Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Images by Scott Sheppard

At S/2004 S 24, the infobox image was deleted at Commons due to copyright concerns — Sheppard is not employed by NASA. This raises concerns about many other images taken by Sheppard of irregular moons in the Solar System, though non-free images would qualify for inclusion at the moons' infoboxes per WP:NFCC if there is no NASA-created equivalent. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Clickable constellation links

Most constellation entries end with an External Links section that includes a link called "the clickable [constellation name]". These go to a domain named <astrojan.eu5.org>. Currently that site is returning a "not available" flag. I noticed it a few days ago; when the link actually went dead I do not know. Perhaps one of you has already noticed it. It is not clear whether this is a hosting problem and the site will return, or whether the site has disappeared for ever. Three options occur to me: 1, wait to see if it reappears; 2, delete all links as being dead; 3, change the link to an archive version. Thoughts? Skeptic2 (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

When a link is presented via a citation template, there's a bot that will update it to point to a Wayback Machine archive. I'd say that's the default solution. Praemonitus (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC regarding Stephenson 2 DFK 1

I am raising this discussion here to get more attention.

This has been a very long (probably 2 years now) dispute regarding the radius of this star, which has been controversial and the reasons for consensus are invoking WP:NOTRIGHT (which I do take a lot of issues with, see the discussion regarding this issue).

This has become a hot mess to deal with that I think this needs to be raised here on the Wikiproject proper. I highly recommend you to check and contribute to the discussion. SkyFlubbler (talk) 05:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Turn abandoned wikiprojects into task forces

The Wikiprojects Solar System, Mars, Moon and Eclipses are largely abandoned. What if we turn them into task forces? Cambalachero (talk) 01:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I support that. We already have task forces for Constellations, Cosmology, and Jupiter, so the precedent is there. I'd also be in favor of merging the {{WikiProject Astronomy}} and {{WikiProject Solar System}} templates. Praemonitus (talk) 01:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that would be part of the change. Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces explains in detail the difference between standalone wikiprojects and task forces. Cambalachero (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. So what would we do about article talk pages that have both astronomy and solar system WP templates? We'll need to merge their parameter settings. Praemonitus (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we would need to merge both templates so that they show the same thing and use the same parameters (or make one a redirect to the other). The best way to remove duplicate templates from talk pages would be using a bot. Of course, this is something that should only be done if we get consensus for all this and some time has passed so that anyone interested may know about it (a week perhaps?) Cambalachero (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I've done it before, it's pretty straight-forward. Can't remember if there's a dedicated bot for it these days but if not I can handle the technical side of this. Primefac (talk) 07:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Support Parham wiki (talk) 07:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Support Uncontroversial proposal. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I've started updating {{astronomy}} to accommodate the new task forces. If someone else feels motivated (it's very low on my priority list) we'll need to shift over the various "WikiProject X" pages to "Taskforce/X" subpages (see for example Jupiter). Primefac (talk) 08:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Should we also merge Category:WikiProject Solar System participants (92 pages) and Category:WikiProject Astronomy members (302 pages)? Renerpho (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I was planning on updating all of the various categorisation after I was done with the template mergers (e.g. content related to Category:WikiProject Solar System articles), but that's a good point. I think changing the category name to "Solar System taskforce participants" or similar would probably suffice - we don't want to necessarily assume that someone in the SS project necessarily must be in the AST project. Primefac (talk) 10:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac: That should work, but please note that there is Template:User Solar System Coordinator, while WikiProject Astronomy has no equivalent batch. Renerpho (talk) 07:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Naming consistency

Okay, so I've started moving things around, and I've noticed some inconsistencies that I want to sort out (mainly so I don't have to shift things twice). For our taskforces, are they "X Task Force", "X task force", or "X taskforce"? All three are valid, and I believe I have seen all three in the wild, but we should probably pick one and stick with it (for example, the first line of the Mars Task Force says "The Mars taskforce", which is an annoying inconsistency). Primefac (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

It would seem from Category:WikiProject task forces that most use "Name task force". Gonnym (talk) 09:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Duplicated lists?

There is a featured List of space telescopes, and additionally List of X-ray space telescopes and List of proposed space observatories, both looks to be duplicates of sections of the first list. Should they be merged into the main list? I see no good reason to have three lists (two of them mostly unsourced) instead of good-sourced and well-organizes one list that we already have. Any thoughts on this? Artem.G (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:SPLIT, List of X-ray space telescopes may be a child of List of space telescopes: it's used that way in the latter. But yes some type of reconciliation would be good. Praemonitus (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

but why this child list is needed if the main one still has a section for X-ray telescopes? Basically it's a duplicate with less info and with few more (unsourced) entries than in the main list... Artem.G (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I can't think of a good reason. Perhaps this needs to be asked on the article talk page? Praemonitus (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Influences/influenced from the scientist infobox

hey, here's a proposal to remove Influences/influenced fields from the scientist infobox. It was done for the philosopher infobox, and bacause these fields often have too many unsourced / unnecessary entries never covered in text it might be a good idea for scientists as well. Please see and comment there: Template_talk:Infobox_scientist#Influences/influenced. Artem.G (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Lunar distance (astronomy)#Requested move 23 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lunar distance (astronomy)#Requested move 23 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

AfD for List of exoplanets with Bayer designations

There is a deletion discussion for List of exoplanets with Bayer designations. Fdfexoex (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion for Neptunian Desert

Neptunian desert was recently moved to Neptunian Desert. Now there is a discussion to move it back at Talk:Neptunian Desert. Fdfexoex (talk) 21:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Inviting suggestions for Wikipedia training sessions

In the next couple of months I will be helping to run some training sessions on behalf of WMF(UK) for members of the International Astronomical Union and Max Planck Institute on how to contribute to Wikipedia. I would like to invite WikiProject Astronomy members to submit any suggestions of points specific to this field that I ought to be aware of, or to raise during that training; any pitfalls professionals need to avoid, or pointers to identifying key topics for improvement or creation. Any other ideas, concerns or suggestions are also welcome. My rough notes to date on planning these sessions can be found at User:Nick Moyes/training. It includes a Google slides presentation that I plan to use, which is also under construction. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

This might be related. The content of astronomy articles should be specific to the object and not sway too far out of the topic. See this previous version of Abell 1413, which has been an article chosen for a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment; the article has since been changed to better suit an encyclopedic tone. SkyFlubbler (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)3]]

@Nick Moyes: Thanks for your efforts. Please ensure that your trainees are aware of WP:NASTRO, WP:NCASTRO and WP:COI. Often scientists try to start editing by writing an article about themselves, an object they discovered, or a broader topic that they are a primary source for. Those run into notability and conflict of interest problems. It's better to work on something that's close enough to their expertise that they understand the science, but far enough that they haven't worked on it directly themselves. Modest Genius ^talk 11:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, SkyFlubbler and Modest Genius. I took your suggestions on board for my presentations given earlier this week. (My apologies for the delay in acknowledging your feedback). Our audience were mostly astronomy educators, rather than cutting edge scientists, but COI was nevertheless explained. It's possible that the IAU's NAECs might want WMF(UK) trainers to develop further sessions on using Wikipedia's astronomy content for teaching young people. So I may well come back for further advice and suggestions from you folks later on!

I sent all participants whose usernames we managed to capture a bespoke welcome message, which you can see at the top of this page. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Computational Astrophysics/Cosmology

Not so long ago I noticed that the computational side of astrophysics and cosmology on Wikipedia is extremely incomplete and lacks several articles, templates, and maintenance in general. (Latter is not surprising as the Cosmology task force is inactive...) As someone, who's doing a PhD in this field, it was really surprising to me, since computational aspects of both fields are increasingly vital in astronomical research.

I noticed there is a Computational astrophysics article that writes a couple words about cosmology too, however it's far below the bare minimum. While there's a certain overlap between these two topics, I feel a definite difference should be made between astrophysics and cosmology and Wikipedia should also reflect that.

For this reason I have a couple propositions:

1. I would happily start writing a base for Computational cosmology and collect all closely related and existing (and non-existent, but important) articles into a series and maybe create a template sidebar for them, similarly to that of Template:Physical cosmology.
2. Create some important, but non-existing articles mentioned in the previous point, e.g. widely used cosmological software like GADGET, GIZMO, PKDGRAV, etc., as well as cosmological suites, like the Millennium Run and the Simba project.
3. Clean up references to articles at "wrong" places, like a random reference to the Illustris project (a cosmological simulation suite) under the "Experiments" list of Template:Physical cosmology and similar anomalies.

But first, I wanted to ask the community's opinion about any of this. While I see this topic is extremely important and vital in astronomical research nowadays, others may have a different opinion on the relevancy of this topic specifically on Wikipedia. Or, some may have some alternative solutions to my original problem statement.

-- Masterdesky (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Wikipedia's science articles tend to be written either by very enthusiastic amateurs, or whatever professionals happen to have time, so random areas are missing coverage just because nobody with a relevant background wrote anything. Please go be WP:BOLD! - Parejkoj (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Great idea, and it's always good when real experts write articles about their field! Artem.G (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi im new here. What to do? moew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anotaomo (talk • contribs) 06:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi im new here. What to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anotaomo (talk • contribs) 06:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Kreutz sungrazer

I have nominated Kreutz sungrazer for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 04:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I made one edit to address a point raised at FAR. More input over there would be helpful. XOR'easter (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia URL format change

exoplanet.eu: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

The URL format for this source has recently changed, and approximately 2,000 incoming links will need to be updated. In the new format, hyphens are now underscores, and each planet has been given a numeric ID; for example, Kepler-62f is 1261. The template {{Cite EPE}} can be used for linking to this website. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

How should I create article(s) for the asteroid pair (458271) 2010 UM26 and 2010 RN221?

I want to create an article for the asteroid pair (458271) 2010 UM26 and 2010 RN221, but they have very similar orbital elements (down to several decimal places) and have only been studied together in publications (examples: (MPML)(Vokrouhlický)(Jewitt 2023)). Should I create a single article that includes both objects (title will be " (458271) 2010 UM26 and 2010 RN221") or should I create two separate articles for (458271) 2010 UM26 and 2010 RN221 individually? Not much is known about the individual asteroids other than their approximate sizes, shapes, and orbits; the biggest point of scientific interest is their very similar orbits and separation history according to the publications I listed earlier. Thanks. Nrco0e (talk) 07:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that one article for similar objects makes more sense, if both are almost always described together. Artem.G (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with that too, though the single article name is quite long and tedious with all these numbers. Can't really avoid that unfortunately, but I guess that'll do. Nrco0e (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Pleiades

Pleiades has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

IAU MPC API URL?

Can anyone share an example URL request for the MPC's API, if it exists, or point to a resource describing such? They seem keen on having you go through python or some other interface, but I just want to scrape HTML the old fashioned way. I'm specifically looking for "Orbit type: Hilda", etc., which can be found here: MPC, but not here: JPL, nor here (JPL's API). I realize I can constrain the orbital elements myself, but would rather not have to do that for all the various orbit types.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  03:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Kheider and Praemonitus: would one of yall be able to help?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding: Currently the HTML code shows the forms are using the "get" method, so you should just be able to call the site's "/db_search/show_by_orbit_type" script with the appropriate parameters added. Just do a ctrl-u on the lookup page to see the HTML. Does that answer your question? Praemonitus (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Praemonitus: I'd rather not use their web/human-readable link https://minorplanetcenter.net/db_search/show_object?object_id=625000, since I want to query at least 10,000 objects for now, and even more later. I've been temporarily blocked before for exceeding either their request-frequency threshold, or a time-averaged request count limit. A machine-readable API would have much higher thresholds that I wouldn't have to worry about as much.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  01:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I have no information about their API, and I'm not sure if they would want to expose it. Praemonitus (talk) 03:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

As expected, I was blocked overnight after exactly 6000 consecutive requests spaced 2.8 seconds apart.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Meanings of minor planet names description-helper

Named minor planet	Provisional	This minor planet was named for...	Ref · Catalog
620307 Casanovas	2002 QL149	Description available (see ref). Please summarize in your own words.	IAU · 620307

I'm thinking of going though all the WGSBN Bulletin archives and placing a note (above) on all MoMP entries which have a description on a bulletin, but not yet on WP, and placing the page into a tracking category so that editors can more easily find missing descriptions. Comments and suggestions welcome.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done! 1195 {{MoMP description available}} tags placed on 248 pages, with the winning page getting 169 tags.

Category:Meanings of minor planet names description available (0)

  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Amaterasu particle

I recently created Amaterasu particle. Any help with expansion would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

List of minor planets: 624001–625000 nominated for deletion

@ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor planets: 624001–625000, the scope of which affects many of these list pages.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

& @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meanings of minor planet names: 623001–624000.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

A consensus is forming on the first deletion discussion that a larger discussion on these lists should be held in a more central location. I'm not sure if that would be here or somewhere else? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 21:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Maplestrip: WT:AST is good, since there are a lot more watchers and traffic than WT:ASTRO.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on redesign of the Starbox

...is underway at Template talk:Starbox begin#Broader redesign of apparent-magnitude and color-index entries. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Chandrayaan programme#Requested move 22 November 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chandrayaan programme#Requested move 22 November 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 17:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Popular culture?

Many stars (for isntance) have been used in popular culture, fiction or film. Can for instance we add a section at Gamma Draconis where for instance we could list Ursula K. Le Guin's Planet of Exile which is set on a planet in that system? Perhaps this Wikiproject has discussed this sort of thing already. -- Evertype·✆ 14:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Evertype: There's a "Stars and planetary systems in fiction" article that is being used to present that type of information. See also the guidelines at MOS:CULTURALREFS. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for 3 Juno

3 Juno has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Nrco0e (talk) 08:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for 10 Hygiea

10 Hygiea has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Nrco0e (talk) 08:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

List of exoplanets discovered by the Kepler space telescope needs to be rebuilt from scratch

A user discovered a fatal error that will require the table in the sub-lists to be rebuilt from scratch. The reference column is offset, and some entries (such as the mass of Kepler-46b) are wrong. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

GRSI model and new article sections

There's a new page about the GRSI_model and several astronomy/cosmology articles have new sections linking to Duer's work. I recall various pure-GR approaches in the past but I'm not familiar enough with that field to know whether any of them got any real traction. This one doesn't seem to have, and the papers are mostly self-cites (plus a very strong "this is wrong" critique that wasn't linked). It doesn't seem notable enough to be worthy of an article and subsections; anyone else familiar with this? - Parejkoj (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Parejkoj: I'm inclined to use AfD, but you should have asked this question to WT:PHYS. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I've AfD'ed it now, and I'll link it from talk Physics: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GRSI model. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Authority control on minor planets?

What do we think of adding JPL Small-Body Database SPK-ID (P716), Minor Planet Center body ID (P5736), and other relevant identifiers to the {{Authority control}} template, in either the existing AC section "Other", or in a new section called "Scientific"?

{{JPL small body}}, {{NeoDys}}, and other templates exist, but they each require separate placement on each page, while {{Authority control}} would be able to capture all current and future database inclusions, and automatically display them compactly at the bottom of the page. I'm not suggesting {{Authority control}} replace {{JPL small body}}, etc., since they provide much more info, but that {{Authority control}} be used regardless.

Courtesy ping to Rfassbind ~ I hope he is well and chooses to return to editing.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The one benefit I see from that is it centralizes the link to the DBs, so it is easier to update across multiple articles. Praemonitus (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Putting this on my TODO list.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

a suggestion for a small change

See

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hertzsprung%E2%80%93Russell_diagram&diff=next&oldid=1161976610

... an edit by which a new section -- (called "a suggestion for a small change") -- was added to the "Talk:" page for the [article about the] "Hertzsprung–Russell diagram".

Any comments? Mike Schwartz (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

X-ray telescope article merge

Hello there! There are three articles that I think should be merged as their scope is mostly the same: X-ray telescope, X-ray space telescope, and X-ray astronomy detector. The second article also has a long list, that mostly duplicate List of X-ray space telescopes, and the list itself is mostly a duplicate of List_of_space_telescopes#X-ray. What do you think? Artem.G (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks like you're already doing the merge, but I think that's a good idea. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Σ Eridani#Requested move 6 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Σ Eridani#Requested move 6 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Kreutz sungrazer

Greetings,

is anyone interested in commenting on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kreutz sungrazer/archive1? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

This probably needs just one last little push to be concluded successfully. XOR'easter (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Advertising inserted by user:Solophi at Hawking star

Solophi (talk · contribs) inserted a further reading to a religious philosophy book published by Solophi as an "early reference" [1] at Hawking star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an astrophysics article. This seems like advertising. I have deleted the link -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, at talk:Hawking star, 193.237.164.43 (talk · contribs) is arguing for its inclusion, as well as at user talk:Solophi -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of natural satellites#Requested move 9 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of natural satellites#Requested move 9 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:G Doradus#Requested move 1 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:G Doradus#Requested move 1 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Escape velocity#Requested move 11 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Escape velocity#Requested move 11 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Infobox change

There is a discussion about changing infobox colours for planets. Please join in the discussion here. Primefac (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Choosing a standard img size for infobox planet

1400+ articles (mostly asteroids, but also some comets, moons and TNOs) still had the infobox img size set locally from years ago when that was necessary. Mostly the number was just copied over from the sample box, which was at various times set from 250 to 265 px -- that is, they were mostly cruft. I stripped most of them out so that the template default size would be used. A question though is what default size would work best. I assume we'd want something almost the width of the info box; i.e., as big as possible without causing the info box to take up more space, but also accommodate ppl with vision impairments by sizing the img relative to the reader's pref rather than absolute pixels, which is deprecated for accessibility reasons. Scaling at 1.33 seems to work well. Is that okay? — kwami (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Planetary habitability in the Solar System

Hi all. There is an ongoing discussion on whether the Planetary habitability in the Solar System article should have a section discussing the habitability of the Sun. Please join in here. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Delisting enhanced color image "Neptune Full.jpg" on Commons

I have nominated the image File:Neptune Full.jpg for Featured Picture delisting on Wikimedia Commons. Comments and votes are highly welcome. Nrco0e (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Assistance adding Carl Sagan to Academy of Achievement awardees?

Hi all! I would like to add Carl Sagan - plus some other notable figures - to the list of Academy of Achievement awardees. I’ll leave this to the discretion of other editors because I work for the organization. Talk:Academy_of_Achievement#Additional_Names_for_Awardees_Table Jarc12030 (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Redundant planet topics

We now have articles for mega-Earth, super-Earth, and sub-Neptune. They seem a bit redundant. Praemonitus (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

In sources that use both terms, super-Earth and sub-Neptune are mutually exclusive - a sub-Neptune is larger than a super-Earth. I could support merging mega-Earth into super-Earth, and sub-Neptune into mini-Neptune. SevenSpheres (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, merging would likely make them simpler to support and add some clarity. Praemonitus (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose merging Mega-Earths are more massive than super-Earths and indeed can be more massive than Neptune. Also sub-Neptunes are not necessarily anything like Neptune so are not always Mini-Neptunes. Some mega-Earths could be considered as Super-Neptunes and sub-Neptunes at the same time because they have a larger mass than Neptune but a smaller radius. Fdfexoex (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but your statement just further obfuscates the subject, at least for me. Do consensus opinions even exist? We do have a list of planet types article, which doesn't have separate rows for sub-Neptune or mega-Earth. Perhaps we could start there? It is very poorly cited. Praemonitus (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

That list also doesn't have rows for Super-Neptune or Super-puff or Ultra-short period planet or Ultra-hot Jupiter. Fdfexoex (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I thought "super-puff" is a joke, but it seems to be a real term, used by NASA, and several real articles published in Nature. Artem.G (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

It would be handy if there were a mass (or size?) vs. density chart that divided up the various definitions, but I haven't been able to find one. Praemonitus (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

caltech says that "A super-puff is a planet with a super-Earth mass (less than 5 M⊕) but a gas giant radius (larger than 5 R⊕). If you plot them on a mass-radius diagram with other known exoplanets, they are clearly outliers. Their mean density can be as low as 0.1 or 0.01 gcm^-3 (similar to the density of cotton candy). This is one or even two orders of magnitude lower than most exoplanets", and they have a mass/radius plot. Artem.G (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

To my knowledge, a tentative consensus exists wherein a super-Earth is relatively volatile-poor (and therefore more "Earthlike," I guess) whereas a mini/sub-Neptune is more volatile rich and generally compositionally similar to the ice giants of our Solar System. Of course, no formal definition exists and our knowledge of specific exoplanets is often very poor; I will also put out a disclaimer that exoplanets are far from my strength. However, from what I have seen, the two categories do carry different (albeit informal) connotations when used in scicomm and in literature. ArkHyena (talk) 07:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no consensus on the use of these terms, even among experts. Different researchers use different terminology for the same objects. I think most agree that super-Earths and sub-Neptunes are separated by the radius valley, but there's even debate on whether the radius valley is a real thing or just a projection of a 'density gap'. The other terms do not have widely accepted definitions; each group or study states its own definition, or simply uses the terms without definition. It's a real mess, that will probably take researchers a decade to sort out. Maybe we should have some form of overview article, types of exoplanet or similar, where these issues could be discussed? Modest Genius ^talk 12:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cis-Neptunian object

The article Cis-Neptunian object has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This classification is seldom used by researchers, does not appear to be a consensus classification, and is largely redundant. On NASA ADS, only one search result for "cis-Neptunian object" is relevant to the term, out of four total results.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

I shall ping the active WikiProject contributors @Kwamikagami, Double sharp, Kheider, Serendipodous, Headbomb, Ruslik0, Exoplanetaryscience, AstroChara, Tom.Reding, WolfmanSF, CactiStaccingCrane, LaundryPizza03, Praemonitus, XOR'easter, and C messier:. Nrco0e (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Nrco0e. Double sharp (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion of this page. Interestingly, even someone from 2009 in the Talk page wasn't sure what the page was made for either. AstroChara (talk) 04:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

If we don't use the terms in our articles, where we might want a blue link for clarification, then it should probably be moved to Wiktionary. — kwami (talk) 06:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree, Wiktionary is a good spot for this. Double sharp (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I am ok with it being deleted. I generically consider such objects to be traditional centaurs. -- Kheider (talk) 10:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I too. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Remaining pictures uploaded by Celestialobjects

Even after an arduous admin review and mass deletion about a year ago I am quite surprised that there are still a lot of pictures uploaded by this guy that are still used in many articles, like the Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall, Giant GRB Ring, Saraswati Supercluster, and U1.11, of which I have all removed from the articles.

Apparently, the mass deletion review did not heed Nrco0e's (another user that I also see some works being problematic) request of deleting all of this user's uploads, and so we still see a LOT of his misleading pictures. Keep in mind that even after all of this, he still uploads a lot of planet images as late as 15 August 2023, eight months after he was apprehended, which I am almost certain is made using a software like Universe Sandbox, of which he has not linked in the description.

A bit of help to remove the images uploaded by this guy to various astronomy articles, as well as to launch another mass deletion of his uploads in Commons that somehow got missed, to finally remove all the images lacking scientific merit once and for all.

Thoughts? SkyFlubbler (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, all of the Celestialobjects stuff should be deleted. Please get that process started. - Parejkoj (talk) 08:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't look like the image license matches a speedy deletion criteria, per WP:SPEEDY. Praemonitus (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@SkyFlubbler: You said some of my image uploads are problematic? Could you point out which ones? I'll gladly delete them---I do admit that some of my old graphics like that one eTNOs orbital diagram are questionable, but I haven't gotten around to deleting them yet. Nrco0e (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Yup, there are a lot of files. But that will be a discussion for another day. I am still contemplating after all the edits lost that I have done for a second mass delete. SkyFlubbler (talk) 04:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

God damnit! (pardon for profanity but NGGGGH!), after an hour of editing the nomination request, all of it got deleted by my stupid phone lagging. The files are too many (like probably there is 500 of them?). I think I will try again in draft before submitting. This will take a while. SkyFlubbler (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh my! Don't worry, we'll get this fixed! The Space Enthusiast (talk) 05:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Name conflicts with minor planets#Requested move 29 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Name conflicts with minor planets#Requested move 29 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. NasssaNser_talk 10:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Norma cluster vs Norma Cluster?

I thought perhaps "Norma" was a cluster, so Norma Cluster should be named Norma cluster according to WP:NCCAPS. But I've found sources that used "Norma Cluster" and other that use "Norma cluster". So perhaps the proper name of the thing is "Norma Cluster"? Is there any astronomical naming convention source that says one way or another? Johnjbarton (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, "Norma Cluster" should be capitalized as a proper name. Norma is the name of the constellation it's in, like the Virgo Cluster or the Andromeda Galaxy. SevenSpheres (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you know of any sources that discuss this convention? Johnjbarton (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

SevenSpheres is correct. The phrase 'Norma cluster' (a common noun) could refer to any cluster of stars or galaxies located in the constellation Norma. The 'Norma Cluster' (a proper noun) refers to a specific galaxy cluster. Any book on English grammar or style will confirm that proper nouns are capitalised, and our MOS agrees. For a more Earthly comparison, compare 'a Washington monument' to 'the Washington Monument'. Modest Genius ^talk 14:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Alpha Cephei#Requested move 4 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Alpha Cephei#Requested move 4 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 16:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I listed some redirects at "Redirects for discussion"

I put some redirects (Betria and Gatria) in redirects for discussion. The discussion can be found in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 13#Betria. Everyone can join the discussion to decide the fate of these redirects. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of solar eclipses in antiquity#Requested move 16 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of solar eclipses in antiquity#Requested move 16 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Stellar mass limits

It was my understanding that the Chandrasekhar limit concerns the maximum mass at the process of a star -> white dwarf transition. The end point is stable so the story ends.

Is Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit really analogous, meaning the max mass for star -> neutron star, end of story?

(I'm not really interested in the fine points of how these limits might be changed by better models, but rather just the concept they represent; these pages get edits that want the end points and cross the limits).

Ideal would be a ref. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is my understanding too. Here's a possible ref. that discusses both limits:

Illari, Phyllis (February 1, 2019). "Mechanisms, Models and Laws in Understanding Supernovae". Journal for General Philosophy of Science. 50: 63–84. doi:10.1007/s10838-018-9435-y.

Praemonitus (talk) 06:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I made changes to both pages using that ref. Please check. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe the first sentence of the "Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit" section on the Chandrasekhar limit article is inaccurate. Praemonitus (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Any hints on what you think is inaccurate? The sentence is:

• Hydrogen-burning stars heavier than the Chandrasekhar limit continue to compress, overcoming the electron degeneracy pressure.

Johnjbarton (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Well the exception applies to the degenerate cores of massive stars, not hydrogen-fusing stars that have a little more mass than the Sun. See neutron star for example. Praemonitus (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. I suppose that both limits are really models based on the final state stability. So the mass that they refer to is final state mass.

But in both cases the initial state is a massive star and that mass determines the final state right? You can't get to degenerate core of a massive star unless you start with a massive star. Some range of masses result in white dwarf, some in neutron stars, some black holes (and some not yet settled intermediate values). All of the end states are stable (absent eg binary). What is the role of the degenerate core mass?

Or maybe you are objecting to "hydrogen-burning"? That's fair since my sentence implies a starting state mass limit which I think is not correct. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Right. I wouldn't mention hydrogen fusion. Maybe "stellar remnant"? In type Ia supernova you can exceed the limit via a double white dwarf merger. If Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit is at the low end of the estimates, two sufficiently massive white dwarfs could merge to form a neutron star.[2] Praemonitus (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

New requested moves

There are three new requested moves at Talk:WD 2359−434, Talk:L 97-12 and Talk:PG 1047+003 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Life_habitable_zones is WP:SYNTH?

Some further input on Life_habitable_zones would be useful: the page looks like a WP:SYNTH list, with names that don't necessarily appear in the references and no obvious reason why it couldn't just be folded into Habitable_zone. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Honestly I think that article should be deleted. Someone has put a lot of work into writing up their own personal ideas, into what reads like an undergraduate essay. The term "life habitable zone" is not in widespread use by astronomers or astrobiologists. ADS shows no hits for that exact phrase, and Google Scholar shows only a handful of peer-reviewed papers, none in astronomy journals. The TLDR bulleted list is just describing a bunch of adjectives that people have tacked on to 'habitable zone', some of which are widely used and others that are not. I really don't see the point or value in it. Any of that content that's worth saving could be in our habitable zone article, with due weight. Modest Genius ^talk 18:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

This page clearly has some problems but it has extensive references.

The problem with merging in to "Habitable zone" is that article has limited itself to water. Planetary_habitability#Other_considerations would be a better choice IMO. That would also avoid the need to shoe-horn habitability criteria into the "zone" model. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Planetary habitability is also a good target merger target, thanks for pointing out that page (which I wasn't aware of). Modest Genius ^talk 12:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

This looks like a List of definitions for habitable zone or something along those lines. Maybe it has some potential? Maybe there's a diverse merge target for this? Might be worth bringing this article to project or userspace as a potential source for references on the field. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

merger discussions

Mars

Please weigh in at /Mars task force#merger discussion.

Moon

Please weigh in at /Moon task force#merger discussion.

Thanks, Arlo James Barnes 23:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I've reformatted this slightly with no content change, mainly because we don't need a subjection just for a link. Primefac (talk) 09:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, much tidier without the headers. Arlo James Barnes 09:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

FAR for Galaxy

I have nominated Galaxy for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

It is now in a FARC discussion and could use some more input, particularly on the topic of new discoveries in the last decade. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

There are two {{citation needed}} tags as yet unaddressed and a list under "Magnetic fields" that should be prosified. XOR'easter (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

More passages have been tagged as needing citations. XOR'easter (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Minor planet articles that might pass NASTRO

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Minor planet articles that might pass NASTRO, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 04:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

draft for review

draft:list of smallest named extraterrestrial craters lemme know what y'all think. Arlo James Barnes 09:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand the purpose in such a list. We already have List of craters in the Solar System and its various sub-lists (organized by body). Why would anyone want a list of the smallest among them? The only reference in that draft is a link to a database (about Mars, even though most of the entries in the draft are on the Moon), not anyone discussing the smallest named craters. I'm not convinced this meets WP:NLIST and WP:GNG (WP:NASTRO does not apply to surface features). Modest Genius ^talk 15:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah, good feedback; this is why I wanted to link it here. There are more Mars craters I haven't added yet, but sourcing and notability difficulties remain. As to why, it's just interesting to me that these are structures of a size that could be feasibly walked around by a person in a spacesuit, or roved around in a relatively brief time, or even spanned. Of course, no such thing has happened yet so can't be sourced. Arlo James Barnes 16:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems to me your goal would be much more easily and correctly attained by adding a simple paragraph with one or two examples. By creating the list you are synthesizing a source -- for the commonality of small craters -- that apparently does not exist as a reference. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It does seem to fall under WP:CROSSCAT: a combination of named features and small dimensions. Sorry but what encyclopedic value does it add? Praemonitus (talk) 04:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Constellation navbox

It looks like not all of the constellation navboxes have been fully populated. The {{Pegasus (constellation)}} navbox, for example, is lacking sections below the stars, including globular clusters and galaxies. (Compare to {{Andromeda (constellation)}}.) Several such objects are listed at Pegasus (constellation)#Deep-sky objects. It can also include galaxies in Pegasus Galaxy and page links from Category:Pegasus (constellation). Praemonitus (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The {{Pegasus (constellation)}} navbox has been converted to a {{Constellation navbox}}. It looks like {{Monoceros}}, {{Ophiuchus}}, {{Orion (constellation)}}, {{Sagittarius (constellation)}}, {{Serpens}}, and {{Taurus (constellation)}} still need to be converted. Praemonitus (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Project complete. Praemonitus (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Trouble in the Serpens article

For some reason, in the Serpens article infobox there are two images depicting Serpens Caput. As Serpens is a constellation divided into two non-contiguous parts (Serpens Caput and Serpens Cauda), there are two images to represent the two parts, and there should be a third to represent both parts. However, the third image is already duplicating the image of Serpens Caput. On Wikipedia, we have this image which represents the constellation as a whole.

I tried to edit the article, but I couldn't replace the image. Apparently the images are predefined in {{infobox constellation}}. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Check the source for the {{Infobox constellation}} template: it's only customized for a couple of articles. I'd take this issue to that template's talk page. Praemonitus (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:WD 2359−434#Requested move 24 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:WD 2359−434#Requested move 24 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

25 B-mag arcsec−2 isophotal diameter

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

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

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

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

Thanks! I found

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

which had a paragraph on the R_25.

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

Andrea Ferrara

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please look at (plus others comments on them):

Marc Davis (astronomer) which has problems

Martin Rees for a massive, well-structured page

Craig Hogan needs info box and sources"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Dyson_sphere#Dyson spheres in fiction

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

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

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

Changes for Template:Infobox galaxy

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

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

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

Rating importance of Astronomy public education programs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sample

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Galaxy/archive1

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

Nomination for deletion of Template:Argo Navis (compact)

Template:Argo Navis (compact) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- 65.92.244.237 (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Superluminal astronomical objects

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

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

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

Wikisky shut down? (Affecting several important infobox templates)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commons based WikiProject Astronomy?

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

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

G299.2-2.9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article says

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

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

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

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

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

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

Duplicated lists for Mars missions

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

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

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

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

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

Creating a new template

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sun FAR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right, but my experience has been that a publically-published Hubble image of an object usually means an associated article, which means potentially substantial content per WP:GNG. To me it's a tell, and at least deserves more investigation. Praemonitus (talk)

Missing biographies

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

Being a deceased member of the IAU doesn't make someone notable. Anyone with a PhD in astronomy or related fields can join, a few years ago they opened membership to students studying for one. It's not some elite fellowship or award. (FWIW, I am an IAU member and don't pass WP:NPROF.) Some of the people on that list will turn out to be notable for other reasons, but I expect the vast majority are not. Modest Genius ^talk 10:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)