Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Spaces in planetary designators again: XO-2b

User:NuclearVacuum has proposed moving the article on this extrasolar planet from XO-2b to XO-2 b. You can comment at Talk:XO-2b. Spacepotato (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The request was retracted by the poster.—RJH (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible infoboxes

A pair trio of infoboxes for contemplation.—RJH (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There's Stellar stream... which doesn't readily fit, or it fits in both... 70.55.84.108 (talk) 09:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Added. Converted to navboxes.—RJH (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The galaxy box should probably be modified to look similar to the star box, with links to components of galaxies, etc. 70.55.84.14 (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I took a crack at it; not sure how well I succeeded.—RJH (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I modified stellar system slightly (to make "v" work) to add asterism, and move multiple star system down to bound systems. 70.51.8.64 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to starbox templates

HD 45652

Observation data Epoch J2000.0      Equinox J2000.0 (ICRS)
Constellation (pronunciation)	Monoceros
Right ascension	06h 29m 13.1917s
Declination	+10° 56′ 02.009″
Apparent magnitude (V)	8.13
Astrometry
Proper motion (μ)	RA: 206.14 mas/yr Dec.: −62.69 mas/yr
Parallax (π)	27.67 ± 1.29 mas
Distance	118 ly (36 pc)
Absolute magnitude (MV)	5.3
Details
Mass	0.83 ± 0.05 M☉
Surface gravity (log g)	4.32 ± 0.21
Luminosity (bolometric, Lbol)	0.65 L☉
Temperature	5312 ± 68 K
Metallicity	[Fe/H] = 0.29 ± 0.07
Other designations
BD+11 1197, GC 8415,  HIP 30905, NLTT 16570, SAO 95735.

I'd like to make the following changes to the starbox templates:

1. In {{Starbox observe}}, display the equinox as well as the epoch for celestial coordinates. As explained in our articles on these subjects, the epoch indicates the point in time when the object's position was measured, while the equinox gives the coordinate system. So, both should be specified. The equinox will default to being the same as the epoch.
2. In {{Starbox detail}}, clarify that the luminosity displayed is bolometric (L_bol), rather than being visual (L_v), or something else.
3. In {{Starbox astrometry}}, if the distance is not computed automatically, allow the distance to be specified in just one of light years and parsecs (at present, if the distances are specified directly instead of being computed, the template expects both a distance in light years and a distance in parsecs to be specified.) Also, if the distance is specified in both light years and parsecs, display the two distances on separate lines, as is already the case if the distance is computed automatically. There will be no change whatever in the case where the distance is computed automatically from the parallax.

No changes to article text should be necessary. An example of the revised templates is shown at the right. (Data shown is for illustrative purposes only.)

Spacepotato (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Is the luminosity always bolometric in our star articles? Doesn't bolometric luminosity require a correction term? I'm not sure that will always be available.—RJH (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably, many of our infoboxes do contain visual luminosities. I think that the bolometric luminosity is preferable as (a) the unqualified word luminosity generally means bolometric luminosity (see our article, or [1], [2], ISBN 0792317688, p. 3, or [3], §13.2.4.) and (b) the visual luminosity is redundant with the visual absolute magnitude M_V.

An alternate proposal would be to introduce new template fields for L_bol ("Luminosity (bolometric, L_bol)") and L_V ("Luminosity (visual, L_V)"), with the hope of eventually removing the unqualified "luminosity" field. Spacepotato (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of comments on 1 and 3, I've gone ahead and implemented these changes. Spacepotato (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious why there is a need to just display the distance in only one of 'light years' or 'parsecs'?—RJH (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It's just a precaution, in case an editor decides to use the template in this way. Spacepotato (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Re point 1, I took the liberty of adding the equinox to {{Starbox short}} and two other starbox templates ({{Starbox observe 2s}} and {{Starbox observe 3s}}) that are each currently used in exactly one article. As with {{Starbox observe}}, the equinox defaults to the epoch and no changes to article text should be necessary. Spacepotato (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Re point 2, in the absence of further comments, I implemented the alternate proposal for point 2. This will make no difference to the displayed articles until articles are revised to use luminosity_bolometric or luminosity_visual instead of luminosity. Spacepotato (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Exoplanet naming

At WT:AST there is a notice about changes to the nomenclature section of the exoplanet article, and related requested moves that use the changes as justification, and a query on whether this represents consensus. WT:AST#Extrasolar planets#Nomenclature becoming consensus? 70.55.86.39 (talk) 05:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

related to this User:NuclearVacuum has requested several article renames, see WP:RM 70.55.84.66 (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia uses spaces between the name and the object. I think a space will avoid potential confusion in instances where a prominent star's historical name or bayer/flamsteed designation is used. For example: "Vegab" or "Vega b", "61 Cygb" or "61 Cyg b", assuming such were discovered.—RJH (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

As discussed at Talk:PSR B1257+12, the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia is constrained by their software to name planets using a fixed scheme, which is appending a space followed by b, c, d, etc. This is not necessarily representative of what is done in the literature. For example, a Google Scholar search shows that HD 209458b is usually referred to without a space. Spacepotato (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. You may want to comment on the July 1 WP:RM.—RJH (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

CL 1358+62

CL1358+62 (z=0.33) is a galaxy cluster that was masquerading as a galaxy article until I rewrote it just now. Unfortunately, the bulk of the article is about CL 1358+62 G1 and CL 1358+62 G2, two galaxies that jointly held the most distant galaxy title in 1997 (z=4.92), so we should probably rename the article / split the article, but I don't have a handy name for what to rename it to. The two notable galaxies are not part of the cluster, rather, they are gravitationally lensed by it. I think the original author mistook the name of the lensing cluster as the name of the galaxy. 70.51.11.100 (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Note, there is no redirect at CL 1358+62, which is how the discovery paper refers to the cluster. 70.51.11.100 (talk) 10:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Created a redirect. Those two ("CL1358+62" and "CL 1358+62") can always be switched if that is preferred.—RJH (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

C-Class Assessment requests

Hello,

I am listing here a bunch of articles that I have contributed to that may be worthy of C-Class designation of assessment. Would folks please take a look and if you agree mark them as such?

• Dorado Group
• NGC 1672
• Black Eye Galaxy
• Terzan 7
• Draco Dwarf
• Sagittarius Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy
• Rigel
• Red Rectangle Nebula
• Large Magellanic Cloud
• Small Magellanic Cloud
• Local Group
• Andromeda II
• NGC 147
• IC 10
• NGC 185
• Leo I (dwarf galaxy)
• Protoplanetary nebula
• Stingray Nebula
• Frosty Leo Nebula
• Planetary nebula luminosity function
• Mz 3
• NGC 1316
• Barred spiral galaxy
• Messier 81
• Galaxy formation and evolution
• Messier 32

And start assessment (or maybe C-Class):

• Absolute magnitude
• Dwarf spheroidal galaxy
• Dwarf galaxy
• Cassiopeia A
• Arp 220
• Messier 54
• Sculptor Dwarf Galaxy
• Cetus Dwarf
• Andromeda V
• Fornax Dwarf
• Mayall II
• Andromeda I
• North America Nebula

Thanks.

WilliamKF (talk) 02:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Please strike out the articles as they are looked at and if you leave the rating unchanged, please put a comment on the talk page of the unchanged article explaining your thinking. Thanks. WilliamKF (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

PPM?

A large number of articles that use {{Starbox catalog}} include links to PPM under "Other designations". However, PPM is a disambiguation page, and none of the links on that page refers to a star catalogue, nor does this abbreviation appear anywhere on the Star catalogue page. Can someone please identify what this abbreviation stands for, and help fix the links so that the star articles refer the reader to something useful? --Russ (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be the work of CarloscomB's new starboxes... It should be noted that some of his infoboxes redlink to non-catalogues. 70.55.85.12 (talk) 05:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's the PPM Star Catalogue. Spacepotato (talk) 07:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

three articles on two stars, which is not a double star

We have three articles covering the same thing

• R 66/HDE 268835/R66/HDE268835/HD 268835/HD268835
• R 126/HD 37974/R126/HD37974
• R 66 and R 126

I don't particularly see a good reason for R66 and R126 article to exist... the other two articles were created by CarloscomB and thus have the typical set of problems his articles have. 70.51.9.237 (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a good faith statement. Be kind to CarloscomB. Improve the articles! Said: Rursus ☻ 09:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Or feel free to merge. Said: Rursus ☻ 09:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to know english very well, so he does have a typical set of problems. I don't think that's "bad faith", just observational. 70.55.86.146 (talk) 04:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Exoplanet rename consensus?

I posted earlier at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Extrasolar planets.23Nomenclature becoming consensus.3F about some exoplanet articles getting moved. I see a link was made from here, above. Maybe I should have posted here instead. Anyway I did comment on Talk:Gliese 581 c that I was unsure about the proposal, but it seem my comment got caught in some edit warring and may have got missed. In brief I agree with some moves but not the ones that don't match "commonly used name" or even SIMBAD. Also I do not think consistency is desirable, and that each exoplanet move should be decided separately. I posted in more detail Wikipedia:Requested moves#Backlog (Search for "Gliese 581"). Despite the reply I remain concerned about the lack of clarity in the move criteria. I hope it's explained it better there. -84user (talk) 03:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Modification of starbox descriptions

User NuclearVacuum has been attempting to modify the starbox templates by essentially removing any description. The result can be seen below:

• before
• after

The NuclearVacuum-modified page does not describe the purpose or the interrelationship between the templates. To me that is a step backwards. I've reverted the pages once but he has since re-reverted the pages and left User_talk:RJHall#Removing_hard_work this note complaining about removing his hard work. Any comments?—RJH (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have already fixed the issue by putting the snipped description in {{Starboxes}}. Secondly, there was no change to the main code itself. Nothing would have changed, the code that I am proposing is simpler, easy to understand, not full of complex wording, and less kilobytes on the article. — NuclearVacuum 18:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You have deleted the statement that "starbox begin" should be first on the list. Starbox observe now neglects to mention the RA and DEC templates. Starbox astrometry completely omits the discussion of the parallax computation. &c. You just went through with a cookie-cutter approach and deleted useful information. Template:Starbox observe now contains no information about the purpose of the template or how it fits into the scheme of things. This is not helping and it's coming painfully close to vandalism.—RJH (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I fixed that, why didn't you just mention it, you don't have to be calling me a "vandal"! — NuclearVacuum 19:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Please, do not remove information from the template documentation.
2. Decreasing the number of bytes in template pages is not a worthwhile end in itself.

Spacepotato (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Unified starbox?

On a tangential topic, does anybody think it would be worthwhile to merge the starbox conglomeration into a single infobox? I'm thinking along the lines of using the parser function to determine whether certain subsections get displayed or not. Having a single infobox might make it easier to maintain in the long run, although it would necessitate conversion of many pages. In that case, a new name would probably be useful. Something like "Infobox star", for example.—RJH (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Extrasolar planet naming titles

I am requesting that there be a look at how extrasolar planets are titled and called here. Different consensuses state to different ways. For instants, the consensus on Gliese 581 c (edit talk links history) states on having a space, while the consensus on OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb (edit talk links history) states on no spacing. This is too confusing for me (I have already gone overboard), but I want this to be brought up to attention. In agreement with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects), can we make it clearer on when or when not to use spacing? — NuclearVacuum 19:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Directory of the planetboxes

I would first like to apologize about my last major edit to the {{Starboxes}}. I wasn't clear on I had to discuss directory information here as well. I am also intending to cleanup the directory section of the {{Planetboxes}} (similar to how the starboxes look now). This will not change the code at all, and I will take into account not to accidentally remove important information. I will first test how it would look on {{Planetbox begin}}, and will slowly work on the others. I will get to work after this message has been posted. I would also like to note that I took the liberty and made the raw message on the starboxes and turned it into a template. Check it out at {{Astro talk}}. — NuclearVacuum 21:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The cleanup/change has been saved to {{Planetbox begin}}. I will get to the others shortly, I just want to make sure this is OK and will be accepted. — NuclearVacuum 21:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have now implemented the change to {{Planetbox image}} and {{Planetbox star}}. I am wary to continue these changes any further. I will continue on the changes when I am 100% sure that everybody has seen the other three and like the idea. I do not want to get into something that I can't get out of. — NuclearVacuum 22:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I wish to inform everyone that I have completed the cleanup and changes. — NuclearVacuum 14:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Galaxy 0402+379

In reviewing the list of galaxies article, I came across Galaxy 0402+379, according to the article, it seems like it should be named 4C 37.11, as 4C is a widely known catalogue. [4] 70.51.9.220 (talk) 08:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It has been renamed by RJHall, thanks for pointing out the issue. WilliamKF (talk) 04:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Hypothetical planetary systems

This seems like something of an odd, grab-bag category. Does it mean a star is suspected of having planets? If so, I wonder what would be considered an acceptible criteria? Otherwise, virtually any star can have a hypothetical planetary system.—RJH (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be a redivision of cat:hypothetical exoplanet... I don't see a use for it... since that category can function for this organization as well. That category stores notable scientifically proposed exoplanets, that have been disproved, retracted, or not confirmed. 70.51.8.223 (talk) 06:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Blazar article problems?

There's a notice on talk:Blazar from the uploader of two illustrations used in the article about copyright problems, but the images themselves state that the uploader user:Mrbrak created the images... The images themselves have nothing on their talk pages. 70.55.85.134 (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Tagged galaxy pages

The following galaxy pages have been tagged with maintenance messages:

• NGC 6240, NGC 1234, IC 469 and IC 442 are orphaned.
• VIRGOHI21 has a weasel wording template.
• ZW II 96 relies too much upon a single source.
• 3C236 needs attention from an expert.

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Striking out ones resolved. WilliamKF (talk) 23:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.—RJH (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Detached object (astronomy) at WP:GAN & WP:DYK

• Detached object (astronomy) is at WP:GAN & WP:DYK. Domain expert input would be very very helpful. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 09:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Is "detached object" an official designation? It doesn't appear to be in much use among scholarly astronomy articles.—RJH (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Galaxy repurposing?

I went through each of the galaxy pages that were listed under Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Galaxy and changed the template name to {{Infobox Galaxy}}. Would there be any heartburn over a "repurposing" of the {{Galaxy}} redirect into a Navbox? Thank you.—RJH (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. BTW, did you use the AWB to do these repetitive edits? WilliamKF (talk) 04:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Nope, but you knew that already.—RJH (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Planets beyond Neptune

The article is a featured article candidate now. You can comment here. Ruslik (talk) 13:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Bug report and suggestions for Starbox short

I have noticed two bugs on {{Starbox short}}. I have been having trouble pin-pointing the exact problem and can't seem to fix it. I wish to make it noticed so someone who knows how to fix it can do so.

• The first bug is that the short starbox clears the area above it more than the other starboxes. If you look at an article with the short starbox (e.g., HD 82943), the box and beginning paragraph are moved down the page. In comparison, another starbox article (e.g., HD 99109) is not moved down (in the same position of all non-boxed articles).
• The second bug is on the other designations section. When the SIMBAD link is not mentioned in the box (below the catalog), the box is moved down the page, leaving a blank section of the box. An example would be HD 23079.

The question I wanted to ask involves the epoch and equinox part of the box. As long as I can remember being here, I have never seen a star article with anything besides J2000.0 on it (is there even a page that doesn't use this?). As far as I can see, no other epoch is being used, and it shouldn't be changed until 2050. Why not make this number fixed to the box, not having to always add it to every article after article. And when is the equinox different from the epoch? Why not make this fixed as well. Or combine the two into a single code link. Call it something like "ephonox" or something. I have also noticed that some users like to put (ICRS) next to the epoch/equinox. If this is important, why isn't it fixed to the box? — NuclearVacuum 00:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Thanks for bringing these bugs and issues to our attention.
2. I fixed the two bugs. They were both due to the presence of excess newlines in the template code.
3. An example of an article with the epoch and equinox not both equal to J2000.0 is RX J1856.5-3754.
4. The equinox defaults to being the same as the epoch. That is, if you specify the epoch but not the equinox, the equinox will be assumed to be the same as the epoch. I believe this answers one of your points above.
5. The (ICRS) is to indicate that the coordinate system being used is the International Celestial Reference System. This is a coordinate system which is based on extragalactic radio sources and is defined so as to be compatible with the J2000.0 equinox, but is more precise (cf. [5].) SIMBAD often delivers coordinates in the ICRS. So, for clarity, J2000.0 (ICRS) should be displayed in the equinox field when the coordinates are in the ICRS, but it would not make sense to display (ICRS) in the equinox field under other circumstances, or to display it in the epoch field under any circumstances.
6. Re points 3 and 5, for convenience, the templates are set up so that when you place [[J2000.0]] ([[International Celestial Reference System|ICRS]]) in the epoch field, the (ICRS) notation appears in the equinox but is stripped from the epoch (where it would make no sense.)
7. Re your other point above, I think it would be useful to set up the templates so that, if neither epoch nor equinox are specified, then the epoch is shown to be J2000.0 and the equinox is shown to be J2000.0 (ICRS). This would save users the trouble of having to enter an epoch or equinox.

Spacepotato (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the bug and explaining the others to me. I must say, I do like asking here (its much easier). I also took the liberty of making the epoch and equinox fixed to the short box (at the moment). Since a majority of articles would be using the already using these coordinates, I made two syntaxes in the directory. The first one is simple and does not mention the epoch and equinox. But because I do not want to leave out articles that do not use this (or need to have the ICRS in it), I mentioned the second one, which includes epoch and equinox. I may do the same to the others, but only if this one works out. — NuclearVacuum 13:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

When neither epoch nor equinox are entered, I changed the equinox default to J2000.0 (ICRS), which I expect to be the most frequent usage. Spacepotato (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops, that was my bad. — NuclearVacuum 23:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Crab Pulsar

Does anything think we should remove the most obscure alternate names from the infoboxes? Carloscom B seems to have dumped every name listed in SIMBAD for the Crab Pulsar into the infobox he made... in the same weird way that SIMBAD lists some entries (ie. "NAME TAU A" instead of "Tau A") ; so that section is somewhat long in this particular case. 70.51.10.5 (talk) 11:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, just the more common names should be included, not everything that NED or SIMBAD spits out. WilliamKF (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 14:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the infobox template could include a suggested list of common catalogue names? Or the selected catalogues could be passed to the template as variables.—RJH (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea! That way the links such as for PGC could be standardized and handled by the template. Only trick part might be passing the citation, or would it be better to just cite the value in the same argument? WilliamKF (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea. I believe such variables can also handle categories like NGC objects, PGC objects and so on friendlystar (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The only problem with the idea of associating the star catalogue names with categories is that we can end up with a huge list that doesn't really differentiate anything. Practically every star over a certain magnitude is in HD/HDE, for example.—RJH (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

In most cases (for stars) I have just been passing the SIMBAD ref. as a citation for the entire list. There are exceptions, of course, such as historical names that need a special citation.—RJH (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus for extrasolar planet naming

I was the reason for the title changes of Extrasolar planets a while back (which I apologized for). But the main reason I did that was because there is no true consensus and or rule for naming extrasolar planet articles, here on Wikipedia. Not only does external sources state different opinions, Wikipedia itself gives confusing and mixed opinions. For instance, articles like "Gliese 581 c" have consensuses that support having a space between the letter name [6] [7], while articles like "OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb" [8] [9] and "XO-2b" [10] [11] have consensuses that do not want a space. Keeping the consensus on one page seems to be confusing to me and others (which could and did lead to what has happened before).

I propose that there be a site-wide consensus to extrasolar planet naming. If you read the naming conventions on this topic, it gives a vague and unclear description on it. Simply stating to use "scientific literature" is not enough information (in my opinion), because different scientific resources state differently. I propose that all planet names that have a letter name (51 Pegasi b, Gliese 581 c, HD 209458 b, XO-2 b, OGLE-2005-BLG-390L b, etc.) should aways have a space between the star's name and the planetary designation. This should eliminate any confusion on how to name extrasolar planetary articles, and is already in broad use on this site (being used in 90% of the article names). But I know that my say is not enough for a consensus. Please reply to this message (please tell me if it isn't clear enough). Do you like the idea, or do you have any better ideas? — NuclearVacuum 22:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Further information: Talk:Extrasolar planet/Naming

more asteroids

A number of articles on asteroids (e.g., 10121 Arzamas were recently prodded as permastubs. I removed the prods, because , although I am not sure how we ought to handle it, surely a redirect or a merge at any rate is better. I'm not an expert so I leave it to you. I do notice that similar sorts of articles on human genes, were recently accepted as added by a bot after considerable discussion here and on wikiEn-L, so I think there would need to be a discussion on how to handle them. If I've missed it and done something inappropriate, just fix it. DGG (talk) 01:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Redshift units km/s versus z

I noticed that User:Sumanch has gone through a whole bunch of galaxies and changed the redshift units from km/s to z. Back in 2006 Dr. Submillimeter wrote to me:

I noticed that you edited the Sombrero Galaxy article and a few other galaxy articles by replacing the more useful redshift in km/s with the less useful redshift in z. Please do not do this. Redshifts in z simply are not practical for nearby galaxies, where the numbers are incredibly small. In contrast, redshifts in km/s are very useful, especially for galaxies that have been used to derive the Hubble constant. Professional astronomers much more commonly use km/s for nearby galaxies, and km/s is simply easier to understand for non-professionals. Also, please note that on pages where I have written in the redshifts that I acquired them from the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database, which is a superior reference to the SEDS website. In particular, the NASA/IPAC website carefully documents their sources for their redshift measurements. Dr. Submillimeter 19:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

My sense is that what Dr. Submillimeter wrote makes sense and we should use km/s where z is really small.

What do others think? WilliamKF (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I disagree that professional astronomers normally use km/s for cosmological redshifts; in fact, the professional literature almost always uses z for anything above z~0.01 (which is roughly 40 Mpc). My feeling (without checking) is that only when talking about very nearby galaxies (galaxies in the Local Group) where the red (or blue) shift isn't cosmological are velocities in km/s commonly used. That said, I agree that redshifts are jargonny and less clear on a general-audience source like Wikipedia. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 17:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It is better to stick to z. There are several reasons for this:

1) for large redshifts (redshift of the surface of the last scattering is about 1100) velocity is inconvenient as it requires writing 6-digit numbers;

2) z is dimentionless parameter, which also simplifies text;

3) When z is large the large difference in z translates to only a small difference in velocities, because they are close to c;

4) Use of km/s in articles about nearby galaxies and the use of z for remote galaxies will confuse readers.

Ruslik (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ruslik. These are the reasons I decided to use z instead of km/s. Also z represents redshift in its true sence. As Dr. Submillimeter stated, NED as well as SIMBAD uses z as redshift instead of the helio-radial velocity. I appologize I did not clear it before making the changes. Sumanch (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Does it make sense to offer both values through some kind of conversion template or to provide a smart template that chooses the representation most meaningful, using km/s for close galaxies and z for ones further away and allows a click to get the other value? WilliamKF (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good solution; retains the advantages of z with the lay accessibility of km/s. The conversion is non-trivial (can't easily be done in one's head), so a template is a good idea; could it be worked into {{convert}}? If we are including both, I think it's best to do so for all cosmological redshifts; having a template choose a "switchover" redshift seems pretty arbitrary. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 01:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I had noticed that Helio-radial velocity was used as the redshift in previous templates. This template already has a field for that. I think we will be duplicating data if HRV is used for that purpose. Sumanch (talk) 04:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Couple of issues

I ran across a couple of issues from some recent edits of star articles:

• The use of the term "[color] dwarf" (where [color] is blue, yellow or orange) doesn't seem quite proper to me. It is clearly an extension of "red dwarf" to other star classes, but I'm not sure that is a widely-held convention. Hence, the use of those terms in wikipedia may be inappropriate as it may be introducing a neologism. It also becomes confusing when discussing white dwarfs. Besides, there is a known issue with human perception of star colors, so the terms may even be misleading. What do you think?
• The catalog links in the star box are a good idea, but it's not clear that wikilinking the entire catalog entry is wise. It seems to be bordering on deceptive linking, as the reader may be expecting to see a specific entry in the catalog. Past convention has been to just link the catalog name. Is there a difference of opinion?

Thank you.—RJH (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Re "[color] dwarf": You're definitely right. Even the term "red dwarf" really isn't terribly common in the literature (although it is used, unlike the other colors): "M dwarf" and "K dwarf" are more common and more precise. This is all tied into the confusing multiple uses of the term dwarf star. I think it's best to avoid the term "dwarf" altogether except for white dwarf and brown dwarf—"main sequence" is a less confusing term. This is the same issue that came up in the recent mass-renaming of categories (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 2#Categories classifying stars by spectral type and luminosity class) and above (#Category:Orange-red giants). —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 16:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a cursory search shows there are a lot of instances of "orange dwarf" on wikipedia.—RJH (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well aware of that. I suspect that in most, if not all, cases, the use of the term "orange dwarf" (or similar) is actually uncited. Checking one at random (HD 69830), my suspicion is right: the fact that it's a K0V star is well-supported by the references, but the term "orange dwarf" is not.

What exactly do we do about this, besides avoid using the term in our edits? Is creating a guideline somewhere that discourages the use of such terms wise, or just yet more instruction creep? —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 18:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't aware of this discussion. I do get it, and will be happy to work with it. But the only objection I have is that I prefer to say "K-type dwarf star" over "K-type main sequence star". — NuclearVacuum 21:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If a spectral class F-M is specified then perhaps it is okay to say dwarf star as that is unambiguous. But then you get up into the main sequence O and B classes, at which point a dwarf may also be called a giant. Hence it is more consistently unambiguous to use "main sequence".—RJH (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to consider an astronomy style guide as an appendix to the MoS?—RJH (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Re the question of whether to link the catalog acronym in designations or the entire designation, I agree with User:RJHall's rationale. Spacepotato (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Variable star designation?

I am curious as to why the variable star designation is not mentioned in the naming conventions. I am curious because variable stars use the genitive form of its constellation, so wouldn't it be used in naming stars more often than the "HD" name? For instance, doesn't "HO Librae" sound a bit more friendly than "GJ 581"? Shouldn't the naming convention state:

“

1. Traditional name where approved by International Astronomical Union and where this is more widely used than any other name
2. Otherwise, the Bayer designation
3. If there is no Bayer designation, then the Flamsteed designation
4. If there is no Bayer or Flamsteed designation, then the variable star designation.
5. If there is no Bayer, Flamsteed, or variable star designation then the Henry Draper Catalogue number Henry Draper Catalogue number
6. If there is no Bayer, Flamsteed, variable star, or HD number then the most widely recognised other name

”

Please don't get me wrong. I am only mentioning this because the variable star designation looks to be around the same level as Bayer and Flamsteed (because it too uses the genitive form of the constellation in its name). So was this designation forgotten here, or was it predetermined to not use them? — NuclearVacuum 01:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Not all stars are variable stars, your priority list is for stars in general, not variable stars in particular. Your priority list would likely cause problems with non-variables associated with variables, that are better known otherwise. 70.51.11.219 (talk) 05:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense, but why keep it rarely used? Wouldn't it be friendlier if the article's of those stars that are variable, have the variable name over the Draper or Gliese (which seem to cold). If the star has no Bayer or Flamsteed (e.g. Mira, Delta Cephei), shouldn't the variable name be used over a numbered catalog. What am I missing? — NuclearVacuum 14:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you know what a Bayer designation is? Delta Cephei is a Bayer designation. Mira's Bayer designation is Omicron Ceti. 70.51.11.219 (talk) 00:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I know every stellar classification system. I just wish to know why the variable designation is not as widely used. — NuclearVacuum 03:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I mostly agreed with you up until the HD number entry. I'm not sure we should be forcing the HD name if there is a more frequently used catalog name in scientific publications. Also, what would you do when the secondary in a binary star system has the variable designation?—RJH (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to Luyten 726-8? — NuclearVacuum 15:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Not specifically, but that could be one example. Another is Groombridge 34.—RJH (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The other reason I wish to bring this up is not just because of these two examples, but for the "HD number entry" (as you put it). My question is, wouldn't it sound friendly to call some stars by their variable name:

• V376 Pegasi over HD 209458
• V452 Vulpeculae over HD 189733
• HO Librae over GJ 581
• IL Aquarii over GJ 876
• TV Crateris over HD 98800

Don't get me wrong. I am not planing on going any further than this discussion. But if Wikipedia uses (for example) "Iota Horologii" over the more common "HR 810", why wouldn't the name "HO Librae" be used here over "GJ 581." — NuclearVacuum 18:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sirius & kinematics

I've been running into a problem with an editor in the Sirius article. A subsection under the "Observation history" has been titled "Kinematics" as it discusses proper motion and radial velocity. The editor insists that the section be titled "Proper motion". His change has been reverted by myself and another editor, but he is persistent. I find that "Kinematics" is perfectly acceptible and "Proper motion" is incomplete. I suppose it could be called "Proper motion and radial velocity", but that seems entirely too cumbersome. Any thoughts? Thank you.—RJH (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps just "Motion" or "Movement" would suffice.—RJH (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

peculiar motion ? 70.55.200.185 (talk) 06:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure that would include proper motion.—RJH (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

planet types up for deletion

On Aug 9, a bunch of planet type articles created by User:BlueEarth were nominated for deletion by User:Dragonsflight. I also nominated related planet type categories on Aug 10. see Category:Inter-Earths,Category:Inter-Jupiters,Category:Interplanets,Inter-Earth,Inter-Jupiter,Interplanet,Sub-Earth,Sub-Jupiter. that are up on WP:CFD and WP:AFD 70.55.85.40 (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 10 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 9.—RJH (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Notes for Starboxes

I came up with a pretty good idea. To avoid overlapping on the syntax of all the boxes (like the {{Starboxes}}), we use a Notes section. I did a test of it on {{Starbox detail}}. But because I am not familiar with the noted information, someone else will have to explain it more. — NuclearVacuum 14:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, what are you asking about? What do you mean overlapping? What "notes" are you referring to? Why are you doing weird things with "nowiki" ? 70.55.85.40 (talk) 07:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit since it doesn't display properly in my browser. 70.55.85.40 (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Overlapping is when the syntax and wording is too long, that the screen must be moved horizontal in order to view the whole thing. Secondly, there was nothing wrong with the way I coded it. Having a notes section works better that having the syntax overlap, and or having useless and damaging spacing in the syntax (as you put it). — NuclearVacuum 16:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The caveat in {{Starbox detail}} is clearer in the main text. Spacepotato (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What's "caveat"? — NuclearVacuum 19:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

A cautionary detail or warning. Spacepotato (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Units

As far as I've been able to see, the common approach used for displaying inverse units in Astronomy articles is to use a slash/solidus (⁄) rather than a negative exponent. I've continued to use the former since nobody has objected to it; the solidus is more widely known to the general public, and switching to the negative exponent without discussion could be considered disruptive. (The formats are mentioned in the bottom third under International_System_of_Units#SI_writing_style, although that page isn't a MoS guideline.) I wanted to check if the solidus form remains acceptible. (Again, it would be helpful if we had an astronomy style guide for this sort of thing. =) Any comments? Thank you.—RJH (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, the style guides of most professional journals (certainly the Astrophysical Journal) require negative exponents. I've seen both used on Wikipedia and my feeling is that either form is acceptable. For short units, like km/s (or km s^-1), it doesn't matter much, but when you get into longer units, like erg s^-1 cm^-2 sr^-1 (a common unit of intensity), negative exponents are more clear. However, long units like that show up often in journals but rarely in Wikipedia. This is probably one of those cases where, like WP:ENGVAR, we should stick to the prevailing format and be consistent within any given article.

I would be very happy to help with the development of an astronomy style guide; shall we get to work? —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 16:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. There seem to be a number of such topic-oriented Manuals of Style already. E.g. the draft Wikipedia:Manual of Style (chemistry).—RJH (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a few potential topics:

• Preferred methods of externally linking citations. (doi, &c.)
• Suggested naming conventions for galaxies, stars, supernovae, planets, moons, asteroids and comets. Use of names based on historical precedent, conventional use, discovery or most frequent names in scientific journals.
• Preferred default references for infobox data. (SIMBAD, NED, &c.)
• "Orange dwarf" versus "K-type star".
• Asteroid classes.
• Preferred units (SI); notation and whether (and when) to use solidus or negative exponent.
• Whether it is appropriate to use tick-mark notation or arcminutes/arcseconds for angular distances.
• Abbreviation of astronomical unit (AU, A.U. or a.u.?)
• When to use km, AU, ly, pc or z for scale.
• Use of RA and DEC templates. Decimal accuracy for position of stars vs. local distributed objects.
• When it is appropriate to use formulae in the notes, and how to cite.
• Use of ndash (BrighterOrange's script), &c.
• What additional object names to include in the infobox. When to cut off the list.
• Order of additional object names (most frequent first versus alphabetical ordering, linking catalogues, &c.)
• Adding related names for the object in the lead section.
• Whether to keep the article focused on science or to include off-topic material, including trivia, appearance in media, &c.

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Good Article reassessment for 2 Pallas

As part of the Good Article sweeps conducted by Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force, I have completed a reassessment of 2 Pallas and placed the reassessment on hold for one week to allow some minor things to be fixed. I would appreciate it if editors from this project could visit the reassessment, which can be found here. Please contact me with any concerns or questions. Thank you, GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The only remaining issue is finding a citation for Pallas' axial tilt. If anyone knows where to find a source for this, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

New reduction of Hipparcos data available online

Just a heads up for people here, the new reduction of the Hipparcos data is now available online, but the values displayed on SIMBAD are still using the old reduction. The README page for the New Reduction is here, which includes a link to the query page. 86.171.72.213 (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Star catalog names

Greetings from WP:WPDAB. There seem to be a number of stubs about stars and such that link to various abbreviations, such as HD, CPD, BPM, GJ, etc, all of which are disambiguation pages. Some of the pages that User:CarloscomB has added recently have this characteristic. I guess they should really link to the appropriate star catalog? I can fix the pages that are already out there; would you guys mind very much if I asked you to pipe the links in the infoboxes going forward? Let me know if there are particular editors I should get in touch with, if that's easier. Thanks in advance, --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It would depend on how much of a stub you are talking about. Some fairly notable stars still only have stub articles.—RJH (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Radii and temperatures from Extrasolar Visions: HD 28185 b

I seem to have gotten myself entangled in a bit of a dispute over at HD 28185 b, where editors NuclearVacuum and OverlordQ seem to feel that the speculative radii and temperature figures from everyone's favourite source of ever-more-obsolete extrasolar planets data, Extrasolar Visions, should be included in the article. I strongly disagree that we should even pretend that these quantities are known, and also that putting a ~ symbol before the value does NOT make it ok to include fictitious quantities like these. Assistance in resolving this would be most welcome, thanks. 86.171.72.213 (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because the measurements from the observatory that found the object just must be wrong? And NASA is wrong too? Q ^{T C} 19:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither of those references gives values for the radius or temperature of the planet. They have no bearing on this discussion. If you can cite a reliable source, other than Extrasolar Visions, for the radius and temperature of the planet, you might have a point. 86.171.72.213 (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Note also that OverlordQ has reverted his/her talk page to remove the discussion we were having over this issue. 86.171.72.213 (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Expansion templates

user:71.202.65.243 added {{expandarticle}} templates to a large number of moon's articles (see [12]). I think they should be removed as these articles can not be really expanded. Ruslik (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I removed them. Ruslik (talk) 09:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

semi-amplitude definition?

I recall asking this before somewhere, but I cannot find where. The Template {{Planetbox orbit}} has parameter semi-amp with associated comment "velocity semi-amplitude (m/s)". What does this mean exactly?

Amplitude has a few definitions: 1. Amplitude (peak) being the y-axis distance from the zero line to the maximum y value 2. Peak-to-peak being the total y-axis range.

So, in astronomical jargon does semi-amplitude mean the peak amplitude? If yes, could we add that definition to the Amplitude article? -84user (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Semi-amplitude here means half the peak-to-peak amplitude. See e.g. Tatum, [13], (18.2.12). It will usually not be the distance between the peaks and zero. Spacepotato (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have attempted this clarification in Amplitude, hoping to reduce the confusion.-84user (talk) 06:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Super-Jupiter

This article has been nominated for deletion. Spacepotato (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The result was a redirect to gas giant.—RJH (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:OrbitboxPlanet hypothetical

The {{OrbitboxPlanet hypothetical}} seems to use an unhelpful syntax which is only clear if you already know how the template works. Instead of putting the designations in scare quotes and forcing a tilde on all quantities, it would perhaps be better to insert a textual warning that the planet's existence is unconfirmed (e.g. putting (unconfirmed) next to the designation), and allowing use of tildes to be determined by the article authors rather than forcing them to be used via the template. 86.171.72.213 (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be better, yes. Spacepotato (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh crap, I didn't see this. Now that I read this, I agree that this could work. The only thing I don't agree with is having "(unconfirmed)" in the box as well. Is there anyway we could have a shorter word for it or something of that nature. That is why there were quotation marks in the name. — NuclearVacuum 16:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you actually bother to read edit summaries before you go and hit the "undo" button? If you'd read the edit summary you would have known there was a discussion here before you went and reverted the change, though I've seen you've put it back again.

Thing is, putting quotes around the designation doesn't really help any reader who doesn't have knowledge about this Wikipedia-specific convention. It provides no explanation as to why there are quotes there. I've updated the template with a smaller font for the "(unconfirmed)" text when it is placed alongside a designation, I think it looks better now. 86.171.72.213 (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Mergers and moves

I have proposed the following mergers and moves: requested move at Talk:Mu Arae c regarding nomenclature system of planets c, d and e in that planetary system; proposed merger of article about disproven planet HD 188753 Ab into HD 188753, discussion at Talk:HD 188753. 86.171.72.213 (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Also requested a move of PSR B1620-26 c to PSR B1620-26 b based on the identifiers given in the SIMBAD database. 86.171.72.213 (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"PSR B1620-26 c" is the official name of the planet (because it orbits two suns). See Extrasolar planet#Nomenclature. — NuclearVacuum 14:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Depends if you feel that a bunch of reasoning on Wikipedia has more relevance than actual entries in a real astronomical database. In any case there is a discussion area for this kind of thing on the article's talk page. 86.171.72.213 (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Navi star name

Can someone clarify what is the star that has "Navi" name? In wikipedia both Epsilon Cassiopeiae and Gamma Cassiopeiae has this name. (sorry for bad english) --Anton Gutsunaev (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a trivial name, just ignore it. But according to the NASA article, it should be gamma, the NASA article is itself based on a Sky and Telescope article. The SPACE.com article is based on NASA usage. If you have the S&T article, you could see if NASA made a mistake in quoting. 70.55.85.143 (talk) 07:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Kaler([14]) also noticed the contradiction. On NASA website about Apollo 16 ([15]) Navi is epsilon, while histories of apollo 8,11,15 and this scanned chart say it is gamma. I think the chart is the most reliable source, so Navi is gamma, not epsilon. --Anton Gutsunaev (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphan pages

In attempting to find links for orphan pages, I am stumped by ARP 276, which is second on the list at Special:LonelyPages. What would you suggest for this and similar galaxy pages? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies.—RJH (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

APG and Arp can use Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies.

ARP 276 should have redirects from Arp 276, APG 276, IC 1801, NGC 935 70.55.89.214 (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

NGC 953

NGC 953 needs to be cleaned up, or deleted. It's one of HurricaneDevon's creations. I think he confused it with NGC 935, since he said it's on a collision course with IC 1801 (some 10degrees of declination away) and has it in the wrong constellation. 70.55.89.214 (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem has been fixed. Please indicate the issue on the article talk page when tagging articles for factual inaccuracy. Spacepotato (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.