Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

WikiProject Astronomy was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 14 January 2013.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38

Merged from old talk

Old WikiProject Telescopes talk

Topical archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Shortcuts

Something weird is happening with the Vega article

I keep an eye on the "Category:Objects with variable star designations" page. Today, a new entry appeared: Shaybah Airport . If you go to that article, Shaybah_Airport, you will see an odd mixture of an article about a Saudi Airport, and the Vega article. It is not the case that some vandal pasted a bunch of the Vega article into that article. It seems to be some kind of redirect misfire, but I can't figure out what is happening. PopePompus (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I found the problem. Someone put {\{:Vega}} (without the "\", into the airport article. PopePompus (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a vandal did transclude the Vega article into the Shaybah Airport article, and then you reverted it. I'm not sure why that category would have been added though, since Vega isn't in it. SevenSpheres (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into it. I didn't even know you could transclude that way. PopePompus (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, you can have templates link with the brackets on a page by doing {{tl}}. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-add categories to odlist template

There's a discussion at "Template talk:Odlist#Auto-add categories?" that could use more input from other editors. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Can I join? Catlover1519 (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no membership, you just jump in and participate. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"failed star"

Deletion discussion at Kepler-1047 c

Please share your thoughts at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kepler-1047 c, as this article is in a deletion discussion and may be deleted. 21 Andromedae (talk) 16:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for additional graphics for Constellation pages

NSF NOIRLab and ESA have just released a complete series of highres photos of all 88 constellations: https://noirlab.edu/public/education/constellations/ These are released under Creative Commons Attribution. It would be a pleasure if someone wants to upload them and show them on the Constellation pages. More information about the project here: https://noirlab.edu/public/news/noirlab2430/ (Lars_Lindberg_Christensen|talk) 8:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree, these are far better than the current images. If nobody complains (which i think will not happen), i will exchange the images. 21 Andromedae (talk) 13:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current lead images in constellation articles are diagrams, while these are annotated astrophotographs. I'm not sure why one should be considered "better" than the other. An argument for keeping the current images is that bright stars and other objects are labeled. Maybe constellation articles could use both images - one as the lead image and one in the article body? SevenSpheres (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's the issue, they are not labelled, but anyone with some software like paint.NET can easily add labels. A true picture of the sky is better than a diagram, especially when the latter is in "negative color", with the backgound white and the stars black. 21 Andromedae (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is a reason why many modern star charts are styled that way--readability and simplicity. However, I agree that it may make more sense to represent constellations with an actual (annotated) photo rather than a diagram, so perhaps we can opt to switch their places: the new images go in the infobox, and the diagrams can be placed further down in the article body. Ark Hyena (it/its) 00:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most constellation pages have annotated images of the night sky in the article body, and I agree with replacing those images with the new ones. The current images in the article body are more difficult to read and lower resolution compared to the NOIRLab images. I am against replacing the diagrams in the infoboxes for the concerns voiced by SevenSpheres. Ark Hyena (it/its) 18:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beware that the text accompanying the images has major errors of fact as well as typos. They would have done better to simply quote Wikipedia. Skeptic2 (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current star charts are more information-rich than these images, so I think we should stick with the charts for the infobox. But I agree they would be useful in the sense of visual constellation identification, down in the feature sections. Praemonitus (talk) 06:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category fixing and notable works set on Mars?

See Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Works/Fiction_by_setting_(space). TL;DR if you can think of articles about non-fiction Category:Works set on Mars, it would be good to save it from deletion. Ditto for Category:Works set on the Moon (should be easier). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Time Allocation Committee

I have long noticed that WP science articles don't say much about how scientists actually work. For astronomy, we don't correct the assumption among laymen that astronomers spend their night sitting on a tall stool and staring into the eyepiece of a big telescope, when actually they spend far more time staring into the screen of the computer on their desk. Something I long knew about observational astronomy is that time on major telescopes is perennially scarce. Recently I learned (in Quora) that there are TACs that rate proposals and rank them according to merit for the various observatories, and those ratings are the main way to get time. Seems to me, this matter should be mentioned in one of our articles. Which one, I don't know. As for sources, a very quick Google search found [1] and [2] which are very specific rather than general, and probably more general references can be found with a little more searching. Suggestions? Jim.henderson (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If enough information can be dug up about them, a separate article for Time allocation committees could be set up. If they're a significant player in how observational astronomy functions now, we ought to document how they work and what work they do. I've found some sites which could be potentially useful sources, though many are arguably primary: [3][4][5][6]. At least one source investigates systemic issues regarding TACs: [7] Ark Hyena (it/its) 02:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the topic is notable and a separate article at time allocation committee would be appropriate. The difficulty would be saying something about TACs in general without getting bogged down in details specific to (say) how ESO or STSci run theirs. Most of the sources would indeed be primary, but there should be some secondary coverage in popular science books. I'm a little sceptical that someone could write an accurate article if they only recently heard of the concept - I expect there are WP:AST project members who have served on TACs. I've applied to multiple different TACs myself, with mixed success, so have some knowledge of how the process works. If someone starts a draft (in draft or user space) I'll be happy to give feedback. Modest Genius ^talk 12:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that this name does not appear to be applied to major research platforms that have unique capabilities and high demand in other areas. For example, how does LHC handle themselves? DMacks (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The LHC is a poor example (for reasons I won't go into), but there are equivalent processes at synchrotron light sources. However as far as I am aware they use different terminology, e.g. ESRF calls them 'proposal review panels' and Diamond uses 'peer review panel'. When I google for "time allocation committee", the first 50 hits all refer to astronomy (I didn't check any further). So while similar concepts exist in other fields, the name is unambiguous and specific to astronomy. Modest Genius ^talk 13:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atmospheres of Jupiter and Saturn

It has recently been discovered that the clouds of Jupiter are made of ammonium hydrosulfide mixed with smog, not ammonia ice, as has been previously believed and that the same applies to Saturn. https://phys.org/news/2025-01-citizen-science-reveals-jupiter-clouds.amp How should I go about searching for information that needs to be changed in articles such as atmosphere of Jupiter? Sushidude21! (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The scientific article the phys.org abstracted is:

Irwin, P. G. J., Hill, S. M., Fletcher, L. N., Alexander, C., & Rogers, J. H. (2025). Clouds and ammonia in the atmospheres of Jupiter and Saturn determined from a band-depth analysis of VLT/MUSE observations. Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 130, e2024JE008622. https://doi.org/10.1029/2024JE008622

It is open access and, not surprisingly, does not use the word "smog". Rather they suggest that "the main aerosols are haze layers composed of an accumulation of photochemical products combined with condensates of perhaps" ammonium hydrosulfide.

Normally a new paper is not encyclopedia material, but this paper can be considered as verifying the work of Hill using "amateur" equipment with the analysis technique of Combes & Encrenaz, 1979. The paper also reviews a lot of related work on the atmosphere of Jupiter, but my summary would be "we still don't have a solid understanding". Johnjbarton (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Johnjbarton seems to have a better handle on this than I do. Still, I want to offer a comment: never trust phys.org, which simply regurgitates press releases issued by the institutions or observatories involved. That is not an independent or reliable source. If the researchers themselves describe the results as merely 'perhaps' and 'fraught with difficulty as this is a very degenerate problem', I wouldn't read too much into it. I think it's fair to say that the idea of ammonia clouds has been challenged, citing this paper, but not that it has been disproven or that ammonium hydrosulfide is the correct composition. Modest Genius ^talk 20:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How_many_timelines_of_the_universe_we_need?

This topic on the Physics Talk page maybe of interest to readers here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#How_many_timelines_of_the_universe_we_need?

Mainly involves Timeline of the early universe and Chronology of the universe. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FAR for Hydrogen

I have nominated Hydrogen for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 03:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:2MASS J05352184−0546085#Requested move 29 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2MASS J05352184−0546085#Requested move 29 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of galaxies

Someone just filled this article on every single unreferenced sentence with a citation needed tag. And I mean every single sentence, even simple facts like the Milky Way being the home galaxy of Earth.

I do not want to erase every tag as some are warranted, but some are totally obnoxious, others are already referenced but placed on the numbers rather than the notes, and others can be easily verified by clicking on the article links. The lists looks like a total mess at the moment with all of those tags. SkyFlubbler (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those tags were added by @EF5. The article has >150 references, but few in a couple of sections. In my experience the appropriate way to handle this is with {{More citations needed section}}. That gets the point across without spamming the article.

More important, we should consistently revert additions without sources. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the list was unreferenced, what else was I supposed to do? E_F⁵ 17:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page contains many lists. Please take a look at the current version to see how I tagged the Named galaxies section. Another option is to open at topic on the Talk page complaining about the lack of sources.

A large fraction of wikipedia pages need more references. What strategy will work the best to increase the proportion of references? Tagging every sentence increases the content, slightly reducing the proportion cited. Adding citations, deleting unsourced content, and reverting unsourced additions are all mechanism guaranteed to improve the ratio. Tagging a sentence in an otherwise sourced section or tagging a section in an otherwise source article alerts editors to areas which need help.

Those are my suggestions for what else to do. HTH. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the cn's in the #named galaxies section because most of them were unnecessary (I mean, really a ref for Butterfly galaxy being named after a butterfly?). As mentioned above, if there are substantive concerns about a particular fact, feel free to add a tag to that particular fact, but indiscriminate tagging is inappropriate. Primefac (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your CN removal. Most of those names really do need citations, because they're not obviously "common names" in the way e.g. Andromeda is. Some of them look like they might have been given a name by an APOD editor, without any other prior art. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I disagreed with the blanket "cn everything", because you even left your own example (Andromeda) as needing a citation. Indiscriminate tagging helps no one and wastes editor time. I have no issue with someone actually thinking about what needs a citation, but just "everything needs one" is a problem. Primefac (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

D-M-Y date standard for minor planet articles?

Per MOS:DATERET, it is my understanding that we should be retaining the date format with an article. However, user Nrco0e appears to be imposing a day-month-year format across minor planet articles. An example is this edit. Was this agreed upon by this WikiProject or perhaps WP:Astronomical Objects? If not, it seems perhaps questionable. If it is a consensus, then it should probably be documented on WP:ASTROSTYLE. Praemonitus (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Praemonitus: I admit I wasn't aware of the MOS:DATERET rule. When I made that edit that you linked here, I thought that date formats were already standardized for minor planet articles (since I've seen and edited many other minor planet articles that use the dd-mm-yy format), and also that it would be fine to change the date format of an article if it appears neglected with very infrequent edits. The latter decision is obviously wrong now that you mention it, but whether to take action on my past date format changes (and decide if there is a standard date format for minor planet articles), that definitely needs discussion.

@Nrco0e: Oh, okay. Praemonitus (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, I'm indifferent about date formatting, as long it isn't too difficult or varies too much from article-to-article. I'm somewhat obsessive-compulsive when it comes to formatting, which is why I strongly adhere to consistent and organized date and reference formats (I admit I'm guilty of unreasonably enforcing that way of formatting in articles I've significantly contributed to, like in this edit of Hippocamp). For example, I find dd-mm-yyyy and mm-dd-yyyy confusing because I easily mix up the dd and mm numbers, which is why I prefer spelling out the month. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 06:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of date formatting, each article is an island onto itself. Each just needs to be self-consistent and follow the earliest style. (The use XXX dates templates are helpful.) Changing the date style usually requires gaining consensus on the talk page. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move discussion (Astronomical catalog(ue))

I'd welcome discussion on the technical moves page for Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#c-Musiconeologist-20250121192900-Mnorris1921-20250121232600 this request re the Astronomical catalog article. The article was initially jumping between US and UK spelling, which I rightly or wrongly standardised to catalogue for practical reasons (e.g. consistency with mentioned names like New General Catalogue). Everything is now consistent except the article title.

I don't mind turning out to be wrong if I am, but I'd prefer the decision to be based on the opinions of people involved in the subject area, not just me and whoever visits the requested moves page. Musiconeologist (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Timeline of the early universe#Requested move 7 January 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Timeline of the early universe#Requested move 7 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 18:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Possible dwarf planets & Template:Dwarf planets

Recently User:ThePurgatori been unilaterally adding Category:Possible dwarf planets to an alarmingly high number (over 300!) of TNO articles, even those like 88611 Teharonhiawako which have diameters below 300 km, which is smaller than the smallest round moon Mimas (400 km). From what I've seen with their edits, they either don't give a source for the "possible dwarf planet" category or they cite only Mike Brown's list of dwarf planets, which hasn't been updated for almost 2 years. Almost every single TNO that was mentioned in Brown's list was given the "Possible dwarf planets" category by ThePurgatori, who has not given any justification via talk page nor edit summary. I find that problematic because that category is essentially justified by only Mike Brown's list website, which is not quite neutral point of view (gives Mike Brown undue weight; this is an issue because his statements about dwarf planet likelihood are often placed in lede sentences of TNO articles). I've already brought up a discussion questioning the reliability of Mike Brown's list website on Talk:List of possible dwarf planets#User adding Category:Possible dwarf planets to too many TNO articles & Brown's list.

Anyways, I would like to know how we should use "Category:Possible dwarf planets" for minor planet articles. Indiscriminately slapping that category to every single TNO listed on an astronomer's old website is obviously not the right option in my opinion. Personally, I believe that category should only be used for TNOs that have been *explicitly* called dwarf planet candidates in peer-reviewed scientific papers that have been published recently, for example 2002 MS4 and 2014 OE394 in Verbiscer et al. 2022. By doing it this way, we can avoid making unsourced and unchallenged claims like calling some obscure object like 2014 NW65 a possible dwarf planet, which could lead to citogenesis if some reputable source picks that up (for example, see the citogenesis incident regarding the name of Huya's satellite). I am aware this excludes more recently-discovered objects like 2021 DR15, whose absolute magnitude of H=3.6 is certainly bright enough to guarantee a large diameter of 500-700 km regardless of what albedo you assume; in this case, I think a consensus among Wikipedia editors would warrant inclusion of the category.

To further add to this, I also have issue with "Template:Dwarf planets", which was mass transcluded to TNO articles and also bloated with the inclusion of many more TNOs by ThePurgatori. Firstly, do people really call big centaurs like 10199 Chariklo, 2060 Chiron, and 2014 NW65 a "dwarf planet"? I've never seen any instance of that in the scientific literature, and the only source that does is of course Mike Brown's website. Secondly, the template has no clear size/absolute magnitude cutoff, which leads to unsuspecting editors adding more TNOs to the template, like what ThePurgatori did. Looking at the edit history of Template:Dwarf planets, ThePurgatori made a statement to change the absolute magnitude cutoff from +4.3 to +5.5, with no justification given. To ask them, why?

In my opinion, I believe Template:Dwarf planets should have the same treatment I proposed for Category:Possible dwarf planets. That is, only minor planets with Category:Possible dwarf planets (added because they were mentioned as such in scientific papers or were agreed by Wikipedia editors) should be included in Template:Dwarf planets. And only Template:Dwarf planets should be transcluded to minor planet articles with Category:Possible dwarf planets.

Now, I'd like to here what others think. What should we do with Category:Possible dwarf planets & Template:Dwarf planets?

Pinging users who have contributed to articles/templates related to the subject matter, and/or people who are just active in this WikiProject in general: ThePurgatori, Renerpho, Kwamikagami, Double sharp, Praemonitus, XavierGreen, ArkHyena, Ruslik0, Tom.Reding, C messier.

Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 08:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brown's site doesn't take into account more recent research on how ices behave at these temperatures, e.g. Grundy et al. I'd argue it's not a RS at this point. It's notable mainly because he discovered so many of them, not because of any work he's done on their properties.

Objects at a certain estimated size are possible DPs because of the error range of that estimate. Also, they may have a thermally dynamic past, like Phoebe, but unlike Phoebe haven't been battered out of shape after they froze out of HE by subsequent impacts because they're still in the kujper belt. That rather than current HE seems to be the working definition. But some of these objects have very precisely measured sizes, and that's not reflected on Brown's site.

But if we're not going to follow Brown, what are our criteria for what is and is not a 'possible' DP? — kwami (talk) 08:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think anything that falls in Grundy et al's 'transitional' category [where they appear to be solid objects but not to be in HE] should be included because of our ignorance of these objects. Anything with a reasonable chance of falling in that range -- say, nominal size + 2 sigma -- could be included. But that's just a suggestion. Most 'possible' DP's will prove to not be. I suspect that the smaller consensus DPs are not either. Possibly some we don't even expect are possibilities will prove to be. But that's just the state of our ignorance. — kwami (talk) 08:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following Grundy et al.'s paper sounds reasonable to me. It's been cited by many papers, especially when they discuss a TNO's mass and density in relation to other TNOs, as done in the following examples: Rommel et al. 2025 discussing Huya as an intermediate object between small, low-density binaries and large, high-density binaries (DPs), and Cañas et al. 2024 summarizing Grundy et al. and building up upon the high-density large KBO and low-density small KBO discourse. Interestingly, Cañas et al. 2024 gives a rough size cutoff between low-density and high-density KBOs at ~2×10⁻² Pluto masses (translating to ~2.6×10²⁰ kg). They don't talk about this size cutoff in detail, so I presume they just picked that number from looking at the data rather than deriving it from rigorous calculation. Regardless, we can use these additional secondary papers (if relevant) alongside Grundy et al. to back up "possible dwarf planet" claims of a particular TNO, so we don't run into issues with it looking like a single source with undue weight.

If we do stick with Grundy et al. as the criteria for applying the possible dwarf planet category, I propose we apply this category to TNOs whose diameter fall within 700-900 km. I give this size range since Grundy et al. says 600-700 km is the upper limit of pore retention (non-DPs), while 900 km is the lower limit of pore collapse. For example, I see that astronomers never called 2002 UX25 (660 km diameter) a dwarf planet candidate in peer-reviewed papers (see this, this, and that), so I believe my proposed 700 km cutoff has some sensibility. If a TNO doesn't have a measured diameter, but assuming a reasonable albedo range of 0.04-0.20 gives a diameter range that mostly lies above 700 km (like 2021 DR15), then I'd say that also qualifies for a possible DP. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 17:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. To make things manageable I used JWB to strip the cat from all objects, and will now go through our list of objects by size and reverse myself for D + 1 sigma > 700 km, then something similar with our size-from-albedo list. Please feel free to adjust as you like; I'm just doing this to get the relevant articles down to a manageable number for the rest of you. I meant to leave in Hygiea and Interamnia, but they got caught up in JWB; I don't see how they could possibly be DPs, but I know we have source [IMO sensationalist ones] that say the opposite, so go ahead and revert my there if you like. I also removed Chiron and Chariklo. — kwami (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I appreciate the cleanup work! Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 21:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And of course the easiest way to restore objects if I got over-zealous is simply to revert me; the edit-summary says rm DP cat per talk (via WP:JWB). — kwami (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted you on (24835) 1995 SM55 because it fits your criteria. — kwami (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, supposedly. If we assume an albedo like Haumea's, not likely. So I think I'll follow your lead there and move it way down in our list of objects by size. — kwami (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After reverting myself per our list by size, we have 21 qualifying objects, including Hygiea and Interamnia, Charon, Orcus, Quaoar and Sedna. So 15 TNOs that we don't count as probable DPs. A very manageable number for individual discussion. Again, feel free to adjust; I added Charon because I'm sure we can find sufficient sources that it's a DP, as well as sources that cast doubt on Quaoar, Orcus and Sedna, but that's just me. — kwami (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added our criteria at the top of the category page, as a guideline for others. If we change our criteria, please reflect any new consensus there. — kwami (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our category is now substantially more restricted than our table at list of possible dwarf planets. I don't know if that's a problem. Our table includes objects that were judged to be DPs by Tancredi, but I think he, like Brown, is too dated to be used for inclusion in the category. — kwami (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I remember there being ample sources for people calling Pluto and Charon a binary planet (though I believe most of these calls happened around 2006). There are also several sources that generally thrown around words like "planetary" for Charon, though I don't think those mean very much here. Ark Hyena (it/its) 22:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charon is not a possible DP per the IAU, but they are not the only opinion to consider. I don't think it hurts to leave it in the category; might even be helpful to someone. — kwami (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if we should apply the cutoff ourselves though, would that not tread uncomfortably close to SYNTH territory? This especially becomes an issue for any object above the cutoff that has not yet been labelled a candidate dwarf planet by anyone (other than Brown and similarly outdated lists). Ark Hyena (it/its) 22:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if that's such a problem for categories. Those are really just for navigation or to act as search engines. Any claims in the articles themselves that they are or are not likely to be DPs should of course be referenced. Personally, I'd start removing references in the lead to Brown's list. I agree that they are UNDUE at this point. We've been hesitatingly edging away from that as a source; time IMO to cut the apron strings, since we now have more reliable sources for individual larger objects, and general refs that the smaller are highly unlikely to be DPs. — kwami (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair. It's still probably worth discussing Brown's list in the List of possible dwarf planets page, though I'd agree with removing his assessment from the table too. Likewise from Template:Dwarf planets. Ark Hyena (it/its) 22:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we do need to discuss his list in the article. I think I agree with you about removing him from the table and nav box. If we remove Brown, should we also remove Tancredi? — kwami (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, I'm not as familiar with Tancredi's list and how up-to-date or strict it is. If it's a similar case to Brown's list, then the two should be removed in tandem. Ark Hyena (it/its) 22:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tancredi's list is pretty old; I'm pretty sure most of the TNOs mentioned in his list have had their lightcurves investigated in better detail in more recent studies. I recall it mentioning Huya as a potential dwarf planet because it exhibits a low lightcurve amplitude (aka spheroidal), but of course that turns out to be more nuanced in Grundy et al. 2019 and the occultation results paper (Santos-Sanz 2022 and Rommel 2025) that cite Grundy's paper. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 22:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tentatively think that both are too dated to be given that much credibility in the table, though both should be discussed in the text. I won't remove them myself, though; I'll leave that judgement to you all. — kwami (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with kwami. Double sharp (talk) 09:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:CATDEF applies. "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place." I take that to mean each entry must be found in multiple reliable sources, not just one. A paragraph in the category folder could list the baseline sources. Praemonitus (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're unlikely to get multiple sources that opine whether a particular object is likely to be a DP on not. — kwami (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps the category should be sent to WP:CFD based on WP:CATDEF, rather than wasting a bunch of effort choosing a more narrow selection criteria? After all, the criteria may require re-debating every time a new paper on the subject appears and the old criteria becomes dated. Praemonitus (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into this & culling. The category membership was definitely getting out of hand. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 11:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nrco0e: For the table at List_of_possible_dwarf_planets#Brightest_unmeasured_candidates, you said 'mostly'. I don't know what that means. There are another 51 candidates that would be about 700km if their albedos were 0.04. What magnitude should we go down to, or do you want to evaluate likely albedos for individual objects? Not all of them even have rd's. — kwami (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start by going down to 4.2, which rounds off to 700km for an albedo of 0.08. That adds 14 objects. We can go up or down from there. — kwami (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, apologies for the vague wording from my hastily-written proposal. To elaborate on that, I prefer having an albedo range rather than a single albedo---this 2014 paper (I use this because it was cited in Verbiscer et al. 2022) gives albedo ranges for various TNO populations, but they all seem to lie within the ballpark of 0.04-0.20 (my rough average of all the ranges stated in the paper). Then we take the average value of that albedo range, and then calculate a diameter from that average albedo, which we'll consider the average diameter for our purpose. If that average diameter lies at or above 700 km, then you can apply Category:Possible dwarf planets. I admit it's not a rigorous method, but feel free to put suggestions to refine it. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 23:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just realized that just reduces the number of TNOs that fall above 700 km. My bad. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 23:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave things where they are, then. I checked the 4 objects at 4.3, and their info boxes give them all diameters of 600km or less, though without an error bar. Starting at 4.4, we run into red links. We might want to increase the limit to 4.0 or so, or to go through them individually, but we're not talking about a large number edits if we do. — kwami (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, I gave a magnitude of 4.2 as the defining limit on the category page, to at least explain why the list is as it is. — kwami (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fair to me. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 23:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've also cut the number of entries in Template:Dwarf planets to reflect your changes in Category:Possible dwarf planets. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 23:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that looks much better. It was getting unmanageable.

I removed the haumeid 2005 UQ513, assuming that was an oversight. — kwami (talk) 03:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, not a haumeid. Removing it from that category. — kwami (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Johnston Archive, it looks like we should add 2001 KA77 to the template. I'll do that; rv me if you think it's inappropriate. Should create an article if we keep it. — kwami (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That diameter is based on H = 5.29 and an albedo of 0.025. So I'll remove from the template. It hasn't even been observed since 2016, with an orbital uncertainty of 4. — kwami (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a little bit weird to have Sedna, Orcus, and Quaoar both in Category:Dwarf planets and Category:Possible dwarf planets. Double sharp (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, rm if you like. They're not very solid as DPs, but then neither are some of the larger ones. — kwami (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done. Double sharp (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They're not very solid as DPs

I am once again begging the IAU to leave the definitions of planet to planetary scientists.^{[just kidding]} ^{not really} Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Small final tidbit, but what should be done about Hygiea and Interamnia? I believe Hygiea has had at least one paper call it a possible dwarf planet (though this is strangely not included in its article), whilst I haven't heard the same of Interamnia. Both are categorized as possible dwarf planets, though the dwarf planets navbox is missing from both. If we are judging by whether or not the asteroid is close to hydrostatic equilibrium alone (which I am a bit iffy on), 65 Cybele's article notes that its present shape very closely matches what would be expected if it were in hydrostatic equilibrium. Ark Hyena (it/its) 07:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If our ideas about Hygiea are correct, then it doesn't qualify. The others might be ex-DPs. I'd be very surprised if they still are, but in practice / common usage of the term, present HE is not necessary. If for Hygiea we have more recent / more RS sources that explain away its shape, then IMO it shouldn't be listed. Same for the others, assuming anyone ever did claim they were possibilities. — kwami (talk) 07:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hygia and Interamnia should be listed, because reliable sources specifically state that they are possible dwarf planets. They are not accounted for in Grundy or Brown because they are not transneptunian objects.XavierGreen (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'll remove them; if anybody has objections, feel free to reply. Ark Hyena (it/its) 19:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied above, reliable sources cited to on each page state they are possible Dwarf Planets.XavierGreen (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, no sources on either page outright label them as candidates, merely that they are in or close to hydrostatic equilibrium. Hygiea does indeed have sources calling it as such (which, as I mentioned before, are oddly not mentioned in its page), but TMK these are mostly around 20 years old. Ark Hyena (it/its) 20:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ArkHyena. Double sharp (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Vernazza paper from 2019 cited in the Hygeia article literally says it is a possible dwarf planet candidate. See page 7 of said paper, which goes through the dwarf planet analysis for Hygeia. XavierGreen (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of your articles that are in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors, 2025

Currently, this project has about ~19 articles in need of some reference cleanup. Basically, some short references created via {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} and similar templates have missing full citations or have some other problems. This is usually caused by templates misuse or by copy-pasting a short reference from another article without adding the full reference, or because a full reference is not making use of citation templates like {{cite book}} (see Help:CS1) or {{citation}} (see Help:CS2). To easily see which citation is in need of cleanup, you can check these instructions to enable error messages (Svick's script is the simplest to use, but Trappist the monk's script is a bit more refined if you're interested in doing deeper cleanup). See also how to resolve issues.

These could use some of your attention

To do

If you could add the full references to those article/fix the problem references, that would be great. Again, the easiest way to deal with those is to install Svick's script per these instructions. If after installing the script, you do not see an error, that means it was either taken care of, or was a false positive, and you don't need to do anything else. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done 3. Sgubaldo (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of most of them. Sgubaldo actually did four, so I struck Universe too. The Levy 2005 reference for Pegasus (constellation) was added in this edit [8] by Keilana, maybe she can help with that one. Procyon was giving me issues. The reference that needs to be found (Schaaf 2008) is in the edit history. The reference needed for Western Astrology (Houlding 2000) is in Astrology's edit history [9] but I'm not sure how to format this reference. Note that for Western Astrology, the "Manilius" reference also needs to be added from Astrology's edit history. Velayinosu (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]