Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

Articles on star magnitudes

Recently, articles on first magnitude stars, second magnitude stars, and sixth magnitude stars were created by an obviously well-intended user. However, I don't believe that there is a need for such articles, as, well, what can be said about them that can't be said succinctly in the apparent magnitude article? I WP:BOLDly redirected them to the apparent magnitude article, and was reverted on the first magnitude article. Therefore, I'm bringing the issue here to discuss. What are others' thoughts on the issue? Should we have articles on all star magnitudes that can be seen with the naked eye, or should we not? I don't think we should. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

First magnitude stars are a topic unto themselves and generally seen as a notable group of stars - chapters and books have been written about them. Others I don't think are notable. I will try and have a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Naked-eye stars would also be an encyclopedic topic... instead of separating out magnitudes >= 2, those magnitudes dimmer than first magnitude but visible to the naked eye, can also be covered as a group. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 08:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Stars of 1st and 2nd magnitude are the most prominent members of the fixed stars, and some of them have their own articles. I think many WP users may be interested to read on some common aspects concerning these stars. But stars of the magnitudes 3 to 6 could be described together in a common article. I began it already some days ago, but StringTheory11 redirected it to the survey article Apparent magnitude because of "multiple inaccuracies". Some of them are caused by my "not perfect" english - so please correct it, but dont't simple delete it. I think the article "Apparent magnitude" -- already 12 pages -- should be concentrated on general aspects only. -- Geof (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2014

The wrong heading ↑ "star magintides" was corrected to "star magnitudes". -- Geof 12:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

For first magnitude stars, why couldn't we redirect it to List of brightest stars, which quite adequately covers the topic, in my opinion, and honestly, the new article somewhat duplicates it. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course we could redirect it anywhere -- as you did already yesterday. But

a redirect to the apparent magnitude article is a loss of information. Apart from the fact that the new article at present is just a draft and of course should be improved (not only by me, but also by native speaker astronomers)
and why should we extend an existing article to 12 or 15 pages if a special article can guide the WP user directly to the wanted information?
a redirect to a List is neither the chief purpose of an article nor an ideal description of a wellknown (and often used) technical term like "first magnitude star". --Geof (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, just maybe, the first magnitude article could become worthwhile, although right now it isn't. The rest? No chance. You can create drafts in your own sandbox and release them when they are worthwhile. If they really are notable then they won't get redirected. Until then, releasing into the public domain a stub containing no new information about a subject of dubious notability is just asking for it to be immediately binned. Lithopsian (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

On the creation of the Trumpler catalogue

Sincerely, I find this catalogue of star clusters very interesting, like that of Messier's and Caldwell's catalogue of objects. However, it was not entirely established or mentioned by Wikipedia. The only Trumpler clusters with articles in Wiki are no. 10, 14 and 16. I really want it to be expanded, like having a category of it and a template. Anybody have any data concerning this, like how many clusters are in the catalogue? Please help. I was saddened that this golden catalogue is not so always in use. I want to have a plan to begin to create the entire catalogue. ==Johndric Valdez (talk) 09:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)==

I've already worked out with no. 2 and 3, but please help me expand it, and create other star clusters in the catalogue. ==Johndric Valdez (talk) 09:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)==

I think you should start an article on the catalogue itself as well. Say Trumpler Catalogue/Trumpler catalogue or a longer title Trumpler Catalogue of Open Clusters / Trumpler Catalogue of Open Star Clusters ; you could even start it in Draft:Trumpler Catalogue if it isn't ready for primetime.

NOTE the related Draft:Trumpler classification of open clusters

-- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm not sure that Trumpler 3 is notable per our guidelines. While Trumpler 2 is certainly notable, Trumpler 3 is not visible to the naked eye, is not the subject of any peer-reviewed work with significant coverage, and was not discovered before 1850 as far as I could tell. The only clause that could be in question is whether or not it is included in a catalogue of note for amateur astronomers. Does the Trumpler catalogue satisfy that condition? I think we need a discussion on that. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Trumpler 3 may not be as that notable for astronomers, but I note that (maybe) some objects in the famous Messier catalogue are also not notable for astronomers (ex. Messier 72, Messier 21, Messier 23, etc.) and so satisfies it with Messier's . But I guess that there are very notable clusters in the Trumpler catalogue, as per example is no. 16 which is the home of the famous Eta Carinae. I guess that the small number of objects in the catalogue, with 37 overall, can be a easier note for some amateur astronomers who search for star clusters.

I think if we start an article about this, I would only say Trumpler catalogue since SIMBAD lists Trumpler 15 as a stellar association. But let the discussion be on my talk page. ==Johndric Valdez (talk) 13:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)==

It is what Trumpler considered as galactic clusters. And there's no reason to hide the discussion on your talk page, as you wouldn't be the only person who could build such an article. We'd let other people see and let them choose to create it on their own if you chose not to proceed, with a group discussion clear to all. Draft:Trumpler catalogue can start as a one line stub waiting for participants to expand it in the months to come, or if you choose, to expand it rapidly. If we require a dedicated space for discussion, I suggest moving it to Draft talk:Trumpler catalogue, with a one-line stub placeholder on the subjectspacepage. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI, there's a new query on this topic at Draft talk:Trumpler catalogue -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 03:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Request input

I'd love to hear some opinions on the question I just posed on the Leiden Observatory page here. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

New picture for UY Scuti

Honestly, I'll be up front, but I do not really like the current starbox photo of UY Scuti (right). I just don't get how the magnification of the Sun with UY Scuti on the right ended with UY Scuti on the upper left. Plus, what is the purpose of the "7x Zoom"? Finally, the photo is not done in own work because is just like the one at VY Canis Majoris (lower left). The one who created this photo actually created an older size comparison, which itself is no good because the Sun only measures one pixel which is far too small to be seen by the naked eye even if you use high-powered zoom. This new one is better, however, I find that person with no originality, because it was very similar to VY CMa's.

I am now calling to anyone who can give another better size comparison of the star. Now, don't type any "7x Zoom" or something like that. Let the picture itself make you amaze of the extreme size. And in a different way, not just always comparing with the Sun, but to other stars.

But I'm also proposing (I'm just proposing, not calling!) if anyone can give an artist's impression of the star. Honestly, I thought of this after a glance of the starbox image of WOH G64. Just put a red star shrouded in thick clouds and it's good. If anyone can create, please reply! ==Johndric Valdez (talk) 09:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)==

The 7x doesn't add anything. In order for the subimage to be useful, it'd either have to include like VYCMa, Earth's orbit, or a substantial disk for the Sun, to be able to get a "gut feel" for the size difference. The Sun remaining as a "dot" doesn't help. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 10:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

But you can also include Jupiter's orbit, or some other famous stars like Westerlund 1-26 and V766 Centauri A. Anyway, what do you mean by substantial disc? Johndric Valdez (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

We're not a specialist encyclopedia, but a general one, so Earth's orbit is a much better choice, for a lay audience. If not Earth's orbit, then Neptune's as the outermost planet, demarcating the common conception of the edge of the Solar System (the last planet). As for what a substantial disc is, it would be a disc at the specified image display size that someone with functional but not perfect eyesight could tell is round and curved, that is free of aliasing artifacts from scaling, as seen with a 800x600 resolution on a 10in display (tablet). -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but, how about for VY CMa? Technically, when one puts UY Scuti with VY CMa, it would be quite inappropriate? Anyway, how long will the picture will take? Johndric Valdez (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

VY CMa has Earth's orbit as the comparator, which is ok, but lacks visibility, probably should be redrawn in a more distinct style (perhasp a solid annulus instead of dashed) A picture with a clear and visible disc would also be ok, provided that the curves of the stars (VY CMa, UY Sct) were also readily apparent. If those curves are not apparent, then having a usable solar disc isn't useful as a comparator as the star it is compared to can't have its size discerned as the curve of its surface wouldn't be sufficiently distinguishable from a straight line. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I will just wait for the new pic. Johndric Valdez (talk) 10:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Renaming stars to lowercase latin-letter Bayer designations

See WP:RM June 17 and 16 for several stars that are proposed to be renamed to the lowercase latin letter Bayer designations from other designations. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:PP Carinae and Talk:HD 84810 and Talk:V357 Carinae -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Minor planets

I'm thinking about asking for a new bot task to turn all stubs on unnamed minor planets (articles like (59115) 1998 XG3) into redirects, as suggested by Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects)#Dealing with minor planets. At the moment, we have 4112 such articles (excluding redirects and all named minor planets), which seems to be about 4112 too many. I haven't (obviously) checked them all, but those I did check didn't contain any material establishing notability, and not even any material not already present in the lists. For the named minor planets, the situation seems to be more varied and no blanket appraoch seems to be advisable here (although a fair number, e.g. 10095 Carlloewe, could be redirected as well); so my proposal is only for unnamed minor planets, those where the article name starts with "(". Thoughts? Fram (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. These should all be merged/redirected to the relevant lists. In fact, that should be the standard approach to any series of articles whose entire contents can be represented as entries in a table. Reyk _YO! 12:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree as well. However, before doing such a thing I'd chat with StringTheory11 as they have put a lot of work into star stub articles and might have some good ideas. Primefac (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- I agree 100% with Fram's course of action. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  - On second thought, see my comments below; this does seem a little rash now that I think about it. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with blindly redirecting every unnamed minor planet stub. You should only blindly re-direct main-belt asteroid stubs that are numbered above say 3000. It should not matter if the asteroid is named or not. -- Kheider (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- One criteria could be that there is more than two references in the article. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

That would be better than a generic blindbot re-directing 4000+ articles. I also think near-Earth asteroids and trojans need to be excluded. What exact minor planet category is this bot searching? I see 17,077 articles in Category:Main Belt asteroid stubs (many of which have already been re-directed). -- Kheider (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the reason to exclude trojans and NEAs. If they are notable, then the article will certainly have good sourcing, as our notable minor planets are one of WPAST's strong points in terms of coverage and article quality. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a numbers game. There are not that many NEAs or Trojans with dedicated articles on Wikipedia. Surely for such small categories it better to have a human decide what should or should not be re-directed. Stub class articles do not have good sourcing by definition and WP:NASTRO requires determining which articles are notable and which are not. -- Kheider (talk) 06:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Somewhat Disagree this seems hardly like the ideal solution. A new 2012 VP113 could show up any day, and a bot that automatically transforms some stubby starting point such into a redirect would end up in an edit war. Didn't we already come up with a solution to handle sequentially evaluating these, a few months ago? As for starting with "(" that only handles the MPC numbered minor planets, not the ones that have not yet received a number (such as articles similarly named to "2012 VP113") -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Could you link to the consensus demonstrated a few months ago (not disputing that there was one, just that it would be better for everybody to have the link without having to search the archive). StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  - finding redirectable stubs by bot;What should be redirected:discussion 1&discussion 2&discussion 3 -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    - I think discussions from before the ANI discussion and the creation of the notability guideline are no longer really relevant. Some of these discussions also suggested redirecting all of them, while I want to restrict the automatic redirection to the unnamed ones; generally speaking, the named ones have more chance of being somewhat notable, and should be dealt with manually (in an AWB run or something similar) in my opinion. Fram (talk) 06:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Notability guideline are there to keep people from being wreckless with article creations or re-directs. This conversation comes up every 6 months or so (See:Wikipedia talk:Notability (astronomical objects). The best solution still seems to be to have users manually go through the articles and do the re-directs. A wreckless bot can do as much harm as good.

If a main-belt asteroid is more than ~60km in diameter (H<10), there is a good chance it is notable.
The first handful of near-Earth asteroids and Jupiter trojans are generally notable.
Articles edited by more than just bots should probably be respected more.
Just because an asteroid is named (ie:GeorgeClooney) does not make it notable.
If you have to re-direct and are in doubt, re-direct "sub-stub" asteroid articles numbered above 5000. -- Kheider (talk) 06:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

- I don't mean a bot that constantly checks Wikipedia and instantly redirects these, but a bot that does this task once, and perhaps then every six months or so; this would give people the chance to expand new articles, or resurrect and expand previously redirected ones. I thin, the task (redirecting) is necessary, but it isn't the kind of urgent task that needs a bot on permanent standby. Fram (talk) 06:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

What candidate category/list is the bot to check? I can not find your "4112 such articles". The general consensus in the past is that such re-directs should be done by a human. -- Kheider (talk) 06:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Here are the 4112 suggested ones. I can do them manually (using AWB), but that would be rather tedious, and this seemed like the perfect bot task. Fram (talk) 07:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking again at my list, it appears that there are a few named ones starting with "(" anyway. I'll remove these from my list, the 4112 will drop slightly accordingly. Fram (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I've removed four named ones[1], perhaps these need moving? Anyway, 4108 remain. Fram (talk) 07:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. This task is not for a bot. All articles should be checked manually. I just reviewed a few of them and found 116903_Jeromeapt, which had not been renamed. So, other such articles can exist. All articles should be also checked against the MPC database. Ruslik_Zero 19:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Fortunately, it doesn't appear as thought 116903 Jeromeapt is notable either. Having looked at around 50 asteroids in the list, it appears that nearly all of them were created by a single user: Merovingian. I so far haven't found a single notable article of his/hers, so I think another plan for now is to just redirect articles created by Merovingian, while leaving the others alone (for now). Thoughts? StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Objects like (7264) 1995 FK are sub-stub, main-belt asteroids, less than 60km in diameter, numbered above 5000, and have not been edited by a human. Your idea is probably a good one. I am still not convinced a bot is best for this as I am afraid of someone being wreckless with such a bot in the future. -- Kheider (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

If you want an example of a notable asteroid from that list, there is (101429)_1998_VF31 – a Martian trojan. Ruslik_Zero 17:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

So, it looks like there is no consensus for a bot task for this, but that most people see no problem with someone manually doing this (as long as it is done somewhat carefully obviously). I'll see whether I can easily do this correctly with AWB, but if someone else feels the urge to tackle this, feel free, no need to wait for me :-) Fram (talk) 06:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Articles to review....

In case anyone is interested, Pictor is a Good Article Nominee, and it looks like it will be joined by Serpens, Telescopium and Ursa Minor soon - any input on any of these would be gratefully appreciated. Also Moons of Neptune is a Featured List Candidate...cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC) .....aaaaand Canis Major is at FAC.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Negative distance in starbox

see Template talk:Starbox astrometry for a query about negative distances being displayed in infoboxes. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

If somebody with parser function knowledge could implement the idea proposed and agreed upon there, it would be greatly appreciated. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Observing the Moon

53 Persei variable vs slowly pulsating B star

Take a look at Talk:53_Persei_variable and discuss away....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Resolution of Prediction's Inclusion in Article

Hi. I am at the moment trying to expand an article on the Green Bean Galaxies (GBGs), a type of quasar ionization echo. However, its main issue is the inclusion of a 'prediction' of the GBGs discovery. (Redacted). He includes himself in the article, though he does not cite any published works or papers. When the author of the applicable discovery paper: "M. Schirmer "et al". (2013). "A Sample of Seyfert-2 Galaxies with Ultraluminous Galaxy-wide Narrow-line Regions: Quasar Light Echoes?". The Astrophysical Journal 763 (1). arXiv:1211.7098v2. " removed the involvement of Zolotor from the article, it was soon revised back by Zolotor to when his name was included, which deleted the author's (worthwhile) additions.

I've outlined the events and why his name should not be included on the Green Bean galaxy Talk page, but to summarise: "the sentence about his prediction that now exists in the article should not be included for much longer, as it quotes from an online forum and contains imprecise information". My agenda is to expand the article.

Can someone please moderate on this? Richard Nowell (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:OR, WP:COI, WP:V, WP:ADVERT. If the statement is unsourced and added by the person who created the fact, then it is a conflict of interest, and possibly self-promotion. Without a source it fails verifiability, and should be removed. I'd say template Zolotor for {{uw-coi}} issues as the addition is unsourced {{uw-unsourced}}; the "may well have" seems to be WP:PEACOCK/WP:WEASEL violation without a source to back up the claim. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou for your speedy reply. The 'may well have' was included by me as a 'pacifier', so that the article would not be revised by Thomas Zolotor. A 'half-way house' I guess. Richard Nowell (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

In case I am seen to have any conflicts or personal greviances, can someone completely neutral please sort this once and for all? I have removed the phrase 'may well have' from the article. I base my reasoning on the non-verifiability of web forums. Regards, Richard Nowell (talk) 07:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The webforum post [2] in unacceptable. It is based on a very vague statement about a galaxy type that is unrelated to the type documented in the article, with no prediction of why such a galaxy type would be discovered, or how it should be differentiated. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Your removal of the web-forum citation has been revised by 117.194.195.69. Is this a moderator's action? If not, then I do not know how this situation can be resolved, apart from locking the article. Rgds, Richard Nowell (talk) 09:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Richard Nowell: I have redacted part of your post as speculation about other editors must not occur. There are no moderators at Wikipedia. Please be patient. Johnuniq (talk) 09:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Assistance is needed at Green Bean Galaxies. It's a very simple issue, but will need a couple of experienced editors to establish that undue mentions of someone "predicting" an astronomical discovery in an inconsequential forum post are not appropriate. I have edited the article to remove the mention, but the history suggests it will be restored. This edit shows the claim being added. Johnuniq (talk) 09:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

This problem has since disappeared and the article seems to have settled down and expanded. Thanks

for the help! Richard Nowell (talk) 08:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Article question

What are people's thoughts on the article TYC 3541-945-1? Is the article that the interesting fact is sourced to evidence of notability in the press, or not? StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Non-notable fluff. AstroCog (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear. Lithopsian (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought too at first.... Never seen anything quite like it. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Has the name been accepted by the IAU? It seems to be the only thing of note, but it already is documented at Putin khuilo!. There are a multitude of corporations out there that sell naming rights to stars... -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I highly doubt the IAU accepts it, and we can't exactly include every name that every company has "given" to a star for profit. My vote is to remove the reference (regardless of the acceptability of the reference). Primefac (talk) 10:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

And since that's the only thing even remotely notable about the star, it has to go to PROD. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, it looks like somebody else already took it to AfD. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Planetary nebula FAR

User:Arianewiki1 has nominated Planetary nebula for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The New Quest for the Largest Known Galaxy

Last few months ago, I heard that the once largest known galaxy, IC 1101, just got downsized. I've expanded the article, and put IC 1101 as still the largest, because it is still the largest I've found so far. However, I'm not so convinced with what I've typed.

Lately I've heard some gargantuan galaxies found by the SDSS spanning 3 to 4 million light years in diameter (I've even heard one spanning 12 million light years). I tried to find them, but the largest I've found so far is NGC 262, itself is no larger than IC 1101. So I've came here because I know lots of you all guys have greater knowledge than me. Help me to find the real largest galaxy known. This is a new quest for the title. SkyFlubbler (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

So far, I see NGC 262 as the largest I can think of off the top of my head. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Are the things you're hearing about Lyman-Alpha Blobs, being treated as single galaxies? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

HD 168476 or PV Telescopii

Some more opinions would be appreciated at Talk:HD 168476#Requested move. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Space_Shuttle_main_engine#Requested_move3

All input welcome. Thank you. ^walk victor falk^talk 08:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The RM is over now, but what does this have to do with astronomy? That topic is covered by WP:SPACEFLIGHT, not us. Modest Genius ^talk 14:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Unnova

I have revived the article "Unnova", which was previously deleted. Please edit it as you see fit. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Rename Header?

Just came across C/2013 UQ4 (Catalina), which due to the naming format actually ends up as a subdirectory of C. Should the page be moved/renamed so that it's not listed in this way? Primefac (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the clash with subpage, slashes, HTTP, and cometary name results in this. Periodic and nonperiodic comets are named with slashes, so will behave like subpages on Wikipedia. Whereas other subjects can be named to avoid slashes, the proper names here include slashes. Category:Comets shows most of our comet articles use slashes. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah; regrettably, there's nothing we can do about this issue. Since the correct title contains a slash, the talk page will appear as a subpage of Talk:C no matter what we do. However, I don't believe that it is a big problem, as readers who just view the article will not notice, since subpages are turned off in the main namespace. That's why I'm not averse to having slashes in titles in general. StringTheory11 (t • c) 14:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Galaxy Zoo Article Update.

We are updating the article Galaxy Zoo. It was a mess and poorly represented a crowdsourced website that has produced over 44 scientific papers. We are seeking to amend that by making it more encyclopedic in content with up-to-date info. Any comments or additions would be appreciated. Thanks Richard Nowell (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Asteroid AfD

We could use some opinions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(14825) Fieber-Beyer. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The atmosphere and astronomy

See WT:PHYSICS where several astronomy related articles are being discussed. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

New article: Highland continent

A new user started the article Highland continent which was a red link in the Venus artice. It could probably benefit from some care from more experienced users. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this just terrae ? The supporting reference for "highland continent" seems to be using it as a description instead of a name. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I concur; most of the research I'm skimming through uses it as a term, not an official title, to differentiate it between the flat lowlands. Besides, the highland article already exists (Mercury references it). It's not like someone reading an article about mountains on Earth is going to struggle to make the connection to mountains on another planet (of course, a "highlands on other planets" section could easily be added if someone really felt like it). AfD? Primefac (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: I've created a merger proposal, discussion is here. Primefac (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Help with Talk:Alan_Guth#Guth.27s_recanting_of_inflation_theory

Are there any people knowledgeable about astronomy with some time to look at the discussion above, as well as the recent edits to Alan Guth? My judgment is that there is an editor who seems very eager to make a counterfactually-titled section based on a very obscure interview quote, who has been persistently dominating the talk page and then restoring his edits against all comers, labeling any edit that removes his favorite version as "vandalism". However, I can't very well counter-edit against him on my own, and I would appreciate other people to take a look at what has been written and weigh in on whether it makes any sense. If you agree with me that the whole premise is heavily slanted and counterfactual, it couldn't hurt to watch the page and make sure the additions are kept out. Thanks for having a look, SCZenz (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

As much as I hate to side with the crazy people who are unreasonably narrow-minded, his argument does seem to hold weight once you get past interviews and actually get to the published papers. I'll post more on the talk page, but I think the entire section just needs to be re-written. Primefac (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

As a follow-up to SCZenz's request, there hass been an edit war discussion created to come to a resolution regarding the editor in question. Primefac (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPA comes to mind. Someone has an agenda and writing a good Wikipedia article seems to have taken a back seat. Lithopsian (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Variable stars

Anyone have any ideas what to do with the list of variable stars article? It's currently a complete mess, containing a pretty random assortment of variable stars, with no well-defined inclusion criteria and missing many significant stars. I'm of the opinion that such a list is next to impossible to create and maintain, so have been thinking of taking it to AfD. Any thoughts? The same goes for list of galaxies, which should probably be split into a number of smaller lists, like lists of stars. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Groan...maybe have a parent "list of lists" not sure...need to think how we subdivide...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

List of variable stars should probably look like "List of galaxies" by listing firsts and extremes. We have such lists for exoplanets List of exoplanet extremes and List of exoplanet firsts, and outside of Astronomy, such lists occur over Wikipedia. A first step could be just to replace the current content with a list of variable star types? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

List of galaxies works well enough. Similar lists occur for exoplanets for firsts and extremes. Naked-eye galaxies will be of interest to amateur astronomers. The firsts and extremes would be good for high school students, as research starting points. Historical state of astronomy can be gleaned from the timelines of recordholders. We have lists of these things in other subject areas outside of astronomy, so timeline of recordholder lists are par for the course in Wikipedia. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Variable star already includes the different types in a list format. I'd recommend a parent list listing links to the lists of different types of variables. Most variable star pages have or should have lists of notable members. We can move hole chunks of this list to these other pages. Mira variables aren't listed anywhere for instance. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I think lists of variable stars would be a list of lists while list of variable stars would include short lists leading off with a {{main}} statement to sublists. The "list" would only list major types (with short lists of firsts and extremes per type (like nearest, furthest, fastest, slowest), leading to sublists), while "lists" would list all the various lists extant. Thus the "list" article becomes a general overview listing, while "lists" is a navigation point. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been starting with the Mira article, and have added a preliminary list there. This will take a while though... StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I began enlarging the one at Classical Cepheid variable#Examples a while ago. Realistically there aren't a huge variety listed at the original list, so hiving off might not be as onerous as it seems at first look. Once the whole list is replicated at subpages it can be removed, I'd say. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Since Serpens is still stuck at GAN, I should have plenty of time to work on the lists. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The whole shell star vs Be star vs Gamma Cas variable issue is a bit of a headache to get process...and alot of reading....made a start on R Coronae Borealis variable too...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, slowly pulsating B star is done, with most notable stars on the list. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Have moved material to Algol variable and W Ursae Majoris variable now as well....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

SX Arietis variable is also done. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Imported list to Slow irregular variable now too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

PV Telescopii variable is done. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Now List of semiregular variable stars has had the relevant material imported - it is a very old page which needs an overhaul. So have tagged it and will take a bit of time rejigging. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, there's an obscene number of notable semiregular variables, so I think such a page is a good idea. I think a page for other very large classes such as Delta Scuti variables would be a good idea too. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, am in two minds as I am populating the semiregulars - there are alot and they are quite heterogeneous, but the summaries of the groups of variables are pretty brief so not sure what/how to expand text-wise. Will see as we go. Alot of the Delta scutis are fainter, so not sure how many are notable and hence the list might not be such a long one..will start on the page and break out later if need be. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

So far when I've done the smaller ones, I've tried to make it so that the lists represented every star that would be notable enough for an article on Wikipedia (the previous work I've done on the star templates and lists has helped a lot with finding them). However, for the Delta Scuti, Cepheid, Mira, and other large classes, this would completely dominate the main article, so that's where my thoughts come from. I've noticed that there are a lot of naked-eye Delta Scuti variables. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Really? Hadn't thought there were that many but I am not hugely familiar with overall numbers. Pretty easy to split out lists when need be though. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Style guidleine for Astronomical articles?

I see that an aim of this project is "to guide the organization and style of all Astronomy-related articles" (my emphasis). Yet I cannot see any resources here relating to style - is there a MoS supplement I should be aware of, or some other style guideline?

To make the question more concrete, I am in discussion with a very experienced editor about whether the "History" section should be moved to the start of Astronomical Society of New South Wales. He says that "History" should always come first and I am trying to find out whether this is some kind of guideline, or just a matter of personal preference. And it would also be helpful to know if there is a general set of guidelines I should be following on astro-articles. --Gronk Oz (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

We have no style guidelines for our astronomy articles. I do generally prefer most of the time to have history sections first, but of course there are always exceptions. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Laura Mersini-Houghton

FYI, a notice about "Laura Mersini-Houghton" has been posted at WT:PHYSICS concerning recent edits -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Article problem

The article symbiotic star used to be a redirect to symbiotic nova, which was terrible for a multitude of reasons, so I reverted it back to an unreferenced stub. However, I'm thinking at this point it may just be better to WP:BLOWITUP because the stub isn't telling anyone anything anyways (although no information is better than wrong information, hence the reversion of the redirect). Thoughts on what to do here? StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Could the information be placed in a larger article (variable stars, novas, binary stars, etc) and then have these terms redirect to the appropriate section? Placing the information in context may be more valuable that retaining a separate stub. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

We need to look at all these and rejig. Just going out now. Will think about it...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Why not redirect to Interacting binary star? Symbiotic stars are a (large) subset of interacting binaries. Modest Genius ^talk 09:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

AZ Cancri

The article AZ Cancri, at first glance, appears to be fine. However, looking at it, it is atrociously-written, and anyone without a background in astronomy could understand barely anything apart from the first sentence. It has insufficient wikilinks, goes off on tangents way too often, and frankly looks like it was just strung together with no regard for the reader whatsoever. This appears was created by Marshallsumter (talk · contribs), a user who was banned permanently (I can't ever imagine the community letting him back in; I know I for sure would oppose) for an enormous number of copyright violations, massive amounts of synthesis, and using Wikipedia for purposes other than creating an encyclopedia. In fact, the problems were found to be so large that every article he created had to be nuked. Details can be found at [3] Anyways, this article appears to be doing nothing, and based on the history of the user who created it, I can't imagine that it doesn't contain synthesis or copyvios somewhere in it. Pinging @Modest Genius:, who I see has dealt with problems by this editor before. StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Alot of his articles ended up repeating enormous amounts of background information more properly found on other articles, being only background to the subject in question, instead of being about the subject in question. He's previously been discussed here at WPASTRONOMY, Archive 8 -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/User:Marshallsumter Incident Article Fix-up Coordination Page -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

To be honest I don't specifically remember this user. Looking at the article, the basic data seems correct. There's a big OR section in the middle which is unreferenced and I will remove. The author is correct that the star does not appear at these coordinates in the DSS image, but there's a simple explanation: it has a high proper motion and has moved since the image was taken several decades ago. The material on general properties of coronal heating seems misplaced, but I'm not sure there is a good location to merge it into. I'll also cull the see also list. The remaining bits of the article seem fine. Modest Genius ^talk 09:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I've done some fairly extensive tidying up. It's still rather technical and hardly a great article, but hopefully no worse than most of our other variable star articles. Modest Genius ^talk 10:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah; it's rather unfortunate, really. If editors spent half the time here as they currently do concentrating on random exoplanet, nearby star, and minor planet articles that fail our notability guidelines, this would be one of our strong points instead of one of our weak points. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry got distracted...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't most of it belong in Corona#Coronal_heating_problem and Red_dwarf#Description_and_characteristics ? -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a way of juggling content in these things - a summary in the star article and more detail in the general articles. Some general info is needed in the star article for flow. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

GTRC

The topic Wikipedia:Featured topics/47 Ursae Majoris is nominated for removal due to it being incomplete. The review can be found here. Please join in the conversation to either get it removed or help it maintain its status.

Also, I want to point out that HD 40307 and Gliese 876 have similar issues so if anyone is interested in working on those topics too, that would be helpful. GamerPro64 00:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Update - I also found Upsilon Andromedae to be also incomplete. If no one is willing to fix these topics, it would also be helpful to take them into review. I would do them myself but making multiple reviews all at once is a bit of an overkill. GamerPro64 02:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment are the planet articles named correctly? They don't seem to be circumbinary planets, so seem to be named incorrectly. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I honestly have no clue. I'm not into astronomy so if another editor from this project can answer that to see if they should actually be part of these topics, that would be great. GamerPro64 15:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Constellation articles

One of the bonuses (and good reasons) to work on the constellation articles is that while scanning material to go in each one, one gets a sense of notable objects and spends some time scanning and correcting the daughter articles (mostly stars, but some galaxies, nebulae, supernovae etc.) 17 are at Featured level and 3 more are Good Articles. It is an enjoyable way of sifting through content...but less interesting if we don't get reviewers or help, so Telescopium and Serpens are languishing at GAN. yet to pick up reviewers. I have been tinkering on Ursa Minor, Crux, Cancer (constellation), Pegasus (constellation), Antlia and Microscopium. Anyway, anyone offering comments on comprehensiveness, accuracy or readability welcomed....(Modest Genius I am a layperson so would be grateful for any professional input :)) ) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

As an update Serpens still at GAN, Canis Major now promoted and Pictor now nominated at FAC...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Eliminate individual pages from List of solar cycles?

The List of solar cycles contains information on all 24 solar cycles, as well as wikilinks for each cycle. Cycles 1-21 are three-sentence articles replicating the information found in the list. Should I WP:CSD or WP:PROD these pages? I don't see why anyone would object to deleting them (though it's why I'm posting here first). Primefac (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The articles don't meet any of the CSD criteria and there is no immediate need to get rid of them, so they cannot be CSDd. However, I don't think the deletion would be controversial, so PROD appears to be the way to go here. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that any article whose entire contents could be expressed as a few table articles should not be a separate article, but should be put in a table. Reyk _YO! 10:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed; if an articles does nothing but duplicates the content of lists (e.g. most of our asteroid articles), there is no reason to keep it. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

PROD failed, AfD has been submitted. Discussion on the articles can be found here. Primefac (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Why not try redirecting them to the list article, and delinking from the list? Though, it seems the AfD is leaning to keep, so that solution may no longer be viable, as the AfD suggest they should be kept as articles. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion has been re-listed, as there seems to be some debate about the fate of these articles. More feedback would be appreciated. Primefac (talk) 09:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Theta Indi: Image copyright

User:Year1954 recently uploaded File:Theta Indi.png, claiming the image as his own work. That seems highly unlikely since it's a somewhat off-color version of the AladinLite view used here, obviously based on the same photograph. I expect there's no chance that the image is still freely licensed? Huon (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty clearly not the user's own work, unless the user works for the CDS. I'd prefer to err on the safe side, so without valid copyright information, the image should be deleted. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Pinging @Huon:, since I have absolutely no knowledge of how the file namespace and its associated processes work. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I had tagged the image for deletion at the Commons, but it appears AladinLite uses freely-licensed images. See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Theta Indi.png. Huon (talk) 06:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The Aladin software may be freely licensed, but according to the ESO, all Digitized Sky Survey material is copyrighted. It's rather confusing, because both NASA and ESO routinely releases some bit of DSS material, saying it's theirs. Perhaps Aladin is playing loose with their license statements? — Huntster (t @ c) 06:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Solar cycles infobox

As part of the (failed) AfD on the solar cycles, it was mentioned that there could/should be an infobox for each of the cycles. I've created a rough template, but I'm keen on getting feedback before making it live and implementing it. As an aside, the template is currently in use on my sandbox. Thanks! Primefac (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it generally looks pretty good, although I might make the headers orange, since the sun itself is usually denoted as orange. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. I grabbed the header info off the solar eclipse infobox, but orange seems like a better colour. Primefac (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Minor planet redirection bot?

I know this has been brought up above, but to make sure people actually see it, I'm going to start it in a new section. By now most regular readers here are probably aware of WP's minor planet problem, in that (literally) tens of thousands of non-notable minor planet articles have been created by ClueBot II (talk · contribs) and other users. Past requests for redirecting these to the listings of minor planets have gained consensus, but there has been no consensus on exactly how to carry out the redirection. The biggest problem is that maybe 1000 of them actually 'are notable, and should not be redirected. How to avoid redirecting these when using a bot has been a challenge to figure out.

In order to reduce the false positive rate to nearly zero, I propose the following criteria for a redirection-by-bot:

The article has only one external link. All articles created by ClueBot II seem to only have a link to the JPL database, and any article with more links has a high chance of being notable.
The article was created by ClueBot II or Merovingian, who are the ones who created the vast majority of the articles.
The article size is less than 2000 bytes.

These three criteria would sacrifice redirecting some obviously non-notable ones created by other authors or with larger prose in exchange for significantly reducing the false positive rate of such a bot. Thoughts on these criteria for a bot? Pinging @Kheider:, who is an editor who has done good work in the field and whose opinions would be appreciated. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree - I think if an article meets all three of these criteria, it's a fairly good bet that it's not worth keeping. Given the strictness of these criteria, we may miss some stubs/non-notables (which is okay) but I don't think there will be many (if any) false positives. Primefac (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly; although some non-notable ones will obviously be missed, this should cut it down enough to where it is practical to redirect the others manually, without the aid of automation. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

Seems like a reasonable solution.
I would like to see a list generated by the bot first before the final re-direct run as I am curious how many asteroids numbered below ~2500 are included.
Will the bot search all asteroid articles or just the numbered ones? I do not think bots ever mass produced provisional unnumbered asteroid articles. -- Kheider (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I would be in favor of searching all asteroids. While ClueBot II seems to have only created names ones, Merovingian seems to have focused on unnamed ones, so I think it would be beneficial to include them as well. I won't make the bot myself as I don't know how to make a bot; instead, if this discussion achieves consensus, I'll put in a request at WP:BOTREQ. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It should not matter if an asteroid is named. But I am not sure if either ClueBot II or Merovingian ever made an article on a provisional unnumbered asteroid. -- Kheider (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, I misunderstood your comment; I thought you said named ones for some reason. Yes, it would only search numbered ones. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with the caveat that it would be good to see the preliminary candidate list before the final run. -- Kheider (talk) 03:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

NOTE most recent preceding discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy/Archive_14#Minor_planets -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- For ease of reference, that discussion closed with consensus to not redirect all unnamed minor planets. This method takes a more focused approach to reduce false positives. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Note the 2012 list of candidates Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Candidates for redirection and Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Candidates for redirection new; the 2012 listing bot request Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_45#Bot_needed_to_make_a_list -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- That looks like a good list of named candidates to start with, at least. However, Anomie's linkclassifier.js shows that many of them are already redirects. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment per 2012 discussion, I think we should have a lower limit of #2000 as the starting point, and a candidate list should be created for perusal before implementing redirects (as also per 2012's listing discussion) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- I was not around for this discussion as I only became active at WPAST in mid-2012, but that looks reasonable. The non-notable ones below 2000 should number small enough that redirecting manually is easy enough to do. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  - In 2 more days it will have been a week since I posted here, so if nobody objects by then, I'll put in a request at WP:BRQ. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
    - Posted a request to BRQ. Let me know if you think I missed anything. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Namesake mentions in ledes of planets

Smk65536 (talk · contribs) removed the namesakes from the ledes of many of our planet articles. I reverted all of them. To me it seems a blatantly obvious thing that any encyclopedia would have in an article on an astronomical body, but I just wanted to ping the project to make sure I'm not crazy. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a matter of opinion, but what he did was to correct unnecessary duplication of text, in some cases word for word, and what you did was to restore that duplication. If you want to restore the deleted text you could and should have rewritten the relevant portions of the articles. andy (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

But there is nothing on the naming in the ledes at all without that text. There needs to be something. I'll work on trying to make it better. Sailsbystars (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:MOSINTRO says that the lead should summarize all of the key points of the articles such that it could stand by itself as a shorter article. Given that the articles have entire subsections dedicated to the mythology in one way or another, these sections should be summarized by at least a mention of the naming deity in the lead. A summary is inherently somewhat redundant... but I agree we should avoid word for word copies. Sailsbystars (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:MOSINTRO states that the "most important points" should be summarized. The article is about planets, not mythology, therefore I do not believe religion is important enough to be in the lede. It is perhaps "blatantly obvious" for the mythology article, but I do not see that here. Summaries of mythology are already in the subsections, therefore the information is redundant. Furthermore, neglecting to mention the planets names for other cultures is in conflict with WP:WORLDVIEW. Smk65536 (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Having one sentence in the lede pertaining to the origin of a planet's name is neither "unnecessary duplication" nor is it a statement for organised religion. Knowing why something is named as it is seems fairly relevant to me, and in the case of the planets it happens to come from Roman and Greek mythology. Primefac (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't object to the inclusion in the article, but it isn't directly relevant, so it shouldn't be in the lede. The article isn't about mythology, nor about etymology. You would not expect an article about airplanes to explain where the term comes from in the lede. This isn't any different. Smk65536 (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Our favorite commercial competitor thinks it's relevant for the lead, but that's neither here nor there. The planets are unique in that heavens were originally associated with various deities even before astronomy existed as a formal science. Heck the days of the week are all named after them (less so in English than say Spanish, but still)! How much more of a cultural impact can you ask for from the name? And airplane is a terrible example because it's not named after anyone. Compare Tesla coil, Alfven wave, Planck function, all of which mention their namesake in the lead. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from February 2012

Hello, there are numerous articles on asteroids (hundreds, if not thousands, in the above category - they have been tagged for notability (Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects)) for two and a half years. Many of them will be notable but it's hard for a non-specialist to establish this. Can anyone help? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#Minor_planet_redirection_bot.3F above. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

We've been discussing this issue for years. A,B,C,D ; and a similar issue, concering exoplanets, now that there are thousands known E -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Bibliography of encyclopedias: astronomy and astronomers

I don't understand why those 'bibliography' articles exist. We're an encyclopaedia, not a library catalogue. Modest Genius ^talk 17:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Southern Celestial Hemisphere

The article is currently simply a dictionary definition and it is unsourced. It should either be expanded to at least be an encyclopedic stub or it should be moved to Wiktionary as a dictionary entry. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

We have an article celestial hemisphere... ; if this article deals with the southern celestial hemisphere from Earth's perspective, it should list the constellations in the Southern Sky, and the Zodiac which separates it from the Northern Sky -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

For completeness sake it should also be mentioned that Northern Celestial Hemisphere is suffering from the same issue. Also, it is word-for-word the same as the SCH article (swapping "south" for "north" obviously).Primefac (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it is worthwhile to have these two hemisphere articles. As 65.94.169.222 says there is more that can go into the articles. They are already bigger than a dictionary definition. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Merger/redirect proposal

As it is (sort of) within the scope of this project, I thought I would mention the proposed merger of Apparent sun into Solar time. Discussion can be found here. Primefac (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Dicdefs should be copied to wiktionary at all times, since coverage on Wiktionary is rather lacking for our topic area (copying to wiktionary does not bar merging to another article as well). -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Bartels' Rotation Number and Carrington rotation

These two articles don't seem to contain a lot of information, and what is contained in them could just as easily be a section in Solar rotation. Does it make sense to merge these two articles, or is it worth keeping them as-is? Primefac (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I've made it a formal proposal. Discussion can be found here. Primefac (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

"Laniakea"

The usage and naming of Laniakea is under discussion, see talk:Laniakea (Note: at the time of this notice, this isn't a standard WP:RM move request) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 11:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

List of largest known cosmic structures

I've requested that "List of largest known cosmic structures" be renamed, see the discussion at talk:List of largest known cosmic structures -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 11:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Spectral line ratios

Yes, why not. It only covers a small part of the topic at the moment. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

IC 1101

Removed as WP:OR. Sam Walton (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Since I was reverted I'd appreciate others input on the discussion. Sam Walton (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Observable universe size could use expert attention

There's a question of possible off-by-one errors that myself and at least one other editor have been grappling with over at Observable Universe, regarding "epoch of photon decoupling" / "redshift of photon decoupling" and how to interpret the z_* line in the WMAP nine-year data paper. If someone with some astrophysics background could give that a quick verification, I'd be much appreciative. Thanks. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 20:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Naming of planetary systems?

While we have Sol or the Sun, separately from the Solar System, none of the planets seem to have system names. Even though their moons may have come from Someplace Else, other than the planet itself. So the planet articles contain the moons by default. This doesn't seem too bad for Earth, I suppose, but seems a bit of a travesty for moon-laden systems like Jupiter. WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT! :) Student7 (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Moons of Jupiter et al. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the objection is here. Modest Genius ^talk 15:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The article may be "Earth", but it contains information about the earth's moon, as well, because there is nowhere else for the information to go. There is no article called the "Earth-Moon System" which would contain high-level information about both. User:StringTheory reports a Moons of Jupiter article, separate from Jupiter. But still no "Jupiter and moons" article.

This is like having an article for the Bronx and being forced to include information about Queens because there is no "New York City" article. And so maybe the article about Queens also includes (unnecessarily) info about the Bronx as well, because there is no collective article. Student7 (talk) 01:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Aside from Earth-Moon and Pluto-Charon the division between planet and its moons articles covers most of the topic area. "Moons of Jupiter" etc, functions like the Solar System article, except for magnetospheric considerations. -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 05:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

We have an article on Earth, and an article on Moon, so why would we also require another article on Earth-Moon system (which currently redirects to lunar theory)? What additional 'high-level information' would it contain? The articles are already linked together via e.g. {{main}}; I'm not convinced that adding an extra layer would help readers. Modest Genius ^talk 23:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

We have an article on the Bronx, and an article on the Queens, and other boroughs. Why should we need an article about New York City? We have an article about the Earth, another about Mars, and the other planets, and even the Oort Cloud. Why should we need one on the Solar System?

I suppose there's even an article on Lagrangian_point#L4_and_L5 and other Lagrange points. Student7 (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Neil deGrasse Tyson - Request for Comment: WP:WEIGHT/WP:UNDUE

Editors of this project are invited to participate in the following RfC.[4] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

"Solar Physics"

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Object naming convention

I've started a discussion in the astronomy portal about object naming conventions, after I noticed there are various ways to use spaces and dashes in names (e.g. M82 X-1, M82X-1, M82-X1, etc...).

83.84.60.13 (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Meanings of minor planet names

I have been bold and merged Meanings of minor planet names: 391001–392000 to List of minor planets: 391001–392000. There are hundreds of very similar pairs of articles already. Is there a good reason to keep them separate for all but the first X (20,000? Less?) minor planets? Fram (talk) 09:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

That merge looks sensible. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of separate "meanings of minor planet names" articles

I did a second one, Meanings of minor planet names: 392001–393000 to List of minor planets: 392001–393000, but got reverted. User:Ilvon, the original creator of the meanings page (also the one that reverted the merge) also created Meanings of minor planet names: 390,001–400,000, using the smaller "1,000 names" pages az templates for the larger "10,000 names" page (which is an incorrect use of articles). All this ignores whether we need to have such separate "meanings" pages when they can easily be included in the lists. Perhaps it's time to have some discussion and guidance on these, it seems to me to make no sense to have two such articles which cover the same subjects anyway.

To start from the very top, we have List of minor planets: 1–1000, which consists of subpages like List of minor planets/1–100 (even though subpages are not allowed in the mainspace). On the other hand, we have Meanings of minor planet names: 1–500 and Meanings of minor planet names: 501–1000 (and that second one should really indicate what the "(H)" after every explanation means). Even for these lower numbers, where every minor planet has a name plus explanation, they can be merged without much trouble. But for the higher numbers, where names get scarce, there is no need at all to disperse information on these subjects over two lists when it could easily be integrated in one (as shown by my merges). A page like Meanings of minor planet names: 50001–51000 should be merged to List of minor planets: 50001–51000 as a service to the readers and the editors. Thoughts? Fram (talk) 07:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This information could easily be included in a 'named after' column on the existing lists. There's no need for a separate standalone article. For high-numbered minor planets where this information is scarce, a short separate table could be added to a new section at the end of the existing list, again without needing a separate article. I suggest you take them to AfD, where I would be happy to support deletion and merging this information into the existing lists. Modest Genius ^talk 11:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Fram's proposal here makes sense. Our minor planet situation is, as it stands, an embarrassment to Wikipedia. We should have all the info on a single set of pages, that being the numbered lists of minor planets. Having more pages makes it unnecessarily hard for the reader to find the info he or she is looking for, and I honestly can't see a single negative to merging both the meaning lists and the subpages into the main lists. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. User:Modest Genius, I can't take them to AfD, since what we want is a merge and we need to keep the contribution history, and the redirects will do no harm, considering that the "meanings" pages have existed for quite a while and may be referenced elsewhere (offwiki). But I think that with four editors supporting the merges, and only one opposing (User:Ilvon), I have sufficient consensus to start doing this until and unless others would oppose this as well. At that time, an RfC may become necessary, but I hope that we can avoid that. Fram (talk) 08:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thalassoid

I came across Thalassoid today, and am unsure of what to make of it. It sounds like a term that only the Russians actually use to describe a feature on the moon. It seems like it would thus be a non-notable term that should be taken to deletion, but if anyone feels strongly otherwise I'll just leave it be. Primefac (talk) 11:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest merging it into Impact crater. Reyk _YO! 11:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems a sensible suggestion. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Will put a notification up. Primefac (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

About Westerlund 1-26

My concern is this: This star is one of the largest, but last morning I checked it in the List of largest known stars and saw it in the top place with an erroneous number of 2,037. To be honest when I checked the refs I've don't even saw that number. I know you guys have an incredible knowledge regarding this, please change that number because I REALLY doubt it. SkyFlubbler (talk) 09:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

SkyFlubbler, on the lede for Westerlund 1-26 it says it is 2037 solar radii, which is in agreement with the List of largest stars. I am unsure of the issue here. Primefac (talk) 10:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The issue is simple. No reference gives a number of 2,037, or any physical parameters that would imply that number. It has been extracted from a naive average of at least two unrelated references. This is not scientifically valid, and I suspect not acceptable under Wiki guidelines. I am still not clear on exactly what constitutes a supportable fact when there are several contradictory references giving very different numbers, each of which has a large specified margin of error (plus probably even larger unquantified errors), but just picking out some number in the middle isn't good. Lithopsian (talk)

More clearer statement, this may be original research. Consequently, when I saw the number I edited the article, but I feel my edit is wrong because when I saw the history of the list of largest known stars the erroneous 2,037 was put out by some unknown user. After I've edited the article I just doubted since I never saw that number in its refs nor in the October 2013 ESO Press Conference, which just says its size somewhere around 1,500. Is my edit correct or is the 2037 figure an original research? SkyFlubbler (talk) 11:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I checked the three citations for W26 in the List of largest known stars. Two of them don't seem to mention W26's radius at all, and the other supports the figure of 1,530 rather than 2,037. Reyk _YO! 11:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Good points, I thought the issue was a mismatch between articles, not the actual number itself. Will do some digging. Primefac (talk) 11:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Possible new BLP

Howdy stellar folks, I've been considering an article about Claude Catala, the current director of the Paris Observatory. His citation scores seem high enough (he has been extensively cited) and there should be enough basic information out there for a decent little article. But I thought I'd get some thoughts here before committing. Anyone? St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds OK, at least http://www.letudiant.fr/educpros/personnalites/catala-claude-817.html has something about the man. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Monstrous overmassive black hole in the quasar S5 0014+813

I was looking upon the List of most massive black holes one morning and found this quasar at the top of the list with an incredible mass of 40 billion solar masses. I came up here because for me that mass is absolutely unbelievably large. How can a black hole be that huge? So I am in doubt if this mass is real or it's just an error. I know you guys have great knowledge regarding this. Is the 40 billion solar mass figure a real thing or just a spoof? Because I really doubt that a black hole can grow that large. SkyFlubbler (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a reference :) Unfortunately the formatting is mangled, but the paper it is supposed to point to does derive that figure. Given certain assumptions, etc, etc. ... Lithopsian (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The main issue here is, how can that massive black hole grow? It's much heavier than a dwarf galaxy! SkyFlubbler (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is that a problem? The same issue has come up again and again in the history of the study of supermassive black holes, where most of the most massive ones exceed the known methods of growing them, for the time period in which they exist. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't see any universal physical mechanism which makes a black hole grow to a 40 billion solar mass pack in just a mere 1.6 billion years after the Big Bang; it's just like the issue of the Her–CrB GW.The thing is, for me the maximum mass of a black hole must be no larger than 31 billion solar masses or something like that. I am not sure of this, but hearing a 40 billion solar mass black hole existing at the dawn of time will definitely put my mind to a pseudo-science thing. So, what mechanism in the universe will make a black hole grow to that monstrous mass in just 1.6 billion years? SkyFlubbler (talk) 07:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

First and most important: don't deny the observations. Especially important here at Wikipedia because we are not here to comment, only to report. The peer-reviewed paper says 40 billion so we say 40 billion. Now in this case there is every likelihood that the observation, an extrapolation of a model of what sort of black hole might produce the features that we think would produce that sort of Quasar (aka, a guess!), are exaggerated but that will come out with more research. The other possibility is that further research confirms the huge sizes of these black holes and we have to revise any models that won't allow it. Either way, if and when it happens, we will dutifully describe the results here. So don't get over-excited about every individual paper, but equally don't refuse to include the results on Wikipedia because you personally don't like them. Lithopsian (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I guessed you're right. Science doesn't deal with speculations, only observations. Anyway, I've created the article, and further discussion will be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects. SkyFlubbler (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Pulsational pair-instability supernova

What to do with this article? Much of it is lifted word for word from the similar Pair-instability supernova article. No references, some fairly bold claims, and very little that I can see that merits a separate article. Fix it? Nix it? Lithopsian (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)