Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Imperial/U.S. customary units in the infobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In those cases, I think it's fine to use the US units in {{convert}} with disp=out, so the original is displayed to editors for verification and the metric is displayed to readers for consistency. So yeah, the wording in the MOS should advise using the original quantity and doing our own conversion. -- Beland (talk) 01:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, added to the MOS. — kwami (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Perfect. I think that addresses all my concerns. (Sorry, I didn't see the extraneous changes that I typed somehow.) — kwami (talk) 02:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• My view on each of these proposals:
  • Option 1: Easily the best as there is realistically no context in astronomy in which imperial/USC is preferred over SI (or other scientific units, including occasionally some pre-SI metric relics). My main objection is to the use of the term "source" since, every time a proposal has arisen for source-based units, it has quickly become apparent how problematic and unworkable it would be. It's perhaps best to clarify that (as I understand) what is being suggested here is the use of the convert template with the disp=output only flag, so if a number is quoted in imperial/USC we can still take that information from the source but display it in appropriate units only e.g. {{cvt|120|mi|km|disp=output only}} → 190 km.
  • Option 2: This seems to be just a more explicit proposal for source-based units, which I would oppose as described above.
  • Option 3: No, as in the real world there's no case in which the very marginal benefit of such unnecessary conventions is worth the clutter added by their inclusion. Our overarching guidance is to provide conversions only where they are, in context, likely to be useful to readers. If someone is hell-bent on knowing the diameters of the moons of Mars in furlongs, they have access to other conversion tools. This also makes me wonder exactly what "allow" means – allow individual editors to do whatever they want, regardless of MOS-level guidance or stylistic consistency across astronomy articles?

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

• Option 1. I favor being slightly stricter than MOS:UNITS and discouraging US/imperial units in infoboxes about astronomical objects, rather than just not requiring converting to them. Kwamikagami has just added (and I tweaked) advice to MOS:CONVERSIONS which should address the concerns raised above about rounding and significant figures and retaining the original source units for verification (e.g. use disp=out for US/imperial quantities we want to keep for editor verification but display to readers in metric only). This means there is no reason to use US/imperial just because a source does so. Infoboxes are crowded, and the quantities involved are usually mind-blowingly large anyway, so it's more important to convert to the astronomical system of units than to US/imperial units. So perhaps some wording like this:

  "In infoboxes for astronomical objects, follow MOS:CONVERSIONS making the International System of Units and astronomical system of units primary, but do not display US conventional/British imperial units. Display conversions from SI to astronomy units if appropriate."

-- Beland (talk) 03:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree about restricting Imperial. What does it mean to anyone to say that Jupiter "weighs" X pounds? (Okay, we have pound mass now, but still.) No-one has any comprehension of what numbers that large mean. They're only useful for comparison, and units don't matter for that. The only figure likely to mean anything to anyone is that the Earth is 93M miles from the Sun, which I learned as a child, but the AU takes care of that: say that Jupiter is at 5 AU, and is doesn't matter if someone memorized the AU in miles or km. Lots of people have memorized the circumference of the Earth is 24k miles, but we hardly mention circumferences in the info boxes. Other than that, imperial is pretty meaningless.

I'd like to take it further, though. People have been going around converting exponential notation to SI prefixes (terameters and zetagrams or whatever). Those are also pretty much useless. IMO we should use exponential notation with basic SI (MKS) units.

Personally, I prefer the engineering convention of restricting exponents to multiples of three, even though my background is in physics, because it makes comparisons easier to have the same scale for similar objects. Certainly in tables (e.g. most massive objects in the SS), the header should specify the exponent so that the columns can be sorted easily, but I think it would be useful even in info boxes. But even if we go by the physicist convention, that's better than SI prefixes. — kwami (talk) 03:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Astronomy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion has been copied to talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Manual of Style. Praemonitus (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abbreviations

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

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

AI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SIMBAD and NED

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

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

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

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

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

Units

A few suggestions:

• I think it would be good to pick one symbol for astronomical unit, and I think right now we almost always use "AU".
• Surface gravity should probably be displayed in standard gravity units in addition to m/s², and it would be nice to use "g₀" instead of "g" to avoid confusion with grams.
• Conversions between multiple SI expressions should be discouraged (e.g. both km/h and m/s, which I do see).
• This section is a bit unclear on whether both SI and astronomy units should be used, or only one. In infoboxes (and prose where it's not excessive) I would argue for both. It's much easier to intuitively grasp huge distances and masses in AU, light-years, Earth gravity, Sun masses, etc., so very worthwhile to convert into these if necessary. I like the idea of converting to metric units as well because it allows intuitive comparisons across measurements - for example, how much bigger is the Earth than its orbit around the Sun? And as much as I want everyone to learn the scientific units from birth, it's a bit kinder to Americans who have come halfway and learned either metric or astronomy units but still haven't gotten a handle on the other.
• I'm agnostic as to whether metric or astronomy units should be primary where both are given via conversion, and I'm actually fine with just making whichever the cited source is using as primary for convenience. But whatever the rule is it should be made clear up front.

-- Beland (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2024 (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.

Redirects with no information

I've been finding some NGC object topics that were redirected to a list, but the list had no entry for that subject. Examples include NGC 6237 and NGC 6245. There are also redirects to pages with no information on the subject. An example of that is NGC 6057. I think the reader would expect to find something about the subject on the target page. Praemonitus (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Similar to my (probably to be rejected) deletion request list above, NGC 6057/NGC 6053 just shouldn't exist. It's not notable and all the entries for it are just catalogs. For things like that, just delete them. We can have someone add them to the list page if they want. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at List of largest stars

There is a move discussion at List of largest stars for changing the name to List of largest known stars. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was "not moved". Praemonitus (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Well we can argue about this until we're blue in the face, but if you search on "List of largest known stars" it'll point you to the right page. I'd say, "good enough". Praemonitus (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

HR 5171: Contact binary or not?

There is a contradiction between the content of the article and the talk page. While the article explicitly says that HR 5171 is contact binary, the latest talk page discussion says that it isn't based on a newer publication from 2019. [3] This needs to be fixed in the article. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

AfD nomination of RX Telescopii

RX Telescopii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RX Telescopii. Please post your comment there and help deciding the fate of the article. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Sun FAR

I have nominated Sun for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 750h+ 01:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Changes to Template:Infobox feature on celestial object

Hello! I've started a discussion proposing some changes to the aforementioned template. Although this template is primarily concerned with planetary geology and Solar System-related topics, I invite you all to join the discussion and give your comments. ArkHyena (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Galactic coordinate system

The page Galactic coordinate system contains this picture:

with a caption saying it shows the galactic longitude. The article says that this is measured from the galactic centre. Doesn't the picture show coordinates centred on our Sun, though? Or have I misunderstood? Marnanel (talk) 10:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe you have misunderstood; it isn't centred on the galactic centre, it is centred on Earth and 0° runs through it. Primefac (talk) 11:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Marnanel The way I see it, the image is centered on center of the Milky Way with a faint overlay coordinate system centered on the Sun. The caption claims:

• Artist's depiction of the Milky Way Galaxy, showing the galactic longitude.

However, the image shows no longitude at all. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Um... you say you see a faint overlay coordinate system centered on the Sun but that there is no longitude. That is the longitude. Primefac (talk) 11:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The image shows the galactic longitude, and the caption in the article is correct about its orientation. It does not say "is measured from the galactic center" anywhere. Primefac has it right. How might we reword it to make it more clear? - Parejkoj (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The longitude is not labeled and yet there are many labels in the diagram, including a coordinate system that does not match the topic. So it's fine if you already know what the galactic longitude is. The right fix is a different image. This image without the labels (which are cool) would be better. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused: what do you think is incorrect about the diagram? It is labeled "Galactic Longitude" on top, and the coordinate system is the correct one: centered on the sun, 0º through the galactic center, right hand rule. The additional labels are not necessary, but I think they provide useful context. - Parejkoj (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree, the overlaid coordinate system seems correct. It's just so finely ruled that it can't be viewed directly from the article. Praemonitus (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks for your patience. By magnifying the image and by reading your description carefully I can now indeed see the words "Galactic Longitude". If you don't know what it is, you don't know to look for the tiny letters at the top.

I rewrote the caption. @Marnanel does that help? Johnjbarton (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you (all) for your help! Marnanel (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

What does this Ks/mu notation mean?

PSR J1903+0327 says "A near-infrared companion, K_S = 18 (2.22 μ), is observed in Gemini North images at its radio position..." What do "K_S" and "μ" mean in this context? I see "μ" used in Reduced mass and Standard gravitational parameter but if it's one of those, I'm not exactly sure how that relates. This notation was in the first draft of the article added by Wwheaton, but they have not been an active editor for a few years, so I thought I'd ask here. Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 03:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I found a source[4] for the K_s value. According to this[5] article, K_s seems to be a line or band in the near-infrared. I'm not sure what μ is supposed to be; I assumed it was a different unit for magnitude but this pdf[6] uses the symbol for proper motion. Since it's a binary companion, that seems to be what the symbol stands for, but I can't be certain. ArkHyena (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Aha! That means the "μ" is for micrometre, as a wavelength of 2.22 μm is in the infrared. Oh, and actually it's the center of the K band, according to that article. Based on the second source you found, 18 must be a magnitude. Excellent fact hunting! -- Beland (talk) 07:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Good to hear that you've found out what μ meant! I spent a bit too long digging up proper motion figures for the pulsar and was quite confused as to why none of the figures matched the 2.22 figure from the article. ArkHyena (talk) 08:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

It should probably be listed as μm; I don't think I've ever seen just μ used. Primefac (talk) 11:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I already changed it to "μm" because that's what MOS:UNITSYMBOLS requires. Across thousands of articles I've fixed recently, I've seen a few instances of just "μ" that I also changed. As micrometre says, that was the official symbol until 1967. -- Beland (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

"μ" alone should be micron, which is equivalent to micrometre -- 65.92.244.143 (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Ks-band redirects to K band (infrared), but doesn't detail what Kx is -- 65.92.244.143 (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

An explanation would certainly be welcome if you have any interest in researching it. -- Beland (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The parenthetical Ks should just be deleted. If the ref does not explain it and we don't understand it, it's not verifiable content. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I have added an explanation with citation. See also Photometric system. -- Beland (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Input on image for presolar grains

Vial of presolar grains from the Orgueil meteorite in suspension.

I've just uploaded an image of a vial of presolar grains, and while I've added it to Orgueil, I don't want to overwrite the image of Stardust since that's both a great image and more dramatic. It doesn't actually show any presolar grains, however, so I thought I could help remedy that. It also may be pertinent for AGB stars. I don't want to start slapping one of my own images all over a whole host of related articles, so any input on where this may fit best would be appreciated.

I will try and get an SEM image directly of presolar grains wider than 200px up at some point! Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

lookback time

Time is a pretty important issue in cosmology, but I have not found a good article. I did some work on cosmic time but the reference point issue is not well referenced.

Some articles use the term "lookback time", but lookback time was a redirect to Before Present, an article about radiocarbon dating. I repointed it to cosmic time, but this is not sufficient. I am unsure if "lookback time" is really related to the more technical cosmic time. Please review. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposed change to minor planet / dwarf planet naming convention

I have proposed a change to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects). Your input would be welcome! Renerpho (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

GAIA Data Releases

We have {{Cite Gaia DR2}} and {{Cite Gaia EDR3}}, as well as the latest {{Cite Gaia DR3}}.

Should their be an effort to modernize DR2/EDR3-based citations to DR3 when possible? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

That's already been happening to many star articles. However, it's not always possible, particularly for bright stars. Praemonitus (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

It is currently occuring, but will take some years to update all articles. Many articles still use astrometric data (parallax, proper motion) from Hipparcos as well. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Does this "unsolved problem" make sense?

Please see the Talk page topic: Are_voids_in_space_empty_or_consist_of_transparent_matter? Johnjbarton (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs

There is a requested move at List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs to move the name to List of nearest stars. Discuss the move if you want, to help the creation of a consensus.

The discission is located at Talk:List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs#Requested move 31 May 2024. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was "moved". Praemonitus (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion at 90482 Orcus

It has been requested to move 90482 Orcus to Orcus (dwarf planet). Your input at the discussion (linked above) would be welcome. Renerpho (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

"Smaismrmilmepoetaleumibunenugttauiras" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Smaismrmilmepoetaleumibunenugttauiras has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 13 § Smaismrmilmepoetaleumibunenugttauiras until a consensus is reached. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Great for trivia at parties, I'm sure. Thanks Galileo. Praemonitus (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Exoplanet art by Mvargic

User Mvargic has been adding a lot of exoplanet art to Wikipedia, each image comparing the sizes of exoplanets to Solar System planets. However many of these exoplanets don't have known sizes - only their (usually minimum) mass is known - and the images depict them with sizes "assuming Earth-like composition". This is misleading and I think these images should be removed. Any size comparison image for an exoplanet with an unknown size should be like Exoplanet Comparison Gliese 581 c.png, showing a range of possible sizes for different compositions.

At least two of these images, G 9-40 b.jpg & GJ 9827 System.jpg, are also in blatant contradiction of known features (cf. WP:ASTROART). The sizes of these planets are known so these have some informational value, but G 9-40 b & GJ 9827 d are depicted as rocky planets which is known to not be the case (their densities are too low). SevenSpheres (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Some pictures (like those used in articles created by me, HD 63433/d and GJ 3929/b) decipts known features and seem to be true. I am not sure about other planets, most of these other planets have virtually nothing known about them except minimum mass and basic orbital parameters. 21 Andromedae (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Those are planets with known sizes (except GJ 3929 c) so those images do have some informational value. They don't "depict known features" beyond size but at least don't contradict known features. SevenSpheres (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Support in removing most, if not all of them; these seem to clearly fall under WP:FRINGE and/or WP:SYNTH. These images serve little, if any, educational purpose, and only serve to confuse and give the false impression that we know more about these planets than we actually do. ArkHyena (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Some images can be helpful, but these artistic illustrations should be added with caution. 21 Andromedae (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

G 9-40 b & GJ 9827 d are not depicted as rocky but volatile-rich mini-neptunes with cloud decks and hazes of sulfur compounds Mvargic (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Help needed to define "mean radius" and "mean diameter"

Your help would be appreciated at Talk:List of Solar System objects by size#We never define "mean radius". Thank you! Renerpho (talk) 10:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

List of brown dwarfs

I am expressing concern about the list of brown dwarfs. This article is in a deplorable state, entire sections are almost unreferenced, objects refuted years ago are still in the list, many brown dwarfs are missing, tags like "more citations needed" have been in the list for over 8 years... In my opinion, this article should be rewritten from scratch. 21 Andromedae (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested moves for Lunar soil and Martian soil

This may be of interest to this Wikiproject and I doubt either of the talk pages on those articles get too much traffic, but I've requested Lunar soil and Martian soil be moved to Lunar regolith and Martian regolith. I could be a little biased here as a regolith specialist, but I've basically never encountered consistent use of "soil" here outside of either much older papers or some more general public conversations, where regolith is still more common (and this seems to be backed up by google trends), and both articles accidentally distinguish the Lunar and Martian surfaces from the main regolith article. I would have just done it but there was a recent rename discussion on Lunar soil after someone renamed it Lunar dirt, so I didn't want to just plow ahead.Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for informing us of the move discussions. I don't know the literature well enough to make a call one way or another, so I'll leave that for more editors more experienced in the field. I added some comments regarding WP:CANVAS, because you go into detail on your argument here. I don't think that's a problem at all, I purely did this for transparency and clarity. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that's perfectly fair, I've added in the text from here into both of the requested moves so there's not extra information visible here that isn't visible to anyone coming to this wikiproject. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Are these "dishes" tasty (or should i keep them away from English-wiki)

At another English version of Wikipedia, there are a bunch of new articles of stars. Link,
simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/47.186.42.50
. Please say if I should not bring those over to English-wiki.--One of the sources used, is "Facts for Kids|url=... kids.kiddle.co/List_of_largest_known_stars|": would that be a source that one should steer clear of? Thanks, 2001:2020:301:A9E4:CD87:5740:719B:B2A7 (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

No. That site places advertisements on top of free content from List of largest stars. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Many of those stars probably aren't notable, and the sources used seem pretty random - some are reliable sources, some not. The "Facts for Kids" site you mention is clearly a Wikipedia mirror, so not a reliable source. SevenSpheres (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Most of (if not all) these stars would fail our notability guidelines for astronomical bodies, so it's better to don't create them. Also, most of these articles use unreliable sources e.g. Universe Guide. 21 Andromedae (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Does the Pisces–Cetus Supercluster Complex actually exist?

This will be a review of this supposed structure. The only extant papers mentioning this are by R. Brent Tully dating back to 1986 and 1987. The conclusions of his papers have been challenged in recent years, for instance this 1989 as well as another 1992 paper by Postman et al. suggesting that there is no statistical significance of the supposed complexes from clumps in random simulations. After that there doesn't seem to be any explicit papers supporting its existence, and Tully just ended up in 2014 by having Laniakea.

We should review once more if this warrants an article on its own, or even at least be updated to conform to newer papers. It might as well just be a memoriam article of a pseudo-supercluster complex that was subsequently dismissed. SkyFlubbler (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Well these folks seem to disagree:

• Scott C. Porter, Somak Raychaudhury, The Pisces-Cetus supercluster: a remarkable filament of galaxies in the 2dF Galaxy Redshift and Sloan Digital Sky surveys, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 364, Issue 4, December 2005, Pages 1387–1396, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09688.x

And this review mentions Portman's work as not definitive I would say:

• Stefano Borgani, "Scaling in the Universe," Physics Reports, Volume 251, Issues 1–2, 1995, Pages 1-152,

Johnjbarton (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

The paper by Porter and Raychaudhury refers to the Pisces–Cetus Supercluster, which is different from the much larger supercluster complex. The supercluster complex consists of this Pisces–Cetus Supercluster + Perseus-Pegasus and Pegasus-Pisces Chains + Sculptor Wall + Aquarius-Capricornus + the Virgo–Hydra–Centaurus region, and extends for about a billion light-years. There is only a brief mention of Tully's 1987 paper on the introduction and noted it as "speculated."

I can't seem to access the Borgani paper due to a paywall, but looking on what is available information he did not seem to cite Postman's (not Portman, btw) two papers. Regardless if even Borgani dismissed Postman or not, Tully himself in a 1992 paper did show some ample evidence but then retracted his claims a little bit and said that the present evidence for the Pisces-Cetus SCC (or any structure within the supergalactic plane on the scale of 300 h/Mpc) is "far from conclusive", with further statements on the summary stating that it was "unsatisfactory" with "predictions which must be tested by more rigorously defined samples", which never fully materialized.

This is evidenced by the fact that Tully no longer cited any of the aforementioned papers mentioning the Pisces-Cetus SCC in any of the 26 references of the 2014 paper on Laniakea, further strengthening the conclusion that he may have given up in supporting the existence of the Pisces-Cetus SCC. SkyFlubbler (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok but to me this all makes the case for clarifying the article. The topic is even more notable. (However the lack of citation is not a verifiable source as this may be for many reasons).

The Borgani review is available via the Wikipedia library > Science Direct (Elsevier) > Advanced search > Show all fields > Title. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I tried to go for the Wikipedia library version of the article, but I cannot view it due to software limitations, and any attempts to download it also failed (I am using a mobile phone). But I did see the three papers by Postman in the references, so I will nonetheless give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it did cite the works by Postman as not definitive.

It still doesn't invalidate the claims from Tully himself that the evidence present did not constitute firm evidence for the existence of the Pisces–Cetus SCC.

"Ok but to me this all makes the case for clarifying the article. The topic is even more notable."'

I think you missed my emphasis that the only existing literature mentioning this structure came from the late 80s and early 90s, and even so that calls its existence into question. With no subsequent mentions in the literature, and the subsuming of a new definition of a supercluster in 2014, the Pisces-Cetus SCC fails to meet WP:NASTRO. I suggest instead to have it relegated as a section in the Galaxy filament article, as the current article is too short, anyway, coupled with information from the papers that question its existence. SkyFlubbler (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Deleted articles resurface

The following articles went through AfD with the result being deletion. They have since been restored with the comment, "I brought back this page for consistency. This was the only eclipse from ####-#### to not have its own page. I'm not sure why it was deleted, but it should not have":

Solar eclipse of December 24, 1916

Solar eclipse of January 5, 1935

Solar eclipse of July 19, 1917

Solar eclipse of July 30, 1935

Solar eclipse of June 13, 2094

So it goes. Praemonitus (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you revert with summary "AfD had WP:CONSENSUS". No need to discuss. (Any discussion should have occurred before restoration.) Johnjbarton (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Somebody else is welcome to do that; I've had enough of these tiresome battle of late. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Hah, so I see.

If anyone is having a bad day and needs a laugh, type "Solar eclipse of" in to the search bar. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Nonmetals in astronomy

I have a question about the notion of metals and nonmetals in astronomy, and the exclusion of a reliable source in this regard.

The context for my question follows.

So, the start of the Nonmetals in astronomy section of Nonmetallic material reads:

A quite different approach is used in astronomy where the term metallicity is used for all elements heavier than helium, so the only nonmetals are hydrogen and helium.

After the second paragraph, which starts, "About 45 years later, Gustav Kirchhoff and Robert Bunsen noticed that several Fraunhofer lines...", there used to be a third paragraph, as added by me:

"The astrophysicst Carlos Jaschek, and the stellar astronomer and spectroscopist Mercedes Jaschek, in their book The Classification of Stars, observed that:

'Metals' (a term which is used very equivocally). Stellar interior specialists use 'metals' to designate any element other than hydrogen and helium, and in consequence ‘metal abundance’ implies all elements other than the first two. For spectroscopists this is very misleading, because they use the word in the chemical sense. On the other hand photometrists, who observe combined effects of all lines (i.e. without distinguishing the different elements) often use this word 'metal abundance', in which case it may also include the effect of the hydrogen lines. It is important to make sure in each particular case what the author really meant."

See: Jaschek C & Jascheck M 1990, The Classification of Stars, Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, p. 22, ISBN 978-0-521-26773-1.

Ldm1954, who will no doubt speak for himself, has removed the paragraph on the grounds that, in his view, "This is editorializing, and shouldn't be done", and "original research and verging on academic dishonesty" and that, "It adds nothing".

This seems like a case of unjustified censorship to me, even if done with good intent. Editorialising is a WP concept, referring to editorializing by WP editors. It does not apply to reliable sources. In this context, asserting that J & J are editorialising "which is definite [and] not appropriate", is meaningless.

J & J are matter-of-factly laying out the situation when it comes to the conception of what a metal is in their respective fields. The knock-on consequences are which elements are regarded as nonmetals in astronomy, as per the first sentence at the start of the Nonmetals in astronomy section of Nonmetallic material.

The J & J extract adds useful information by nuancing the understanding of metals in astronomy and related fields

How do WP:ASTRONOMY members view this? Thank you. --- Sandbh (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable inclusion, though I wouldn't be able to make a call on this. However, shouldn't this information be in Metallicity itself? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

For rigor, the above statements by Sandbh contain significant factual errors:

1. @Ldm1954 never removed the paragraph.
2. The main paragraph without the first and last sentence was added by @Sandbh on June 27 in this edit
3. @Sandbh added the first and last sentences in this edit
4. @Headbomb reverted this addition as editorialized here
5. There was then an edit skirmish with @Sandbh reverting @Headbomb, and my reverting in turn.
6. There followed a brief discussion in talk where @Ldm1954 and @Headbomb commented that this paragraph added little, and I also mentioned that J & J were editorializing.

N.B. Metallicity already has more information and is already pointed to as the main. In Nonmetallic materials I have added a little about the history of how the term metallic originated with Kirchhoff & Bunsen interpreting Fraunhofer lines using metals in their lab, which I was going to suggest have suggested be added to Metallicity Ldm1954 (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ldm1954: I apologise for my error of fact concerning item 1, and appreciate your setting the record straight, as to the sequence of events. — Sandbh (talk) 05:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that paragraph does provide some interesting historical perspective. It doesn't feel like editorializing to me: Jaschek is saying how the various fields used the term differently. Could those claiming it's editorializing say more about why they think that? I think in modern astronomy, that distinction has mostly melted away (spectroscopists have shifted to the astronomy "metals as all Z>2 elements), but that last sentence is a good reminder that terms are different in different fields. I feel like the paragraph is slightly more appropriate for Metallicity, but a random reader would probably end up at Nonmetalic Materials first, I'd expect? - Parejkoj (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't speak for @Headbomb. My reservation is that the lede to Nonmetallic materials already has as it's second sentence Depending upon context it is used in slightly different ways, so the whole page is an attempt at a WP:NPOV presentation about the assorted science uses (with hopefully none missed). If card carrying astronomers are happy to vouch that J & J are not going too far with their statements about "the field", I am OK with it. Statements here can be used if it is challenged. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Split discussion at Sirius

There is a discussion at Talk:Sirius to split the page into a new page called Sirius B. This discussion might be relevant for some people of this wikiproject, so help to gather consensus for split or not split this article! 21 Andromedae (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Use of ScienceDaily as a source

@Warrenmck and XOR'easter: Due to the recently closed Drbogdan discussion on ANI which centered around, in part, using press releases as sources, I am posting this query here about the use of ScienceDaily press releases in our articles to establish best practices. Recently, User:Galilean-moons added ScienceDaily to the article Syntrichia caninervis regarding its potential use for establishing life on Mars (assuming some form of it doesn't already exist).[7] Because this use of press releases was recently discouraged, I am wondering how these recent edits fit into the larger discussion about this kind of reporting. The Guardian has also reported on the subject.[8] Moving forward, is this an acceptable use of ScienceDaily? Should The Guardian be used instead? Or are there other guidelines that you recommend for editing this page? Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think of ScienceDaily as press releases in the sense of an organization public relations output. Rather these are uncritical summaries of primary publications for the purpose of generating ad revenue. The primary publications may or may not have been peer reviewed and almost certainly are not cited. The only sense in which ScienceDaily is a secondary source is that they filter for interest. (Our page on ScienceDaily says they are primarily press releases).

I think these cases need to evaluate the primary reference and not the ScienceDaily summary per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PSTS Almost always the primary ref will be WP:TOONEW and have no citations. Similarly for the Guardian. In this case it's not clear the paper was peer reviewed.

To put it another way: readers can get this kind of info from ScienceDaily. This is an ecyclopedia. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Let me reformulate my question: instead of using ScienceDaily, can a citation to the following source be used instead: Li X., Bai W., Yang Q., et al., (2024). The extremotolerant desert moss Syntrichia caninervis is a promising pioneer plant for colonizing extraterrestrial environments. The Innovation. 5 (4). The article appears to be peer reviewed. Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Depends upon the content being referenced, see WP:PRIMARY. This seems like a case that might pass many of the tests, esp. the reference is open access and not narrowly technical. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

You all might want to see [9] - or even raise the issue again. Doug Weller talk 14:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Might be important considering that what links here shows it is presumably used more than 350 times as a citation. Viriditas (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton: I've made these changes. I realize that you said you don't like The Guardian, but I think it's acceptable to use it like this. I'm also fond of citing the primary and the secondary together. Viriditas (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas Thanks! Your edits are clearly an improvement. I believe the previous content is inappropriate without secondary refs. For examples

• "S. caninervis is well-known for its ability to tolerate drought conditions,..."
  • An uncited primary ref can't verify "well-known"
    • Except it does in the paper, citing two papers? Viriditas (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• "Research has shown that S. caninervis can ..."
  • One paper is not "research has shown"
    • The "research" refers to multiple cited papers. Viriditas (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• "Some studies have even suggested..."
  • One study is not "some".
    • Multiple studies are cited. Viriditas (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

And so on. It is this kind of extrapolation that the page WP:PRIMARY is trying to avoid. To put it another way, the content if correct, could easily be refed correctly. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton: I don't know what your time constraints are like, but I not only appreciate your help with this, but I would also like to ask you for additional reviewing. User:Dcotos hasn't submitted this to DYK and I would like to nominate a hook, but we are up against a deadline. If you could take a quick glance at the article and wield your axe to its benefit, that would be helpful. Viriditas (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I should note that there is additional research in the literature that supports its status as an extremophile. I just added another one. Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas Sorry I'm sure what you are asking here. DYK? hook? deadline? Johnjbarton (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm asking if you think the current version of the article, as it stands right now, is problematic. Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I think I just answered my own question. The primary author did not paraphrase and quote correctly, and much of the article is written far too close to the sources. It needs to be rewritten. Viriditas (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's follow up on that articles Talk page. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Request at Teahouse

For the interested, Wikipedia:Teahouse#Please_help_me_with_an_article. New editor wishes help for article about Andrzej (Andrew) Pohorille, astrobiologist, who no longer falls under WP:BLP (well fine, he died recently). Draft at Draft:Andrew Pohorille. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Orion's Belt

Hey guys. I wish to work on Orion Belt, but I'm not sure what is needed to be on the page, nor do I know of adequate reference pages to expand the article. For now, a chunk of it is dedicated to cultural depictions.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

ZKang123, glad to hear you're looking to improve the page. Unfortunately, the primary steps for improving a page are a) determining what needs to be added, and b) finding references that will allow you to add that content. Once you figure that out, it's just a matter of editing the page and adding the content. Primefac (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

You're right that it's appallingly written in places. I have made a start at improvement but please carry on if you wish. Skeptic2 (talk) 09:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Lunar soil#Requested move 27 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lunar soil#Requested move 27 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Auriga (constellation)#Requested move 1 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Auriga (constellation)#Requested move 1 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 03:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Article was moved. Praemonitus (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested articles

I migrated the list of requested astronomy and cosmology articles to a separate page so it is easier to watch. The separate astronomers list from the "Scientists and people in science" section has been migrated to the same page. Praemonitus (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Multiple metric unit conversions

Hi, all. Praemonitus asked me to take this question here from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Manual of Style. I actually already raised this point on this page, but that discussion was closed before anyone could reply.

Anyway, the question was whether the new guidelines for astronomy articles should discourage multiple conversions of the same quantity into two different metric expressions. For example, the equatorial rotation velocity of Mars is given as both 241 m/s and 870 km/h. If I had to pick one, people are familiar with km/h speeds from driving, so that seems like a good choice of units for this field across all planetary infoboxes. If someone needs m/s it's easy to get that without having to look up any conversion factors. But regardless of which is preferred, having both seems like overkill in an already-number-heavy infobox.

Any thoughts? -- Beland (talk) 08:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I think astronomy articles should present unit scales that most readers will be familiar with; hence km, kg, cm, and so forth. It should also preferentially use units that astronomers conventionally use in their peer-reviewed papers; thus AU, pc, kpc, Mpc, Myr, and so forth. Adding less familiar units as additional conversions just generally increases clutter. In the case of widely popular Astronomy topics such as the planet articles, old English unit conversions may make some sense, but otherwise the MOS:CONVERSIONS guideline usually applies: "in science-related articles, supplying such conversion is not required unless there is some special reason to do so". Praemonitus (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify: if, for example, km and cm are both familiar to readers because they are part of the metric system, are you in favor of only converting a given quantity into one of those? -- Beland (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Just those two? Nope. Praemonitus (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

What's the benefit of expressing a quantity in both km and cm when everyone can easily convert between them just by moving the decimal place? -- Beland (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Huh? How did we get there? I never said anything like that. Praemonitus (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I read your above reply "nope" to mean no, you would not support only converting into one of km or cm, but that you would want the quantity converted into both. If that's not what you meant, then I apologize for misunderstanding. Could you clarify your position on multiple metric conversions? For example, converting into both m/s and km/h instead of just one or the other. -- Beland (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

My position is that I prefer less of the data clutter that distracts from the information being presented. In most cases a single conversion should suffice. It would be even cleaner if there were none, but I know that's rarely possible. We have many data "wonks" here that like a lot of numbers, and I understand that, but that isn't necessarily the case for the target audience. Just present enough information for the reader to get a picture of what's going on, then leave it at that. They don't, for example, need a distance in km, miles, AU, and light seconds, as I've seen in some cases. (Or a temperature in Centigrade, Fahrenheit, and Kelvin.) Just use the unit that's most widely recognized and appropriate for the scale. Praemonitus (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Anybody looking up rotation velocity, escape speed, etc., is interested in doing calculations with them. m/s is the useful one. km/h is neither SI not useful for anything. I don't think familiarity with driving helps here, because the numbers are almost never in the same order of magnitude as car speeds. Tercer (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, so if we settle on m/s, would you favor not converting into km/h or any other metric units? -- Beland (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I would. Tercer (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Same. I think m/s is the most useful unit. --mfb (talk) 11:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, I'll update the proposed MOS. Thanks for weighing in! -- Beland (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, except in the case of a direct comparison with vehicle velocities. Praemonitus (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Conversion of light years and parsecs

FYI, there's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Conversion of light years and parsecs where editors are considering whether to require conversion of light-years to kilometers instead of parsecs. Please reply there if you have an opinion so we don't have to revisit this later. -- Beland (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Preferred units for speed

@Praemonitus, Tercer, and Mfb:, you all expressed support above for using m/s for speed in astronomical contexts (outside of direct comparison to driving speeds). Looking at orbital speed, all the orbital velocities there are in km/s. (Pinging JohnOwnes as top authors of that article.) To clarify, are m/s preferred over km/s, or are they both equally OK and should be used according to the magnitude of the speed? -- Beland (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I see m/s and km/s as equivalent, use whatever is appropriate for the size of the number. 0.01 km/s is silly, 100,000 m/s is not ideal either. Orbital velocities are usually several kilometers per second so km/s makes sense there. --mfb (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, meant to @Kheider, JohnOwens, and Deuar:. I've added km/s as an acceptable option in the draft MOS, but feel free to continue the discussion and agree or disagree with that. -- Beland (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, km/s is also fine. Tercer (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, km/s (or m/s) is suitable for astronomy. Radial velocities are typically given in km/s, for example. Use of km/h would require an extra conversion step when calculating with SI, so it doesn't seem of much use in astronomy/physics. Praemonitus (talk) 23:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The Venus article includes the sentence, "Strong 300 km/h (185 mph) winds at the cloud tops go around Venus about every four to five Earth days." I think that is a case where using "km/h" makes sense. Atmospheric motion should be an exception to the criteria. Praemonitus (talk) 19:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems generally agreed upon that atmospheric motion should be in km/h; this is standard for most weather articles from what I've seen. Could be worth an MOS mention. ArkHyena (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Well spotted; I will add a note about that. -- Beland (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

km/s is generally the relevant unit for speed in astronomy; I sometimes see others in use but they're either straightforward SI multiples (e.g. cm/s) or should give a conversion to km/s. The recession of distant galaxies should be expressed as redshift, which is directly related to speed but is not technically a unit. Wind speeds within the atmosphere of a planet is meteorology, not astronomy, so should follow those guidelines instead. Modest Genius ^talk 15:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Although they include their WP rating template on articles such as Atmosphere of Venus, WP:WEATHER currently lacks a MoS supplement, so for now we won't be able to redirect to there. Praemonitus (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Expanding Template:NGC objects:1-499 to 1–1000 to match Template:NGC objects

Since NGC object pages (right) are in groups of 1000, similar to the LoMPs & MoMPs, I think it makes sense to similarly group the Template:NGC objects:1-499 family of templates to match.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe, though I may be mistaken, that the template family is limited to 500 due to size; I note that all of them are in groups of 500. Primefac (talk) 12:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Since 2 "{{NGC objects:X-Y}}" are used per NGC list article, here is a size comparison:

Current:

Proposed:

Also, using the proposed {{NGC objects: 1-1000}}, etc., will cut the height of New General Catalogue#External links in ~half.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth I'm not necessarily opposed, just giving my hypothesis for why it is the way it is. Primefac (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, I only mean for {{NGC objects: 1-1000}}, etc., to replace {{NGC objects:1-499}}+{{NGC objects:500-999}}, etc., on the NGC list articles. {{NGC objects:1-499}}, etc., can/will still be used elsewhere, like on individual NGC object pages (NGC 1). With that limited scope, I don't think there'd be much objection.

Also, I just noticed that List of NGC objects (1–1000) is currently missing NGC 1000, because {{NGC objects:500-999}}, so creating {{NGC objects: 1-1000}}, etc., seems even more appropriate.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Larger templates will mean longer load times on portable devices and/or remote locations. I don't see a benefit to combining them. It's not like they need a lot of maintenance. Praemonitus (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested split of V1400 Centauri into J1407b

Hi everyone, I've recently expanded the V1400 Centauri article. I am proposing splitting a portion of the V1400 Centauri article into a new article titled J1407b. Please join the split discussion in the article's talk page. Thanks! Nrco0e (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Result of the discussion was split. ArkHyena (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Naming convention for Sharpless objects

Newly created article Sh 2-185 is being discussed for a move to Sh2-185, with the argument that would provide, "consistency with other articles on Sharpless objects". However, IAU naming convention uses the format: Acronym ^ Sequence ^ (Specifier). If you look at the scientific publications for Sharpless objects, they have the form: Sh^[1-2]-NNN. I.e. with a space after the 'Sh'. For some reason on Wikipedia they are all named Sh[1-2]-NNN. I.e. no space. Do we just stay lazy and keep the current names, or move them to the IAU version per MOS:ASTRO. Yes, I know it's a nit. Praemonitus (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Editor SevenSpheres has opened a move request on Talk:Sh 2-185 regarding this issue. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

In general I'd support the use of names that follow the IAU conventions. Aldebarium (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed changes to infobox constellation

Two changes were proposed to {{Infobox constellation}}, see its talk page for more information.

1. Remove parameter "stars with planets".
2. Add parameter "Nearest star in constellation".

21 Andromedae (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I support this per the referenced talk page discussion. SevenSpheres (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Template:Astronomical catalogs

Template:Astronomical catalogs has now two links to disambiguation pages (Arp 83 and Arp 84). I have tried to solve it but the way the template is created is way over my head. I asked the disambiguation-creator for help, but he stumbled on the same thing. How can this be ironed out? The Banner talk 08:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anything needs solving, since Arp 83 & 84 are indeed ambiguous.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

A template should not point to a disambiguation page. The Banner talk 20:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Generally, yes, but in this rare & specific case, where both dabs are mutually inclusive, I think it's ok to WP:IAR. If one of these arps showed up on Arp 83 or Arp 84, for example, then I would agree.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  00:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Arp 83 & 84 aren't ambiguous; they each refer to a pair of interacting galaxies. In both cases each of those galaxies has its own article, so these pages help navigation, but I'm not sure it's correct to treat them as disambiguation pages? SevenSpheres (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Interesting take. The Banner talk 20:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe a list? Or set index? Or another form that removed the dab-designation? The Banner talk 11:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it's useful to highlight them (i.e. as a dab), or at least distinguish them in some way (e.g. with a superscript), in the template as referring to multiple resolved objects/articles, as this is the exception, and not the rule.

Pinging creator, Sir MemeGod.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Sir MemeGod could not solve the template either as the template is very technical. The Banner talk 22:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Since Arp 83 & Arp 84 were recently de-dab'd by R'n'B, I boldly added <sup>([[Interacting galaxy|i]])</sup> to their entries on the nav via Template:Astronomical catalogs/Interacting. Anyone feel free to tweak.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that I've added an example of the issue to the top of the thread, and copied the relevant code below; the issue is that this template creates a generic list based on the input (the above is |Arp=85) and thus adding disambiguation to the template would be rather cumbersome for just those Arp values that are around 83/84.

Template code for Arp values

| group11 = [[Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies|Arp]] | list11 = {{#if:{{{Arp|}}}| * {{#ifexpr:({{{Arp}}} - 6) > 0 |[[Arp {{#expr:{{{Arp}}} - 6}}]] }} * {{#ifexpr:({{{Arp}}} - 5) > 0 |[[Arp {{#expr:{{{Arp}}} - 5}}]] }} * {{#ifexpr:({{{Arp}}} - 4) > 0 |[[Arp {{#expr:{{{Arp}}} - 4}}]] }} * {{#ifexpr:({{{Arp}}} - 3) > 0 |[[Arp {{#expr:{{{Arp}}} - 3}}]] }} * {{#ifexpr:({{{Arp}}} - 2) > 0 |[[Arp {{#expr:{{{Arp}}} - 2}}]] }} * {{#ifexpr:({{{Arp}}} - 1) > 0 |[[Arp {{#expr:{{{Arp}}} - 1}}]] }} * '''Arp {{{Arp}}}''' * {{#ifexpr:({{{Arp}}} + 1) < 339 | [[Arp {{#expr:{{{Arp}}} + 1}}]]}} * {{#ifexpr:({{{Arp}}} + 2) < 339 | [[Arp {{#expr:{{{Arp}}} + 2}}]]}} * {{#ifexpr:({{{Arp}}} + 3) < 339 | [[Arp {{#expr:{{{Arp}}} + 3}}]]}} * {{#ifexpr:({{{Arp}}} + 4) < 339 | [[Arp {{#expr:{{{Arp}}} + 4}}]]}} * {{#ifexpr:({{{Arp}}} + 5) < 339 | [[Arp {{#expr:{{{Arp}}} + 5}}]]}} * {{#ifexpr:({{{Arp}}} + 6) < 339 | [[Arp {{#expr:{{{Arp}}} + 6}}]]}} }}

I'll think about a technical fix, but the above ideas regarding changing how/where the link points may be a good alternative idea. Primefac (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at 2MASS J10475385+2124234

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2MASS J10475385+2124234#Requested move 5 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Related discussions for reference:

• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (astronomical objects)#Abbreviating catalogue designations (2MASS, WISE, etc.)
• Talk:2MASS J09393548−2448279#Requested move 16 June 2024

SevenSpheres (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seriously opposed to this kind of abbreviation but I fail to see a need for it. I'll note that there is currently no consistency in whether and how these kind of titles are abbreviated; in fact in the two proposed moves above, the current titles are consistent but the proposed (shortened) titles are not. SevenSpheres (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

COI edits

@Paolosalucci has been systematically adding reference to papers that include "Paolo Salucci" as an author. Some of these are fine, some are clearly not the best reference. Many of the edits mangle the surrounding text. The topics are all related to dark matter and galaxy rotation; Paolo Salucci is a world class expert on that topic. I left a Talk message pointing to WP:CIO but there was already one from some time back. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It's a clear COI, so while there is nothing that stops an author from adding their works as references, they should be reasonable references for the subject material. If that is not the case, and it appears haphazard, then it might be time to start discussing a topic ban. However, I would like to get thoughts from Paolosalucci on the matter before we get to that point. Primefac (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I did this: I replaced twice one of my old reference with a better one, more recent and more readable from people, since it is a review on TAAR (IF=35). Moreover, I added a new a reference of my most known paper( 1600 citations in a place where there were no references). In that place maybe other references are needed, not to remove mine . Then, I added a new small chapter for M87 the biggest galaxy around. I did not changed the content of the text since I do not consider wikipedia the place to put controversial content. I do not understand self promotion. I get some result , well agreed in the literature certainly deserving at least a couple sentence why I cannot put it . Furthermore the text is in some point on the verge of being cracpot, the references are often of works unknown and jollybarton has something against me ( as I remember 10 years ago) ? Is it possible to zoom each other ? I do not understand as all the main editors of astrophysical astroparticle journal beg me to write a review on the dark matter in galaxy and you do not accept a single reference????? Paolosalucci (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Paolosalucci Please don't over react. I don't have anything against you or your work. The edits you have made are self-promoting in the sense that they are minimal contributions focused on your publications. I suppose the editors of any astrophysical journal would would be wary of a review that only cited one author's work. Thus we are wary of an edit that solely adds a reference to your own work.

Personally I hope you will make more edits or maybe comment on any the Talk page for any content that is "on the verge of being cracpot". The essay Wikipedia:Expert editors has some really good perspective on how to approach wikipedia editing.

I would especially encourage you to call out your involvement with sources you cite. For example, the edit summary you wrote when changing Dark matter was "Added two wellknown works at support of dark matter in galaxies.". In my opinion a forthright edit summary would be: "Add a reference to my well-cited paper and my review on dark matter in galaxies." That would make it clear that these are appropriate references (well-cited or secondary refs) and that you are acknowledging the COI issue.

Please also consider adding a short comment in the Talk pages for these articles to explain why your paper is appropriate for the context. Such comments will build up confidence that your goal is to improve the article rather than self-promotion. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Paolo: I think the most important thing is as User:Johnjbarton says, to note in your edit summaries that this is a COI edit, and/or noting on the talk page for such articles that you've added refs to your own work. COI edits are not a problem in and of themselves, but they should be transparent. We need more people with a background in cosmology and galaxies editing here, so please stick around. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Primefac The references added are top notch and mostly on target. I primarily wanted to raise awareness that the refs are self-promoting. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at HR 2562 b

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:HR 2562 b#Requested move 11 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Your input on the discussion would be welcome! ArkHyena (talk) 09:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)