Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 32

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 25

←

Archive 30

DSO naming controversy

Hi, I'd like to advise the discussion linked in the title. Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 18:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, given that this page was renamed without a clear consensus (just 2 users agreed), I'll revert it anyway to the old title within a week, if a clear discussion on it won't start. Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 16:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The move was all sorts of dodgy, but don't start an edit war over it. You could ask for the "uncontested technical move" to be reverted because it was anything but a consensus, but it did slide under the radar for several weeks so might get kicked back. Or start a proper move discussion instead of one hidden behind a couple of comments on the talk page. Lithopsian (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lithopsian: That's why I wanted to open a discussion here. And I had to "force" a bit the discussion itself so I could've got some answers. I'm admin and 'crat in it.wiki since 2008 and I surely won't start an edit war here. :p Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 20:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Short descriptions

Hello! I've been wanting to add manual short descriptions to articles as part of WikiProject Short Descriptions, but when I looked at exoplanet articles there was a discrepancy: some were labeled "exoplanet" and others were labeled "extrasolar planet" by Wikidata. I'd like some opinions on which description would be preferable, if any (for consistency purposes). Thanks! :) Supernova58 (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering, manual short descriptions are necessary because the WikiData fallback is going to be disabled! (See Update: Scheduled shutdown of Wikidata descriptions on EnWiki) Supernova58 (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Supernova58, I would simply use "exoplanet", as our own article on the topic uses that term and it has really entered wide popular use. I can't say I'm surprised that en.wiki has firmly pushed its collective head into the sand regarding WikiData. I'm halfway expecting us to disable the import of data to infoboxes at some point. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The short descriptions need not be manual. If articles include an infobox, then it is better to set the SD in the infobox template. e.g. {{Infobox galaxy}} in NGC 4701 could set a SD such as "Galaxy in the constellation Spike". Which infoboxes cover articles in the project? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 08:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I haven't added them into the astronomy infoboxes I've been working on, as I'm very against this whole process of having locally defined short descriptions, rather than just using the ones from Wikidata and improving them there (which are also then used on Commons and elsewhere). I could probably add some code that fetches them from Wikidata and feeds them into the new template, but I don't know if that would be acceptable by those that are against using Wikidata for short descriptions, so I've not done anything yet. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable idea, if the current descriptions are back-ported to WikiData. Praemonitus (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry - which idea? The short descriptions will soon not be fetched from WikiData and so many articles will not display a short description at all. A local short description could be created for every individual article, but it would be quicker and more consistent to set them in the infoboxes from the parameters provided to the infobox by the article. Category:Astronomy infobox templates lists 29 infobox templates. — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 14:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed; the coding of {{infobox school}} automatically adds a short description on to whichever template it is transcluded; we could very easily set up a similar coding system in the various astronomy infobox templates. This would remove the need to edit thousands of articles. Primefac (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The indentation wasn't clear? Okay, well I was responding to Mike Peel's message regarding writing code to fetch the info from Wikidata. Praemonitus (talk) 03:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I really like this idea; @GhostInTheMachine had a good point about efficiency and consistency. It looks like there's also a lot of precedent too (see Category:Templates that generate short descriptions)! Is there any way I can help with this? (I'm kinda new and not very well-versed in template coding) Supernova58 (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Start with the templates in that category, compare their coding to the Astronomy infobox templates, an see about the best way of using the infobox inputs to define the short description output. Primefac (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Supernova58 (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! Supernova58 (talk) 23:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Marat Arakelian

Can someone please rate Marat Arakelian for quality and importance according to Wikiproject Astronomy standards? talk:Marat_Arakelian Thanks! - TimDWilliamson ^speak 02:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Heat death of the universe

Heat death of the universe appears to have been hijacked by an editor who insists on restoring all content written by the editor despite the efforts of several editors to restore a version not la-la land. David notMD (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much. Just keep doing what you can until they get banned, which won't be long by the look of things. Lithopsian (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

My favourite quote from amongst the drivel: "The deepening of the universe's gravitational well is currently driven by the deepening of the Earth's debt well." I can't work out if it is supposed to be ironic or deeply metaphysical. Lithopsian (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

FAR of Earth

I have nominated Earth 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. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 18:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Radioactive decay powers supernovae?

Could someone else please try to explain decay does not power supernovae? I made a simple clarification edit months ago, but it was twice promptly reverted with no more discussion than "yes, that's what it says". Either I am massively misunderstanding what that sentence is trying to say or @Lithopsian is, because supernovae happen just fine without anything heavier than iron-56. 174.70.79.141 (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The problem is one of clarity. Radioactive decay does not power supernovae in the sense that it is not radioactive decay that causes them to go boom. But the explosion does create a lot of radioactive nuclei that get mixed in with the ejecta, and their decay influences the longer term light curve. For example, Nickel-56 has a half life of 6 days and decays into Cobalt-56 which has a half life of about 80 days, so the brightness of the post-supernova object is affected by these decays on weeks-to-months timescales. Reyk _YO! 20:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Reyk is correct. Radioactive decay does not cause the explosion, but it does power the emission of light over the following days and weeks. This could certainly be explained (and referenced) better in the article. See also Supernova#Light_curves. Modest Genius ^talk 12:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Module:Lunar eclipse

FYI module:Lunar eclipse has been nominated for deletion. This may be of interest to you. -- 67.70.32.97 (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Request to move NGC 2392 back to Eskimo Nebula

Given the discussion here, considering WP:Common name, WP:NCASTRO, and also WP:Recentism and WP:Neutrality, I'm formally asking to revert the NGC 2392 page's title to Eskimo Nebula, its proper name which is absolutely the best known name of this nebula all over the english-speaker astronomy and amateur astronomy communities. Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 07:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

That conversation is not yet complete. So any move should await its conclusion. So this is just a non-neutral call of support at this point. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I want people to talk about that. But any oppose should be really motivated, not just "oppose because it's better now", but argumenting by bringing rules and facts, as I did the same. Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 11:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Graeme; let the conversation run its course, and if you're still not happy with the outcome, start a move request. Primefac (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Roberto Mura: you might also be interested in what happened to the Siamese Twins Galaxies, which were affected by the same issues, at the same time (except the pagemove) -- 67.70.32.97 (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 06:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

AfD/Solar eclipse of September 12, 2053

Please come take part in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of September 12, 2053. I don’t care which side you fall on, keep or delete. I just thought more editors with a basic familiarity with astronomy should take part. - TimDWilliamson ^speak 02:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

It's discouraging that there are so many misguided comments in that AfD. Citing WP:CRYSTAL with the possibility that the eclipse won't happen and/or citing that the sun/moon/earth are destroyed? Citing WP:TOOSOON as a guideline? Considering large compilations of eclipses "significant coverage"? To be honest I don't see one reasonable argument yet. Sam-2727 (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

AfD can be a massive time sink, often full of misguided comments and bunny trail arguments. I no longer spend much time there, preferring to check WP:DSASTRO. Praemonitus (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

There is also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of July 16, 2186 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of September 4, 2100. I'm not sure if other eclipse articles have also been nominated. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Are these worth having?

I apologize for slightly necro-posting (I really fecking hate the fact that page archiving hides all future notifications), but could I solicit some opinions on why we have these articles (specifically, eclipses after the 2020s but in general "this eclipse happened" articles)? I feel like "this can be calculated indefinitely" doesn't really meet any sort of notability requirement. Primefac (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Unless they have additional cited content that satisfies WP:GNG, I think they can be redirected to List of solar eclipses in the 21st century. Praemonitus (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

As I said in the deletion debates, I think these are worth keeping. There's too much content in the articles to be able to merge them into a list. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

What decade do you think it's worth not having articles about said eclipses? People right now are planning to attend eclipses in the 2030s (prime locations can fill up many years in advance). It seems simpler to me to just pre-make the articles now, as someone has already done, than to try to make a new batch every few years. That said, if there is a way to have all the important information in one list, that could work, but it might be hard to do. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The 22nd Century, obviously. As far as the 21st century goes, Praemonitus did link to the "relevant info" list above. Primefac (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

As a general point of interest, I feel like none (even the "already happened" eclipses) really need to have an article; with the exception of some of the historically significant eclipses (either in antiquity, the Middle Ages, or the few articles from the 16th-17th centuries) there's nothing really in the articles except machine-created information; if people observed them, it's just as "it happened"; there's nothing significant about these eclipses. I think that's why they keep getting nominated (albeit rather randomly) and why I'm still looking for a valid reason to keep them. Primefac (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Proxima c isn't confirmed

Proxima c : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri_c has beem confirmed by just 1 reserch note written by 1 author. I suggest that Proxima c should be considered a candidate, especially considering that all the other articles in 2020 refer to Proxima c as a candidate. It doens't appear in the NASA exoplanet archive either. Plus the Proxima c page should be considered a stub article in my opinion. As a good practice I won't rever the edits made by the main editor of that page, but instead I would like to ask someone else to please do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertheditor (talk • contribs) 13:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

There is one published, peer-reviewed paper with two authors indicating that Proxima c is confirmed, which uses data from multiple other peer-reviewed papers. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

”It doens't appear in the NASA exoplanet archive either.” This is also the case for a few other confirmed, published planets, such as CD Ceti b. That doesn’t mean they’re unconfirmed. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, works in RNAAS are NOT peer-reviewed. See [1]. That's not a death sentence, but in light of that it may be a little premature to make the call that it has been comfirmed. ChiZeroOne (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see...the planet has still been detected by multiple methods though (radial velocity and astrometry). SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you ChiZeroOne, I agree with you. A research note written by two authors say they confirmed the planet, but I haven't seen any other peer-reviewed article confirming that. The 'multiple sources' he mention call the planet a candidate and the 'Searching for the near infrared counterpart of Proxima c using multi-epoch high contrast SPHERE data at VLT' paper actually says 'together with the unexpectedly high flux associated with our direct imaging detection, means we cannot confirm that our candidate is indeed Proxima c.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertheditor (talk • contribs) 13:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed it’s unconfirmed that the directly imaged source is the same as Proxima c; that doesn’t mean Proxima c is itself unconfirmed. If the direct imaging detection was confirmed, that would provide even more evidence for Proxima c. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Publications in RNAAS are short reports of work in progress or simple results that don't justify a full paper. It is not a peer-reviewed journal. I would treat content in RNAAS the same way as a conference proceeding or the abstract of a talk - sometimes useful for background or peripheral info, but not something to relied upon for the very existence of an object. Having said that, the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia (a reliable secondary source) lists Prox Cen c as confirmed [2], though it's not clear why. I think the best solution is for the article to say that some sources regard it as confirmed, whilst others consider it still a candidate. Modest Genius ^talk 14:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I’ve updated the article to reflect your comment (at least for now). SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Modest Genius [[User_talk:Modest Genius| I made the edit. I agree with you. I'm in contact with the main administrator of Exoplanet.eu so I can ask him. I suspect he based the status on the same only paper written by Fritz Benedict, as none of the other papers referred in exoplanet.eu seem to confirm the planet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertheditor (talk • contribs) 14:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment: here is another paper that appears to consider Proxima c confirmed. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see an actual confirmation of the discovery. Just a study of what they can deduce given the data from the discovery. Praemonitus (talk) 23:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Right, that paper doesn't confirm the planet, but it does seem to consider it confirmed based on previous sources. Certainly it doesn't refer to Proxima c as a "candidate", while it does refer to Proxima d as one. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Independent confirmation is an important element of science. Sorry, but this just looks like affirmation. Praemonitus (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Proxima c has been independently detected by 3 or 4 different groups using 2 or 3 different methods (depending on whether the direct imaging detection is actually Proxima c) - even though it hasn't been formally confirmed, there's more evidence for it than there is for the majority of formally confirmed exoplanets. The paper I linked above seems to be a secondary source that considers the planet confirmed based on these independent detections (like the Extrasolar Planet Encyclopedia). In any case I'm not going to make any more edits to the Proxima c article for now. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

That's how I read it too, "assuming it exists as described, what further can we add". Overall, I'd say astronomers are treating it as very likely, but nobody has formally confirmed it in a peer-reviewed setting. Lithopsian (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Stub quality articles of Medium importance

Per this page, the count of stub astronomy articles rated of medium importance is now down to 369. If these articles really are of medium importance, they likely deserve to be brought up to Start status. Otherwise, they should probably be de-prioritized with a Low rating. If this mini project interests you, please consider contributing. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Down to 152 now. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

NPP Patroller requesting help with WP:NASTRO

Hi - I've noticed a number of new articles about stars cropping up in the WP:NPP feed. A typical example would be NGC 1240. As a non-expert, I find it difficult to determine, from the sources provided, whether it would pass WP:NASTRO - my gut is telling me 'probably not', but I'm not sure where the 'HR Catalogue identifier' would be (if it existed) on those pages, or where to check to see whether it's on one of the relevant catalogues. I'm going to ping 1Muskmelon, as the articles' author, as any reply would probably be helpful for them. Thanks in advance for any guidance, GirthSummit _(blether) 12:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, One good resource is the Simbad database. It has options for looking at the academic literature on various astronomical objects. In this case there is nothing to be found on NGC 1240 so I would argue that you're right about non-notability. Reyk _YO! 12:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Reyk, thanks for that. I'll check the others, and I guess make a visit to AfD. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 12:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit and Reyk Ok got it, thanks for your help. By the please look at my recent draft Draft:NGC 788 and tell me if its need improvement Thanks 1 Muskmelon (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

1Muskmelon, as I said on your talk, I don't see the source for the assertion about when, and by whom, it was discovered - where are you getting that from? GirthSummit _(blether) 12:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I thought there was a fairly recent discussion and NGC stars that decided to redirect them all somewhere, but I can't find it now. Perhaps individual AfD discussions? I do know that WP:NASTRO was recently modified so that it no longer declares all NGC catalog entries as inherently notable. One-liners with no significant coverage should be redirected to the NGC list. See Wikipedia talk:Notability (astronomical objects)#Notability of NGC objects. Lithopsian (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Here we go, archived. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 31#NGC stars. Lithopsian (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh good, I'm glad you found it while I faffed about with archive headers... I've redirected 1240 to its related list per that discussion. Primefac (talk) 13:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) NGC 1240 is a one-sentence sub-stub. Articles that short are completely useless to anyone, regardless of whether the subject is notable. In this case it isn't notable either - SIMBAD, NED and ADS show no sources whatsoever, and googling just brings up Wikipedia mirrors and non-RS catalogue entries. Modest Genius ^talk 13:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Io and Europa as terrestrial planets

As part of the move away from adhering to only the IAU's definition of 'planet', I've mentioned at terrestrial planet that planetary geologists accept the Moon and sometimes Io and Europa as terrestrials. Lakadawalla counts Io, and I've seen illustrations that include Europa as well, I just forget where. Anyone know offhand? — kwami (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

See Special:Diff/985126560, undone due to lack of refs. Other edits from 24 Oct may need to be evaluated. Primefac (talk) 09:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Added some refs. This may not be important enough a POV to be in the lead, but we should have somewhere that there's variation in whether the terrestrials are defined as the inner planets or as the rocky planets, as you see both approaches. (I've even seen Ceres included, though it's hard for me to see how Ceres is terrestrial in the geological sense.) — kwami (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Late stage stellar evolution template

I'm thinking about creating a "Navigation Template" for the late stages of stellar evolution (AGB Star, Planetary Nebula, White Dwarf, Supernova, etc) that would be analogous to the existing Star formation template. I've never created something like that on Wikipedia, and I don't want to anger people by not following rules that I am unaware of. Is it standard protocol to get permission from some group within Wikiproject Astronomy to do something like that? If I make a template, and then star modifying existing articles to use that template, will that be bad form? If there is some agreed upon procedure to do this, where can I learn the rules? PopePompus (talk) 02:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

calc axial tilt

I updated the ecliptic coordinates of the pole of 7 Iris, but don't know how to calc the axial tilt from that. There is some commentary about what the axial tilt means for seasonal temp fluctuations. Could someone fix? — kwami (talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

If you want to calculate the axial tilt, you first need to determine elliptical coordinates of the orbital pole. The angle between the orbital and rotational axes will be the axial tilt. Ruslik_Zero 20:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Mass dimension one fermions AfD

I just nominated Mass dimension one fermions for deletion. I figure some of the editors from the Astronomy project may wish to weigh in, as this is now linked from Dark Matter. - Parejkoj (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Internet archive

Does someone know how to get the WayBack Machine at https://web.archive.org/ to take an archive of the risk-listed asteroid at https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/sentry/details.html#?des=2020%20VV -- Kheider (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Kheider, I tried but couldn't figure out how myself. It seems the wayback machine ignores the stuff past "details.html" when you enter the link. The internet archive captures the entire table though so you should be able to click on that specific object after archiving the main link [3] (see e.g. [4]). Sam-2727 (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for trying. Is there another internet archive site that you recommend? -- Kheider (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Merging WP templates

I initiated a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Solar_System#Merging_WP_templates to propose merging the {{WikiProject Solar System}} template into {{WikiProject Astronomy}}. Please comment if you have an opinion. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Solar System § Merging WP templates

Dispute over the Wow! signal

There seems to be some debate about the Wow! signal, which has spilled from the talk page to a discussion at DRN. Input from this project would be appreciated. Primefac (talk) 12:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

With my non-functionary hat on, it looks like all of the references given (in both locations) are based off the one arxiv source. Wait until other sources verify? Primefac (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

There's now a request for arbitration. Looks to be rapidly heading into WP:LAME territory. Modest Genius ^talk 11:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh my. In my last email reply to them, I said that DR could potentially take a while; I definitely wasn't implying that they should go for the process that would take even longer! Primefac (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Yikes! Seems like that whole trainwreck was unnecessary. Lithopsian (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Early 20th century Mount Wilson Observatory women astronomers

New articles are currently being created under the auspices of the WikiProject Women in Red about women astronomers who had worked over a century ago at the Mount Wilson Observatory that have been previously been ignored by history. It would be very helpful if persons with a background in astronomy can help improve the scientific contribution sections in these new articles since most of us editors have not taken enough astronomy courses to determine what the subject's key contributions to astronomy were really were by just look at the person's publication list. Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Early_20th_century_Mount_Wilson_Observatory_human_computers for more information. Thanks. -- 68.50.32.85 (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Once in 800 years: all hands on deck

An exciting opportunity to run an exciting and topical TFA, but all four articles need updating to be considered: see TFA discussion here about this event. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this push SandyGeorgia, sounds like a great idea. I would like to help, but I have to confess I have trouble understanding the somewhat baroque TFA system. What updating needs to happen for them to be considered? They're all featured articles and I don't see any open discussions on problems with the pages (except this I guess), so what TFA conditions do they not satisfy? I'll be happy to pitch in once I understand what the need is. - Astrophobe (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Once I catch up on some other pages, I will run through each of the four articles and put lists on each article talk page. Generally, though, to start meanwhile, make sure everything is cited, and nothing is outdated. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh I see, it's just a general cleanup issue. Gotcha! Thanks for explaining. - Astrophobe (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I am starting in at Jupiter now ... will leave notes there which will give you an idea of things to look at on the other three. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Jupiter#FA criteria SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Talk:Saturn#FA criteria SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Talk:Ganymede (moon)#WP:URFA/2020 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Titan (moon) has all of the same-- the images are out of control. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

As an astronomer, I find the prospect of this conjunction rather underwhelming. Planetary conjunctions are common, though the specific combination of Jupiter and Saturn happens every 20 years or so (our article is great conjunction). It's only mildly interesting to look at, and calling this one a 'Christmas star' is just made-up nonsense. If you want to feature Jupiter and Saturn in the closest TFA slot that's fine, though the event lasts weeks and is already visible so don't feel bound to that date. I don't understand why Ganymede and Titan would be included - neither is visible to the naked eye, and they're just two of the numerous moons that are visible in telescopes. Modest Genius ^talk 17:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is actually trying to argue that this is a once per 800 years opportunity for a TFA about a conjunction. - Astrophobe (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Starbox issues

I have edited the sandboxes at {{starbox character}} and {{starbox observe}} for two small issues I ran into. The page layout at {{starbox character}}, not the template output itself, is cobbled together from the template itself which doesn't display except for a small yellow box saying "Characteristics" and a hard-coded demo template inside the documentation which doesn't quite output in the correct layout. I have altered this to display the actual template as for the other starboxes. There should be no changes on pages that use the template. In {{starbox observe}} I found a case where the template would produce trailing whitespace that in some cases produced a blank line at the top of the page where it was used. Luckily, {{starbox character}} is usually used immediately afterwards and it swallows the whitespace. However, I have added a fix so that what is actually a blank table row is not produced, just for the appmag_v field. This may occur in other templates or for other fields, I'm sure I've seen it happen but can't track down cases now. Maybe in {{starbox sources}} or {{starbox short}}? Lithopsian (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

universeguide.com is not a reliable source

Someone added a link to universeguide.com to IC_1101 to the "Discovery" section (I've since removed that entire section: see Talk:IC_1101). Poking around at that page, it does not include citations to where it got the included data, and has a bunch of inaccuracies or questionable statements. The author of the page states "This website was put together by me, John as a learning tool for PHP then ASP.NET and has grown and grown." which is makes this seem like not a good source to use for astronomy facts, especially given the existence of SIMBAD and NED. Given this, I don't think we should use this page as a source for anything in the astronomy sphere (science fiction citations are another question). A quick google for universeguide.com site:en.wikipedia.org turned up a number of uses of the page here; I'm guessing others have a better way of doing such a search. Is there a bot that can remove these links easily, and/or replace them with better links to e.g. NED? - Parejkoj (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Information from the website (from almost any website) should be regarded with some scepticism until it can be verified by an independent source, preferably a more reliable one. Lithopsian (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Big Freeze

Big Freeze is currently up for discussion at RfD. I thought you might be interested.

Also, looking at wikt:en:Big Freeze#English, the definition on Wiktionary needs a rewrite. Anyone want to give it a try?

-- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Jupiter Featured article review

I have nominated Jupiter 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

List of most massive black holes

I have launched a new discussion at Talk:List of most massive black holes about the entry of SDSS J140821.67+025733.2. I hope you can join so me and hopefully others may get clarified, and hopefully we get a new consensus regarding this object. SkyFlubbler (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

By the way, if you are interested, help me in getting data from this page:

https://iopscience.iop.org/0067-0049/228/1/9/suppdata/apjsaa5504t1_mrt.txt

This is a monstrous data set of black hole masses. I am finding for candidates above 10 billion solar masses. This might take time if I do this alone, so I may as well ask for help. If you have any concerns regarding the reference, please leave your ideas here. It would be greatly appreciated.

Also, this is the same reference where the value of 196 billion solar masses was obtained for SDSS J140821.67+025733.2. I don't think this was raised in the earlier discussion here. SkyFlubbler (talk) 05:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review

I submitted a deletion review here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 December 18#SDSS J140821.67+025733.2

Please place inputs in there. Thanks!

SkyFlubbler (talk) 06:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks like you've gone down the wrong rabbit-hole. Deletion reviews are for overturning deletion decisions, generally on a technical basis (ie. close did not reflect the discussion). You also haven't made it clear what you wish to happen, especially since you have moved the article to draftspace and tagged the cross-namespace redirect for speedy deletion. I'm on the verge of removing the speedy deletion tag, but would be interested to hear what you really think should happen here. Are you planning to improve the draft? Lithopsian (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Updated: Pages in Category:Astronomy

~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Astrophysics Data System 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. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Guidelines on composited images?

What are our rules on using composite images in astronomy articles? I'm thinking specifically of c:File:TheGreatConjunction2020.png uploaded by KSPFanatic102 and the thread at Talk:Great_conjunction#Stitched_image?. For an image like this, I would think WP:V would require more details about how the composite image was constructed. I'm sure there was no deceptive intent here, so I'm not dumping on KSP, just trying to make sure we're presenting quality content to our readers. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

While I am not sure about the guidelines of composite imagery in astronomy articles, Due to technical limitations I have used post-processing afterward to further enhance the image. Attached below I have taken a screenshot of a side by side comparison of an unedited screenshot of the Conjunction taken without the Barlow lens. The one on the right is the file in question after image stacking, processing, and stitching. I have linked it to an imgur link for the record. https://imgur.com/7nxgh1o I feel like the composite image stitch would provide far more quality content for the reader in comparison to the raw image. Following your note I have clarified further on the software used to process the image in the description, and I'd gladly provide more detail if required. --KSPFanatic102 (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

KSPFanatic102, Thank you for your response, and I should re-emphasize that I'm sure you had no ill intent. I posted here because I'm not an expert on our standards for astronomy images. But, based on my general experience with scientific publishing, I'd say the general rule is, "the more detail, the better". This is especially true in something like wikipedia, where authors are bound by the tyranny of word count limitations. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Not sure about rules, but I would say as long as it's clear how the "final product" was achieved, that should be sufficient. As an amateur photographer myself, I understand what KSPFanatic102 means in their Commons statement, and would at no point assume there's anything hinky about how it was made. I've left more comments on the article's talk page. Primefac (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Want to ask NASA a question?

Hello WikiProject Astronomy! I'm Ed Erhart, part of the Wikimedia Foundation's Communications department. (You might know me better as The ed17.)

Have you ever wanted to ask an astronaut a question about living in space or the science that's done on the International Space Station (ISS)? Or perhaps you're expanding an article on human spaceflight and can't find a citation for an important bit of information? We're looking for community input on questions to ask a NASA astronaut.

For Wikipedia's 20th birthday, coming up on 15 January, and 20 years of continuous occupation of the ISS, we're working with Modest Genius to broadcast an interview with a NASA astronaut. Suitable topics would include Wikipedia's coverage of astronautics, scientific contributions made by crewed spaceflight over the last twenty years, and plans for the next two decades of spaceflight. We'll select the best questions to put to the astronaut.

If you have questions to submit, please respond below or send them to me via email by Sunday, 10 January (UTC). Thank you! Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Please do post any questions you have ASAP - I'm finalising the list this weekend and welcome community input. Modest Genius ^talk 12:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

While it's a bit trivial, I'd be curious to know what they do to deal with boredom during long missions. Have they invented any new microgravity recreations to while away the hours? What type of sports will people play in space? Praemonitus (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I'll ask about boredom & recreation in space. Modest Genius ^talk 16:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The full interview is now available. Modest Genius ^talk 13:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Input appreciated

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kepler-1638 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExoEditor (talk • contribs) 18:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser

Sandbox Organiser

A place to help you organise your work

Hi all

I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.

Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.

Hope its helpful

John Cummings (talk) 11:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

UGC 9796

Do UGC 9796 and II Zwicky 73 refer to the same galaxy? I've seen some sources like this one say that they are, while others like SIMBAD say they are two different galaxies. Loooke (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

According to SIMBAD notes, II Zw 73 is a companion of UGC 9796.[5] Praemonitus (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I've submitted II Zwicky 73 to WP:RFD. Loooke (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

According to [6] it is the same object. Ruslik_Zero 11:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Need some eyes on radial acceleration relation

I wrote down some problems with the article on its talk page, and am wondering if other editors think the same of the article. Courtesy @Astronome de Meudon: since he/she wrote the article, and @EN-Jungwon: since he/she assessed the article. Banedon (talk) 05:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Mass-asymptotic speed relation is a similar article that might also contradict itself, since it claims that "The relation was first predicted by Mordehai Milgrom in 1983; it was confirmed in a number of observational studies about twenty years later", yet the Tully-Fisher relation predates MOND. Banedon (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The Tully-Fisher relation is something quite distinct from the MASSR, and from the baryonic Tully-Fisher relation (in spite of the similarity in names). But there is a more important distinction that you seemed to have missed. The MASSR is a theoretically predicted relation; the BTFR is an observed correlation. Observational determination of the BTFR confirms the Milgromian prediction. Astronome de Meudon (talk)

I have reviewed the article. It is a relatively recent theory but its notability is supported by a number of papers by other authors. The article certainly has problems as it stands (eg. it is far from universally-accepted that this is proof of MOND), and of course other editors could still refer it to AfD if they have serious doubts whether it should exist at all. Lithopsian (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The theory (MOND) is not "relatively recent": it dates from 1983, roughly the same vintage as the dark-matter theories. And nowhere does the article claim that the relation is "proof of MOND". It simply notes the fact -- discussed at length in the Merritt (2020) reference -- that observational confirmation of a theoretically predicted relation is considered by many or most philosophers of science as strong evidence in favor of the predicting theory. The standard cosmological model predicts neither the MASSR nor the RAR, although theorists have tried, and continue to try, to accommodate those relations within their theory. Astronome de Meudon (talk)

As I said, NPOV issues. Lithopsian (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I have AfD'ed both of them. Tercer (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Globular cluster

I have nominated Globular cluster 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. (t · c) buidhe 17:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Is Space.com reliable?

A discussion is being held here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_Space.com and here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Space.com_reliable? ExoEditor 02:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Stars in Constellation Templates

Should a star be included in a Constellation template if the article has been changed to a redirect to the list of stars for that constellation. Because there are quite a few that have been redirected, particularly in the 'HR' section. As an example: HD 19549 in {{Aries (constellation)}}. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I think what I'm going to do is convert the redirected links to italics, like they do on the category pages. Praemonitus (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

opinion on notability

Are the citations for Draft:Sarah Roberts (Physicist) sufficient for notability in this field? DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

DGG, tt is very hard to show notability for educators. Her papers are from her time as a PhD student at the University of Cardiff and have multiple authors. She is now in education instead of research and that is trickier. Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society just means she is a regular member, not a Fellow as in US societies. Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy is just a teaching credential. It is too soon to say what sort of impact she will have in science education. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

these factors are exactly why I have asked. What is however unusual about the record is that almost all people whose proposed notability is in science education have been involved in much less work of importance when they were still in research. (Inm y experience, the only sure way to show notability of a science educator is by being president of the leading national association in the field) DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I've met Roberts several times. The references in the article don't establish notability, and in a 10 minute hunt I couldn't find any reliable sources that do. Her research career was unexceptional; she led two papers in 2004 and 2007, which is no more than a typical PhD student does, and has just a few co-authored publications since then. (Her publication record should not be confused with the unrelated Sarah E. Roberts, a meteoriticist at the University of Tennessee.) The outreach & education role is certainly worthy, but hasn't received any coverage in reliable sources. Fellow of the RAS is just the standard category of membership. I don't think she meets WP:PROF or WP:NBIO. Modest Genius ^talk 13:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Articles on stars with exoplanets

There are several articles on stars with exoplanets that are separate from the article on the exoplanet itself. The problem is that these stars' only claim to notability is having exoplanets, and there isn't even enough information about them to make for a sensible article. User:Lithopsian has been AfD'ing these articles one by one [7][8], but I think this is a very laborious and haphazard approach. It would be better if people could come to an agreement on how to deal with these articles uniformly. My proposal would be to merge the star's article with the exoplanet article. As suggested by User:SevenSpheresCelestia and User:PopePompus, the target should be the star's article, as this allows for stars with multiple exoplanets to be dealt with sensibly. Examples:

XO-6 and XO-6b
Kepler-1638 and Kepler-1638b
Kepler-26 and Kepler-26e
Gliese 1061, Gliese 1061 c, and Gliese 1061 d
TOI 700 and TOI 700 d
Gliese 163 and Gliese 163 c
Kepler-22 and Kepler-22 b

And many, many more. What do you think? Tercer (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, the general rule is to have separate articles only when both the planet and the star independently satisfy WP:NASTRO. If the star is only notable because of the planet, the articles should be merged. If several planets are notable only because they're part of a multi-planet system, again those should be merged. NASTRO explicitly states that this is something to decide case-by-case: "Whether it is best to consolidate or to have individual articles should be determined on a case-by-case basis, on the relevant article's talk page". So I'm not sure there's a shortcut solution other than to consider them one by one. Where merger is appropriate, I would prefer the article to be located at the name of the star, just because that encompasses the whole system, but it's not particularly important as long as there are suitable redirects. Modest Genius ^talk 17:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I phrased it badly; I'm not asking if these specific stars are independently notable, I'm just asking what to do when it is the case that they are not independently notable. Other possibilities would be to delete the host star's article, or to merge them under the exoplanet's article. If there is a consensus to merge them under the star's article this would be a shortcut solution, as we wouldn't need an AfD for every article. Tercer (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the general idea and with merging exoplanet stubs to their host stars, but I'm not sure that all of the articles you mention need to be merged. For example, Gliese 1061 has some notability independent of its planets, and Kepler-22b is a highly notable exoplanet, so it makes some sense to have separate star and planet articles. I also note that Kepler-26b is already a redirect to Kepler-26. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Gliese 1061 is a notable planetary system, which would justify having a single combined article on the star and its planets. However, there's nothing currently in the article to demonstrate that the star is independently notable - it just quotes entries in large catalogues and mentions the planets. It does not appear that any of those planets are notable on their own either, just as a combined system. Whether Kepler-22b is 'highly notable' or not is irrelevant to whether we should have a separate article on the host star - the star itself needs to pass WP:NASTRO on its own to justify there being two articles. Again there's nothing in the current Kepler-22 to demonstrate that it's notable independently of the planet. (In both cases there might be sources that establish such notability - I didn't do a detailed literature survey, just looked at the current articles.) Modest Genius ^talk 18:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant Kepler-26e, not Kepler-26b, fixed now. As for your other points, I concur with User:Modest Genius. Tercer (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Re Gliese 1061: However, there's nothing currently in the article to demonstrate that the star is independently notable - it just quotes entries in large catalogues and mentions the planets. There is at least this paper, although you're probably correct that: It does not appear that any of those planets are notable on their own either, just as a combined system. I wouldn't be against merging these.

Re Kepler-22: Again there's nothing in the current Kepler-22 to demonstrate that it's notable independently of the planet. True, but the articles have existed separately for almost a decade now and are both fairly developed (neither is a stub) so I don't really see the need for a merge...In any case, these should be discussed individually on the article talk pages. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I glossed over that Gliese 1061 reference, because that's the object's discovery paper. Those never count towards notability, which has to be established by independent coverage, see WP:NASTRO. Discovery papers are a great source, particularly for basic physical parameters, but they don't establish notability on their own. Multiple mainstream media reports of that discovery would do so, for example. For Kepler-22, having an old article isn't grounds to keep it separate - all the material would still be there after any merger. Modest Genius ^talk 19:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I think these articles should be merged even if the star and planet(s) are independently notable. Our goal should not be to determine what is the minimal possible degree of notability, and create an article for each object that barely crosses that threshold. Having the planets and stars in separate articles will inevitably lead to duplication of information. Having a page for every barely notable object will lead to a bunch of one paragraph stub articles with little prospect of being developed into something more satisfying. I think the whole system should be described on in a single article, unless that would result in an excessively long article (which would not be the case for any of these exosystems right now). One other benefit to doing this would be to allow the inclusion of some planets which by themselves are not notable, as long as the system itself was. We'd have a well established scheme where each exosystem had one page with everything on it, rather than a mess of pages, many of which would establish "notability" by referring to some other object in the system (like this one:K2-315). The system's page needs to have a name, and naming it after the star seems most logical. Redirects could be made for specific planets within the system.PopePompus (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

You can AfD a list of articles. Praemonitus (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but I don't want them to be deleted. Maybe User:Lithopsian wants, I don't know. Tercer (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

If nobody puts forth a good reason not to, I'm going to be bold and start merging these articles starting on April 1, 2021 (because I'm a fool).PopePompus (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Please do. As encouragement I did the job for Gliese 1061 and Kepler-1638. Somebody else took care of XO-6, although they made the main article the exoplanet, not the star. Tercer (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hubble tension article

Should we create a separate article for Hubble tension? it has been going on for a while and probably deserves its own article for deeper discussion. --ReyHahn (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

At present it's only one paragraph. I'd say try expanding it in place for now. Praemonitus (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Supernova neutrinos

Need someone who can check some of the content, and mathematical formulae, at Supernova neutrinos. The article was created by a Wiki Ed student and looks pretty good, but is too technical for me to verify. Also, any recommendations to this new editor about how to find and use secondary sources in this field would be appreciated. Also listed at WT:PHYSICS. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: It indeed has problems. Early on, About 99% of gravitational binding energy... — Contrary to source cited. Source says 99% of emitted energy comes out as neutrinos, which is not the same as the gravitational binding energy. I'm not an expert, but I see statements which don't agree with my limited understanding, and trying to chase down citations either runs into paywalls or they don't obviously agree with the cited statement. The article needs someone who works in the field to straighten out, and a large dose of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH needs to be applied. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tarl N.: thanks for your comments. Are there a few editors here or at the Physics project we could {{ping}} that you trust, that might be able to offer their thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 03:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd be thinking of @Lithopsian:, @Attic Salt:, and @Casliber:. I don't know if any of them have the time to give it a going over, though. Tarl N. (discuss) 06:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. If anyone has comments, the best venue would be directly at Talk:Supernova neutrinos. Thanks in advance! Mathglot (talk) 07:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Space Exploration

I made a draft about American space exploration but it was rejected. Can you help? Link: Draft:Space Exploration 64.121.103.144 (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Your article seems well-intended, but the topic is already well-covered under space race. It's unlikely that an article is still lacking about a topic with so widespread interest. I'd advise you to start by improving the existing articles rather than creating new ones. After you get more experience with Wikipedia you'd be more successful at creating articles. Tercer (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

This is also more appropriately discussed at WT:SPACEFLIGHT, as the content of the draft article is mostly not about astronomy -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

"(DP)"

I just noticed Orcus (DP) and Salacia (DP); I am not aware that dwarf planets are called "DP"s. Is this valid terminology for abbreviating "dwarf planet" ? (It is not currently listed at DP (disambiguation) nor wikt:en:DP ) If this is valid terminology, it needs to be added to the disambiguation page and the wiktionary entry -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

They are just redirects, which do not need to represent any valid terminology. Ruslik_Zero 12:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

List of astronomical objects named after people

I recently did a fairly large overhaul of this page, but with only a handful of page watchers it might not get enough followup for a few discussions on the talk page. Nothing vital or crazy (and both discussions started in the last 24 hours), just a few things that could potentially use some extra input. Primefac (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Is the Milky Way 256,000 light years across?

Explorer King is a new user here. Most of his edits were on The articles for the Andromeda and Triangulum galaxies, as well as the Milky Way’s article. He added that the Milky Way was larger than the Andromeda galaxy, basing it on a radius of 129,000 light years. It seems that it came from a news article which says that the Milky Way is larger than the Andromeda, and bases that on a paper about the Milky Way’s Mass. Any thoughts? The Space Enthusiast (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

There's a cited dimension here: Milky_Way#Size_and_mass. There isn't a well-defined edge, so I suppose it depends on how you define it. Praemonitus (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Our galaxy has historically been considered to be quite a bit smaller than M31, ≈half depending on just what you're measuring. More recently, they have been considered to be quite close in mass and overall dimensions. More than one recent estimate makes the Milky Way substantially bigger, but I'm not sure that is considered the consensus yet. The results obviously depend on measurements of different properties of two different objects and most studies tend to measure one or the other, often favouring the one they're measuring and perhaps being semi-blind to studies that would contradict that. I haven't gone through enough recent papers to offer a strong opinion either way. Lithopsian (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Galaxies do not have well-defined edges, so any measurement needs to be accompanied by an indication of which radius is being considered (effective radius, Petrosian radius, Holmberg radius, dark matter core radius etc.) and whether the value has been corrected for inclination. It's only meaningful to compare values that use the same definition of radius. For the Milky Way, things are even more complicated as we're stuck inside of it and cannot measure any of those radii directly. Lithopsian is correct that there is debate as to the exact size of the Milky Way - we know the distance between the Sun and the Galactic Centre fairly well (also sometimes referred to as a radius) but extrapolating the structure in the outer regions is extremely tricky. I think most astronomers still regard Andromeda as bigger than the Milky Way, but not by as much as was thought a few decades ago. More generally, I would avoid taking galaxy radius measurements from popular media sources, as they are unlikely to comprehend the subtleties or state which radius definition is being used. Modest Genius ^talk 12:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Should we remove the claims that claim the Milky Way is larger than M31? The Space Enthusiast (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we should keep the claim. While there are two sources are being cited stating that Milky Way might be bigger than M31 in the Milky_Way#Size_and_mass page, we should just explicitly state that it's just a speculation Bigboithena (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

NGC 179

Hi, I'm not an astronomer, but I have a concern about NGC 179 especially "This galaxy comprises several stars lost of interstellar matter and it can be possible to flatten more until they will faint." "flattening until they faint" sounds like something in the playground that merits a teacher intervening. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

WereSpielChequers, I've removed that sentence. Looking at some of the creator's other work, their English is poor enough that it's often hard to understand. As an aside, Betelgeuse was described as "fainting", but I don't think this is related.

I also suspect that NGC 179 fails WP:NASTRO. Simbad gives me 39 articles that mention it, all of which appear to be surveys or catalogues. I haven't gone through each one to look for significant coverage, though. Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you're right - I couldn't find any substantial commentary on a quick look. Being in the NGC used to be a free pass on WP:NASTRO but isn't any more. I've tagged with {{notability}}. Modest Genius ^talk 11:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks both of you, I shall go back to my trawl of "lost of" reassured that we don't know of a beastie out there that is flattening galaxies until they faint. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Heh, amusing. Praemonitus (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding central star characteristics to {{infobox nebula}}

I propose that we extend {{infobox nebula}} with a new section containing central star characteristics. The proposal can be read and discussed here: Template talk:Infobox nebula § Central star characteristics. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Request for input on distinction between solar meridian transit and highest solar altitude

Would anyone please weigh in at the discussion at Talk:Noon#High noon, particularly with regard to how the nonspecialist terms solar noon and high noon relate to both the time of the Sun's meridian transit and the time of the Sun's highest altitude? Ibadibam (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

55701 Ukalegon

55701 Ukalegon is a smaller Jupiter trojan that fails notability per WP:DWMP. (JPL · MPC · LCDB · Ferret · AstDyS-2)

Since 2018, I've been trying unsuccessfully to turn the stub into a redirect page but my edits keep getting reverted by the same user (see article's talk page). So maybe somebody else should look into this matter. Rfassbind – talk 23:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it, but it's looking like you've got consensus behind you. Primefac (talk) 09:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

It is non-notable. I'd WP:PROD/WP:AfD it, then let the admins take care of the revert issue. Praemonitus (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks non-notable to me. AfD it. Modest Genius ^talk 11:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Weird glitch with Template:Sky

Anyone know why Template:Sky is acting all weird now? It now seems to cut into the top of infoboxes for stars and such, and I recall it being a bit higher up then now. This wasn’t occurring a few days ago. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hrm, no changes to the template in the last few months. I assume you're referring to the difference between (for example) Algol and Antlia, where the former looks right but the latter has the coords in the middle of the title? The articles look to be formatted the same, so I'm not seeing anything layout-wise that would affect things. It might be a change with the base infobox itself (as there have been some changes recently) but I don't know if that would affect the div used by {{sky}}. Primefac (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Weird things happened with both fonts and co-ordinates with this Thursday's MediaWiki update. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Transit of Venus Featured article review

I have nominated Transit of Venus 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Exoplanets merged?

Hello. I have realized the potentially habitable exoplanets GJ 1061 d and c have been merged: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_1061#Gliese_1061_d I think it's a good idea to have them as separate articles. Any thoughts? They are the 7th and 8th most potentially habitable: http://phl.upr.edu/projects/habitable-exoplanets-catalog And they have been covered in many scientific papers and media. Cheers. ExoEditor 23:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't look like there's enough content to justify separate articles, or demonstrate independent notability per WP:NASTRO. I suggest you work on expanding the existing sections until a WP:SPLIT is required. Modest Genius ^talk 10:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:Rocketry

I am an inexperienced user who revived WikiProject Rocketry. Could some experienced editors please put it on their watchlist and help out? StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 15:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Most viewed stub in this Wikiproject

Nuclear pasta 13,380 446 Stub --Coin945 (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Not any more. It's clearly not a stub. Praemonitus (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

IC 1101

I'm sorry to start yet another discussion about IC 1101 but this time it is not about the overall size, it is the core size. You see, I found this paper which says that IC 1101 has the largest core of any galaxy. The link is: [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Space Enthusiast (talk • contribs) 01:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Anyone?The Space Enthusiast (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

It's unclear what your question is. You've already added that result to the IC 1101 article and cited the same paper (currently ref 10). Modest Genius ^talk 11:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Helium rain experiment draft

Just for any editors who pass this, I started a draft (Draft:Helium rain experiments) based on some experiments that showed the possibility of "helium rain" inside gas giants. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Currently it reads like a press release. Immicibility of helium and hydrogen under pressure has been known for years. So it is undue highlighting the researchers. "Rain" on these planets is speculation. For rain to be formed there is more than the existence of two phases required. And separation of two liquids is more like cream floating to the surface of milk, or slag from molten metal. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

That's a one sentence sub-stub, that cites a press release, a copy of the same press release on an aggregation website, and a blog (none of those are independent reliable sources). Why would we need a separate article on this? There are already discussions of possible helium rain at Jupiter#Internal_structure and Saturn#Internal_structure. If the new study has contributed anything substantially new to the topic, it can be added to those sections. Modest Genius ^talk 11:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Request for Comment Robert Lanza

There is a Request for Comment about Robert Lanza#Biocentrism that may be of interest to members of the WikiProject: Bibliographies/Science task force. Talk:Robert Lanza#Request For Comment Robert Lanza. I would encourage members of this project to consider participating to add diversity to the discussion. Sapphire41359 (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Baten Kaitos - redirect or dab page?

Please watchlist and keep an eye on this dab page, as it keeps getting turned into a redirect to a video game. Thanks! Skyerise (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Baten Kaitos. Skyerise (talk) 03:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Space weather task force

A few people from the newly formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather have decided to create a task force dedicated to working on articles underneath the space weather branch of meteorology. Besides articles underneath the space weather category (including subcategories) and planetary atmospheric articles, what else should be included? I was also wondering if anyone here would be interested in helping to improve these articles as they fall underneath both our projects. Noah^Talk 02:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Some parts of space physics are also related. However this is really a topic for WP:SOLAR, not WP:AST. A joint task force with them would be more appropriate than with us. Modest Genius ^talk 10:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Rosette orbit

Currently rosette orbit is a redirect to Klemperer rosette, which is not the same thing at all. I noticed this as a result of reading the orbital eccentricity article, which originally (back in 2012) contained just the text "rosette orbit," that was later wikilinked to Klemperer rosette (possibly due to the existing redirect), and later still edited to explicitly include the "Klemperer." Sources mentioning "rosette orbit" (no mention of Klemperer) are cited on the talk page. Anyway, I reverted it back to the original, but that still leaves the problem of the bad redirect. I can't find anything on Wikipedia that actually describes what a rosette orbit is, or why a star would follow one, although confusingly there's the very similarly named Rosetta (orbit) (but that explicitly limits itself to relativistic precession)... So perhaps someone should write something about the topic, or delete the redirect, or something? I'll leave it up to more experienced editors to decide what's best. 89.168.85.237 (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I've run into that issue myself, but left it for others to resolve. "Orbits in static spherical potentials". Praemonitus (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm 90% sure that 'rosette orbit' is a non-technical synonym for 'rosetta orbit'. The former term does not appear in professional literature - just two ADS hits, both for conference talks. All the mentions I could find in non-technical sources were of orbits that precess due to relativistic effects, consistent with our rosetta orbit article. I therefore favour redirecting there, or a disambiguation page could also work. Modest Genius ^talk 15:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if there's a specific term for it, but my understanding is that rosette-shaped orbits apply to the motions of stars in globular clusters and to clusters in a galaxy. Perhaps some type of disambiguation page is needed? Praemonitus (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Unnamed crater on Ganymede

I noticed on List of largest craters in the Solar System there is an impact crater on Ganymede that is 15,600 kilometers wide. However on the talk page for that, A user said it was geographically impossible, since Ganymede is only 5,270 kilometers wide. What are your opinions about this? The Space Enthusiast (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The news story[10] says, "The radial extent of the multiring measured along the satellite's surface is 7800km." I suppose if it is measured circumferentially across the sphere from the impact point, it could extend that far. Is it even a crater at that point? Praemonitus (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The paper is Bibcode:2020Icar..35213941H, published online July 2020. I don't have access to the full text, but from the abstract they seem to be saying that the entire surface of the moon was disrupted by a single impact. That isn't a 'crater' per se, and nor does it have a well-defined size - equivalent area will give you a different value than circumference. I favour not including it in the list. Modest Genius ^talk 14:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Saying the whole surface is a crater sounds silly to me. I support removing it, too. --mfb (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, this will be true of any crater on a spherical body, the area of a Spherical cap is not

\pi r^{2}

, but

\pi (r^{2}+a^{2})

. It's just that usually the crater is so much smaller than the body that this difference is negligible. That said, I don't think this feature of Ganymede counts as a "crater". Tercer (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I removed it. --mfb (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Category:Non-habitable Mega-Earths

Hello, WikiProject Astronomy,

This is a recently created category and I assume it has something to do with astronomy. But it doesn't have any parent categories so I do not know how it fits into the Wikipedia category structure. If some knowledgeable editor could assign it some parent categories or tag it for CFD deletion if it is nonsense, I would appreciate it. Thanks much. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I added Category:Mega-Earths. Not sure why it needs to exist though. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 04:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the term Mega-Earth has been used widely enough to even merit an article, let alone a category tree. Modest Genius ^talk 12:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

astronoo.com link removal

I just went and removed a bunch of references and external links to "astronoo.com". It appears to be a blog-like source, is full of ads, doesn't have any of its information sources linked on the various pages, and is an automatic translation of a French page. This seems to be not at all the kind of source we should be using for scientific articles on Wikipedia. I think I removed them all, but this is a notice others to keep an eye out if they re-appear, or if I missed any. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

List of most luminous stars / List of brightest stars

While going through Astronomy, Popular pages, I found these two lists

At article Canopus I added both to "See also" and am now wondering, while each is different, might the titles be changed? Me not being an astronomer, how can each list name be clarified? Or are they okay as is? JoeNMLC (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The list of most luminous stars is based on absolute magnitude which assumes that all stars are at the same distance. This allows a side by side comparison to determine which star emits the most light. The brightest stars list is based on apparent magnitude as viewed from the distance from Earth. An intrinsically bright star at a great distance will then appear less bright than a dim star that is very close per the inverse-square law. I'd say that having both is ok. It depends on which metric the reader is interested in. --mikeu ^talk 22:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I do think that the intros to the lists could be improved to clarify this distinction. --mikeu

I have rewritten the leads of both lists in an attempt to explain the difference between them. Modest Genius ^talk 16:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Modest Genius: Thank you for your lead rewrites, and Yes both are much clearer now. I did tab them in my browser side-by-side so I could flip back & forth. My knowledge of astronomy is not that deep but the leads for both these articles are much improved. THanks again. JoeNMLC (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Popular pages bot

It has been about a year since I looked here to check Popular pages bot. As of today there are 25 entries for WP not updated for July's monthly run. Click on right-side "Updated" columns sorts the table to view by date sequence. The bot is not perfect, and does stall out sometimes. Generally problems can be from the wikicode on a wikiproject talk page configuration, or at the bots configuration page for each wikiproject. Looking at details for WP Astronomy, entries look correct. For Talk:Skathi (moon), I updated to use full WP names (uncertain if this will help), and added Annual readership stats graph to help monitor daily numbers. JoeNMLC (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Dark Energy Survey

I did a complete overhaul of this article because it was filled with unnecessary background information, severely oudated (often using future tense from before the project bagan), and scantly referenced in many places. About 3/4 of the content was deleted in the process. It could still use some fine-tuning by making sure that the references actually support the text and updatng the results section. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks good. I've copyedited the lead and given the current status - observing is complete, but analysis is ongoing and only 3 years of data have been released so far. The results section could do with expansion, but that probably requires someone with expertise in cosmology. Modest Genius ^talk 11:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Abell 2199 / PSR B1509−58 / NGC 27

Asking for expert help with stub article Abell 2199 (galaxy cluster). The Hubble image for this article is used at Astronomy Portal, Selected image. Additions to the article would be helpful. JoeNMLC (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Also stub article PSR B1509−58 (pulsar)

And stub article NGC 27 (spiral galaxy)

Thanks. JoeNMLC (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@JoeNMLC: Please do not slap the {{expert needed}} tag on an article just to draw attention to it. There needs to be a serious issue that isn't addressed by another cleanup tag, such as the stub sorting template that is already on all three articles. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia project about SETI

Hello! I have created a Wikipedia project called SETI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_SETI Feel free to join. ExoEditor 10:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Is it okay to remove stars with user-calculated sizes from the List of Largest stars?

On Talk:List of largest stars, a discussion is happening in which two users said that stars with sizes calculated by us should be removed, Stephenson 2-18 included. What are your opinions about this? --The Space Enthusiast (talk) 06:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Frankly I find the list pretty dubious. It should only contain stars that satisfy an error range criteria; say 5% or less. Praemonitus (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

What about variable stars they can vary in size by a pretty big factor within months. Crandall a clark (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Crandall, that's not what's being discussed; the stars being debated are not variables. Primefac (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)