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

Proposed deletion of HD 185435

The article HD 185435 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not notable per WP:NASTRO

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Loooke (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interacting_galaxy#Notable_examples needs revising

The "Notes" column makes reference to the "first/second/third phase" of galactic collision, but has no additional information or citations as to what exactly defines each "phase". On top of that, the "Notes" section for NGC 2936 just contains a single question mark, and has been that way for over 6 years now. The section would also benefit from more examples of non-merger interactions, such as tidal distortion (e.g. NGC 6872), ram pressure stripping (e.g. Comet Galaxy and NGC 4402). The page in general should probably also make note of Ring galaxy formation via collision.

I'd make the necessary changes myself, but I don't know where or how to find citations, and the revision process itself would also likely be a rather large undertaking for a lone newbie editor like me, and I don't really have the spare time right now to fully dedicate myself to this. NoOneFliesAroundTheSun (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mars Galleries

It appears that the linked articles on the {{Mars quadrangle layout}} template have become dumping grounds for massive quantities of Mars images. However, Wikipedia is not an image repository. I believe these should be trimmed down to a bare minimum, sufficient to satisfy WP:IMAGEPOL. The Commons is a better place for large image galleries. Cf. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mars Praemonitus (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these articles look like they need a broader rewrite as well, especially since organization was done so around these excessive image galleries. It should also be noted that this issue extends to other Mars-related articles, e.g. Chryse Planitia, Volcanism on Mars, and Climate of Mars. Ark Hyena (it/its) 17:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, many of the terra articles are the same. E.g. Promethei Terra. This could be widespread. Praemonitus (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe most of these galleries can be boldly removed without issue, and it'd be a nice opportunity to give them much-needed attention. There isn't much of a reason to justify these galleries against IMAGEPOL. Ark Hyena (it/its) 00:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or at least tag them with {{Too many images}} on top. Cleanup is going to be a chore and my concern is they may invoke edit wars. Praemonitus (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that, rather than deleting/redirecting the articles. Related, many of the images themselves are of marginal quality - some are screen captures from various NASA image viewers and they still have black fields or buttons or even navigation tabs that should be cropped. Some annoyingly have scale bars in the middle of the image. Many pages excessively repeat the source ("HiRise based on HiWish program"). Much of that is a task to be fixed in Commons rather than english wikipedia but all of it would improve the articles about Mars.Jstuby (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I doubt anyone would object to their removal, considering that they're a pretty obvious violation of IMAGEPOL and no proposal has been made to the draft MOS:ASTRO for such exceptions. I'll probably start going around removing these galleries whenever I have the time. Ark Hyena (it/its) 21:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Pages using the JsonConfig extension"

There's a bunch of Mars- and lunar-related articles showing a red-linked category called "Pages using the JsonConfig extension". If you want to get rid of it, a NULL edit is sufficient. (I.e. a page edit that makes no changes.) I've tested it twice and it works. Praemonitus (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that in some star cluster articles before ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 16:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early Infrared Surveys

I am thinking about writing an article about the early infrared sky surveys, CRL, AFGL and RAFGL. I realize there is already an RAFGL article, but it's a stub, and it seems odd to have an article about the revised AFGL but no article about the original AFGL. My plan is to write the new article, then blank the RAFGL article and turn it into a redirect that will point to the new article which will include RAFGL info.

Does anyone have any comments or suggestions about this? Are the CRL and original AFGL catalogs covered somewhere that I just haven't stumbled across? Thanks for any feedback! PopePompus (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White dwarf at FAR

I have nominated White dwarf 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. Z1720 (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Status: it has two remaining {{cn}} tags and probably needs a read-through for random cruft — claims that were shoved in on account of a news blurb, and stuff like that. XOR'easter (talk) 06:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this has now been taken care of. Primefac (talk) 12:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of the {{cn}} tags. An independent check for accumulated cruft would still be a good idea, I think. XOR'easter (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "Further reading" at the end might need winnowing, if anyone wants to take a crack at it. XOR'easter (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]