources I've checked explain it at all well (including Morgan-Keenan).

Thank you! Regards, RJH (talk) 05:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of one, the best I've seen is actually our article :/. Astronomers propose extensions to the scheme in certain areas all the time, and those extensions fall in and out of favour. All of the examples you give seem unnecessarily detailed, unless there's some reason why e.g. the strength of the CN bands is of interest. As a general classification, those sorts of details can be left out - I wouldn't bother with more than the spectral class (with subclass), luminosity class, binaries, and one or two of the suffixes if relevant. So 'B2 Vpe' or 'A3 III + F0: V' or 'O9.5 IV((f))', but no more detail than that, unless of course you're writing an article on the topic of CH in G stars. Modest Genius talk 09:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Not sure how easy it would be for you to obtain or borrow this book, but it's probably the most up-to-date and readable treatment: [8]. AstroCog (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that on Google books, although it doesn't give enough access to be quite useful. It looks fairly expensive, unfortunately. Regards, RJH (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
See if any of the libraries listed here are near you. You can just check it out. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


Sup RJH (has been a minute), yeah I added a bunch of oddities to the Stellar Classification page and some was removed over time. But basically reading those AJ papers, some are meant as a bleeding classification or uncertainties. Also found a plethora of WD types classification (mainly those sub-types of PG-1159 types) that would make the wiki people edit my list as vandalism (chuckles). But what I found is that some of that are the personal preference of the author, bleeding class, or the star exhibit such a specific signature that it's in its own class. kA7hA9mF0 III, I've seen something like this, but not sure. I know that there are some prefixes that are used (that are not explained on Stellar Classification page). Some are from Henry Dragper's old classification and other are new (ie. esd). And some are still used, (ie. "d").

  • sd / esd = subdwarf / extreme subdwarf
  • d = dwarf star
  • sg = subgiant
  • g = giant
  • c = supergiant
  • k = I forgot... (-_-)

As for the numbering, (I don't know what the name is), the number in K5.0. That 5.0. Sometimes they use something other than ".0" or ".5". Usually those are like bleeding (at least that person at SIMBAD told me). So a M9.2 was almost like a M9.0 but can still be an L0.0.
Hope this wasn't too confusing. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

We should probably have a subarticle that details these extensions. The main article should be as is. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 08:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
'd' is not uncommon but considered rather archaic; most astronomers prefer to use V. 'sd' and VI are the other way around though, with sd more common than VI. The others you list are very rare as far as I've seen. As for the non-integer subtypes, a lot of that comes from the fact that the original numbers assigned by MK aren't very evenly spread or reflect actual diagnostic differences, so some subtypes are no longer in use whilst others have been expanded with decimals. Some of those are real subtypes and rather standard (e.g. O9.7), whilst others are the investigator's personal preference or an alternative to writing e.g. B1.5-2 (instead writing B1.7). Modest Genius talk 10:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Hubble first light.jpg

File:Hubble first light.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hydrogen-burning process

My question is whether the Hydrogen-burning process stub article should be converted into a disambiguation page? I'm not sure that there is much that can be added here that can't be moved to one of the two sub-topics. But perhaps I'm missing something. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, a large number of "(element)-burning process" short articles and stubs were created a year or two back. This is probably one of them. Given its current state, I certainly wouldn't object to it being converted to a disambiguation page. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree it should be in a disambig page. The term "burning" for nuclear fusion reactions is also a poor choice of word (unfortunately it's still commonly used by astronomers), but among professionals, you're more likely to hear the specific name of the process, or "hydrogen fusion reactions" for the general term.AstroCog (talk) 05:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
In my experience, most professionals don't care which process is actually going on, the important bit is that it's hydrogen-burning. The only people who distinguish between the specific processes are those interested in stellar structure, nucleosynthesis and/or chemical evolution (now there is an inappropriate name). I would prefer to see that article become a discussion of the importance of the two processes in various types of star and the affect that the two have on e.g. stellar evolution. But that would take some significant work to implement, and if no-one has the time and inclination a proper dab page would be better than the existing article. Modest Genius talk 10:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
One alternative could be to combine the two processes into a single article. Neither one of them is particularly long (and both are organized with too many short sections), so it seems feasible to take that approach. The stellar nucleosynthesis article is also pretty short for what it covers, so we could merge "Hydrogen burning" there and expand it (leaving separate articles for the p-p and CNO processes). Regards, RJH (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Of these I'd favour the second option, keeping p-p and CNO separate and merging "hydrogen burning" elsewhere. There are quite a lot of articles that link to each specific process; redirecting them to a merged article would lose a fair bit of context. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay. In that case it may make sense to expand the individual "burning types" of the stellar nucleosynthesis article into summary-style sections, beginning with hydrogen. That way it can also address Modest Genius' concern. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Let us not forget that "burning" to most people means combustion, so Hydrogen#Combustion should be linked. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The same argument could be made about all of the "(foo)-burning process". I really don't think it'll cause much confusion. If the rest of you feel otherwise, that's what {{about}} is for. An example would be "{{about|hydrogen fusion in stars|combustion of hydrogen|Hydrogen#Combustion}}", which produces:
This page is about hydrogen fusion in stars. For combustion of hydrogen, see hydrogen § Combustion.
--Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your feedback. I made an attempt at adding an expanded "Hydrogen burning" section to the Stellar nucleosynthesis article, incorporating existing text and adding some new details. (I'm quite sure it could be improved and expanded.) I'll redirect the Hydrogen burning page there for now.

I wasn't able to find any information about the mass ranges where the two different hydrogen burning cycles dominate during the initial hydrogen shell burning phase, unfortunately. It may be the same as with the main sequence for all I know. Shrug. Thanks again. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

LARES (satellite) and User:Again him!

The LARES (satellite) is due to launch this month, and the brand-new user User:Again him! (contribs) seems to be on a one-man crusade to make sure that the article mostly consists of a discussion criticisms of the article by one scientist - Lorenzo Iorio. Our article on Iorio was deleted two years ago, after an AfD which was filled with sockpuppets (the article was later recreated and deleted again). Many of those sockpuppets edited both the LARES article and the frame dragging article; and now the brand-new user has come directly to my talk page to complain about the LARES and frame-dragging articles, despite me having no involvement in either. This is feeling suspiciously similar to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gravitom/Archive; could another astronomy editor take a look and see if they agree with me? The LARES article could also use some eyes, especially since it is likely to end up on WP:ITN when it launches. Modest Genius talk 21:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Have things settled down over there now? From a quick look at the talk page, some sort of agreement seems to have occurred? SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 09:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
<shrug> seems so, I guess. I haven't been paying too much attention to the article (been far too busy), but I thought I should bring it to people's attention. I'm still concerned about the user though. Modest Genius talk 14:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:ROSAT

Category:ROSAT has been nominated for deletion. 70.24.249.190 (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Level 4 Vital Articles – Astronomy

The rating icons for Astronomy articles are now up at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Physical sciences#Astronomy, 267. Hopefully the current list meets with everybody's approval. The Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded project is not yet at the stage where excess entries will need to be pruned, but its getting close to the 10,000 article goal. Regards, RJH (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I think Magellanic clouds should removed and replaced by Small Magellanic Cloud (Large Magellanic Cloud is already there, but probably should be under the Local Group heading). Great Attractor isn't really a vital concept, so maybe we should replace it with something else. Modest Genius talk 14:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Straw poll: Automated stub redirection

I've proposed using a bot to automatically redirect a large number of asteroid stubs back to the list-of-asteroids pages. This is the sort of thing that should only be done if there's strong consensus for it, so I've started a discussion thread at WT:ASTRO#Straw poll: Automated stub redirection. Please comment as you see fit. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I've closed this as "no consensus" (after leaving it up for a week). There were comments in support, but I'm not going to the bot approval group and ask to auto-redirect 10k+ stubs with only four votes in favour. By all means float the proposal again down the road if more people think it's a good idea. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 08:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Project image

Helix Nebula (current) - 3,200 × 3,200 pixels (1.58 MB)
Helix Nebula (proposed) - 16,000 × 16,000 pixels (246.9 MB)

I propose the logo of the Wikiproject be changed to File:Iridescent Glory of Nearby Helix Nebula.jpg as it is of better resolution of the current image. It wouldn't make a difference in terms of the display of the logo but it would promote the better quality image over the older lower quality image. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 13:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The current image does a better job showing the detail in the outskirts of the nebula, and is a Featured Picture (your proposed replacement is not). There's not much in it as far as the appearance in project-related templates etc. goes, but using an FP is probably a good thing. Modest Genius talk 14:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The question is which image is superior. The current image clips part of the detail that is available in the proposed one. The current image also has color issues it seems.
I am not absolutely sure why the two images are different but the 16,000 × 16,000 version was constructed in 9 orbits. Its resolution is five times more detailed. The story is:
"Valuable Hubble observing time became available during the November 2002 Leonid meteor storm. To protect the spacecraft, including HST's precise mirror, controllers turned the aft end into the direction of the meteor stream for about half a day. Fortunately, the Helix Nebula was almost exactly in the opposite direction of the meteor stream, so Hubble used nine orbits to photograph the nebula while it waited out the storm. To capture the sprawling nebula, Hubble had to take nine separate snapshots."
Therefore it is my belief that the prior image is perhaps not the most accurate representation of the Helix nebula. The outskirts you see may be a product of down-scaling or noise in signal perhaps.
-- A Certain White Cat chi? 16:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The two images are based upon the exact same HST data (see e.g. [9]). Yours covers a wider area simply because it has been combined with a ground-based image to fill in areas outside the field-of-view of the Hubble data. Modest Genius talk 17:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I do not see how it is a wider area. If you compare the locations of the background starts it is more or less the same exact view. Open both images under same resolution side by side and you will see little difference when switching between them in terms of area covered.
I am not sure if the larger image is combined with ground based telescopes at any point, though I may be wrong. I am however curious how you reached that conclusion (personal curiosity, not questioning your accuracy).
-- A Certain White Cat chi? 21:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Why does it matter that the other image is higher res? It's a very small thumbnail, and will always be a very small thumbnail, so the extra resolution doesn't do anything. 70.49.124.157 (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
To me, the point is when user clicks on it. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 09:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
3200 × 3200 pixel resolution is larger than the vast majority of screen resolutions out there. Unless you're going to print this out for a poster using something like an HP Designjet L26500, frankly I don't think its going to matter. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Article on Frederick C. Leonard

I have improved it quite a bit.... added lots of references. It has just been moved from the Physics Project to the Astronomy Project. Please evaluate for an upgrade from 'C class' and improve my sparse composition. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Video linking campaign

Originalwana (talk · contribs) seems to be linking videos into a large number of physics and astronomy articles (the one I noticed being Antimatter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)). At first glance it looks like these are appropriately sourced and adequately on-topic, but I'd appreciate it if a few more people could vet the additions. The pattern of behavior is raising warning flags (linking in rapid bursts, no discussion that I've noticed, similar sources for most of the videos). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like another overzealous ESO PR person, though there are ESA and NASA videos in there too. Essentially harmless, but pushing the relevance of the videos for all they're worth an any vaguely-related article. Maybe worth asking them to declare if they have a relationship with any of those organisations on their user page? Modest Genius talk 19:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Astronomy will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in astronomy's history, society and culture. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Plenty of good female astronomers. Heck, the ladies did almost all the heavy lifting in stellar astrophysics about 100 years ago (Leavitt, Jump-Cannon, Payne-Gaposhka(sp?), etc). Lots more, too. I wouldn't mind getting a drive encouraging editors to improve their articles. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Beatrice Tinsley, Ruby Payne-Scott, Margaret Burbidge, Jocelyn Bell Burnell...I have the biography of Tinsley on my shelf if anyone would like to collaborate on that one. Iridia (talk) 05:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
+Margaret Mayall.[10] Regards, RJH (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone! Great to see conversation taking place about potential article creation and expansion in regards to the ladies of astronomy. Perhaps an article drive for women in astronomy for March? I'll help promote your work as best as I can, and encourage others to participate. Maybe we can do some online outreach to astronomy groups/clubs? Sounds like you are on the verge of a game plan, perhaps we can add a few article or concepts here: Wikipedia:WikiWomen's_History_Month#Upcoming_online_events. Thanks for your enthusiasm! SarahStierch (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Excellent initiative! For those who read French, the monthly magazine La Veillée de nuit (Night Vigil) featured a series of articles on women in astronomy, from November 2011 to February 2012. It can be found at http://veilleedenuit.info CielProfond (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I've started chiselling some shape to Priscilla Fairfield Bok, whose four-decade collaboration with her husband Bart Bok counts as one of the great astronomy partnerships. Does anyone have access to her obituary, which was published in Sky & Telescope, vol. 51, p. 25 (1976)? A scan would be very handy. Iridia (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I can probably get that for you, but I'll need a place to send it to. AstroCog (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks! My email is now switched on. Iridia (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Drat. My access doesn't go back that far (from home). I'll try a friend who might have access and get back to you one way or the other. AstroCog (talk) 02:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Looks like the only access to that will be through on-site microfiche. For me, at least. Perhaps there's a die-hard here who has a closet of physical copies? AstroCog (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Dark matter and Oort

A while back, Afjvanraan (talk · contribs) made a handful of edits to Dark matter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), stating that Oort inferred its existence in 1932. This was reverted shortly thereafter due to lack of appropriate citations. The account went inactive (they had a total of 8 edits).

Now, similar information was added by Aarghdvaark (talk · contribs), who seems to have been editing several articles in similar ways since 31 January.

Could someone who knows their history please vet the latter user's contributions? This pattern of activity raises warning flags (though it's always possible that the edits are correct). Might also be worth asking them if the former user was related in any way. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Dark matter in particular seems to attract a lot of controversy wherever it is mentioned in Wikipedia. I suppose that's inevitable. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Samad (crater) - hoax?

I am unsure, and there is entire category of similar articles - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samad (crater) Bulwersator (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It's listed in the USGS Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature, which I think is pretty authoritative. They list the name as being adopted by the IAU in 1982, making it official. As to whether it's notable, well that's unclear. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Features on a geologically active world such as Enceladus should be notable enough to keep. We just need locate the Voyager source image(s) for Volcanopele's uploads.-- Kheider (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Eh, didn't we just go through a comparable argument for the minor planets? It'd be better to satisfy WP:GNG, then there would be no room for dispute. :-) Regards, RJH (talk)

Observatory question

Could project members please take a look at WP:VPM#Problem with observatories? It's a question regarding some asteroids and (I think) the observatory which discovered them. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What is the question

Good morning

Yes : the asteroids are:

The question is: discovery site :

Harvard College Observatory (in the Harvard University), in Cambridge, Massachusetts ?
Oak Ridge Observatory in Harvard, Massachusetts ?

UAI Minor planet center references:

hypothesis: confusion Harvard College Observatory and Oak Ridge Observatory.

Thank you --Jean-François Clet (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

For 4231 Fireman at least, the Dictionary of minor planet names lists it as being discovered at the Harvard College Observatory. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:12, 6 February 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 08:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I bumped into a similar situation here. Thincat (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
"It may be simulation..." Facepalm Facepalm . - The Bushranger One ping only 22:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and it may be a painting by Gustav Klimt. I got to Commons after this image was listed on Wikipedia both here and here so it is under triple attack. I have just seen a plaintive plea from the uploader at File_talk:Syrtis_Major_Map.JPG. Thincat (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
To my (non-expert) eye it looks like that the original image was almost certainly created by a US agency thus is public domain, but the website it is sourced from is not. If the image can be proven to be created by NASA or USGS, then the problem would be fixed. Perhaps you could find it on http://ida.wr.usgs.gov/ ? Modest Genius talk 11:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Mmm. The image use policy on the source website is here. Thincat (talk) 11:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Stellar classification

I feel that this page is still incomplete by missing the following information.

  1. Harvard prefix - which are not really used much, ie. d, sg, g, & c.
  2. Variable stars - I feel it needs a small description with a main article link to Variable star.
  3. Extreme wD classes - There should be a mention that there are a few WDs that are practically in their own classes. ie. KOI types (ie. KOI-81) and a few AJ papers that described extreme types, ie. DZQO types [11] (1996).
  4. Guest star - probably should be a mention due to this having the word star in it.
  5. Exotic star and Neutron star - probably needs a mention on it. And neutron stars can be plotted on the HK diagram but would be far below. I've only seen 2 pictures of this on the net and seen many more questions asking where it would be placed at, example [12].
  6. Green stars - why they don't exist and they appear white. (although some claim they see a green tint).
  7. Hot subdwarf OB, is not mentioned. Uncertain where it should be placed.

Any thoughts is welcome, thanks, Marasama (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Neat HR diagram, [13]. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
You should probably bring this up on the talk page of the article, rather than here. Modest Genius talk 13:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

id of NASA image

File:ISS011 Upheaval Dome.jpg is without source but there is "iss011ed7428" (probably image id) on the bottom - unfortunately I was unable to use it to locate image. Maybe somebody know how to use it Bulwersator (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Gotta love Google and editing the URL. :P

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseop/photo.pl?mission=ISS011&roll=E&frame=7428 Thanks, Marasama (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Nebula needs a major overhaul

I been trying to overhaul the page, but I'm stuck with unable to gain reference and what I would type would be unreference. Asking for help on fixing this page up.

Looking for guidence; thanks, Marasama (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Marasama. Personally I'd like to see more development of the diffuse nebula section. Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei by Osterbrock and Ferland (2006) looks like a potentially useful core reference, which you can then supplement with related journal articles via Google scholar. You might see if that book is available in your local library system. Otherwise, at least some of the book's content is available via Google. Regards, RJH (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

T Tauri star - same issues as the Nebula section

As this page is missing chucks of data, ie. CTTS types.

Thanks, Marasama (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Commons

Some issues about Commons: have cropped up, see WT:ASTRO. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

User Box

I put together an alternative userbox ({{User WPAST}}) that employs the same graphic we use in the WikiProject template. The original User:Icez/User Astronomy, which uses the astrological symbol for Saturn, is included (bottom) for comparison:

Does it need further refinement? Regards, RJH (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I like it. Can you widen the picture, or make the border black so it blends with the background? Just my 2 cents, but I think it could look more attractive that way. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
It had a black border originally, but seemed a little stark to me. Shrug. I tried changing it to a dark gray so you can barely see the border, but it should still match up with neighboring boxes. Is that okay? Regards, RJH (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I like it this way, too, and with the new image it's more quintessentially "astronomy" than the astrological symbol. I'll use it! Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I think the astrological symbol one should be deprecated and removed from the project page, the new one is much better. Modest Genius talk 14:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
One other thought, shouldn't it read 'is a member of WikiProject Astronomy' rather than 'is a member of the Astronomy WikiProject'? The former sounds a lot nicer to my ear. Modest Genius talk 15:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
The other user boxes at Wikipedia:Userboxes/WikiProjects flip back and forth quite a bit. There doesn't seem to be any consistent rule to apply. I went ahead and changed it. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC at Big Bang

There is now an RFC at Talk:Big Bang on the subject of the degree to which religious interpretations of the Big Bang should be mentioned in the article. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Glossary of astronomy terms

While going through some recently-rated astronomy articles, I'm finding quite a few may not have much potential for expansion. A couple of examples are Morning width and Starfield (astronomy). I thought it might help to set up a glossary article, Glossary of astronomy terms (as has been done with a number of other fields: cf. Category:Glossaries on science). Regards, RJH (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

We also need to improve coverage on Wiktionary. It's rather poor there, perhaps a satellite WikiProject at Wiktionary for Astronomy would be good? 70.24.251.71 (talk) 07:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
The glossary in the Astronomical Almanac could be a start. It is in the public domain in the US, but maybe not elsewhere. The copyright statement on the reverse of the title page reads "© Crown Copyright 2010 This publication is protected by international copyright law. No part of this publication may be reproduced...without the prior permission of Her Majesty's Nautical Almanac Office...
"The following United States government work is excepted from the above notice and no copyright is claimed for it in the United States...M1–M18...." M1–M18 is the glossary. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
That may as be, anon. I haven't spent much time with that project, since there's just so much that needs improving upon around here. :-) Regards, RJH (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we should also have glossaries for subfields and subtopics? glossary for astronomical objects , glossary for constellations , glossary for telescopes etc... 70.24.251.71 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC).
For the first, we do have Astronomical object, where I suspect the big table might work better as a hierarchically-organized glossary. I'm not sure what you'd put in a glossary of constellations, but a glossary of telescopes (telescopy?) would be good. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Planetarium software

I am sitting at a lecture about how to enter comets into your program, and am shocked to fail to find a general article about this kind of software. Just a bunch of individual articles about individual products. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I use various planetarium software packages on a regular basis, so I'm fairly surprised too. Turns out the relevant page was redirected to Planetarium some time ago. I removed the redirect and started a stub. You're welcome to expand. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR

Heads up, apparently JSTOR is offering free access to some articles. Since some astronomy articles are available through JSTOR, this might be useful.

See http://about.jstor.org/rr

70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

No astronomy journals are currently included in the scheme. And I'm not sure how useful it would be even if they were, given the limitation of only 3 articles every 14 days, restricted to digitisations of old journals only. Since almost everything from the last 30 years - plus most significant older material - has been digitised already, there's only really going to be items of historical interest. Modest Genius talk 10:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I had noticed a couple of physics journals there, and since some astronomy articles are published in physics journals, I'd expect there might be some. Probably not exceedingly useful though. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 10:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, JSTOR does have a number of history articles that I wish I'd had access to, so hopefully those will be beneficial in the future. Now if only Icarus would allow free access to their articles after a couple of years... Regards, RJH (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

astronomy categories being speedy renamed

Several tens of categories are being nominated for speedy renaming at WP:CFD, see WP:CFDALL in the speedy section.

If you categorize objects into constellations, this may be of interest to you, since constellations will no longer be consistently named.

There's also an issue with conflating the two definitions of Milky Way (we have unified article, but categorization is for the galaxy, we're missing a categorization for the nebulosity) 70.49.126.147 (talk) 05:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there a new doctrine that says a category must match the name of its primary article? I don't see one, so this just seems like pedantry. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
No there is not (indeed, frequently, when the name of the main article is ambiguous (it has a dab page associated with it), the category is disambiguated), it's just bureaucratic actions based on a speedy renaming criterion. There's a recommendation that they should match, so there's a speedy rename criterion, but it's not a "must". 70.24.245.141 (talk) 04:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

astronomy categories

some more have come up at CFD, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 14

70.49.126.147 (talk) 05:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


And more, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 15

70.24.245.141 (talk) 04:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Help with GLOBE at Night article

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but I'm looking for someone to help improve the GLOBE at Night article, which I recently wrote and nominated for DYK: Template:Did_you_know_nominations/GLOBE_at_Night. It was reviewed as sounding like an advertisement and needing more neutral language. I get (now) that the lede wasn't ideal, but I don't really see the problem (from a neutrality/advertising perspective) in the rest of the article, so I'm not sure what I should change. I could really use someones help in making it more neutral (or else weighing in if you think it's ok as it is). Best wishes, Anotherdoon (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I've gone through, cleaned up the prose, expanded the lede, and neutralised. Anyone else want to take a look? This was a really nice little IYA program and it's great they've kept it going. (And yes, this was the right place to come ask, Anotherdoon. Thanks for your work!). Iridia (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

ALMA image caption

Could someone do a sanity check on this edit? That was where I corrected the image caption as the source for the image doesn't mention other telescopes being used and I think someone got confused by the credit line. The original image caption at that article was here, later modified here, then changed again and changed back here. Looking at the article as a whole, there is a fair amount of information out there about ALMA, not all of which is in the article, so it could be expanded and fleshed out a bit if anyone is interested. Carcharoth (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

That is quite odd. In the original ESA press release, it's pretty clear that it's an HST image in the visible, combined with ALMA bands 3 and 7 (millimetre/submillimetre). I think you're right that the credit lines got confused. Iridia (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
ESO, not ESA... :-) But yeah, I thought it was a bit odd. Thanks for that check. Carcharoth (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Can we please get rid of this astrology stuff in the conjuction article?

Why is this page not split? The two subjects are simply too disparate to be lumped together. Readers don't need material presented to them in a scientific article that has no evidence and isn't even believed by most people, as if it were equally true. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I assume you mean the Conjunction (astronomy and astrology) article? As long as astrological beliefs are not being stated as fact, I don't see it as a problem. See WP:WEIGHT. That being said, the list of conjunctions should probably be split off into a list article. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Don't you mean split it in twain? Conjunction (astrology) and Conjunction (astronomy) ? List of conjunctions would also be good to split off. 65.92.181.184 (talk) 03:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
If you split the article, you might be able to get support from WP:Astrology. 65.92.181.184 (talk) 08:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

New template {{cite sbdb}}/{{cite simbad}}

I just created this for citing entries in the JPL Small Body Database (which surprisingly enough, lacks an article).

Basically, writing

  • {{cite sbdb |title=433 Eros (1898 DQ) |id=2000433 |accessdate=2012-03-19}}
  • {{cite simbad |title=NGC 104 |accessdate=2012-03-19}}

will give

  • "433 Eros (1898 DQ)". JPL Small-Body Database. Jet Propulsion Laboratory. SPK-ID: 2000433. Retrieved 2012-03-19.
  • "NGC 104". SIMBAD. Centre de données astronomiques de Strasbourg. Retrieved 2012-03-19.

It should prove useful to everyone here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge comment needed - NGC 246

Merge NGC 246 with BD-12° 134? Please comment at Talk:NGC 246 D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, it's a CarlosComB article... (BD-12° 134 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) 70.24.245.141 (talk) 04:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I have redirected BD-12° 134 to NGC 246 because the former had no content that wasn't already in the latter. Reyk YO! 20:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

naming of astronomical catalogues

Apparently, we will soon be receiving a wave of nominations to rename the astronomical catalogue catagories (either through speedy renaming request, or full CFD requests) see the comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 15 for NGC objects by the nominator. 65.92.180.130 (talk) 04:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Not to denigrate the process, but these fall into my "Yeah whatever" rating category for article edits. At least it's out of the way down at the bottom of the article. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I am somewhat concerned that the bottom of all astronomical articles will become excessive wordy for describing the categories section, ie stars (in space, not in Hollywood). There is no reason to spell out the long name of common astronomical catalogs like NGC. If anything they can put (astronomy) next to the terms that they do not understand. -- Kheider (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, in terms of interface design principles it seems like a poor approach. Those category lists can become quite bloated and long category names only make it worse. It quickly reaches a point of diminishing returns; possibly even having a negative effect on the user. The result is an increase to the users mental workload and a reduction in relevance, both of which are undesirable features for an interface. I have the same issue with bloated hatnotes, which I think harm the useability factor. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Horribly out-of-date to-do pages

Hi, I'm new to the astronomy project. I'm looking for a single (or any) place to find all astronomy pages needing citations, for example, and any other categorized type of work. After looking around on the project page and the astronomy portal I found a few wilting links (for all intents & purposes, though, ...they're dead):

These seem like really useful pages to have and to keep up! Plus it looks like they were semi-/automatically maintained. Why did that stop? If there are newer pages, could someone please point me in the right direction and update the project and portal pages by replacing (or removing) the old and unused links? That'd be good to have whenever I (or anyone else) gets in the editing mood :) Thanks, Tom.Reding (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that the cleanup listing and attention listing should be autogenerated by a bot... if a WPAstromony bannered page has (yellow) cleanup templates, it gets autolisted, if it has more serious orangebanners it gets listed for attention. 70.24.248.7 (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
The cleanup listings are generated by the toolserver now. See [14]. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! So, I'm guessing the reason that link to the cleanup listing isn't as prominent as it should be is because of load issues on the toolserver.org server? It should definitely be more intuitively visible otherwise. -- Tom.Reding (talk) 09:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Well the worklist is a voluntary effort, so the upkeep is only as good as those willing to perform it. Personally I go by the assessment categories table on the WikiProject main page, which are directly representative of the current article ratings and hence don't require spending time maintaining a separate list. There's also a more up-to-date list at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Physical sciences#Astronomy, 225. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

OsirisV

While doing some article cleanup, I noticed that articles created by OsirisV (talk · contribs) in 2008 and 2009, have alot of typographic errors, incorrect categorizations, and incorrect references. (typos like having a 5 instead of a 4) (using references for other celestial objects, instead of the correct link, but the thing being refd on the page is from the correct link not the wrong one) (using the wrong data from the wrong ref) (categorization under some other key (copypasted articles?) instead of the topic's key) Someone might want to do a more detailed comb of the articles.

70.24.248.7 (talk) 08:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you direct us to the articles please with a link? Pass a Method talk 08:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

main sequence star types articles

Armbrust (talk · contribs) has completely messed up the entire set of "x-type main-sequence star" articles. The all got moved to "x-type main sequence", and now alot of them are all over the place, some of them called "x-type main-sequence star", others called "x-type main sequence star" . Since IIRC we had an RM discussion that set up these names (when we hyphenated "main-sequence"), this seems to have violated an existing consensus. (and I guess this is why he nominated all the related categories to be named "x-type main sequences" (ugh!) before withdrawing those ) but now the articles need to be checked for consistency in naming. 70.24.248.7 (talk) 04:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Big fucking mess after a bunch of page moves and CFDs

X-posted from WT:ASTRO

Armbrust (talk · contribs) just recently starting moving a bunch of pages willy-nilly, and then made CFD nominations based on the page moves. Nearly all of them don't make any sort of sense, and there's a lot to revert and cleanup. Help would be appreciated to cleanup that mess, as [15] s/he aren't listening to reason. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I tried to revert one of the nonsensical moves, but was prevented from doing so. Hmm, must be another change. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
god what a mess. He can't seem to be able to see that "moon images" (any moon) is ambiguous with "Moon images" (The Moon). or these weird nominations [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] that were withdrawn (robotic application of the naming recommendation that categories match articles is very bad practice...) 70.24.248.7 (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Yep. More Wikipedia goofiness. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

categorization keys by User:Armbrust

Armbrust (talk · contribs) has made a massive change of our categorization keys, such as this edit [25] when one of the main articles for that category is "blue giant". We need to examine all the star type articles for categorization key removals or additions. 70.24.248.7 (talk) 04:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Jesus hell, can that guy stop making drastic unilateral changes for two seconds? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
In typical fashion, dialogue is impossible. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
If Armbrust refuses to discuss the matter, an admin should send a stern warning to discuss further changes with the project. -- Kheider (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
A glance at their talk page and contribution history yesterday suggests that this is not a new problem. If attempts at dialogue continue to fail, the next step is to start a thread at WP:AN/I asking that they be given a short block to pause the disruption while people with admin powers explain to them that WP:BRD isn't a license to skip the "get consensus for changes" step in the editing process (non-admin discussion attempts don't seem to have helped, based on the talk page history). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
He has proposed a large number of stellar classification article name changes here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 21#Stars by spectral type. Hopefully that means he is responding to the comments. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Bot moving all of the "X constellation" categories to "X (constellation)"

Does this seem completely daft to anybody else? An impartial observer must think we spend a tremendous amount of time "fixing" trivial things that don't need fixing. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if you hang around some of the process pages, there's alot of "makework" things going on. Hell, a common thing with categories is, it doesn't matter if the article has a stupid name, we have to rename the category, then we'd rename the article, then the categories get renamed a second time... Why not rename the article in the first place? because the user doesn't work on article names, only category names! 70.24.248.7 (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I guess I shouldn't care so much because it is just categories, but it creates a big problem on the watch list where the haze of mass bot changes is concealing potential vandalism that may remain undiscovered for a long time. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
You can select 'hide bot edits' on the watchlist. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
True, but unfortunately bots can make a mangled mess of things sometimes, so they also need to be checked. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Since all the categories were deleted ( Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_14 ) can we rebuild them as categoryredirects? If not, I will never again categorize anything by constellation, since it's just too much work, as there's no consistent naming pattern anymore (not all of the categories contain "(constellation)" only some of them ). 70.24.248.7 (talk) 06:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I think there is still more discussion going on, so we may want to wait a little while and see what falls out. See: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 22#More constellation disambiguation. This type of renaming still falls under my "daft behavior on Wikipedia" category. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't work with some of the categories, like
  • Category:Triangulum Australe constellation to Category:Triangulum Australe – C2D per Triangulum Australe Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
and several others since we're not building categoryredirects at Category:Triangulum Australe (constellation) . 65.92.180.188 (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I created soft redirects at Category:Canis Minor (constellation), Category:Corona Australis (constellation), Category:Equuleus (constellation), Category:Leo Minor (constellation), Category:Piscis Austrinus (constellation) and Category:Triangulum Australe (constellation). In theory, that should take care of the revision for you. Regards, RJH (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I just fixed the Category:Bootes constellation categoryredirect ... which might be one of the last categories left at the old naming method... but Category:Bootes_(constellation) doesn't exist. 70.49.124.162 (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Greetings from GLAM-Wiki US

Invitation to join GLAM-Wiki US
tight
tight

Hello! This WikiProject aligns closely with the work of the GLAM-Wiki initiative (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums), a global community of volunteers who assist cultural institutions with sharing resources with Wikimedia. GLAM-Wiki US is a new community initiative focused on organizing cultural collaborations within the United States. GLAM organizations are diverse and span numerous topics, from libraries and art museums to science centers and historic sites. We currently have a backlog of interested institutions- and we need your help!

Are you interested in helping with current or future GLAM projects? Join→ Online Volunteers

We hope you'll join the growing GLAM-Wiki community in the US. Thank you!
-Lori Phillips (Talk), US Cultural Partnerships Coordinator
For more information visit→ The GLAM:US portal or GLAM-Wiki on Outreach

We currently have interest from the Imiloa Astronomy Center of Hawaii, who wants to begin a Wikipedia cooperation and implement QRpedia codes. If there is anyone interested in assisting with this project specifically, be sure to let me know. LoriLee (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Venus in the daytime sky tonight

Venus will be visible in the daytime sky tonight(Monday) at around 4pm local, next to the Moon. This happens rarely, if someone can get a photo of it then that would be great. Good luck to anybody looking for it. Here's a Link205.155.141.9 (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

115.225.170.63 (talk · contribs)

115.225.170.63 (talk · contribs) decategorized three IC galaxies out of category:Elliptical galaxies. I've since fixed the problem, but looking at Elliptical galaxies, it is suspiciously empty of IC objects, except the ones I corrected. So I suspect a large vandalism problem. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I checked through Category:IC objects. There are very few elliptical galaxies in that list; the only real discrepancy I found was IC 1101, which says it is an elliptical galaxy but is categorized as lenticular. A handful of the galaxy articles were uncategorized. I didn't see any evidence of persistent vandalism, although I did see a lot of articles that likely won't satisfy WP:NASTRO. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Armbrust article renaming requests

Armbrust (talk · contribs) has requested that Hypergiant, Gas giant, Subgiant and Bright giant all be renamed, see their respective talk pages talk:Hypergiant, talk:Gas giant, talk:Subgiant and talk:Bright giant.

Note that Armbrust has recently been blocked for editwarring. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Western constellations?

Apparently there are Category:Western constellations. I thought Western constellations might be those defined by the Western civilizations, but apparently not as there are also Category:Eastern constellations containing those defined in the West. There is no definition for these lists on the category pages. West of what, I'm not sure. Maybe "west" of some Right Ascension? Regards, RJH (talk) 01:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand Category:Northern constellations and Category:Southern constellations as being Northern hemisphere and Southern hemisphere constellations, but I don't see Western and Eastern being like that... To me, "Western constellations" are constellations out of the Mesopotamian tradition (ie. Greek constellations, up through IAU constellations). But there are two other great traditional constellations systems that could be called "Eastern", the Chinese/East Asian and the Indian/South Asian ones. 65.92.180.131 (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm thinking that I should go to WP:CfD and propose the Eastern and Western constellation categories for deletion as redundant, ambiguous, unclear, and/or possibly OR. That will result in either a clarification, repurposing, or removal of these categories. Any of these should be preferable to the current complete lack of clarity. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 26#Western and Eastern constellations. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The categories have been deleted. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the ancient Indian "constellations" are categorized in Category:Nakshatra. We're missing three articles from the list on the Nakshatra article, so I'll add those to the Astronomy requested articles list. I'm not sure about the supposed 28th constellation.[26] Regards, RJH (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

some more CFD/article renaming

at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 22, the category for white dwarfs is requested to be renamed, but the discussion has evolved towards discussing the names of the articles and categories for all dwarf stars and giant stars. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 04:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that all this category churn is particularly beneficial. As Voltaire put it, the best is the enemy of the good. Most of the category names are already good. Regards, RJH (talk) 02:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

HighBeam Research

FYI, there are apparently 1000 free 1-year accounts available to qualified Wikipedia editors, see Wikipedia:HighBeam. As HighBeam sometimes comes up with astronomy articles, this may be useful. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 05:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, anon. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Equatorial constellations

A number of sources use the term "Equatorial constellation", which I interpret as constellations that intersect the celestial equator but which a couple of sources define as those directly overhead between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn. We don't have such a category, but we do have some constellations in Category:Northern constellations that cross over into the southern celestial hemisphere (E.g. Orion (constellation) and Pisces (constellation)). These cross-over constellations are not consistently categorized in Category:Southern constellations, so I think it would make some sense to set up an Category:Equatorial constellations category and migrate the appropriate articles there. That way we have a clear-cut division. Are there any concerns about this? Regards, RJH (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month follow-up

Hi everyone! I just wanted to follow up with your project and see if any article creations or improvements took place in regards to Wikipedia:WikiWomen's History Month! If so, it'd be great if you could please post your article outcomes on the..you guessed it...WWHM outcome page! Thanks everyone for all your efforts! Sarah (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Priscilla Fairfield Bok was fully destubbed and is now probably close to GA-nom. Iridia (talk) 07:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

PR for outer space

The outer space article has been submitted for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review#Outer space. Please take a look if you have an interest. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Karlis Kaufmanis

I've created a new article titled Karlis Kaufmanis, still pretty stubby. Work on it if you are so inspired. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

DOAx

someone found the Directory of Open Access 'x' websites, which have a few astronomy and physics resources

The DOAJ website seems to have a few astronomy and physics journals.

70.49.124.147 (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately of the journals on that list only the IBVS is likely to be useful for Wikipedia articles. More importantly, most astronomy papers are available for free via arXiv or NASA ADS anyway. Modest Genius talk 11:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sun-Earth Day

I need help with a stubborn user who insists on inserting blatantly promotional text into Sun-Earth Day. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I added a problem template to the page and put a {{uw-advert1}} warning on the editors talk page (per WP:WARNING). Regards, RJH (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Cool, and thank you guys for taking care of the article. Looks pretty good now. Troy seemed to have acted in good faith; what a pity that he didn't seem to get the difference between an encyclopedia and "awesome, a place where I can raise awareness for my cause". :-/ --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I think Troy was just an WP:SPA. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for reassessment of Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact

The article Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact is currently rated as Start-class. However, as this diff shows, the article has been expanded greatly and has become far more comprehensive since the assessment was made. The page has, as part of this, been expanded by 7,568 bytes (a 75.4% increase), and its organization has become much clearer. Additionally, no more than seven new references have been added to the 15 previously there for a total of 22 references, even though this is a field where the amount of scientific literature is low and statements of mere generalities is high. In addition, there are more non-free references on the article's talk page which I have not been able to add yet, but with aid from this WikiProject may be incorporated into the article. On top of these facts, the article has zero [citation needed] tags.

Therefore, I think that it is high time the article is reassessed for quality. I also request the cooperation of this WikiProject in expanding the article so that it can be brought to greater heights.

Regards, Wer900 talkessay on the definition of consensus 16:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be in decent shape, so I bumped it up to a 'B'. Hope that's okay. As I see it, the topic of cultural impact is still only indirectly related to astronomy, so I left the importance as 'bottom'. The lead is still on the short side. You could probably add a section about cultural impact as portrayed in media. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I haven't read the article in detail, but one thing that does puzzle me is why it spends an entire paragraph discussing a minor and very speculative article in QJRAS, which was a magazine for members, not a research journal (especially since this wasn't even referenced properly until I fixed it). Modest Genius talk 22:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Redirect

Please review the list history at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Astronomy/Candidates_for_redirection_new. Does everything seem to be in order? I'll post it here:

Did Farmbrough store a list of the 363 asteroids that had a "reference" on the JPL Small-Body Database? -- Kheider (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I asked him that (see the corresponding discussion, below), but he didn't reply. Shall we ask him again? Chrisrus (talk) 05:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I would like to see the JPL removed list just so I better understand and follow the overall bot-process. -- Kheider (talk) 06:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd love to help you but I don't know to much about bots. I did, however, provide the names of each person involved so that you can direct your questions accordingly. Let me know if there's anything more I can/should do. Chrisrus (talk) 06:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Rich says:

The JPL references were added to the articles for the minor planets they related to. These are the articles
  1. 10443 van der Pol
  2. 11027 Astaf'ev
  3. 11072 Hiraoka
  4. 11118 Modra
  5. 11496 Grass
  6. 11509 Thersilochos
  7. 11836 Eileen
  8. 11868 Kleinrichert
  9. 11978 Makotomasako
  10. 12016 Green
  11. 12071 Davykim
  12. 12238 Actor
  13. 1233 Kobresia
  14. 1242 Zambesia
  15. 1243 Pamela
  16. 1244 Deira
  17. 1249 Rutherfordia
  18. 1250 Galanthus
  19. 12527 Anneraugh
  20. 1255 Schilowa
  21. 1261 Legia
  22. 1267 Geertruida
  23. 1281 Jeanne
  24. 12845 Crick
  25. 12895 Balbastre
  26. 1291 Phryne
  27. 13014 Hasslacher
  28. 13154 Petermrva
  29. 13260 Sabadell
  30. 1328 Devota
  31. 1337 Gerarda
  32. 1340 Yvette
  33. 1346 Gotha
  34. 1347 Patria
  35. 13482 Igorfedorov
  36. 1349 Bechuana
  37. 13533 Junili
  38. 1354 Botha
  39. 1356 Nyanza
  40. 1364 Safara
  41. 1366 Piccolo
  42. 1368 Numidia
  43. 13732 Woodall
  44. 1378 Leonce
  45. 1379 Lomonosowa
  46. 13806 Darmstrong
  47. 1382 Gerti
  48. 1389 Onnie
  49. 13906 Shunda
  50. 1392 Pierre
  51. 13921 Sgarbini
  52. 1393 Sofala
  53. 1397 Umtata
  54. 13977 Frisch
  55. 1405 Sibelius
  56. 1409 Isko
  57. 14141 Demeautis
  58. 14164 Hennigar
  59. 1419 Danzig
  60. 1425 Tuorla
  61. 1426 Riviera
  62. 1429 Pemba
  63. 1430 Somalia
  64. 1431 Luanda
  65. 14335 Alexosipov
  66. 1434 Margot
  67. 14342 Iglika
  68. 1452 Hunnia
  69. 1460 Haltia
  70. 14643 Morata
  71. 14659 Gregoriana
  72. 1477 Bonsdorffia
  73. 14835 Holdridge
  74. 1496 Turku
  75. 1504 Lappeenranta
  76. 15107 Toepperwein
  77. 1522 Kokkola
  78. 1524 Joensuu
  79. 1532 Inari
  80. 1533 Saimaa
  81. 15350 Naganuma
  82. 15374 Teta
  83. 1540 Kevola
  84. 15415 Rika
  85. 1543 Bourgeois
  86. 1576 Fabiola
  87. 1585 Union
  88. 1609 Brenda
  89. 1611 Beyer
  90. 1628 Strobel
  91. 1644 Rafita
  92. 1646 Rosseland
  93. 1648 Shajna
  94. 1665 Gaby
  95. 1669 Dagmar
  96. 1672 Gezelle
  97. 1682 Karel
  98. 1688 Wilkens
  99. 17035 Velichko
  100. 1707 Chantal
  101. 17079 Lavrovsky
  102. 1709 Ukraina
  103. 1710 Gothard
  104. 1712 Angola
  105. 1718 Namibia
  106. 17198 Gorjup
  107. 1720 Niels
  108. 1722 Goffin
  109. 1731 Smuts
  110. 1735 ITA
  111. 1753 Mieke
  112. 1754 Cunningham
  113. 1757 Porvoo
  114. 1759 Kienle
  115. 17683 Kanagawa
  116. 1789 Dobrovolsky
  117. 1800 Aguilar
  118. 1801 Titicaca
  119. 1803 Zwicky
  120. 1804 Chebotarev
  121. 1805 Dirikis
  122. 1837 Osita
  123. 1842 Hynek
  124. 1873 Agenor
  125. 1877 Marsden
  126. 1879 Broederstroom
  127. 18874 Raoulbehrend
  128. 1897 Hind
  129. 1902 Shaposhnikov
  130. 1907 Rudneva
  131. 1928 Summa
  132. 1933 Tinchen
  133. 19379 Labrecque
  134. 1939 Loretta
  135. 1941 Wild
  136. 1946 Walraven
  137. 1956 Artek
  138. 1957 Angara
  139. 1960 Guisan
  140. 1961 Dufour
  141. 19763 Klimesh
  142. 1995 Hajek
  143. 19982 Barbaradoore
  144. 2003 Harding
  145. 2013 Tucapel
  146. 2017 Wesson
  147. 2049 Grietje
  148. 2054 Gawain
  149. 20571 Tiamorrison
  150. 2080 Jihlava
  151. 2084 Okayama
  152. 20898 Fountainhills
  153. 2091 Sampo
  154. 2109 Dhotel
  155. 2111 Tselina
  156. 2113 Ehrdni
  157. 2139 Makharadze
  158. 2140 Kemerovo
  159. 21436 Chaoyichi
  160. 2156 Kate
  161. 21609 Williamcaleb
  162. 21652 Vasishtha
  163. 21705 Subinmin
  164. 2175 Andrea Doria
  165. 2186 Keldysh
  166. 2187 La Silla
  167. 2197 Shanghai
  168. 22338 Janemojo
  169. 2253 Espinette
  170. 2259 Sofievka
  171. 22603 Davidoconnor
  172. 2274 Ehrsson
  173. 2276 Warck
  174. 22776 Matossian
  175. 2285 Ron Helin
  176. 2292 Seili
  177. 2293 Guernica
  178. 22988 Jimmyhom
  179. 2301 Whitford
  180. 2302 Florya
  181. 2304 Slavia
  182. 2323 Zverev
  183. 2338 Bokhan
  184. 2339 Anacreon
  185. 2364 Seillier
  186. 23712 Willpatrick
  187. 2381 Landi
  188. 2385 Mustel
  189. 2398 Jilin
  190. 24101 Cassini
  191. 2415 Ganesa
  192. 2416 Sharonov
  193. 2422 Perovskaya
  194. 2433 Sootiyo
  195. 2442 Corbett
  196. 2443 Tomeileen
  197. 24643 MacCready
  198. 2474 Ruby
  199. 2477 Biryukov
  200. 2480 Papanov
  201. 2483 Guinevere
  202. 2490 Bussolini
  203. 2523 Ryba
  204. 2524 Budovicium
  205. 2529 Rockwell Kent
  206. 2543 Machado
  207. 2545 Verbiest
  208. 2563 Boyarchuk
  209. 2572 Annschnell
  210. 2591 Dworetsky
  211. 2624 Samitchell
  212. 2637 Bobrovnikoff
  213. 2649 Oongaq
  214. 2669 Shostakovich
  215. 2687 Tortali
  216. 26879 Haines
  217. 2713 Luxembourg
  218. 2714 Matti
  219. 2760 Kacha
  220. 2774 Tenojoki
  221. 2779 Mary
  222. 2783 Chernyshevskij
  223. 2785 Sedov
  224. 2794 Kulik
  225. 2796 Kron
  226. 2832 Lada
  227. 2862 Vavilov
  228. 2880 Nihondaira
  229. 2893 Peiroos
  230. 2895 Memnon
  231. 2896 Preiss
  232. 2937 Gibbs
  233. 2939 Coconino
  234. 2942 Cordie
  235. 2943 Heinrich
  236. 2945 Zanstra
  237. 2960 Ohtaki
  238. 2981 Chagall
  239. 2991 Bilbo
  240. 2993 Wendy
  241. 2995 Taratuta
  242. 3005 Pervictoralex
  243. 3025 Higson
  244. 3052 Herzen
  245. 3068 Khanina
  246. 3076 Garber
  247. 3080 Moisseiev
  248. 3099 Hergenrother
  249. 3101 Goldberger
  250. 3109 Machin
  251. 3111 Misuzu
  252. 3116 Goodricke
  253. 3133 Sendai
  254. 3134 Kostinsky
  255. 3141 Buchar
  256. 3176 Paolicchi
  257. 3178 Yoshitsune
  258. 3186 Manuilova
  259. 31956 Wald
  260. 3212 Agricola
  261. 3247 Di Martino
  262. 3267 Glo
  263. 3268 De Sanctis
  264. 3284 Niebuhr
  265. 3290 Azabu
  266. 3300 McGlasson
  267. 3332 Raksha
  268. 3370 Kohsai
  269. 3402 Wisdom
  270. 3403 Tammy
  271. 3444 Stepanian
  272. 3485 Barucci
  273. 35062 Sakuranosyou
  274. 3514 Hooke
  275. 3525 Paul
  276. 3557 Sokolsky
  277. 3590 Holst
  278. 3597 Kakkuri
  279. 3617 Eicher
  280. 3631 Sigyn
  281. 3637 O'Meara
  282. 3638 Davis
  283. 3651 Friedman
  284. 3657 Ermolova
  285. 3675 Kemstach
  286. 3685 Derdenye
  287. 3724 Annenskij
  288. 3725 Valsecchi
  289. 3729 Yangzhou
  290. 3731 Hancock
  291. 3761 Romanskaya
  292. 3785 Kitami
  293. 3790 Raywilson
  294. 3794 Sthenelos
  295. 3801 Thrasymedes
  296. 3807 Pagels
  297. 3811 Karma
  298. 3843 OISCA
  299. 3855 Pasasymphonia
  300. 3872 Akirafujii
  301. 3880 Kaiserman
  302. 3888 Hoyt
  303. 3906 Chao
  304. 3918 Brel
  305. 3923 Radzievskij
  306. 3924 Birch
  307. 3935 Toatenmongakkai
  308. 3936 Elst
  309. 3953 Perth
  310. 3960 Chaliubieju
  311. 3968 Koptelov
  312. 39741 Komm
  313. 3986 Rozhkovskij
  314. 4007 Euryalos
  315. 4008 Corbin
  316. 4045 Lowengrub
  317. 4057 Demophon
  318. 4085 Weir
  319. 4112 Hrabal
  320. 4162 SAF
  321. 4169 Celsius
  322. 4172 Rochefort
  323. 4174 Pikulia
  324. 4190 Kvasnica
  325. 4196 Shuya
  326. 4201 Orosz
  327. 4204 Barsig
  328. 4214 Veralynn
  329. 4224 Susa
  330. 4226 Damiaan
  331. 4255 Spacewatch
  332. 4263 Abashiri
  333. 4289 Biwako
  334. 4294 Horatius
  335. 4308 Magarach
  336. 4317 Garibaldi
  337. 4323 Hortulus
  338. 4423 Golden
  339. 4457 van Gogh
  340. 4467 Kaidanovskij
  341. 4498 Shinkoyama
  342. 4502 Elizabethann
  343. 4505 Okamura
  344. 4509 Gorbatskij
  345. 4703 Kagoshima
  346. 4712 Iwaizumi
  347. 4722 Agelaos
  348. 4741 Leskov
  349. 4754 Panthoos
  350. 4773 Hayakawa
  351. 4791 Iphidamas
  352. 4792 Lykaon
  353. 4806 Miho
  354. 4816 Connelly
  355. 4827 Dares
  356. 4828 Misenus
  357. 4832 Palinurus
  358. 4833 Meges
  359. 4836 Medon
  360. 4863 Yasutani
  361. 4867 Polites
  362. 4894 Ask
  363. 4946 Askalaphus

Let's not leave them here. Where should we put them? Chrisrus (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

How this list was created

Phase I:

Phase II:

Phase III

NOTE:

The actual list contains the above text and the list itself. Here it is again: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Astronomy/Candidates_for_redirection_new Chrisrus (talk) 04:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, if you would like, it seems like a good idea. Please be sure to alter the list history accordingly. Chrisrus (talk) 05:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment – To my eye it looks a little odd that the list only contains a single entry that begins with a 5–9. That makes me suspect a bug somewhere. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I see. Can we pinpoint it? Chrisrus (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Maybe stubmaker was going through list and was stopped before creating articles about minor planets that begins with a 5–9? Bulwersator (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Bug in phase I, for example 6715 Sheldonmarks was skipped Bulwersator (talk) 10:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
        • I think it got past the bot because it had more than one discoverer. The bot wasn't told what exactly what kind of text over and above "(Minor planet) is a (whatever) that was discovered by (person) in (place) on (date)" would constitute enough information to pass WP:NASTRO, so it erred on the side of causion. It didn't know that having two discovers didn't mean an article shouldn't be notablity-tagged. It's ok, we don't have to get them all at once. We're taking baby steps here. So even though the only extra information in that article was a second discoverer, it was set aside as one we could always come back to another day. It's a good thing: we have plenty of articles right here which we know can't possibly pass WP:GNG or Nastro based on the content within them alone. Ok? It's not like later we can't look back at the ones we didn't tag. Chrisrus (talk) 00:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy/Archive_9&oldid=1091650404"