Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Weird Names

I've been studying star names on Wikipedia and noticed some oddities. The name "Printseps" on Delta Boötis seems particularly off. Not having any astronomical training whatsoever, I didn't want to edit it myself. Be happy to do so if anyone here confirms my suspicion that the name is wrong. It's been there since the right column template was filled in 2005.

Badken (talk) 07:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Many of these star articles are unvisited for long periods of time. My advice is that if the star names lacks a citation and you can't verify it, remove it (be sure to put an informative edit summary though). Putting {{fact}} tags on such articles is useless because you will likely not get any feedback. In this specific case, it looks like a mangling of "Princeps", for which I find a few sources by Google search asserting that proper name... whether such sources match the criterion of reliability is another matter. Icalanise (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
According to Star Names and Their Meanings by Richard Hinckley Allen, "this star does not appear to be named". This web site lists the star as delta (δ Princeps), citing Allen, but then I couldn't locate that text in Allen's book so I'm not sure I trust that web site. It all seems pretty dubious; my suggestion would be to remove the name from the list, copy it to the talk page, and request a reliable reference.—RJH (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, done. Thanks for the help! Badken (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Alpha Centauri redux

I recently began reordering and wikignoming on Alpha Centauri and have been largely reverted by Arianwiki1 - I was wondering what folks felt was the best logical flow (not necessarily one or the other, new ideas can be suggested on the talk page. Ditto the lead. I know these star systems are tricky but I did think Sirius turned out rather well...Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the way that User:Arianwiki1 wrote the references is the standard way indeed, so that's one thing. CielProfond (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Weellll.... I ran into conflicts with Arianwiki1 before and basically gave up trying to get that article up to FA. He seemed highly opinionated, argumentative, arrogant and uncompromising. In short, he is one of the three WP editors I've found that I absolutely can not work with. To me it's just better to go work on another article and let that one moulder.—RJH (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Starbox image glitch

I have noticed this for a while now, but I feel like it should be addressed. Unlike the {{Planetbox image}} (which is standard with all images), the {{Starbox image}} is not. This has lead to lots of the images not being the same size and not in center. But the glitch of this is that the image tends to leave the box entirely.

Here are two examples

I think we should have a standard on this box and make it more like the others. Writing out only the name of the image instead of creating all the sizes and positions of it. I am going to take a look at trying to correct this. — NuclearVacuum 00:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have done some editing to the template. I have set the image size to always be 250px (the standard size used throughout the starboxes). I have edited "OGLE-2005-BLG-390L" to the modifications, and it now look centered and perfect. — NuclearVacuum 00:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I had to revert the changes to the template, they seemed to be causing problems. Evercat (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You just have to edit the pages and it will work just fine. I have redone my edits and changed the articles that you mentioned.
I do not see anything wrong with them at all. — NuclearVacuum 15:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes there are problems with your changes to the template. See, for example, Tau Ceti. The first problem is that you are assuming that the image does not have a prefix, when in fact they often do. Secondly, you should not be enforcing a particular image size. Third, it seems like bad practice to make a single change to a template and then expect others to go and clean up all the articles.
I think the template should be reverted, along with all the article modifications, then we take a look at the best approach. One method would be to add an additional field with a different name. You can then go through the articles and modify them accordingly.—RJH (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I reverted my edits back to their original form. However, I kept my edit to keep the image in the boxes and centered (which is what my original problem was). — NuclearVacuum 18:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so it seems your edit has still increased the width of the infobox beyond what is necessary. It leaves a bunch of white space in the table and crowds out the article text on narrow browsers.—RJH (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I don't see any white spaces. — NuclearVacuum 23:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Take a look at 61 Cygni for example. Icalanise (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Since the changes potentially affect many articles, I have reverted to the version before NuclearVacuum's edits. Icalanise (talk) 23:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd be willing to do set up a script to run via IcalaniseBot if this proves to be necessary. Obviously I am not going to do that unless there is a clear consensus, but I'm just posting this to let it be known that the offer is there. Icalanise (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel like I am loosing my mind. I saw nothing wrong with my edits, and now that they have been reverted, the look just as bad as before. Is there something I am missing? This still leave several articles and the possibility of the image box entirely. I do not wish to make another step until a consensus is reached. Please forgive me for my attempts. — NuclearVacuum 23:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
It is possible that the infobox has a different appearance on your browser than on other browsers. This can depend on your font settings, the browser vendor, the resolution of your console, and so forth. It is sometimes difficult to achieve a result that satisfies everybody. Could you describe what it is about the appearance of the infobox in your browser that you find particularly bad?—RJH (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
My problem is that the images can leave the box. If you look at "OGLE-2005-BLG-390L" before I edited it, you can see that the image's large size made it leave the infobox [1]. But as you mentioned, it could be my browser or screen size, so I printed my screen for you all to see. [2] A picture says a thousand words, so I hope this helps out a little. — NuclearVacuum 23:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Way back when that set of templates was being put together, I inserted a <div> tag to the {{Starbox catalog}} to keep the thing from filling up the page. The width on that was set to 250px, because it looked decent on a browser that was about 640px; half the typical high resolution display. The image was set to the same width for optimal space usage.
I'm not sure if this would work or not, but we might be able to try inserting a 'size' parameter that sets the width to a different value, but defaults to the current value when it is not set. This could also be a good excuse to consolidate the Starbox templates into a single 'Infobox star' template, with appropriate logic for rendering different sections.—RJH (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I am not for making a single template (because I love the freedoms of multiple ones), but I am up for making a size choice that is part of the box. How can we work with this? — NuclearVacuum 17:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe the templates can have logic that will check for the existence of a variable and use it instead of a default value when it is set. What I am not sure about is whether a single variable (like, say, 'image_size') would span multiple templates or would work inside 'div' tags.—RJH (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope you all don't mind, but I added an optional setting to the template, to show the credit of the image. One of the reasons I kept on deleting them was because I just thought they were added as part of the description. But if there is a separate section, it helps to spread the word that they are required. — NuclearVacuum 17:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Cat's Eye Nebula

I have nominated Cat's Eye 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Tom B (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Names of the main sequence stars

I have noticed for a while now that the titles of the main sequence stars are not pleasing to look at. I have taken the liberty and moved the pages to more appropriate sounding titles.

I left "red dwarf." — NuclearVacuum 14:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well you do like to rock the boat. The original names were the consensus of a previous discussion by this wikiproject. ;-) But I have no issue with the revised names.—RJH (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I am so sorry, I didn't mean to do it again. I don't know why, I just snapped when I saw them, and I had to change them. Is there a word for that? The next time I see something like that, I am going to discuss it before changing anything. — NuclearVacuum 03:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Move them back, we had a consensus reached before. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 08:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

HAT-P-13 c

HAT-P-13 c has been prodded for deletion. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 08:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Lunar images

Category:Lunar images has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Messier or NGC?

Considering the fact that the International Astronomical Union (see http://www.iau.org/static/resolutions/IAU1925_English.pdf -- in French; no English version) has resolved that “It is recommended that in all published work, Nebulae be uniformly designated by their numbers in the N.G.C. or Index Catalogue of Dreyer”, any and all objects with an NGC or IC designation should be listed under that name, and not under any alternate name (such as Messier 31, for example), with redirect pages for the alternate designations. I understand that it is a huge task to undertake...

What are your opinions?

CielProfond (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the wikipedia standard is to use the most common designation for an object.—RJH (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
My impression was that there was a scale, hence an object was called by its Messier number if it has one, then NGC if not Messier number, then IC if no Messier or NGC number. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
My impression was to use a name (a name, not a designation or catalogue entry), if there was a commonly used name, then the Messier number, then the NGC number, then the IC number, then the most commonly used catalogue entry... 76.66.192.144 (talk) 04:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
That works for me.—RJH (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Matthurricane

FWIW, a new user, User:Matthurricane is now creating planet and star articles with inaccurate information, so may require someone willing to tutor him in how things are named. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 06:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Star images

I'd like to remove the free images only proviso on this category, since free images should be on Commons, so that this can collect any star image on Wikipedia. What do you think? 76.66.196.139 (talk) 06:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That tag was added by editor User:Nv8200p. You might query that person to find out if they object. Personally I have no issue with it being removed. The image download process already covers the legalities.—RJH (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I also have no objection. By the way, File:Mizar and Alcor.jpg was copied to Commons but the permission is for non-commercial use only. On that basis I nominated the Commons copy for deletion. See http://wikisky.org/wiki/Copyright_-_DSS2_images. I guess the licenses of the wikipedia images will need fixing (they incorrectly claim to be CCBYSA 3.0). 84user (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I do not remember why I added that tag. There was probably something going on at that time that warranted it. It seems irrelevant now, and I have no objection to the tags removal. Regards Nv8200p talk 14:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you.—RJH (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed the free images only banner. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 06:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Logarithmic Maps of the Universe

Some might enjoy this web site:

Gott, Juric (2005). "Logarithmic Maps of the Universe". Princeton University. Retrieved 2009-09-06.

RJH (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Splitting star articles into planets

Based on the contents of Category:Stub-Class Astronomy articles, there appear to be an inordinate number of stub star articles with stub planets. I think that some of these may have been redirected back to the main article, but the rating template is still on the redirect's talk page. Should those be removed? What about the others that haven't been merged?—RJH (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The template should be changed to "redirect-class" (I think that removes importance ratings as well, automatically) if they're redirects. That way article-alerts will tell us if one is put up for deletion. It will also point out to editors who they should contact if they want to discuss something. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 06:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
That works, although the importance ratings are still listed. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Sae1962

FYI, User:Sae1962 has invented a Category:Deep-sky objects (actually, the category doesn't exist) that s/he's been adding to "deep sky objects" (whatever that's supposed to mean... since it depends on who's asking) to a few articles. I personally don't think it's a useful categorization (going by the definition in the article deep sky, everything outside of the Solar System is "deep sky"...), so I removed it from the nebula and galaxy he attached it to, but I've left in place on the "deep sky" article. Should we ask him/her to discontinue using this scheme? (It reminds me of a deleted categorization scheme from a few years ago, that another user came up with, I think that was called Objects of the extra solar system, where that definition is the same as the one I outlined above) 76.66.196.139 (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I left a brief note on the user's talk page. Based on prior messages, the user seems pretty reasonable.—RJH (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Is NGC 3132 in Vela or Antlia?

Does NGC 3132 straddle Vela and Antlia or should it be included in one or other constallaton? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.176.37 (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The artice NGC 3132 correctly point on Vela. The link [3] confirms it as well. What makes you believe it might be in Antlia? friendlystar (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The constellation page for Antlia lists NGC 3132 as being a Notable features...I think this is wrong but wanted other opinions... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.176.37 (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is wrong as well, though I found one source [4] where NGC 3132 mentioned as noticeable object in Antilla, but if you click on image there it draws it correctly - outside of Antilla boundaries. Most of other sources still designate the nebula to Vela friendlystar (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Wolfgang Steinicke, who compiled the best revision of the New General Catalogue up to now, lists NGC 3132 as being in Vela, on his Website. And please, people, it's Antlia, 'not' "Antilla". CielProfond (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have corrected the spelling of Antila above... The reference I have also gives NGC 3132, The Eight-burst Nebula as being in Vela; "Martin Rees (Ed), Universe, p394, Dorling Kindersley, 2005, ISBN 1-4053-1071-5"

File:M45 DSS2 WikiSky.jpg

File:M45 DSS2 WikiSky.jpg has been nominated for deletion, though there does not appear to be a deletion rationale provided, except that some related images are being deleted from Commons. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

There are some comments here that I think apply. The fact that it has a not-for-profit restriction means it can't be used for Wikipedia. It's too bad because the picture nicely illustrates the nebulosity. But there is an alternative image here that I believe is under the STScI license. It's a little more cropped, unfortunately.—RJH (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The image here has the same source - Digitized Sky Survey or DSS (DSS2). So I suspect there're same license issues. I just thinking may be someone can take care of OTRS for DSS2 and SDSS images? I unfortunally have no clue about the process. Thanks. friendlystar (talk)
I just found that there is some development in getting OTRS for DSS - User_talk:Locos_epraix/Archive_1#Images_from_Wikisky and below User_talk:Locos_epraix/Archive_1#Wikisky:_first_step. Can someone verify if we have now ok for DSS? friendlystar (talk) 05:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Comet C/1956 Arend-Roland R1

The comet Arend-Roland has the formal designation C/1956 Arend-Roland R1. According to the IAU Cometary Designation System, the R1 indicates it was the first comet reported as discovered during the half-month of September 1-15. However, this comet was not actually discovered until November 1956. Does anybody know how to explain this discrepancy? Thank you.—RJH (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTICE. RFC: Changes to Naming policies which may affect WikiProject naming conventions.

Following recent changes by some editors to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy page, a Referral For Comment, (RFC) is now being held to debate the removal of the passage specifying that individual WikiProject and other naming conventions are able to make exceptions to the standard policy of using Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles.

This WikiProject is being notified since it operates such a specific naming convention. Editors are invited to comment on the proposed change at this location. Xandar 00:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The above "notification" is a grossly biased misrepresentation of the changes under discussion. The old version of the naming conventions policy tried to lay down binding rules; we don't work that way, so it was necessary also to make explicit exceptions. The new version articulates principles, and allows for consensus to establish how they should be applied. Thus there is no longer any need for exceptions. In fact, making exceptions is nonsense, since there are no rules to make exceptions to. These changes are good for specific conventions. Xandar is trying to induce moral panic in those who stand to gain the most from this. Xandar is only opposed to the new version because he thinks the wording, not the general thrust, weakens his position in a dispute unrelated to this RfC. Don't be fooled. Hesperian 02:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Pisces-Cetus Supercluster Complex

Is the Pisces-Cetus Supercluster Complex the same as the "Centaurus Wall"? The wall has 3 times the ghits as the complex, 4 times the google scholar hits, and all the complex hits are from old articles or data, while the wall are recent. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not think so. They are in different parts of the sky, and, as I remember, Centaurus Wall is much closer to Milky Way. Ruslik_Zero 15:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
According to the source, the Milky Way is part of the complex, and from what I've seen about the wall, the Milky Way is part of the wall... so... they're conflicting concepts about the layout of hyperclustering of the Local Supercluster and the filamentary structure of local space then? 76.66.196.139 (talk) 05:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Jupiter mass

User:Serendipodous merged Jupiter mass into the planet Jupiter.

Someone reverted him, but he's still trying to push it through at the Jupiter talk page, complaining that there has always been resistance.

I said, "What reasons can be given, other than Jupiter mass being a stub, for a unit of measurement to be merged into an article about a planet?" - but he still came back at me. I am not going to exhaust myself explaining the simplest of things to the ... He is unable to listen to reason, perhaps weight of numbers will dissuade if not persuade him. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

User:HarryAlffa also commented on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Jupiter_mass, so I would suggest discussing it there, or at Talk:Jupiter#Should_Jupiter_mass_be_merged_with_this_article?. Spacepotato (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Well your point may be valid, but WP:Civility. Serendipodous has been a solid contributor at Wikipedia and I don't think you need to denigrate him to get your issue resolved.—RJH (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Alternate names to be redirects?

Not knowing much about how astronomical naming and categorization works, I thought it would be best if I asked here first. Would taking the alternate of an object, and redirecting to the name of the object's article be okay? E.g., 1982 TH3 redirecting to 4118 Sveta. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 19:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

There are several situations that occur in minor planet naming - they happen in this sequence:
  • The object is found and given a preliminary designation, such as 2003 EL61
  • The object is then numbered, eg. (136108) 2003 EL61, which means it has been admitted to the formal minor planet catalogue
  • The object has finally been named, eg. (136108) Haumea.
Ideally, the article name and all links will be the designation of the object that is furthest down this list; so a preliminary designation should definitely redirect to a named-and-numbered. Iridia (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Alright. Thanks for the input. Redirects for the named-and-numbered will now be a small project of mine. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
As a small suggestion, you might try a Google scholar of the alternate names to see how common they are. Redirects for frequently used alternate references would be helpful, but a lack of ghits probably means it isn't worth the bother.—RJH (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Planetary nebula

I have 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Tom B (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it probably wouldn't hold up to an FA candidacy today because of the sparse citation.—RJH (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Astronomical number of designations

  • Well, the Ross 614 article has an astonishing number of alternate designations listed. Which is remarkable, given that this is a magnitude 14 star. I have a hard time imagining that most of those catalogue numbers will ever be relevant; I only recognize about 10 of them.
  • The long list of photomagnitudes also seems a bit excessive. There is nothing to even explain what the letters mean at the linked article. Aren't most of those infrared magnitudes? I'm wondering how they could useful to a wikipedia reader?

Grumble grumble. :-) —RJH (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

They were added in June by user:Aldebaran66... 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
It looks like someone did a SIMBAD dump... "[GKL99]" and everything in square brackets refer to specific papers... I think that's way to far, since only SIMBAD refers to them that way, AFAIK, I haven't seen other papers use this particular square bracket notation. "V*" and "**" are also SIMBAD notation... and should be removed. "V* V577 Mon" is highly redundant... it should just be "V577 Mon" like everyone other than SIMBAD writes it... I'd only expect them attached to bare coordinates.... 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I recommend we revert the name list to the version from 2008. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
In the meantime, I have made a little cleanup of the alternative designations of Ross 614, removing any double I saw and putting them in alphabetical order. I agree with 76.66.197.30, though, that many are hardly if at all ever used by the astronomical community outside of SIMBAD... CielProfond (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay I scrapped out a bunch of others that seemed obscure. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Titania (moon)

The article is a featured article candidate now. You can comment here. Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem with a planetbox

Some other users and I have noticed, while editing the page for the planet WASP-17b, that planetboxes make it difficult to portray ambiguity and the source of information. If you look at the infobox on that page, you can see that the footnote for each piece of information ends up in between the number and the units, like this: Inclination: 87.8[1]°. Also, the planetbox encourages people to just put in numbers that are too precise, with too many significant figures. For example, for a distant planet, it might be better to guess that the radius is between 1.5 and 2.0 times that of Jupiter, but the planetbox only accepts one figure without looking messy. I suggest that planetboxes be altered to reflect ambiguity and to improve the ease with which information can be attributed to appropriate sources. Gary (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You can express a range of values in various ways, e.g., 1.31+0.05
−0.12 (using {{±}}), 1.31 ± 0.12, 1.19–1.43. Solving the footnote problem would require changing the infobox templates so that either (1) the units are not included in the template, but are supplied by the author or (2) separate template arguments are provided for the footnotes. Spacepotato (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
A handy template. I'll have to remember that one.—RJH (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Can't be typed... so I've requested a redirect be created at {{+-}} and {{-+}} at WP:AFC. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Lists of named stars by constellation

See Category:List of the star names by constellation ; these list articles seem to be in need of help, since they're built like a name dictionary, and in current form would be more suitable to be transwikied to Wiktionary instead of being articles here...

76.66.197.30 (talk) 11:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if it would make sense to just merge them into the appropriate constellation pages?—RJH (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: This was renamed to Category:Lists of star names by constellation

Category:Lists of minor planets by number

I think someone made a hash of these lists back in June... some were renamed, some weren't, and the redirects from old to new names were deleted in some cases... 76.66.197.30 (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

1,300+ pages that need upkeep. I wonder if anybody is still maintaining that material? I know I've had my fill. Sorry.—RJH (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge of Moving group/Stellar association

At present there are separate articles for moving group and stellar association. I'd like to suggest that both articles are sufficiently small and closely related that a merge would be beneficial. If you agree, what should the name of the merged article become? Thank you.—RJH (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Also, should Stellar stream be included? How about the name Kinematic group?—RJH (talk)

In the end I merged all of them into Stellar kinematics, while moving most of Stellar stream to List of stellar streams. I think together they can potentially make a fairly decent and comprehensive article. Hope that works for everybody.—RJH (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

List of Nearest Galaxies

I worked on this article list of nearest galaxies last year however a bunch of small faint dwarf galaxies near to the milky way have now been discovered. If these are all included it would bloat the list out rather a lot and so raises the question of whether this list would be more useful if it only included galaxies over a certain size/M -- please see discussion page of article for further comments on this. there is also an ongoing discussion about distance measurements and correllation with measurements given elsewhere on wikipedia. apart from that, this article might be due a tidy up. i'd appreciate if someone wants to lend a hand as i don't have as much time as i did last year! thanks Alexander110 (talk) 03:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

How many more galaxies are needed to be added to the list? 76.66.197.30 (talk) 06:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I haven't counted exactly but it looks like about 8-12 small dwarfs have been discovered in the last year or so that aren't on the list. See http://www.delphes.net/messier/more/local.html . i think it's a more interesting list if it only includes sizeable galaxies. maybe there need to be two lists - one that strictly includes everything and one that excludes small dwarfs eg M -10 or fainter. please discuss this at Talk:List_of_nearest_galaxies. thanks Alexander110 (talk) 01:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Personally I think the table is sufficiently short that it doesn't need a mass cut-off. Shrug. But it would be interesting to have a column for estimated mass. (I know that would add a lot more work though.) You might also consider adding a class="sortable" statement to make the table sortable by column. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Images in the navboxes of extrasolar planetary systems

I noticed this a while back that user Silver Spoon Sokpop had made images similar to File:Solar System XXVII.png for two extrasolar planet navboxes.

I like the idea and didn't want to be the one to remove them, so I wanted to see if anybody else would. But it has been almost a month since these edits have been made. I like the idea a lot, but I think it seems a bit random. Both images aren't consistent with the other. I wanted to get everybody's opinion on this. Whether to remove them or not, and to make some type of standard if they are kept. —NuclearVacuum 14:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

An issue would be upkeep of the images. If a new planet gets discovered in those systems, or some revised information about the objects, they will be out of date. But otherwise they seem harmless enough. :-) —RJH (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I do have an idea that would just remove the picture all together, and have individual pictures take the place of the link. I have done something like that on my website, and I think I can make a code for it here. Than there would be a way to standardize the planet pictures (so no confusion or misunderstanding can happen). —NuclearVacuum 17:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
If it's possible to make standardized planet pictures to combine them in such a manner as this it would indeed be favourable for the upkeep, on the other hand, if other planets are discoverd, feel free to ask for an update on my commons talkpage, or update the image yourself :). About your "images not being consistent with the other" that's on purpose, I tried to look to the size of the planets and create appropriate spheres accordingly, also gas-planets and solid-planets, I even made the Gliese 581 d-image a blue sphere, since the planet is in the habitable zone and water could exist ;). Gliese 581 is also more "red" then the original image (File:Solar System XXVII.png) since the star itself is more red :) . I think there might be quite some images created if this would be standardized. (For example: When we have a binary system with planets; I don't think there is one way to show the different sizes of the stars in one general way, star A could be a sun-like star orbited by a red-dwarf, yellow-dwarf, etc. I think there are many ways...) Silver Spoon 22:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
That actually makes sense, to change the color of the planet in order of its star. As for some type of standardization, why not just have Jupiter mass planets be a Jupiter-like sphere, Neptunes would be Neptune-like, and rocky worlds will be too small to make out any detail anyway. Maybe hot plants could show a reddish glow, while cold plants show a bluish glow. Since there is no definitive classification on exoplants, my words are just that, words. —NuclearVacuum 00:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I hope no one minds, but I took the liberty and made something for Gliese 876. File:Gliese876.png. —NuclearVacuum 00:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, stringing together a consistent row of planet images with no white spaces should provide a workable solution. Good idea.—RJH (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that might indeed be a good idead. Maybe we should come up with some rules for the images then? For example:
  • The color of the primary star should be reflected by the image, I think we can use the same star-images for dwarfs and supergiants.
  • Also the color of the secondary star should be reflected by the image. In this case we might need different sizes of stars to reflect the ratio between the stars..
  • The image of a solar system planet is the basis for the image of the exoplanet with aproximately the same mass (e.g Jupiter like planets (in mass) get a Jupiter image).
  • Planets that are in the habitable zone should get a blue/green appearance.
  • Also the glow of a hot and cold planet, red and blue glow respectively, is a nice idea.
  • The dotted points could be used for asteroid belts
  • Since the images File:Solar System XXVII.png, File:Gliese581.png, File:Gliese777.png and File:Gliese876.png al are 35 pixels high I suggest we could make the planets images squares of 35x35px.
Any other things that might be taken into consideration? Silver Spoon 16:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, there should be some type of standard, but not a standardized system. I think making all the images semi-different from the others will make these images look more natural.

I made this image for 55 Cancri, and I think I have some type of standard work out. Based on Spoon's suggestions, the inner (hot) plants have a reddish tint, planet f (temperate) has a greenish tint, and planet d (cold) has a bluish tint. Based on their mass, their sizes differ.

  • e = possible rocky planet, Neptune-like mass
  • b = likely gas giant, Jupiter-mass
  • c = likely gas giant, Saturn-mass
  • f = likely gas giant, Saturn-mass
  • d = likely gas giant, +Jupiter-mass

I might need to work on it a bit (so I can understand it), but extrasolar planets are split up into three basic mass types: Jupiter, Neptune, and Earth. Three basic temperature classes are Hot, Temperate, and Cold. We could make a standard out of these six combination. But what do you all think? —NuclearVacuum 18:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally I was just thinking in terms of a standard dimension for the planet box and perhaps a variety of black spacer images. But you would also need to decide on the scaling of the planets; whether the scale would be linear, logarithmic or just representational. Shrug.—RJH (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Planetary systems

Category:Planetary systems has been proposed to be renamed at WP:CFD

70.29.209.91 (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Shortcut: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October_26#Category:Planetary systems.—RJH (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

HM Cnc

I have nominated J0806 for renaming, see Talk:J0806

70.29.209.91 (talk) 05:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Eubot

Did we ever finish cleaning up the mess Eubot made? I was wondering, since I found B Aquarii redirecting to Beta Aquarii and fixed it... 70.29.209.91 (talk) 08:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like that bot can perform thousands of edits per day. I'm not sure how to narrow down the scope of the search sufficiently to figure out what other problems it may have caused.—RJH (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... well in these particular cases... a bot that checks LatinLetter+ConstellationNaming to see if (A) the page is a redirect and (B) it was created by Eubot, then list those that meet these conditions... so it would need to check 26*88 names. Then we'd manually check those. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 08:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Undoubtedly. Now all you need is somebody who is familiar with authoring bots and is willing to help. :-) —RJH (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
That might be simpler than you think. Wikipedia:Bot requests — 65.94.252.195 (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I nominated a number of these incorrect redirects for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 November 10#Incorrect Bayer designations. Spacepotato (talk) 03:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
This bunch and another bunch were deleted, but a third bunch is still being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 November 11#Incorrect Bayer designations (III). Spacepotato (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Those were deleted too. The Eubot redirects appear to be all cleaned up now, although there are still a few oddities:
  • O Aquilae (Latin letter O) is still redirected to Omicron Aquilae. I left this redirect because SIMBAD lists O Aql as an alternate designation for Omicron Aquilae. This may be an error on SIMBAD's part.
  • The designation M Camelopardalis seems to be found almost nowhere (but see p. 112, ISBN 0521837049 for one example of its use.)
Spacepotato (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
M. camelopardalis is a fish according to [5], that is partly red in colour and resembles M. tigris, and comes from Havana. So... maybe a rename is in consideration. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 07:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
This M. camelopardalis is an abbreviation for Mycteroperca camelopardalis, which appears to be an invalid name as it's a synonym [6] for Mycteroperca tigris, the tiger grouper. But all this is completely irrelevant to the star. Spacepotato (talk) 09:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The Henry Draper designation sees the most usage according to Google Scholar, followed by the Hipparcos and SAO designations. The HR name gets alot of bad hits from US law HR 2527, and the FK 206 designation gets alot of bad hits from footnote references in any number of articles in any number of topics. So a WP:COMMONNAME move could be justified to the HD designation. "M Camelopardalis" should then be a dab page, since the fish is just one period and a capitalized letter different. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 07:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Galaxy is incomplete - it does not discuss Dark Galaxies

I added a section for that. I also edit the template at the bottom, Template:Galaxy. Just wanted someone to double check and make sure I got things right. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Dark galaxies are not galaxies. I've moved it to the see also section. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
That wasn't a good thing. If a reader believing a dark galaxy to be a galaxy tries to find it in the encyclopedic article about galaxies, the reader should find a very small section that explains that dark galaxies aren't galaxies, and then a link to the relevant article. We're writing for the ignorant persons too, in order to make them knowledgeable. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 16:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
In most instances, an entry in the "See also" section is used for that purpose. After all, there is an entire article on the topic that can be found by somebody who knows the term "dark galaxy". But in this case the article is sufficiently closely related and notable that a summary-style section may be appropriate. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I suppose a paragraph can be integrated into "Distinction from other nebulae" to cover dark galaxies , intergalactic gas clouds , tidal tails , and whatnot, or a "Distinction from other galaxy shaped objects" ? 65.94.252.195 (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The "Distinction from other nebulae" section is more along the lines of an observational history. The "Evolution" partly covers tidal tails. Maybe it would go in there, along with the intergalactic clouds?—RJH (talk) 16:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Tyrogthekreeper

User Tyrogthekreeper has been making an awful lot of edits to star articles. They are not necessarily bad edits, but it is very unclear where some of the values are coming from or if [s]he is just making them up. Just a head's up.—RJH (talk) 16:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I've fixed some of the categorizations for these new articles... 65.94.252.195 (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects/Archive_16&oldid=1137393962"