Talk:List of astronomical objects named after people

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Anthroponymy

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the study of people's names on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthroponymyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthroponymyTemplate:WikiProject AnthroponymyAnthroponymy
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Astronomy: Astronomical objects Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

Untitled

The two instances of "topological" should be "topographic" instead. 69.95.141.181 (talk) 10:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of astronomical objects named after people. 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, 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) 09:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merging in lists

Following this discussion I did some digging and found this article, which would be a good place, both as a "list of lists", as well as a better repository for the contents of Thai names in space and Russian names in space. I think it would need a little bit of reorganizing (since the "Deep Sky Objects" are already listed at Stars named after people, etc) but I think it would make the whole subject a bit cleaner. Primefac (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For minor planets, there's already a huge series of lists at Meanings of minor planet names, so unless some form of by-country grouping is going to be retained (in which case the country lists should probably be kept), there's really no need for a merge. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually thinking of a table along the lines of List of craters on Mars: A–G; a list is going to be long and won't necessarily have all of the "useful" info. If we have columns for "object", "person", and "nationality" (and others, if desired) then we maintain the by-country grouping without needing to split them. As I said above, for "minor planets" or "stars" we would just use a {{main}} hatnote; no point in duplicating the information. Primefac (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, we could still separate it by country; there's nothing that says we have to just give a straight-up list. Primefac (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I completely understand your suggestions yet I got the feeling it requires a lot of work. It looks (to me) like a bit too much. Also it won't group together Mars, Venus, Moon craters named after Thai people or things in Thailand. Avram25 (talk) 00:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good articles take some amount of work, yes. You can't just bung a bunch of Wikilinks into a bulleted list and call it good. Primefac (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure nomenclature (open star clusters)

From my forbidden explorations and investigations in the library of astronomy and astrophysics (the university of Ghent, East Flanders) I learned about the existence of a very unknown sort of nomenclature related to open star clusters. There is, for example, the open star cluster IC 348 in Perseus, which is also called "Gingrich" (Gingrich 1?). Another example is open star cluster is IC 4756 in Serpens, which is also called "Graff" (Graff 1?). And there is also the open star cluster Basel 1 in Scutum, which seems to be called "Apriamashv." (probably from Apriamashvili, or Apriamashvili 1?). There are many more examples of this sort of nomenclature, unfortunately almost nothing about the sources of these is (or are) online. DannyCaes (talk) 08:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what the question is, but based on some editing I was doing the other day I think this is old nomenclature from "the first star that Graff catalogued" from back in the days when everyone and everyone was making their own lists.

That being said, if there's a reference, even if it's offline, it can be used to verify information on a page. Unless we clarify whether it's truly "named after XYZ" or just "XYZ star #1 from their catalogue" I wouldn't say we need to add every person. On the third hand, though, I think it would be reasonable to have a section specifically for catalogue names (the paragraph on galaxies (discussing Messier, Arp, etc) is a bit shoehorned in, and it might be nice to have an entire section discussing and linking to all of the named catalogues. Primefac (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, lunar crater nomenclature was (before the I.A.U. came up with their rules) also such a wilderness. Quite adventurous I must say. For example, the Spanish names from Hugh Percy Wilkins and Patrick Moore, in their book The Moon and on several pre-Apollo lunar maps, are an amateur selenographer's bonanza! It is a great hobby (searching all sorts of obscure lunar maps and atlases, to look for non-I.A.U. nomenclature). DannyCaes (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly, Graff appears in the CDS Dictionary of Nomenclature as a valid designation, as if it were a catalogue with just one entry (N:1 on that page). However there's no indication of where the name comes from. 'Cl Graff 1' is a valid query on SIMBAD, but says there are no references. Seems to be a dead end. I can't find anything for Gingrich. Modest Genius ^talk 17:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barnard

I stuck Barnard's various objects in their own section because I felt having a few random objects scattered throughout was a bit odd. That being said, the section stuck at the end looks a bit odd. So I guess the question is, should we treat folks who have multiple objects as unique and split them off, or just put their objects in their appropriate places? Primefac (talk) 10:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the "name" Barnard's S Nebula (Barnard 72, the dark snake nebula in Ophiuchus) is included in Hugh C. Maddocks's handy booklet Deep-Sky Name Index 2000.0 from 1991 (a derivate of the Sky Catalogue 2000.0: Volume 2 from 1985), but I guess H.C.Maddocks invented that name by himself (it is not included in the Sky Catalogue 2000.0). I noticed that you deleted that "name" (although, on the other hand, there's an interesting Wikipedia article about Barnard 72, aka The Snake). I (myself) invented some names too, such as Aitken's Nebula and Young's Galaxy (partly because each one of these astronomers seem to have discovered only one object that got a number in the Index Catalogue) (I thought: there's Coddington's Nebula (IC 2574), so there must be many more of those "only one object" cases). Frankly, if I would receive a "carte blanche" from the I.A.U., the world of astronomy would receive hundreds or thousands of new names from me! (the universe is not quite a small thing, and... names are much more recognizable than academic or cold catalog numbers). DannyCaes (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(groan) maybe see how we go adding more and seeing if others. Not a huge fan of splitting off all Barnard's ones....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think I might merge them back into their respective sections. Primefac (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A mystery... the origin of the name Haufen

Could somebody of the English speaking astronomy-related Wikipedians tell me something about the name Haufen? There is an astronomical object (or group of objects) which is known as Haufen A, aka Abell 151 at 1h 08.9m / -15° 25' (2000.0) in the constellation Cetus (the whale). Now who or what is or was Haufen? Is it the name of the discoverer of this object? Or perhaps of the observatory where the discovery was performed? This name (Haufen A) is mentioned in the extremely interesting book SKY CATALOGUE 2000.0, Volume 2: Double Stars, Variable Stars and Nonstellar Objects (1985). See page xlvii in the book's very fascinating chapter GLOSSARY OF SELECTED ASTRONOMICAL NAMES. DannyCaes (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another mystery... Heiles clouds

Much more mysterious than the above mentioned object (or cluster of objects) called Haufen A are the Heiles clouds, of which no coordinates are mentioned. All what is known is the fact that they are (or should be) high-opacity dust clouds. Also mentioned are the three numbers 1, 2 and 4 (the catalog numbers of these clouds?). Also mentioned is the printed source, which I don't have: ApJ, 151, 919, 1968. Are these mysterious clouds perhaps related to the astronomer Carl Eugene Heiles? DannyCaes (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]