Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Archive 8

Milky Way

There is a discussion at Talk:Milky Way about splitting the article in two, one for the galaxy, one for the nebulous band of light across the night sky. 132.205.44.5 23:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Milky Way (mythology) is now being considered for merging back into the main article, as it was decided not to split the article in two. 132.205.44.5 22:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

AFD on List of extrasolar planet extremes

List of extrasolar planet extremes was nominated for deletion by Chaos Syndrome, and then delisted. The article has been greatly reworked though. 132.205.44.5 22:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Reasoning behind the reworking (actually, its just deletion of items that either weren't "extremes" or were potentially misleading) is in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of extrasolar planet extremes discussion. Chaos syndrome 23:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

substellar

substar, substellar, substellar object should probably redirect somewhere... any thoughts? 132.205.44.5 00:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Spacepotato made an article at sso on the 17th. So, should a redirect exist at substellar? 132.205.44.5 21:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Uranus

This article is currently a FA candidate. Please, participate. Comments can be left here.Ruslik 13:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears to have been removed, wiped and flushed from the FAC stack. I coulnd't find any comments in the history. — RJH (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It's been proposed again as a FAC. Spacepotato 22:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Acom

Most of User:Acom's images have come up for deletion at WP:IFD or are listed at WP:PUI as possibly un-free or copyright violations. 132.205.44.5 21:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

True mass

I'm currently not part of this project, but I'm wondering whether or not the article on true mass would belong with this project or possibly the more general Astronomy project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benhocking (talk • contribs) 16:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You can bring it up at WP:AST, and WP:PHYSICS. To me, it should be at either of those WikiProjects. 132.205.44.5 21:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

2006 definition of planet

2006 definition of planet has an ongoing renaming debate on the talk page, and several non-consensus renames over the weekend. 132.205.44.5 00:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

White dwarf

I have nominated this article as a FAC. Feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/White dwarf. Spacepotato 02:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it's FA. Good job! — RJH (talk) 23:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"self-taken" astronomy photos

There are some pictures up for deletion right now because a user doubts that several pictures galaxies etc. of so high a quality can be taken with a $1000 camera. I tend to agree, but I know nothing about this. Any comments at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2007_September_11 are welcome. Thanks! Calliopejen1 23:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Amateur telescopes are now capable of taking photographs of astonishing quality, thanks to the ability of merging a multitude of image frames.[1] I have seen amateur shots of the moon on LPOD that have better resolution than the early lunar orbiter images. (See, for example: http://www.lpod.org/?m=20070924) So that user shouldn't be so sure of [her|him]self. — RJH (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

K V star, G V star, etc.

Quick Google search suggests these terms are not widely used outside the Wikipedia if at all. "Orange dwarf" and "yellow dwarf" seem much more frequently used, though yellow dwarf seems to also be used of F stars as well as G stars, so may be less precise. Furthermore convention for shorthand for red dwarfs seems to use the prefix d rather than suffix V, i.e. "dM star", though this usage does not seem to extend to spectral classes other than M. Furthermore ambiguity sets in for spectral class A ("white"), and "blue dwarf" seems to be more frequently used for a type of galaxy. Furthermore such stars are really quite large even when on the main sequence!

Given the difficulty in coming up with a consistent naming scheme for these articles and their stubby nature, maybe it would be better to merge them, e.g. into main sequence? Chaos syndrome 00:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine for the reasons you gave. The way, the truth, and the light 01:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This has been debated before; see #Star spectral class article renames above. I don't think "Orange dwarf" and "yellow dwarf" are at all widely used, when compared to terms like "class K" and "class G", so I'd still be opposed to that renaming scheme. But I have no qualms about a redirect to main sequence. — RJH (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer separate articles, as, for one thing, it will bloat main sequence, and listing prominent examples of the type would less ideal on a merged article. 132.205.44.5 22:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually the information in all these articles seems to be just the temperature range and the mass range. Therefore the information in these articles is already contained in the table in the main sequence article, so I don't think potential bloat is a pressing concern here. Only thing missing is the examples, for which an extra column could be added. Chaos syndrome 09:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Main sequence article is not all that large at present, but what you say makes sense. — RJH (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've added some examples to the table in the Main sequence article, but for some of them they are rather obscure and based off the first results that came off Google (e.g. in the case of O2V and O5V these are stars in the Magellanic Clouds apparently). If more well known examples of some of these could be found that would be good. Chaos syndrome 16:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer not to merge these articles, as they could be expanded to contain more information on main sequence stars of the given types; this would bloat main sequence unnecessarily. As for the names, they were discussed before, and an ADSABS search will find that they are used in the astronomical literature. The other points above would be relevant only if the articles were named Orange dwarf, etc. Spacepotato 19:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, the articles could be expanded, but who's going to do this I wonder, and when? In any case, this isn't really a problem since the articles can then be split out again if necessary. Personally I prefer to deal with the articles as they are rather than as they might be in some hypothetical future when some hypothetical editor comes and makes some hypothetical expansions.

On a related note, is the space between the MK and Harvard spectral types more common, or is the space usually omitted. I'm not particularly familiar with the literature on this point, and Google/ADS "helpfully" give results both with and without the space. Chaos syndrome 23:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The hypothetical editor and expansion are far more likely to appear if the articles are allowed to grow, rather than pruned. The articles are also useful as they stand. As for the spectral type, you may write it either with or without the space—I don't see that either form is overwhelmingly more common. Spacepotato 23:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree about the presence of a space in a spectral type: spectral types are idiosyncratic enough that it doesn't really matter. I'm more used to seeing no space, though. BSVulturis 17:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Callisto

I nominated Callisto to FAC. You can leave your comments here. Ruslik 12:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Asteroid bot

Hello. My friend, Eagle 101, and I have created a bot that would create articles in userspace with infoboxes from public domain NASA data, and I was hoping the Astronomical objects Wikiproject would support it. Additionally, we would like to know if any additional sources of data are available, and if it would be wiser to go ahead and just run the bot in the article space. Thanks. Daniel Bush 06:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note it is also very possible if we choose to, to do a rambot like generation of pages. There is enough data here I can probably get up to 4-5 automated sentences. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 17:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose The overwhelming majority of these asteroids are not notable. There are plans underway to group together several asteroid-spotting observatories into a single summary/list page, since the observatories themselves apparently aren't notable enough to warrant individual pages. So certainly the asteroids discovered by these observatories don't each deserve a page. --Sapphic 18:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then in that case tell me what the criteria are and we can have the bot do it that way. (by observatory or whatever). I already have the bot grabbing the data, so the formatting and layout won't be all that hard. Please also note this is a discussion, not a vote. I won't run the bot until we have addressed any and all concerns, but this bot is capable of creating all the infoboxes etc, which by the looks of it are a PITA to do by hand. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 19:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see much discussion there, and the stuff there is over a month old. If there is actually discussion on this topic please point me to it (all that is is the most wanted pages)... Otherwise lets figure something out. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, don't get me wrong. I'm in favor of automated generation of content in cases where it actually works as well as (or better than) what humans can do — and I think this is one of those cases — but I'm trying to prevent you from doing a lot of work only to have it undone by some deletionist. I don't know squat about astronomy and so couldn't tell you what makes an asteroid notable, but I think you'll find out from people in related projects that it's not something that lends itself well to automation (it never is.) Wikipedia just isn't well-suited to bulk content creation (yet.) I spend my time helping to update the lists and reports that are generated through analysis of the database (XML) dumps. In the past, I've processed the content of not-yet-rated biographies to sort them into classes like "probable stub" and "potential b-class" and such, to help speed up the reviewing process. My point is that there are other ways to contribute your programming skills and machine time that don't involve mass generation of questionable pages, and I'd suggest pursuing one of those instead. Otherwise, good luck with creating all those pages and don't say I didn't warn you about the likely response :) Cheers, --Sapphic 21:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: Sorry about that confusing last paragraph.. I was mixing up who I was talking to. I thought Eagle 101 was the original poster until just a moment ago. Most of my comments were actually meant for Daniel Bush. Elsewhere he has proposed creating an article for every single asteroid, which I think would meet with a lot of opposition and possibly sour him on contributing such effort in the future (which I think would be a shame.) --Sapphic 22:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll say that I'm opposed to this idea. For the moment, the list of asteroids serves the purpose of providing basic information, while articles can be created for the more notable objects. This is wikipedia not wikicatalogue after all... mail merge letters are bad enough, mail merge encyclopaedias should be left as a purely theoretical concept. BTW as one of our resident deletionists, I'd like to say there's nothing wrong with deletionism :-) Chaos syndrome 22:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What if we agreed only to create articles on asteroids over 50 kilometers in diameter? Daniel Bush 01:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, lets ask this question... what makes an asteroid notable? Is it size? How about how bright it appears in the sky? Do we have guidelines as far as what is an important and "notable" Astronomical object? Lets hammer/figure those out first, then come back to this. The main benifit of the bot is it can generate these info boxes much faster then any human can, however I agree, we should not create 100,000 articles either. Deletionism has its place :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 02:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Are we talking about asteroids, or asteroids and KBOs and other things with MPC numbers? If it's an cis-Jovian asteroid, magnitude, year of discovery, size, and notable events all should come into it. If it's a trans-Neptunian, all that plus roundness. I should think. All NEOs should probably count. 132.205.99.122 19:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I mean all things with MPC numbers. But what if we only did numbered minor planets with official names? That would cut the number of bot articles down to 13,889. Daniel Bush 06:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I had a few criteria in mind. The Asteroid is notable if it...

1. ...was discovered directly, before the advent of astronomical photography.
2. ...has recently passed close to the Earth (< 1 million km).
3. ...has been directly imaged in detail by a spacecraft or telescope, or it has been the subject of an occultation observation program.
4. ...has been the subject of a scientific journal article or news story.
5. ...is the largest or most massive member of its family.
6. ...has been identified as the source of an Earth meteorite.

— RJH (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Dyson Sphere GA push

I recently nominated Dyson Sphere for GA status, and it was failed; however, it's close, and with some help we can get it there. In particular, the reviewers left suggestions on a few specific issues:

1. An infobox would be nice; I don't know which one would be most appropriate, but someone here might.
2. Needs additional copyediting (esp. per weasel words, redundancies)
3. Needs additional sources

Thanks for your help. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't seem to have an article about the concept of a Niven ring (it redirects to the fictional set of stories / novel Ringworld)... perhaps that should also exist, as a concept separate from the story? 132.205.44.5 02:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Trojan planet was prodded

Trojan planet was transwiki'd to wiktionary, and subsequently prodded by a bot. 132.205.44.5 02:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It was prodded by User:TexasAndroid, not by a bot. Anyway, it's de-proposed at the moment. Spacepotato 16:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Planet Infobox References

Each of the element pages includes a references link that points to reference break-out pages for each of the parameters. (C.f. Chemical elements data references.) It might make sense to do something similar for the planet and moon infoboxes. That way we have some baseline data and references that we can use for our standards. Right now those parameters get toggled around so much that I have strong doubts concerning their veracity. — RJH (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

17P/Holmes

17P/Holmes is on the main page right now in the in the news section. Now is the time for any comet experts and or enthusiasts to come out and make the article shine. Just thought I would drop a note here. IvoShandor 15:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Notice of List articles

Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).

• List of basic astronomy topics

This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity 19:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Eta Carinae Nebula -> Carina Nebula

The Eta Carinae Nebula article has been proposed to be renamed as Carina Nebula 132.205.99.122 19:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

pronunciation

When a star gets media attenion, as 55 Cancri, people are going to want a pronunciation guide. Could we maybe add a link under the "constellation" header in {{Starbox observe}}, {{Starbox observe 2s}}, etc., that will take them to pronunciation? kwami 01:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead. Doesn't look like there's more than just those two to adjust. kwami 01:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why this change is needed. We don't have pronunciation links for other terms used on these pages. So why have one for the constellation name? I'd prefer to see that reverted. The pronunciation can be covered on the constellation's page. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The constellation pages only give pronunciations for the nominative. Knowing the pronunciation of Cancer doesn't help much with Cancri, as one of our readers complained. (They asked if the second cee was /k/ or /s/.) This way every star named after a constellation has a link to its pronunciation. As for not having other terms so linked, that's the norm in Wikipedia - most of the 20,000 pages which indicate pronunciation only do so for the name of the article. kwami 00:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not relevant to the constellation entry in the infobox, which in this case is not 'Cancri'. You are expecting the reader to deduce that the "pronunciation" link is relevant to the star name. Also the vast majority of stars are not named after a constellation, so the link in that case is irrelevant. So this argument is not working for me. — RJH (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Major changes to force article

I've been making some major changes to force. There are a few things I could use help with:

• Writing a section on nuclear forces (strong, weak, color, etc.)
• Referencing (this is mostly formality, but anyway)
• Finding a good lead image.

Cheerio,

ScienceApologist 01:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Charon (planet) is at WP:RFD

The redirect Charon (planet) (to Charon (moon)) has been nominated for deletion at WP:RFD. 132.205.99.122 22:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

When I was your age, Pluto was a Planet at AfD

When I was your age, Pluto was a Planet has been sent for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/When I was your age, Pluto was a Planet. 132.205.99.122 20:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Vega

I've been working to get the Vega article up to FA quality, and I think it's getting into decent shape. Right now it's being peer reviewed and it's in the queue for a GA status. Useful comments and suggestions would be appreciated. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It is now a featured article candidate. — RJH (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Article was promoted to FA. — RJH (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Tired light

User:Harald88 continues to insist that certain extremely fringe publications that are only cited by the authors get included at tired light which was a proposal made by Fritz Zwicky o so many years ago and now has been consigned to the dustbin of history. As it is, these references look very much to me like soapboxing. I'm not sure if Harald is associated with Marmet, Masreliez , or Accardi, but he seems to be peculiarly convinced that their papers have relevance to physics beyond the astrophysics community where these cranks have received little to no recognition for their ideas. I would appreciate a third opinion on the matter as I cannot seem to get Harald to understand that these references do not belong in a legitimate encyclopedia. Thanks. Please comment at Talk:Tired light. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: I usually add a {{dubious}} tag to references of a questionable nature. — RJH (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

{{Cite journal}}

Users of {{Cite journal}} may wish to know that it now has a field for the bibcode used by the Astrophysics Data System. Spacepotato (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

NGC 88 at AfD

NGC 88 has been nominated for deletion WP:AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NGC 88 132.205.99.122 (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD closed, article was kept. Spacepotato (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Opinions requested on sub-template idea

Characteristics
Test 1	G2 V [A] K1 V [B]
Test 2	A) 0.24 B) 0.64
Test 3	A 0.24 B 0.64
Test 4	0.24A 0.64B
Test 5	0.24A 0.64B
Test 6	A None B None

I've been pondering how multi-star data is presented in the starbox template. One of the ideas I had was to have a sub-template that would display the data for each component in a standardized form, with appropriate designators. To the right is an example of several different styles I tried out. Which, if any, of these styles would you prefer?

The other approach would be to set up separate starbox templates that could handle 2, 3, ..., n stars. But then it becomes difficult to align the columns.

Thank you. — RJH (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

55 Cancri

Observation data Epoch J2000.0
Component	A	B
Constellation (pronunciation)	Cancer
Right ascension	08h 52m 35.8s	08h 52m 40.9s
Declination	+28° 19′ 51″	+28° 19′ 59″
Apparent magnitude (V)	5.95	13.15
Characteristics
Spectral type	G8V	M3.5-4V
U-B color index	0.65	1.21
B-V color index	0.86	1.66
Variable type	none	unknown
Details
Mass	0.95±0.1 M☉	0.13 M☉
Radius	0.96 R☉	0.30 R☉
Luminosity	0.63 L☉	0.0076 L☉
Temperature	5250 K	?
Rotation	42.2 days	?
Age	4.5×109 years	?

Rather than discuss the format of individual lines of the starbox in isolation, I think it would be preferable to look at the overall format of the starbox. I've illustrated one possibility with an excerpt from 55 Cancri. How would this appear under your proposal? Spacepotato 00:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems I've run into with multi-column data is that when one of the fields becomes inordinately large, the table fills up most of the space for the article lead. This gives the article a hideous look, depending on the width of the browser, as the lead is pushed down below the table. So whatever the solution, I'd like to avoid that condition. For rows with wide cells, I'd like to be able to split the rows cells into 2(+) rows rather that always being forced into 2(+) columns. That's why I was thinking about having a single row template rather than re-defining the infobox. — RJH (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a function of the overall appearance of the infobox, not how it's implemented. There is no reason a redesigned infobox could not present some entries in multi-row format and others in multi-column format, and, conversely, if a subtemplate were used to split one cell into two horizontally aligned subcells, it could be used to present all quantities in multi-column format, thus producing a wide starbox. So, I believe the issue is how the infobox should look as a whole, which is why I'm asking you what your preference is for this. The infobox on the right has a width of only ~320 px, which I think is not too wide. The box in 55 Cancri now is somewhat wider (~370 px) but could be brought down to a width of ~330 px by reducing the nominal width of the designations section and reformatting the proper motion section. Spacepotato (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the appearance is acceptible for cases where all of the data is in columns, there are only two components, and none of the cell fields is too wide. Having the components as a column header does help reduce the overall width. On the 55 Cancri page, however, the primary determinant of the width is the proper motion field. If that field was cited, it would make for an even wider table. As it is the width of the starbox on that page is barely acceptible.—RJH (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect information - Plutino & Cubewano

The resonance on Plutino & Cubewano page states, 2:3 & 1:2, respectively. Dynamical determination of the Kuiper Belt's mass ... states it is 3:2 & 2:1. Doing a search on the internet with google pulls up the same.

• Plutino are 3:2, not 2:3
• Cubewano are 2:1, not 1:2

I did not change any data yet, just wanted verification on this. Thanks, Marasama 23:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Plutinos are listed as either 3:2 or 2:3. It is just a ratio. It just means that Neptune completes 3 orbits every time the Plutino (Pluto as an example) goes around twice. Cubewanos are not controlled by any orbital resonance. I have tweaked the Plutino article. -- Kheider 04:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

F-IV

Does anyone want to rewrite this into a star article? F-IV is up for deletion as a non-notable band. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe there was some discussion before in this project about having articles on individual classes, and the consensus IIRC was against it. Having an article only on class F sub-giants probably wouldn't be very beneficial, and it would likely get redirected to stellar classification.—RJH (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Surface features of celestial bodies

categories of Surface features of celestial bodies has been nominated to rename from cat:X on Y to cat:X of Y. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 9#Surface features of celestial bodies 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions of not-quite-so-bright stars....

I read the naming conventions here and was still puzzled. At one end we obviously have Betelgeuse and at the other Delta Cygni instead of Al Fawaris. Was there a discussion on where the line should be drawn? WRT naming, is Zeta Orionis more widely used than Alnitak? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't WP:COMMONNAME come into play also? There was a discussion a while ago on this... 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Update

According to naming conventions, this star as an accepted common name (Alnitak) as well as, obviously, Zeta Orionis. The name should be under which is more widely used.

• WRT Google hits:

• Alnitak + star = 17700
• "Zeta Orionis" + star = 4910

On google scholar,

• "Zeta Orionis" + star = 69
• Alnitak + star = 87

Therefore it would appear Alnitak is the more commonly used name. Unless there are any objections I'll move it in a a day or two. I intend doing this for some other bright stars, such as the other belt stars too. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I did a search on the Harvard abstracts to see in the literature which name is more common.

• Alnitak = 0
• Zeta Orionis = 154

It seems to me that argues in the other direction. I'd be more inclined to follow the technical literature and have a redirect for the so called common name. WilliamKF (talk) 02:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting - how do I find that? I'd be interested to see how they do the bright stars like Sirius etc. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've linked to a Zeta Orionis search in the Harvard abstracts above per your request. WilliamKF (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. A new resource...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

At least two Google Scholar hits for Alnitak + star are not for the star but for a marine biology research center. Also, +"ζ Ori" +star gives 138 hits in Google Scholar. Spacepotato (talk) 08:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The naming convention gives "# Traditional name where approved by International Astronomical Union and where this is more widely used than any other name" but does not specify whether colloquial, scientific or whatever. I loved as astronomy as a kid but have never mixed in circles nor talked about these things in detail - would you guys all call it 'Zeta Orionis' then when talking with each other? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Alnitak was indeed the common name of the star - in antiquity. Modern astronomers would refer to it as "Zeta Orionis" which gives 82 hits on google scholar. In writing, it might be shortened to "zet ori" (6 hits) or "zeta ori" (67 hits) Depending on the context, other identifiers might be used, for example - 61 hits for HD 37742. But a search for "zeta orionis" OR "zeta ori" OR "zet ori" shows 146 total which I believe shows this as the most common identifier. Also see the search engine at AAVSO which does not accept common names but instead requires "zeta ori" as the format.--mikeu (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Main Sequence

This article is up for peer review here. A suggestion was made on the talk page about merging some of the artcile's content into Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, which is not as developed. What do you think? I was hoping to keep a consistent story about the star's main sequence evolution on the main sequence page, but perhaps that part should be thinned down? Any thoughts? Thanks.—RJH (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Venus FAR

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

Serendi^podous 15:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

AFD on List of asteroids/1–100

List of asteroids/1–100 has been nominated for deletion. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note. It is not just List of asteroids/1–100. The nomination is for all of the aprox. 1800 articles in Category:Lists of asteroids by number. --mikeu (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

An important RfC

Vital for the survival of science textbooks as reliable sources about scientific statements:

Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!?#RfC: Can a science textbook be used to refute a pseudoscientific statement made in a movie even if the textbook is not about the movie and doesn't mention it? Does this violate WP:NOR policy?.

Please comment. We need to get consensus on this matter.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)