Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

MainTalkAstronomical objects
(Talk)Eclipses
(Talk)Article ratingsImage reviewPopular pagesMembersWikidata

Imperial/U.S. customary units in the infobox

Should imperial/U.S. customary units be present in the infobox of astronomical objects in general?

• Option 1: No for all articles
• Option 2: Yes for info cited to sources that only use imperial units, otherwise no
• Option 3: Yes for all articles

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Context: Right now, the use of imperial/U.S. customary units are inconsistent among articles (for example, Sun, Mars, Earth and has imperial conversions, but Pluto, Mercury (planet) and Ceres (dwarf planet) don't). For articles that do use imperial/U.S. customary units, they also have SI conversions and often uses {{convert}} template.

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

MOS:UNITS applies, with the alternative being units conventional to astronomy. Praemonitus (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

If so then all U.S. customary units be removed from these articles. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Specifically for science articles (not necessarily for biographies or histories), per MOS:CONVERSIONS: "...in science-related articles, supplying such conversion is not required unless there is some special reason to do so." To avoid conflict, I'd include the linked policy in the edit notes. Also, I'd hesitate to apply this to the Earth article. Praemonitus (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm opposed to imperial in general, but we need to keep it when citing values that are given in imperial. The reason is that when we convert to metric, not only may there be rounding errors, but we often change the number of significant digits. And when sources are in imperial, their source data was often in metric and there are already conversion errors involved. Often when we convert back, our figures differ from the original -- that's been a recurring problem with our data. Better to give it in imperial with our metric conversion following in parentheses. Editors will then be aware of the potential for error and try to find the original figures, which should be used instead. When our sources use metric, then we should use metric only, unless our source converted from imperial. In all cases, I think we should attempt to use the original figures, or as close to them as we can find. — kwami (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

We should be using metric units for everything except for material which is specifically US material. Wikipdia is not owned by the US. It is world wide and vast majority of countries now use metric. Bduke (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if it's US/NASA. The issue is fidelity to the data. If a US source publishes in metric, we should use metric. If a UK source publishes in imperial, so should we. — kwami (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

No. We are not writing ransom notes with words cut out of other publications. We are giving coherent explanations that are based on reliable sources. To make our articles coherent, we should choose units appropriate to the article, and give the most appropriate unit first. If the unit given in a source is different from what we choose to list first, we can use the convert template in a way that the value copied from the source listed first and the converted value is given first. Since this thread is about infoboxes, it isn't even necessary to give the value from the source in the box at all, so long as it is in the body of the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

That's what I said, at least for the original data appearing first. Unless we explain that the figure given second is primary, and not just added because someone wanted to plaster imperial all over WP. We don't want someone coming by and deleting the data because that's all they think it is. — kwami (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

{{convert}} has a function of just displaying the output. So it is possible to conserve the original data in some way. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Astronomy data is often published with excessive numbers of digits; far more than is justified by the margin of error. I don't think we need to worry about the accuracy of the conversions. The appearance of excessive accuracy can be misleading in and of itself. We're not an original source for this data, and often we can get by with presenting rounded values. Praemonitus (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. That's very often the case, and in such cases conversion errors are not an issue. If we have something at ridiculous (and spurious) precision in imperial, then I have no problem simply converting to metric and ignoring the published units. But not infrequently, especially with initial news reports and even beyond that with crude estimates, data is published to very few sigfigs in imperial, and we do introduce a significant error when converting. Say, the impact of an asteroid est. to be 10 miles in diameter -- what do we convert that to? 15 km? 20 km? Usually I see a misleading 16 km, a precision that is not justified by the source. — kwami (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, {{convert}} can be helpful here, by using "round=5" or "round=25" to round to the nearest .5 or .25. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. I just think that in such cases we need to be clear to the reader that the source data is in imperial, not that we just decided to add a conversion to imperial. — kwami (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 seems the right solution to me. If the referenced source is in miles, we should give that value in the infobox for verification, along with a km conversion. If the source was in km, there's no need for miles. A conversion into au or pc might be more useful anyway, depending on context. The sentence about 'science-related articles' in MOS:CONVERSIONS applies and makes sense to me. Modest Genius ^talk 11:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

There's a problem though with the wording of Option 2: "Yes for info cited to sources that only use imperial units, otherwise no."

The problem is that sources often include a conversion to metric with spurious precision (e.g. 10mi/16km, where the 10mi is the original number and only an estimate), and the wording of Option 2 means we'd cite only that conversion. That conflicts with the spirit of the MOS warning "Be careful especially when your source has already converted from the units you're now converting back to." That's not just a potential problem with converting back, but with dropping the original number and citing only the converted value. In my example, we shouldn't cite "16 km", but rather something more like "10 mi (10-20 km)" or "10 mi (approx. 15 km)", or even just "10-20 km" or "approx. 15 km". — kwami (talk) 12:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

RFC: Imperial/U.S. customary units in astronomy object infobox

As a month passes by and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#Imperial/U.S._customary_units_in_the_infobox did not reach to a consensus, I think it is time to ask the wider community.

• Option 1: Omit all of imperial/U.S. customary units in infobox, but allow using {{cvt}} to convert numbers from the source to SI units
• Option 2: Only use imperial/U.S. customary units in infobox if the source itself only use imperial/U.S. customary units
• Option 3: Allow imperial/U.S. customary units in infobox

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

CactiStaccingCrane, this is exactly the same question - if there is no firm consensus from one RFC, why do you think a second one will garner it? Primefac (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

That's because my first RFC is somewhat vague and did not gather enough activity. I do believe that the second RFC will come to a definite consensus. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

None of the above. Do not use imperial/US customary units so that they appear in infoboxes. If the source only provides an imperial/US customary unit, or the imperial/US customary unit is better because the SI unit contains unjustified excess significant figures, include the imperial/US customary unit in the body of the article or in a footnote. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain further what you meant by "excess significant figures"? Can we just trim them out for the sake of brevity? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes a source will give a value in imperial, such as 93 million miles, which has a few significant figures. The source will give a sloppily-converted value in SI, such as 149.7 Gm in parenthesis. If this value were given in the Wikipedia article it would likely be wrong, because the conversion was calculated from the rounded value, 93 million, rather than the true value. For example if we were talking about the semi-major axis of the Earth's orbit the true value is 92955902 and the value in km, rounded to four digits, would be 149.6 Gm. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

This is similar but not identical to the question you asked a month ago, which is confusing. Option 1 is now closest to my preference, but not quite what I would have chosen. More broadly, where are you proposing this rule would go? With what wording? Is there a problem that needs fixing?

In my view, astronomy infoboxes should use a) professional astronomy units (parsecs, solar masses etc.) and b) an SI equivalent if relevant. We don't need to convert everything e.g. listing every star's mass in kilograms isn't helpful to anyone. I wouldn't include an imperial conversion at all, unless the only units available in the references were imperial and the conversion to more appropriate units is shown. I highly doubt that there are many sources that are reliable, only use imperial, and have no alternative better source that gives the value in astronomical or SI units, so that's a very rare edge case. Modest Genius ^talk 17:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• As a rule, astronomy infoboxes should contain standard astronomy units, plus SI if relevant (and only if relevant), but no imperial conversion. I'd say that Imperial conversions could be provided in prose, but should never be primary, and shouldn't go in at all unless the number is of significant interest to non-scientists. I'd add that any rule relying on the specific source adopted - such as Option 2 - is a nonsense because it opens the gate to people just switching the source to something that matches their unit preference. (And yes, people really do do this.) Kahastok talk 18:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  We might use only SI in the info box, but imperial in the text if that's what the original (or oldest attested) measures are given in. My worry is the errors that creep in by converting a rough estimate (e.g. 10 miles as a guestimate) into something that looks spuriously precise (16 km). — kwami (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  As for cherry-picking sources, we want the original data, not imperial conversions. Only if the original data is in imperial should we use imperial. Sometimes the oldest source we have has converted SI to imperial, and later SI might be back converted from the imperial. We don't want to copy that. This is mostly a problem with press releases. But once we can access the original data, we should of course go with that. — kwami (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  This is all already considered in WP:UNITS, and I'm not sure why this topic should be an exception to the standard rules there? Of course if there is an actual quotation (direct or indirect) then you preserve the quote. But if the first person who measured the distance to Mars did it in smoots, that would not be a good reason for us to use smoots for the purpose. Kahastok talk 18:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  If that's the only measure we have, then yes, we should give the results in smoots. I'm not talking about the oldest measurement, but about the original units of the measurement we use. — kwami (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

My view on each of these proposals:

• Option 1: Easily the best as there is realistically no context in astronomy in which imperial/USC is preferred over SI (or other scientific units, including occasionally some pre-SI metric relics). My main objection is to the use of the term "source" since, every time a proposal has arisen for source-based units, it has quickly become apparent how problematic and unworkable it would be. It's perhaps best to clarify that (as I understand) what is being suggested here is the use of the convert template with the disp=output only flag, so if a number is quoted in imperial/USC we can still take that information from the source but display it in appropriate units only e.g. {{cvt|120|mi|km|disp=output only}} → 190 km.

• Option 2: This seems to be just a more explicit proposal for source-based units, which I would oppose as described above.

• Option 3: No, as in the real world there's no case in which the very marginal benefit of such unnecessary conventions is worth the clutter added by their inclusion. Our overarching guidance is to provide conversions only where they are, in context, likely to be useful to readers. If someone is hell-bent on knowing the diameters of the moons of Mars in furlongs, they have access to other conversion tools. This also makes me wonder exactly what "allow" means – allow individual editors to do whatever they want, regardless of MOS-level guidance or stylistic consistency across astronomy articles?

So if we were to adopt any of these, my !vote would be for a clarified version of the first. A more general comment would be that, as others have observed above, this is spelled out in realistically enough detail already at WP:UNITS, so any guidance specific to this WikiProject should simply be a clarification of what that MOS guidance means specifically for the articles it maintains. It's important not to focus obsessively on problems that don't exist, or don't really manifest in article-space, so unless there is a recurrent problem with editors obsessively adding imperial/USC units to astronomy infoboxes, I'm not sure see a clear use case for this guidance. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

25 B-mag arcsec−2 isophotal diameter

The subject phrase seems to be standard Astronomy lingo for a specific way of defining a galaxy diameter. I assume that this would be defined in an astronomy text. I have none. Any hints on a source for the definition?

Thanks. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

An isophote is a contour of constant surface brightness, measured in magnitudes per square arcsecond. Our article isophote cites Binney & Merrifield 1998 for the definition, which is a standard textbook (though I don't have a copy right now). The choice of which photometric filter (B-band in your example), and what number to draw the isophote at, are up to the study in question. Deeper observations can use a fainter magnitude level - your example of 25 is very faint. The diameter of the isophote is a purely observational property - it tells you how big the galaxy appears in the data, not anything physical about it. Modest Genius ^talk 15:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding this very specific isophote, which is then established as D₂₅, you may refer to the papers by Foqué and Paturel (1983), Paturel et al. (1987), and Paturel et al. (1991). These are quite detailed but to put it simply, it establishes it as a standard. SkyFlubbler (talk) 11:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I found

• Sparke, L. S.; Gallagher, J. S. II (2000). Galaxies in the Universe: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-59740-1. Archived from the original on March 24, 2021. Retrieved July 25, 2018.

which had a paragraph on the R_25.

It seems like the galaxy article has the most info on measuring diameters. The "Surface photometry" section of Photometry (astronomy) is very short. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Rating importance of Astronomy public education programs

I'm inclined to rate astronomy museums, documentaries, and education programs as of bottom importance. Do you agree? Examples include: Kepler Museum, Our Heavenly Bodies, Category:Astronomy education television series, Category:Astronomy museums, Category:Documentary television series about astronomy. Category:Planetaria are already of bottom importance. Praemonitus (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

As a general categorisation, sure. Primefac (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I forgot "bottom" existed (and I clearly didn't follow the provided link to it); I was thinking "low" would suffice for these types of articles. Primefac (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think most of those could be 'low' if they're specifically about astronomy; 'bottom' is intended for articles which are of interest to the project but are not primarily astronomy content (pseudoscience, mythology, science fiction etc.). General science museums or programmes that contain only a small amount of astronomical content should be 'bottom', museums dedicated to astronomy can be 'low'. I see you recently added The Sky at Night as an example, but that's a bad exemplar because it has been historically influential on astronomy itself so probably merits a 'mid' rating, as does Cosmos: A Personal Voyage. Things like Wonders of the Solar System seem 'low' to me. Modest Genius ^talk 17:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so do planetariums really belong in the 'bottom' category then? Perhaps we should have a separate category for 'Education' on the importance scale page so we can better capture this category? Praemonitus (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

My feeling is that planetariums are usually attached to a larger museum or observatory (which are mostly 'low' importance); a stand-alone planetarium is more limited so would be 'bottom'. But I suppose there could be similarly limited museums... I wonder if we're better off not being too prescriptive. Modest Genius ^talk 11:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on how consistent we want the ratings to be. Without a baseline of comparison the ratings are more likely to be all over the map. Praemonitus (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

As mostly an outsider to this project, I would personally say that bothering with the distinction between "low" and "bottom" is a bit silly. I think using "bottom" to categorize topics only vaguely related to astronomy, like Mythology, is a clever use, tho. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Low-rated articles are often still worth maintaining by this project. Bottom is for topics that are at best weakly related to hard-core astronomy, such as a sci-fi novel. Praemonitus (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Sample

Here's a candidate Education block for the importance scale:

---

• High: Major astronomy conferences, reputable astronomy training institutes, training principles.

Examples: Astronomy education, 'Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester', Lunar and Planetary Science Conference

• Mid: College-level courses, special topic astronomy conferences, astronomy certifications.

Examples: European Association for Astronomy Education, Network for Astronomy School Education, National Standard Examination in Astronomy

• Low: Public education and outreach, amateur astronomy associations, watch parties, astronomy museums, planetariums.

Examples: International Year of Astronomy, Faulkes Telescope Project, Hong Kong Astronomical Society, Sidewalk astronomy, Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey

---

Will this work? Praemonitus (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

As there was no objection, I added it to the importance scale. Now to go apply it. Praemonitus (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

There was no objection because you only waited 48 hours over the Easter holidays. I a) don't think we need a separate education section and b) feel you've been far too generous in rating these highly. There's no way that Manchester's university department is as important to the Wikiproject as red giant, Fritz Zwicky, SN 1987A or the other high-importance examples. Similarly, an obscure exam board in India is not 'mid' level. I think we should scrap this entire section - the old guidance was fine, just adding a couple of examples in the lower importances would have been adequate. Modest Genius ^talk 15:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I adjusted the ratings so they would be more in line with the Institution block. There is now only one entry in the High block. Does anybody else find the new ratings acceptable? I disagree with scrapping it, since I went looking for ratings guidance on astronomy education articles and found the previous list to be lacking. Better a more comprehensive list than leaving people guessing. Praemonitus (talk) 05:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Andrea Ferrara

I am a little bit confused about Draft talk:Andrea Ferrara (astrophysicist) because a sourced page was moved to draft for what sounds like minor reasons that no other users visiting it pointed out (so they don't look critical). I usually don't add information unless it's on third-party sources so I am not going to add more content just because it's on an official website even if I know it's true.

So whoever wants to take care of it further, please do so. Alexmar983 (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I have restored it to mainspace, please see my comments on the talkpage. It was a completely unnecessary move to draftspace. AusLondonder (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

AusLondonder thank you. I suspect that the reason of such strong action was that since I am not an autopatrolled user, some people assume they need to scrutinize my contributions heavily. However, I have been an editor here for years, so there is really no need to push so hard.--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear now User:Ldm1954 converted his request to this warning but this is not actually correct to me. I analyzed all sources for months, all other sources are almost from websites of university or institutions where he is actually working. I usualy do not add such content. It's fineI suppose for some of you, I agree that it's there but I focus mostly on content that it's also on third-party sources or peer-reviewed such as in publication. If User:Ldm1954 wants to be more specific and link here all sources he is referring to can add some of them if they are from a thirdpart.--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

So the information here is correct, below is what I pointed out to the editors about the main issues with Andrea Ferrara which was created directly to main page so came up for new page review.

"Please read WP:NPROF carefully. As a new page reviewer it is not my job to correct badly structured pages, this is your job. As a few points:

• Notability is not inherited. Supervising a PhD is not relevant
• Being on advisory committees is WP:MILL
• Telescope hours is WP:MILL
• None of his career is mentioned. According to the current page he never did a PhD (or even BS)
• No awards mentioned
• Wrong infobox
• Nothing in the page demonstrates that he passes WP:NPROF.

I noticed that you edited the page to proper format, then reverted it back to inappropriate format.

Please look at (plus others comments on them):

Marc Davis (astronomer) which has problems

Martin Rees for a massive, well-structured page

Craig Hogan needs info box and sources"

IMHO this is exactly what Draftification is for, a page on a topic that will pass notability which is so poorly constructed that it needs a complete rewrite. AfD would be wrong.

N.B., to @Alexmar983, all academics must have sources for their faculty positions and, preferably for the BS & PhD. BS is often a commencement PDF, PhD's are often online. The university is a valid sources for their appointment, as universities are legally bound not to misrepresent so this is of a higher level. Many of these issues are, and continue to be discussed on WT:NPROF, and you can see what is done for others. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Ldm1954 I understand that they are ok, but I put in articles only what is sourced by other parties. Otherwise, the risk of putting content just because it's on a website influenced by the subject is there. We can survive withour a detail of a Ph.D that can be accessd, it's much worse to open the door to this use as source. So I am not putting it there. Someone else here can, if it is considered so important, but not me. Still, I don't think it is. There is a stub template for that reason, you do not need anything else. The notability is still clear by accessig any bibliometric indicator and just taking a look at all mentions on national newspapers. In other words, your template simply states that it is a stub. I am fine with a stub, it is much more honest than using a personal webpage as a source. If there is a more robust source availale, I am the first to insert it. Plus, there is a wikidata item also for more factual details.

However, as I told you in the talk page instead of putting a template and provide long explanation, just add it yourself. it's the most efficient pathway--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The issue was firstly it was an unreasonable move to draftspace, and not what WP:DRAFTIFY is designed for. Secondly, the rationale you gave for moving to draftspace was explicitly about formatting issues. 40 minutes later you raised other issues, only after I restored the article to mainspace. AusLondonder (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

That was a little bit odd. I mean, before doing anything at this point it's obvious that someone really wants to be sure what is the most important issue and there's nothing else. Still, to me this looks like a stub. It is not a stub because I am 'lazy'; it is in that state because I do not believe that the true value of this editing work lies in merely copying content from the official webpage. I have spent months reading online sources, utilizing only reputable national newspapers, other sources already established in other articles, and third-party sources. While the official page is of course accurate, my goal in writing this article is to go beyond that information – that is the free content I aim to provide. If anyone else wishes to add more, sure, but the reader is not naive. The stub template exists for that very reason, so strictly speaking, there is no need for the current warning. It's just... a stub.--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Dyson_sphere#Dyson spheres in fiction

After a protracted argument on the Dyson sphere talk page that seemed to be going nowhere, I decided to consolidate and restate the basic issues concerning this section in general, and one particular instance that has proven especially vexing, as I see them. I hope that members of this and other related WikiProjects might weigh in and give their opinions. P Aculeius (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

It is a little amusing to find the discussion is longer than the article. Praemonitus (talk) 04:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, and I feel bad about that—but I find it hard not to reply to some of the replies by the people who were in the previous discussion. Even though the discussion is once again, somewhat circular. That's why I hoped to get more people involved, and more opinions that weren't just repeating the same things over and over. P Aculeius (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Changes for Template:Infobox galaxy

Hello. I am inviting you to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox galaxy for a possible change in some parameters, particularly galaxy diameters. Feel free to add comments. Thanks! SkyFlubbler (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of July 16, 2186 (2nd nomination)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of July 16, 2186 (2nd nomination), which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Primefac (talk) 05:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Superluminal astronomical objects

I am looking for a textbook or review to explain superluminal astronomical observations for Faster-than-light#Astronomical_observations. AFAICT astronomers use the term "superluminal" as an observational category and thus the reviews of "superluminal sources" are matter of fact. The non-physical nature of "superluminal" does not even come up since (I assume) "everyone" knows that the term is empirical and no one things the speed of light limit is really exceeded. But I've not found a source that explains the issue. Suggestions? Johnjbarton (talk) 01:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Just to give a concrete example: [ https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.92.25.11385 Superluminal sources.

R C Vermeulen] Johnjbarton (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Astronomy

I put together an early draft of a MoS guide for astronomy under Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Manual of Style. It is intended to embed what has thus far been tribal knowledge for this WikiProject and its associated task forces. For comparison, other such style guides can be viewed under the "By topic area" tab in the infobox. What do you think of this proposed guide? Do you disagree with what is stated? What else should it cover? I'm sure it can be significantly expanded. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 05:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

This is very helpful. I particularly appreciate the linking to other relevant guidelines. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest adding something discouraging the usage of computer-generated 2d/3d models in the lead image when suitable alternatives are available; this prominently applied to Miranda, where a 3d model was used as the infobox image for several years in lieu of an image or image mosaic.

It may also be worth mentioning an apparent informal convention to use full-disc images of visited Solar System objects when possible, as the Sun, all nine planets (except for Venus, which does not have any full-disc true-color images on commons), Pluto, Ceres, and all visited moons seem to follow this convention. A similar/analagous convention seems to be in place for imaged galaxies and DSOs too. ArkHyena (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense. I've seen truncated images from Hubble in the lead image spot, which might not be ideal. A pair of examples are NGC 5506 and NGC 5634. Praemonitus (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Of course! There may also be an additional caveat needed in that quality/accuracy still has priority over full disc. To provide a planetary example, this[1] quarter-full image of Europa takes precedence over this[2] full disc image, which is lower-resolution and exaggerated color. ArkHyena (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

As there didn't appear to be any serious objection to this proposal, I added it to the project sidebar so it can cook longer. Eventually, I hope it can be proposed as an addition to the MoS. Praemonitus (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Abbreviations

A style question came up during a recent edit discussion: should infobox data entries preferentially use abbreviations or words? For example, 'Mly' or 'million light years'; 'AU' or 'astronomical unit'; 'Gyr' or 'billion years'; 'g/cm³' or 'grams per cubic centimetre'. In my mind the infobox should be kept compact by sticking to abbreviations, with the word usage being left for the article body. Is there a preference? Praemonitus (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, it's already covered by the MoS: "Where space is limited (such as tables, infoboxes, parenthetical notes, and mathematical formulas) unit symbols are preferred." Praemonitus (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

AI

It's probably not an issue yet, but should we mention AI-generated illustrations? For example, "AI-generated illustrations should be avoided unless their accuracy is confirmed by an astronomy expert. The AI system may have been trained using copyrighted material, so the legality of such use is unclear." Praemonitus (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

New here so I don't know if it has already been covered in a more general guide or such, but I believe mentioning AI-generated images is a good idea. It's better to cover everything before it becomes a problem, than having to adjust it later in my opinion. AstroChara (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The copyright rules for AI-generated images is commons:AI-generated media. If we prepare rules for objects that have never been photographed (such as exoplanets), gone millions of years ago (Theia, Mars with oceans), or just hypothetical (a terraformed Mars), they should be for any way to create such an image, be it AI, an artist's work or whatever. Cambalachero (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I guess that artists and the astronomy experts are also trained using copyrighted material. Is the legality of the use of their work also unclear? Johnjbarton (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

You're taking the piss, right? Primefac (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the issue with source materials and AI. Artists in all genres and authors in all fields re-mix material. That's Standing on the shoulders of giants. The legality of that re-mix is never clear cut. That's why we have courts, law suits, and lawyers. Furthermore, the legal onus is on the person who causes the material to be displayed, not on the creator. I can copy Monet in my home all day and night. Only when I sell my painting on the street will it be illegal. Similarly, the AI generation won't be illegal, uploading the image that infringes on a copyright will be. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The legality of that is already established via the ramifications of plagiarism and the fair use law. No such ruling exists for AI; it's not even clear they can generate patents. Praemonitus (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion was copyright, not patent. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for stating the obvious. I was making the point that the legalities on the use of AI output are far from settled. Praemonitus (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I do agree here. The morals and merits of AI art can be debated here endlessly, but the primary concern is that laws surrounding AI art (and really, AI anything) are young and volatile, and potentially subject to rapid near-future changes. It would probably be wise to at least require AI-generated material to be clearly marked as such. ArkHyena (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

As for the way an AI generates an image, unless there is an actual case law over that, I would dismiss the whole thing of "they used copyrighted images for training" as immaterial. The only thing that is truly relevant is the final image, the result of the prompt. If that image is derivative, then delete (or don't upload), under the same conditions we would with any other non-AI image. Cambalachero (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

My concern is that there is current controversy about the use of copyrighted web content for training, which may ultimately lead to take-down orders. Praemonitus (talk) 12:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Praemonitus: I like the way you worded this, and I agree with a fairly broad restriction on use of AI images without prior vetting and/or secondary sources. - Parejkoj (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

SIMBAD and NED

The guide contained the following entry, which was removed with this edit:

However, in general they should not be cited as a source for the infobox data because the information is subject to change over time and comes from multiple overlapping sources. However, they are useful as a stable reference for the other designations listing.

with the comment "I disagree, it is better to directly cite SIMBAD or NED as sources for the infobox, as it makes it easier to verify the information."

I have seen cited data removed from these sources, so they should not be considered stable. An example of this is the coordinate information, which is subject to refinement over time, with the old data being replaced. Instead, in many cases they do provide stable references that can be used to directly cite the data. Hence, I'd caution against using SIMBAD or NED directly.

Are there any concerns about this? Praemonitus (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Duplicated lists for Mars missions

There is this List of missions to Mars, and there are three lists that are mostly duplicates, List of Mars landers, List of Mars orbiters, and List of artificial objects on Mars. I think both can be safely redirected to the main list without any loss of content, with a little merge from the third article (section on garbage on Mars). What do you all think? Artem.G (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the List of Mars landers has information columns that the List of missions to Mars does not, so there would be a loss of content on a redirect. Praemonitus (talk) 14:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

hmm, ok, valid point. But list of landers and list of artificial objects are almost the same, the only major difference is that failed missions are listed in the first list and obviously not liated in the second. Artem.G (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd say any material unique to the subsidiary lists should be merged to List of missions to Mars; there's really not much point in having separate lists for landers, orbiters, and "artificial objects" ArkHyena (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I do think having separate lists for landers and orbiters, alongside the general list of all missions, is reasonable. I think the "objects" list should be merged into the other two lists. The fact that orbiters have and will impact Mars is vaguely interesting for the orbiter list; memorials placed by landers is vaguely interesting for the landers list; but for the most part it's just a copy of everything else. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Galaxy/archive1

This is approaching a state in which the featured article review can be closed as kept, but could use some more attention. I recently left some review comments and was requested to leave a note here. Hog Farm _Talk 02:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikisky shut down? (Affecting several important infobox templates)

I have heard rumors that wiki-sky, a.k.a. Sky-Map.org, have shut down permanently. The page has long been used by a number of templates, used in thousands of astronomy articles on Wikipedia, in the form of links to a sky map (see Messier 94 and Alpha Centauri as examples; the link to the "coordinates" is at the top of the page). The page is currently offline, and has been for a few days. If this is indeed permanent, as I suspect, then we need a replacement, and some rather high-profile templates have to be edited quickly. Renerpho (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for a bot. Praemonitus (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed User:Hamterous1 (discuss anything!🐹✈️) 16:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, i checked on mobile, and it didn't work. It did not load. User:Hamterous1 (discuss anything!🐹✈️) 15:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Hah! The site has just returned from the grave (meaning, sky-map.org is back up and running, and the rumors I had heard were just that). I've rarely been happier to look stupid. Renerpho (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

It is running again! I checked it and it worked! User:Hamterous1 (discuss anything!🐹✈️) 02:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Commons based WikiProject Astronomy?

Currently, there is no C:COM:WikiProject Astronomy, but there is alot of astronomical files and needs for categorization, file description, file name corrections, and perhaps building galleries. There are such wikiprojects on Commons, such as C:COM:WikiProject Aviation. The 2024 Great North American Eclipse talkpage has also been having debates on galleries lately, so building galleries on Commons can alleviate that -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if it will ever be a thing, but it doesn't look like it will become a Commons-based WikiProject anytime soon... User:Hamterous1 (discuss anything!🐹✈️) 22:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

G299.2-2.9

So I just checked the “Did you know...” section on the front page of Wikipedia. And there is this interesting article: G299.2-2.9

The article says the object is 4,500 years old and 16,000 light years away from us. This doesn't make sense to me. Doesn't that mean its light has a speed of at least 3.6 times the speed of light? Nightwatcher773 (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, it wouldn't've been 16,000 light years away from us 4,500 years ago, but I'm not sure if the expansion of the universe is that fast... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I posted a guess at Wikipedia:Teahouse#"Did you know..." section that it's the age at which we see the supernova explosion, ignoring how long it took the light to reach us. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I believe you are correct; the object is 16k ly away, but the nova reached us 4500 years ago. Primefac (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I think I might say that we are observing it ~4,500 years after the event, so the reader can put it into context. Praemonitus (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Convention in astronomy is to refer to transient events as occurring at the time they are seen on Earth; light travel time is not included. So for example SN 1987A happened in 1987 (when it was observed), not ~168,000 years ago (the time taken for light to travel that distance). There are good practical and theoretical reasons for this convention. Modest Genius ^talk 16:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The article says

• "It is approximately 20,500 years old, and is older than most other Type Ia supernova remnants."

with two references. This sentence makes no sense to me. Surely there have been Ia supernovae for billions of years. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The 4500y date is correct according to the ref. This value is computed from the observed radius and a relation due to Sedov, see

• Xu, Jian-Wen, Xi-Zhen Zhang, and Jin-Lin Han. "Statistics of galactic supernova remnants." Chinese Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics 5.2 (2005): 165.

I applied the correction to the article. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I suspect what they are saying is that SNRs don't last very long before dispersing into the surroundings. Praemonitus (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Creating a new template

We currently have templates for citing catalogs, such as exoplanet.eu {{Cite EPE}}, Gaia DR2 {{Cite Gaia DR2}}, SIMBAD {{Cite simbad}}, among others. However, I miss a template to cite the NASA Exoplanet Archive, which is also a large catalog of exoplanets. The template name could be {{Cite NEC}} or {{Cite Exoplanet Archive}} and the style could be like this:

HIP 39017 Overview. NASA Exoplanet Archive. Acessed on 2024-04-30.

I don't know how to make templates, so anyone experienced could make this. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Template links fixed, no content change. Primefac (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Speaking to the technical aspect of it, you'd probably want something like:

{{cite web |title={{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}} Overview |url=https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/overview/{{urlencode:{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}} |publisher = [[NASA Exoplanet Archive]] | access-date={{{access-date|}}} }}

So if you input {{Cite Exoplanet Archive|HIP 39017|access-date=30 April 2024}} you would get out "HIP 39017 Overview". NASA Exoplanet Archive. Retrieved 30 April 2024.

A quick search shows ~280 pages calling the exoplanet archive, so it's not unreasonable to have a template for the job. I'll wait for more feedback before creating it, though. Primefac (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Seeing that, NED should get a template. NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database -- {{Cite NED}} to go along with {{NED DB}} and {{NED link}} -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Missing biographies

I think you guys might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/IAU list of deceased members. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Sun FAR

Sun may require an FAR if the concerns on its talk page are not addressed soon. 750h+ 10:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of 2MASX J22550681+0058396 (and many other stubs by User:Galaxybeing) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2MASX J22550681+0058396 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2MASX J22550681+0058396 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Parejkoj (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I've also nominated many other articles created by User_talk:Galaxybeing, and there are more yet to delete. If someone has a more automated way to go through these, that would be great: I've been adding them to the deletion list one at a time, and that's getting tedious. It may be more worthwhile to see if any of these new articles are notable enough to keep and just delete them all otherwise. We'll see if the author responds. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

What I typically do in such cases is search for papers on the object, and if those are lacking I slap on a {{notability}} template and let it cook for a while. Praemonitus (talk) 04:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The problem is this user has created dozens (over a hundred by my estimate) of pages like this. They're almost all stubs with generic information pulled from catalogs and non-reliable sources (e.g. Go-astronomy, In-the-sky, and cseligman). I'd rather propose a "delete all of these pages and require the submitter to propose them for creation based on notability", but I'm not sure that there's a process for that. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Understood, and I'm highly aware as I've been checking their WikiProject ratings. But I do have civility concerns about mass censoring an editor in that manner. Perhaps if there were a list of IC objects (since it's an extension of NGC) and we redirected the non-notable articles there? At least some of those articles do appear notable; I'd particularly check the ones with Hubble images, or more detailed information. Finally, the cseligman source at least seems pretty reliable. Praemonitus (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Fair point on the civility concerns: I get a bit punchy when someone mass-creates a bunch of pages for random objects from catalog papers, since there are so many catalogs to pull from and so many junk webpages that just mindlessly compile those catalogs for pageviews. That said, just having Hubble images doesn't make something notable either: there are millions of HST images of objects, and unless it was a dedicated campaign for that ended in a paper for that object, it doesn't make it notable; the astronomical object notability guidelines are pretty clear. - Parejkoj (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)