Talk:Astronomical unit/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Astronomical unit. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

AU vs au vs ua

Discussion moved from Talk:Voyager 1

I just converted the symbol AU to au because au seems to be preferred by articles like astronomical unit and parsec (the conversion was incomplete because some instances had to be AU because of some indiosyncrasy of the convert function, but this is by the way). I am now having second thoughts because I think the correct symbol should be neither of these, but ua, as this symbol is the one preferred by international standards bodies (e.g., BIPM and IEEE). Thoughts anyone? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

If a change like that is going to touch this article, it should probably be made to others as well. I suggest the right venue for discussion is the project talk page. Evensteven (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

You mean the astronomy project? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree this is not the best place for this discussion, best to take it to somewhere more people involved in the subject will see it like WikiProject Astronomy and indeed the astronomical unit talk page. In fact this has already been mentioned there, with ua seemingly not favoured at the time. ChiZeroOne (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I will raise it at the Astronomical unit. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

New discussion at Astronomical Unit

The above discussion was started at the Voyager 1 talk page and an editor pointed out that the matter had previously been discussed here. I'd like to raise the issue again. It seems to me that the international standard symbol is ua so that is what should be used in articles related to astronomy. What do others think? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it au is proper, but I have been using AU for years as it stands out better. -- Kheider (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

In what sense is au "proper" if ua is the international standard? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe that both au and AU are considered acceptable alternate usage by the international standards organizations. They are at least widely recognized. Evensteven (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

This is the English speaking Wikipedia. -- Kheider (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I've been around astronomy most of my life and have never seen nor heard of "ua" being used. It may be the preference of the international standards organisations, but it is not in use in practice, at least in my experience. We're here to be useful to the readers as a whole, not to ourselves or the elite experts. "AU" works best for us. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to be honest, I always prefer AU because that is an abbreviation. I've never considered light year to be ly. However, "ua"? I know my astronomy coverage is not the Solar System where this unit is used, however throughout my 9 years experience in astronomy I never saw "ua" was used. I think it was a French term, but even before Bessel measured the distance to 61 Cygni they used AU. So if ua is the standard, I've never seen it, even from works 400 or so years ago. SkyFlubbler ^(talk) 01:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd oppose any change to using "ua" , for one thing, it means Ukraine to me; for another WP:UE/WP:UCN/WP:JARGON, in English, it is usually "AU" or "A.U." or something like that. That "ua" isn't found in English to any great degree and with the English language popular press using A.U. , the use of "ua" falls into JARGON, and isn't the common form of the term in English. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe that "ua" is an abbreviation of the French term, unité astronomique. Evensteven (talk) 08:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

My question is not about abbreviations, in English, French or any other language. It is about the correct symbol. The international standards bodies IEEE and the BIPM both use ua, which seemed to me a strong argument. However, I have just been informed that the IAU has adopted au as its preferred symbol, and this is a strong counter-argument. Can we agree to use au (and not AU) on WP? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I would tend to disagree with "au" as well. Common usage suggests remaining with "AU", in addition to it being an acronym which tend to be capitalised. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Huntster. "AU" seems to be a wp:Common usage and it stands out better. The "au" standard was only recently adopted. And if anything this should be determined on a per article basis just as British vs American spelling is. I hate it when the wiki-police start enforcing a standard all across Wikipedia based on the consensus (opinion) of a handful of users. -- Kheider (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dondervogel, we know IEEE and BIPM are standards, but as far I know IAU is a more reliable standard source primarily because it consists the legion of best astronomers on Earth, so strictly speaking when IAU does not say ua even though the former two says so, certainly it's not ua! And besides, Wikipedia is about what most people thought of, and not all people on Earth can speak French, although most can understand English, so most people will understand it as "astronomical unit" or AU rather than "unité astronomique" which I can't even pronounce. I'm not told that IEEE and BIPM are the official declarers of standard units, and this is even the first time I was told about them. SkyFlubbler ^(talk) 14:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd quite strongly disagree with "au" (and "ua" isn't even English, but French; in other languages other symbols tend to be used: the Italian and Spanish WPs give (also) "UA", the Dutch one gives "AE", and the Greek one "α.μ."). I would opt for consistently using "AU" instead. The capitalized version is what I come across most. For example, JPL's database uses it. And "au" still tends to confuse me. --JorisvS (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

My personal preference is also for AU (caps, not small), regardless IEEE etc. The fact is, this is not an international unit (SI), and there is not international consensus on what should be used. I agree that the best international group to take recommendations from is theoretically IAU, but they also do not control common usage in any place or language. I think we must fall back on common English usage as the arbiter. There are no other standards widespread enough to apply to an international encyclopedia. Evensteven (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC) Addendum: And I agree that on the basis of common usage, there is no need to enforce a WP-wide standard either. Evensteven (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

My personal preference is also for AU based on common usage, fairly strongly. Usage in (English language) textbooks and the professional literature is overwhelmingly "AU". I don't recall ever seeing "ua", and "au" is uncommon and mostly in older texts. The IAU resolution surprises me, but given how uncommon such usage is anyway, I don't think it's binding on us anyway. I do also agree that there's no need to enforce a Wikipedia-wide standard, but I'd really object to someone going through and replacing all instances of "AU" with "au" or "ua". —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 18:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think there is open support yet for changing away from AU, and where it's in place it should stay so until there is a call for it to change. Evensteven (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a small observation – the convert template already uses "AU" as the unit symbol: {{convert|1|AU|km|abbr=on}} gives output 1 AU (150,000,000 km). I don't think there is a single convention that is broadly followed by everyone, so "AU" is likely as good a choice as any. Archon 2488 (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

AU is what I've seen all over the place. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Need for harmonisation

I was assuming when I started that there would be a general preference for harmonisation across WP articles, but some of the comments above lead me to question this assumption, so let’s settle the question of principle first. Regardless of what the adopted symbol, how much support is there for the thesis Wikipedia articles should adopt a single unit symbol for Astronomical unit? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I support the thesis. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
OPPOSE/DISAGREE. If anything this should be determined on a per article basis just as British vs American spelling is. -- Kheider (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
oppose (was support, now oppose until I see what will be harmonized on) I don't think there is much question about harmonization within the wiki; the debate in recent years on different symbols/abbreviations for the astronomical unit has centered on whether we should even mention alternate symbols which are used in the literature. Particular venom seems to be reserved for the BIPM "ua" (latin-based ordering), which one does see in the literature occasionally (most often in diagrams from articles translated from another language). I don't think there is any question we should not be using "ua" in the english language Wikipedia, but we do need to mention it in the introduction since it will appear in diagrams from other languages. The other debate seems to center on "au" vs "AU" vs "㍳". I believe the Unicode abbreviation (the last) is awkward, and while you often see AU capitalized to differentiate it from surrounding text, the proper form we should be using in the english language Wikipedia is "au". Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Standardize at A.U. (abbreviation) or AU (symbol) or written full out astronomical unit in articles which use this unit; remove all uses that use "au" or "ua". "㍳" should not be used, it is a special unicode symbol thus support may be spotty, and may show up as questionmarks, diamonds or blank squares. The authors of articles can choose between AU/A.U./astronomical unit as they please. I will note that the neither BIPM nor IEEE have any oversight over astronomy, while the IAU does. They are not astronomy bodies, so not competent authorities in the field under discussion. (They for instance, do not define planet, assign names to astronomical bodies, etc) This article, "astronomical unit" should mention all forms, and indicate the common form in English being AU/A.U./astroonmical unit; and indicate the auxiliary forms ㍳/ua as being special unicode and not used in English unit symbol. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose/Disagree. This seems like a solution in search of a problem. What problem does this proposal address? I agree that the British vs American spelling is a useful analogy. As long as each article is internally consistent, I see no need to enforce a project-wide standard. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 00:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. Not needed.

Additional Comment. Some of the replies above are going beyond the thesis asked for here: "should WP adopt a single unit symbol". They are replying yes, and it should be this one or that one. Presumably, the reply might not be yes if another unit symbol were chosen over their preferred one, so where does that leave this survey? Evensteven (talk) 08:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I presumed the intent was to go with the IAU-specified abbreviation, (au), but since that isn't obvious, I'm changing my support until that becomes obvious.Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 08:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. As others have said, treat this as an ENGVAR-type situation and standardise within individual articles only. Don't try to force the issue all at once across the entire site. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment: This discussion seems to be moving beyond the scope of this talk page, and it sounds to me like a discussion that would need to take place at WT:MOSNUM. Even if a consensus emerged here on what symbol to use (which now seems unlikely), it would have no bearing on any page beyond the attached article; we could not make a WP policy directly from it. With that in mind, I'd suggest that further discussion in this thread will not serve any purpose, so it should perhaps be moved to the MOS.

On the other hand, as ASHill observes above, this proposal does seem a bit like a solution in search of a problem, a point which would likely be raised in a discussion at the MOS level. If you want to persuade the wider community to approve something as policy, you usually need to show that there has been some disagreement at the article level which the policy would help to solve. For example, I recently started a discussion at MOSNUM about the correct unit symbol for standard gravity (when used as a unit of acceleration), which was ultimately inconclusive since it was considered premature to standardise at the MOS level without adequate discussion in article-space. So if this thread is to be continued, it would make most sense to switch from discussing standardisation across WP (which we cannot do here in any case) to discussing what convention should be followed in this article. Further standardisation would have to follow after that. Archon 2488 (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Though it's certainly true that any Wikipedia-wide decision would have to be made at the MOS level, this is as good as any a place for an initial discussion, I think. It has been pointed to (and drawn my attention) from wider pages including WT:ASTRONOMY, so I think a broad initial discussion is as good here as elsewhere. Developing some consensus amongst astronomy editors before going to the MOS level is probably appropriate. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 19:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Arguments for and against harmonisation

It seems I am the only editor arguing in favour of harmonisation. At the moment there is an apparently random mixture of au and AU across articles (there might be other symbols as well but these are the ones I have encountered). Because I do not comprehend the benefits of perpetuating this mixture, I propose we construct a list of arguments for and against harmonisation. The argument in favour of harmonisation is to reduce unnecessary confusion by use of multiple symbols. This the reason Wikipedia has chosen to adopt a single unit symbol for the metre (m, not mtr), a single unit symbol for the foot (ft, not ft.), a single unit symbol for the second (s, not sec), a single unit symbol for the bit (bit, not b) and so on. There is no parallel with engvar because there is no equivalent bipolar education system that teaches half of us to use AU and the other half au. Dondervogel 2 (talk)

All of those symbols have nearly universally-used standard abbreviations outside of Wikipedia. AU appears not to. ("AU" is by far the most common form, but apparently isn't recommended by any standards body, including the IAU.) —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 16:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I would say that of the examples I gave only one (m, for metre) is widely adopted outside WP. The rest are all over the place (s or sec for second, ft or ft. for foot, b or bit for bit). And there are plenty of other examples I could have chosen (e.g., nmi or NM, not nm for nautical mile; kn, not kt for knot, bit/s, not bps for bit per second) for which there is little or no standardization in the world at large, but for which WP has adopted a consistent symbol (or symbols). Dondervogel 2 (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, WP has largely standardised on a set of unit symbols – one for each unit, even when real-life usage is inconsistent. It makes sense for the project to be as internally consistent as possible; obviously ENGVAR is an exception, but in the case of unit symbols, there is usually not much of a question of regional variation. But as I said above, this isn't really the sort of thing that can be discussed meaningfully on an article talk page, since it would need broader community consensus before it could become MOS policy. For now, we should focus on what symbols to use in the article on the astronomical unit – the question of what symbol articles on planets should use can be discussed after that. Archon 2488 (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree also, but prefer not to expend more effort than necessary on a matter such as this. If discussion really has to be done at all, and unit symbol adoption is to become a mandate, I would agree that MOS policy is the only place where it belongs, as that presents the easiest means of informing and enforcement afterwards, as well as the proper breadth for consideration. Evensteven (talk) 06:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a point of note...the MOS is not policy, just a guideline. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm actually quite glad you point that out, since I frequently run into people who insist on citing the MOS as if it were holy scripture that only an infidel could disagree with (yeah, that is pretty much their tone). Archon 2488 (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Advantages

The choice of a unique unit symbol makes Wikipedia easier to read.

Disadvantages

The choice of a unique unit symbol requires Wikipedia to make a judgment that the world has not made. WP is supposed to be reflective, not assertive. Evensteven (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
The choice of a unique unit symbol requires Wikipedia to maintain that symbol alone in its articles, requiring some editor to produce an explanation to every new or visiting editor who comes along with something different, like, say, some alternative they encountered in the real world. Evensteven (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Both the Minor Planet Center database and JPL Small-Body Database use AU and it is always good for the articles to match the source. -- Kheider (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I find myself unable to follow the logic of the first two. The third one I understand. Specifically

This is tantamount to saying "I cannot decide because that would require me to decide". WP reports what is written elsewhere, and in that sense it is reflective. But there is no requirement to repeat spelling mistakes (for example) except in a verbatim quote.
On the contrary, it is the absence of harmonization that leads to a requirement to explain each new symbol on each new article.
This is the one I understand. There is a clear conflict between following the unit symbols in sources and adopting one of them.

Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the first point is simply saying that it is not WP's place to standardise in the absence of real-world standardisation (perhaps this is a NPOV-related argument). But as you point out, we already do this for most other units.

I tend to agree more with you on point 2, that harmonisation makes the encyclopedia easier to read, which I think is the real goal. However, it's not inconceivable that if we picked one symbol, a new editor might be confused if our choice was not of the symbol they are more familiar with (I think this was the original point).

There's another problem in your analysis of point 3; WP explicitly doesn't follow the stylistic conventions of the specific sources which happen to be cited in a given article, because it has its own MOS. Normal WP practice is to pick a symbol for each unit and stick with it, even if particular sources use diverse practices. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

A further point is that AU is an uncommon-enough unit that it should be defined at first use in every article (ie "Jupiter is 5 astronomical units (AU) from the Sun"), so whatever definition is used in the article should be consistent. (I don't know More common units like m and kg don't need to be defined. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 19:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The MOS standard practice is "In prose, unit names should be given in full if used only a few times, but symbols may be used when a unit (especially one with a long name) is used repeatedly, after spelling out the first use (e.g. Up to 15 kilograms of filler is used for a batch of 250 kg)." So this is what I'd recommend for the astronomical unit. For more unusual units, there is also the option to gloss the unit at first mention (so at first mention of the astronomical unit, you could link to this article). The convert template supports this: {{convert|12|AU|km|lk=in}} gives output "12 astronomical units (1.8×10⁹ km)". Archon 2488 (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Conclusion

The gist of the above comments is that editors at Astronomical Unit a) prefer not to harmonise and b) prefer not to discuss harmonisation, making it pointless to continue the discussion. Goodbye and farewell. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Dondervogel 2 has resumed this discussion at WT:MOSNUM#What is the correct symbol for astronomical unit?. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 16:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks like user: Evensteven not Dondervogel2 that resumed the discussion there. DV2 just left a note about the discussion occurring here. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

No. At the time, I continued there because I had thought the discussion had moved. Let it be as you and Dondervogel2 wish, and continue here. My only issue with venue was to ensure wide participation by interested parties, and apparently everyone has settled on where to have it. Evensteven (talk) 06:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

This has come up again with new edits to this article. I'm pretty sure that "AU" is the most common usage (despite the IAU standard), so saying "sometimes AU" in the lede of the article isn't right. Maybe the article should say explicitly, either in the main text or in a footnote, that the IAU specifies "au" but "AU" is in widespread usage (assuming we can find a source that says that, which I assume we can)? Note that this is a different issue from which symbol we use to choose for usage throughout Wikipedia. In the encyclopedia article on the astronomical unit, we should describe the situation in the real world even if we do follow the IAU recommendation as a matter of style when simply using AU as a unit. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

In fact, I see that we already do say this in the body, though I don't think the text in the body really reflects common usage. I'll see if I can find a better source. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with putting AU before au in the lede. The international standard symbols are ua and au. I know AU is common in Wikipedia but I blame that on the Convert template, which does not support use of the international standard. But it is not a good reason to have AU predominate here. If there is a source saying that AU is more common than the international standards in scientific literature, then that source needs to be cited. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

AU is common on Wikipedia simply because it's common everywhere. But sources that discuss this are hard to find (and I see no sources that say that "au" or "ua" are commonly used either; we simply have sources that say they're recommended — a very different thing). Instead, most sources simply use one or the other without discussion (presumably since the distinction is not that interesting; both are clear enough). Even the sources that specify rarely say why or make any comment about common usage; at least, I haven't been able to find any that do. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 16:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

This has been brought up again, this time at WT:MOSNUM. Editors may wish to discuss there. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 12:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

AU vs au

I know there has been a lot of discussion about "AU vs au", but there is currently a discrepancy in the Manual of Style and this article. See:

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Specific_units

which states "AU (not A.U., au, ua)" and links to astronomical unit, where "au" is preferred over "AU". This article or the entry in Manual of Style has to change. Last time I edited the article, AU was changed into au, so I won't do that myself anymore, but I will continue to bring it up until this cognitive dissonance is recognized. -- Rfassbind – talk 22:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The MOSNUM rule you refer to was added quite recently (a few weeks ago). Before the rule was added I would have argued for au here (and probably did), on the grounds that au is preferred by both BIPM and IAU. Now there is consensus at MOSNUM for AU, I see no reason not to bring this article into line. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Yup, the determination of the consensus out of that discussion was that there is a consensus to use AU. I agree that following that consensus in this article is appropriate, and I'll do it. I think keeping the discussion of the various symbols is helpful; I'm not sure if the discussion needs to be changed. The problem is that for a style consensus, Wikipedia editors conducting original research to determine that AU is most commonly used is fine, but we obviously can't use that original research in the article itself. We failed to find any sources that say whether AU or au (or some other symbol) is most commonly used, although I think the finding of our original research was pretty clear that AU is most commonly used. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 23:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Do note, Manual of Style says how wikipedia should format its usage. That's an internal standard. What we cannot do is remove content which disagrees with the manual of style. We can change internal use within the article to use AU in cases where the usage is not specific to a standards body - but anything referring to a standard must continue to use the abbreviation that standard requires. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, the issue (with the article) is about "preference", not "removal". Rfassbind – talk 15:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Spelling

The word "kilometre" first appeared in the article on 6 June 2003 it was spelt in the Commonwealth way (as opposed to the US way "kilometer"). For eight years, the article continued to use "metre", "kilometre", "centre", etc. until this piece of vandalism by Crashkidd34 on 17 June 2011. The vandalism introduced an inconsistency in spelling which persisted until 8 February when the long-established style was restored. Hours later, this was switched to US spelling with the comment "restore American spelling per WP:ENGVAR; it was used primarily before recent series of edits". This was done presumably in good faith, there's nothing wrong with going with the most commonly used style in an article; however, ENGVAR doesn't mention that. What ENGVAR does point out, though, is "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary.". It's irrelevant that the vandal managed to get most of the "metre"s, "kilometre"s, etc., it was still vandalism. I don't blame Ashill for not checking this out but the established style is Commonwealth spelling. Jimp 04:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

New image

I am moving the following discussion from my talk page. I oppose the addition of the image because it is confusing. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

What's confusing about the image? It is clearly a line connecting the Sun and Earth. Pretty simple. The image, of course, shouldn't be the explanation itself. It is just an illustration. Huritisho (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Perspective images are not usually used for astronomical drawings. If the reader interprets it like most drawings that appear in serious articles about astronomy, the reader will think the distance from the Earth to the Sun is about three times greater than the distance from the Earth to the Moon. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hm. Is that really a big deal? Regardless of the position of the Moon, the Sun-Earth distance will still remain the same. The article isn't about the position of the Moon afterall. The line is there indicating the Sun-Earth distance and I think it is a perfect image to use in that article. Sorry, but I do intend to add it again. If you really want to remove it, start a discussion in the talk page. Cheers! Huritisho (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The point is that the image doesn't provide any meaningful information. If it provided scale, that might be relevant, but simply having three white dots with a line between them marked a (non-AU) distance doesn't add anything. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not see how the image helps the article. To the casual observer the moon can look like it is 50 million km from Earth. -- Kheider (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It is just an illustration to make the article more friendly. The real information should obviously be contained in the article. What if I edit the image and remove the Moon and it's orbit. Would that be ok? Huritisho (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the image is not helpful. Even without the moon there are a few stars in the background which clearly don't fit in the scale of the drawing. If you wanted an image to show what an astronomical unit is and how it fits in the scheme of things, I'd suggest a scale drawing of the Sun and the orbits of the four inner planets (Mercury through Mars) with the planets enlarged for visibility. The AU could then be illustrated by a line from the Sun to the orbit of the Earth. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@SteveMcCluskey: Gosh, the stars are clearly just an illustration. They have nothing to do with the Sun-Earth distance and nobody is even going to look at them. You know what? Remove the image. You guys are too full of perfectionisms. I give up. Huritisho (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

New new image

As suggested by -SteveMcCluskey, I added that image. The text could be a little bigger, I think... Huritisho 17:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

"On average" or "about"

In the caption for the new image, it initially said the distance between the Earth and the Sun was "on average" 1AU, then that was changed to say "about" 1AU. That distance, however, changes, and "on average" sent that message across; "about" doesn't, and additionally, it makes one assume it's roughly similar, while in fact it is exactly that distance (albeit on average) as the AU was originally defined that way. So, I'd like to restore "on average" in the absence of objections. LjL (talk) 12:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the AU has been defined strictly defined as "on average" in recent times. Sure, if you measured the distance at many different instants that in some sense were "fairly distributed" you would get close to 1 AU, but I don't believe that has been the definition in the last several decades. I don't know what the original definition was back when the term was first coined. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

In the context of that caption, though, it's not about what the definition is, but what the distance actually is. The article itself states: "Originally conceived as the average of Earth's aphelion and perihelion, it is now defined as exactly 149597870700 metres (about 150 million kilometres, or 93 million miles)." So yes, originally it was defined as the very average; now that has been frozen into an exact number. LjL (talk) 13:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Before it was frozen as exactly 149597870700 metres it had other definitions:

the radius of a circular orbit in which a body of negligible mass, and free of perturbations, would revolve around the sun in 2π/k days, k being the Gaussian gravitational constant. ("Glossary" of Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac, 2013)

...in astronomical units, the mean distance of the Earth from the Sun, calculated by Kepler's law from the observed mean motion m and adopted mass m is 1.00000003.[Hence the mean distance of the Earth from the Sun is not exactly 1 AU.] (Explanatory Supplement to the Ephemeris, 1961, p. 96)

Jc3s5h (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

If "on average" alone is not adequate because it's not exactly 1AU on average, then I propose having both: "on average about 1AU". LjL (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

That's OK with me. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

1976 definition

In 1976, in order to establish a yet more precise measure for the astronomical unit, the IAU formally adopted a new definition. Although directly based on the then-best available observational measurements, the definition was recast in terms of the then-best mathematical derivations from celestial mechanics and planetary ephemerides. It stated that "the astronomical unit of length is that length (A) for which the Gaussian gravitational constant (k) takes the value 0.01720209895 when the units of measurement are the astronomical units of length, mass and time". Equivalently, by this definition, one AU is the radius of an unperturbed circular Newtonian orbit about the sun of a particle having infinitesimal mass, moving with an angular frequency of 0.01720209895 radians per day; or alternatively that length for which the heliocentric gravitational constant (the product GM☉) is equal to (0.01720209895)2 AU3/d2, when the length is used to describe the positions of objects in the Solar System.

There are several problems with this paragraph.

The IAU defined the a.u. like this in 1964. The 1976 system of constants continued it.
It wasn't based on best available measurements. It was based on the definition Gauss gave to his gravitational constant, as described above. If it had been based on measurements, it would have been some fixed value like it is now, like 149597870700 m. Defined as above, it is essentially an equation. Its value varies depending on what you plug into it.
heliocentric gravitational constant points to standard gravitational parameter, which is indeed equal to GM_☉ in the case of the Sun. However, k² is not equal to GM_☉ as stated here, it is equal to G. This error seems to have gotten into many Wikipedia articles.

See Gaussian gravitational constant for references for all of this. Tfr000 (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Astronomical unit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Astronomical unit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Astronomical unit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706151452/http://www.astronomy2009.com.br/10.pdf to http://www.astronomy2009.com.br/10.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dsellers.demon.co.uk/venus/ven_ch8.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070216041250/http://www.iau.org/Units.234.0.html to http://www.iau.org/Units.234.0.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Nominated for Good Article

Today I nominated this short article to Good Article status. This article is well written (in UK English), illustrated (3 pictures, 3 tables and 1 panel), covers both the mathematical and historical aspects and in general follows at least 5 of the 6 standards (Well written, Verifiable, Neutral, Stable, Illustrated). Mdob (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Astronomical unit/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 13:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

It may take me a couple days to get through every item on this list. If you disagree with any of my comments, don't hesitate to argue them - I'm willing to be persuaded. Once complete, I'll be using this review to score points in the 2018 wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Lead
"it is since 2012 defined as exactly" - awkward. I suggest "Since 2012, it has been" or "It was defined as exactly... since 2012".
changed accordingly Mdob (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

"used primarily as a convenient yardstick for measuring distances" - I suggest removing "as a convenient yardstick"
changed accordingly Mdob (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Symbol usage
The sentence structure in this section is awkward. I suggest combining the two sentences that discuss ua being recommend and used, and also combining the two sentences discussing au being recommend and used.
changed accordingly Mdob (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Development of unit definition
See 1B and 2C for other notes on this section

"means of our understanding of the laws" - to whom does our refer? Who did the checking and cross-checking? Who assembled the ephemeris, and when did they do it? Is all the information in this paragraph taken from source [9]?
changed from "our" to "the" to keep it neutral Mdob (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the word "adopted" should be included in the link to the 1976 resolution.
changed accordingly Mdob (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

"the distance of an object from the probe is basically the product..." this seems very informal. I suggest "the distance of an object from the probe is calculated as the product..."
changed accordingly Mdob (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Usage and significance
"and "vigorous debate" ensued" this is cited, but the direct quote needs to be attributed inline.
I didn't have the time/didn't know how to change it. My apologies. Mdob (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

"until in August 2012 the IAU adopted " - suggest "until August 2012 when the IAU adopted "
changed accordingly Mdob (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

History
"the distance that Van Helden assumes Aristarchus used " - who is Van Helden? He's cited but never introduced in the text.
I didn't have the time/didn't know how to change it. My apologies. Mdob (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Developments
"which is increasingly becoming the norm." - this needs to be cited.
I didn't have the time/didn't know how to change it. My apologies. Mdob (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The 2004 study on secular increase is interesting, but it's not clear how it relates to the rest of the article.
I didn't have the time/didn't know how to change it. My apologies. Mdob (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

"since 2010, the astronomical unit is not yet estimated " - this is awkward wording. I suggest "since 2010, the astronomical unit has not been estimated ".
changed accordingly (I guess, gonna check again) Mdob (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Yep, changed accordingly Mdob (talk) 10:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, the source for this claim is dated 2011. Is it still accurate?
I didn't have the time/didn't know how to change it. My apologies. Mdob (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Examples
"figures in this table are generally rounded, estimates, often rough estimates, and" - suggest "figures in this table are generally rounded and often rough estimates, and".
I didn't have the time/didn't know how to change it. My apologies. Mdob (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

"may considerably differ from other sources" - most of the examples are unsourced. If they're rough estimates, who calculated them?

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
I couldn't find a MOS for the Measurement project, but it seems odd to have two development sections. After reviewing the material, it looks like "Development of unit definition" is really just more recent elements of "History". I suggest combining the two.
Clarifying that one section is the history of the symbol usage is also acceptable. No issue here. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
no concern

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
no concern

C. It contains no original research:
"In the astronomical literature, the symbol AU was (and remains) common." - This is true in my experience, but the claim isn't cited in the section or in the parenthetical part of the opening sentence.
I didn't have the time/didn't know how to change it. My apologies. Mdob (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The first paragraph in the Development section has no citations and some of the claims seem like original research. For example, "measuring the points of its extremes defined the exact shape mathematically" is only true in hindsight and ignores the processes used in estimates made by observers in the time of geocentrism and epicycles. I suggest rewriting the paragraph to focus less on the mechanics of an ellipse and more on how astronomers have been estimating the distance and using it as an element in other distance calculations.
I didn't have the time/didn't know how to change it. My apologies. Mdob (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Earwig shows some high returns due to unavoidable phrases like "The International Bureau of Weights and Measures" and "the speed of light in a vacuum"
I've put the part of "Newtonian orbit about the sun" between quotes. Simply changing the words in the sentence would not have avoided plagiarism. The statement is already sourced (http://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si_brochure_8_en.pdf). "speed of light in vaccum", "International System of Units", etc are too short and too much used by everyone to constitute plagiarism. Mdob (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion here - I wasn't indicating a concern about plagiarism, just noting the cause of the high return on the earwig tool. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
no concern

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
no concern
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
no concern
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
no concern
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
no concern

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
no concern
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Notes complete. Final decision depends on response to issues raised. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
@Mdob: you addressed some points and indicated you wanted to respond on this page. Is this still something you're working on? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
On my talk page, Mdob asked me to fail this nomination since he is occupied with schoolwork. He will continue to improve the article and might re-nominate in the future. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)