Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

planetary categorization

User:BlueEarth has created Category:Sub-Earths, Category:Sub-Jupiters, Category:Jovial planets and User:NuclearVacuum has created Category:Super-Earths, Category:Super-Jupiters. It has occured to me that this might not be the most appropriate way to divide planets up, since that's not how we usually do it. "Jovial planet" means "happy planet", which is obviously a typo for "Jovian planet". But Jovian planets are better known as gas giants or giant planets. The two different IAU planet definitions (exoplanet draft, and accepted 2006 Solar) defines dwarf planet, planet, brown dwarf, and sub-brown dwarf. The traditional definition includes giant planets, terrestrial planets, and ice dwarfs... with gas giants and ice giants subtype. Since the division at Earth mass and Jupiter mass is entirely arbitrary (and we don't divide stars by whether they are more than or less than one solar mass) we should get rid of these categories. 70.55.85.40 (talk) 06:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The term super-earth is being bantered about quite a bit in the press these days. I agree that the organization of planets into sub/super|earth/jupiter categories doesn't seem very useful academically. That looks like a naming scheme designed primarily for public consumption (although that isn't necessarily a bad thing).—RJH (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
"Super-Earth" is in frequent use in the literature, see e.g. [4]. There was even a conference in June. [5] The terms "hot Jupiter" [6] and "hot Neptune" are also used. [7] Spacepotato (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The super-Earth definition in literature doesn't match the one User:BlueEarth is using, since some of the literature include "Earth" as a Super-Earth, while User:BlueEarth would not. I can see having an article or a section in terrestrial planet for super-Earths, but can it be clearly used as a category? Is super-Earth a mass based definition, as used in popular media articles, or a type of terrestrial planet, as used in literature? Would the determination of a lower mass bound for a planet be enough to justify inclusion, when the upper mass bound could make it a supergiant planet? Would it need to be determined to be a terrestrial planet to be included? The term Super-Earth is imprecise at the moment.
Hot jupiter and hot neptune refer to orbital characteristics of a gas giant... and jupiter and neptune as a rough mass range... I can see categorization by orbital characteristics... but should Super-Jupiters and Super-Neptunes be treated as a separate class from "giant planet/gas giant"? Being a "neptune" would just be a small gas giant... 70.55.86.69 (talk) 06:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
As a suggestion, could the above sub/super categories be moved underneath a more general category about planetary mass? Then it could be maintained separately from the terrestrial planet/gas giant/ice giant tree, rather than being used as a subdivision.—RJH (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Well... we'd have to rename "Super-Earth" to something that doesn't represent two different things, large terrestrials, or a mass range. As for a more general mass-based category system... do you have a suggestion? 70.51.11.210 (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
How about a category tree called "Comparative masses" (or "Comparative planetary masses" or "Relative..."), with Super-Earth, "Neptune mass" and "Jupiter Mass" as starting sub-categories? These three seem to receive many Google scholar hits.—RJH (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. Renaming Super-Earth would not be beneficial. It's better to use the term used in the literature (not to mention the press.)
    Might it make some sense to expand (and rename) the article to cover a variety of mass comparisons (in addition to 'Super-Earth')?—RJH (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so. Actually, I see no issue with the current title and scope of the article. Spacepotato (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. Definitions of the term Super-Earth vary, but this is not unusual. Often [8][9] it refers to planets with masses between 1 and 10 Earth masses (Mayor, Udry, et al. use 2 M⊕ ≤ m sin i ≤ 10 M⊕ [10].) It's expected that most such planets will have little gas [11]. No-one calls Earth a Super-Earth as far as I can see—linguistically, that would make little sense. Spacepotato (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I saw one article with "Earth" as a Super-Earth, though I don't recall which. But an ice dwarf can be more massive than Earth, which would not match the composition of Super-Earth from our article and from literature, since it'd be an icy world with much less silicate and carbon material, and much more volatiles. There've been several predictions by astronomers of an Earth mass Kuiper object creating the Kuiper cliff, which would not be a terrestrial planet. If such a planetary population exists, would they also be "Super-Earths" (subject to being more massive than Earth) ? 70.51.10.38 (talk) 08:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
There is an article called Appearance of extrasolar planets that has some discussion of planet categories. Perhaps we should just add a section there covering these various mass-related name categories? (I'm not too fond of the article name, but so it goes.) Super-Earth can then be linked from that topic, and stub pages can be merged.—RJH (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet another change to the starbox templates

In order to accomodate close binaries with periods better measured in days than in years, I have added a period_unitless field to {{Starbox visbin}}. This field is identical to period, except that the template user must supply the units. Existing pages are not affected by this change. Spacepotato (talk) 02:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Do we also need an equivalent of the template for spectroscopic binaries? Icalanise (talk) 20:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
That was proposed at one point. It seemed like a logical addition, but there may not have been enough need for it.—RJH (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Many orbits are derived from a combination of visual, interferometric, spectroscopic, etc. data. So, rather than write another template, I think it would be better and simpler to expand {{Starbox visbin}} and rename it to indicate that it is suitable for orbits in general. I have implemented a proposal below and demonstrated its usage for δ Andromedae (a single-lined spectroscopic binary), π Andromedae (double-lined spectroscopic), α Centauri (visual), and 70 Tauri (joint astrometric-spectroscopic orbit.) Spacepotato (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
In the absence of further discussion, I implemented this change, as for the most part it only consists of adding additional optional fields and does not disturb existing articles. Spacepotato (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, though it would be good to handle the situation where both axis and axis_unitless are given (e.g. if you want to specify the semimajor axis in both angular units and as an absolute distance). Also might be nice to be able to specify whether the orbit is visual, astrometric, spectroscopic or some combination. Icalanise (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Usage

{{Starbox orbit
| reference = <!--Reference-->
| primary = <!--Primary name -->
| name = <!--Companion name-->
| period = <!--Period (in years)-->
| period_unitless = <!--Period (no units provided by template)-->
| axis = <!--Semimajor axis (in arcseconds)-->
| axis_unitless = <!--Semimajor axis (no units provided by template)-->
| eccentricity = <!--Eccentricity-->
| inclination = <!--Inclination (in degrees)-->
| node = <!--Longitude of node (in degrees)-->
| periastron = <!--Periastron epoch-->
| periarg = <!--Argument of periastron (in degrees), secondary -->
| periarg_primary = <!--Argument of periastron (in degrees), primary -->
| k1 = <!-- Velocity semi-amplitude (SB1, or primary in SB2), in km/s -->
| k2 = <!-- Velocity semi-amplitude (secondary in SB2), in km/s -->
}}

Examples


δ Andromedae
Orbit[a0910 1]
Period (P)15,000 d
Eccentricity (e)0.34 ± 0.14
Periastron epoch (T)2415568 JD
Argument of periastron (ω)
(primary)		356.1 ± 5.2°
Semi-amplitude (K1)
(primary)		4.0 ± 2.7 km/s
{{Starbox orbit
| reference = <ref group=a0910>[http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976JRASC..70...23B]</ref>
| period_unitless = 15,000 [[day|d]]
| eccentricity = 0.34 ± 0.14
| periastron = 2415568 JD
| periarg_primary = 356.1 ± 5.2
| k1 = 4.0 ± 2.7
}}


π Andromedae
Orbit[a0910 2]
Period (P)143.6065 d
Eccentricity (e)0.562 ± 0.007
Periastron epoch (T)2427898.567 ± 0.194 JD
Argument of periastron (ω)
(primary)		349.03 ± 0.98°
Semi-amplitude (K1)
(primary)		47.50 ± 0.53 km/s
Semi-amplitude (K2)
(secondary)		117.4 ± 2.8 km/s
{{Starbox orbit
| reference = <ref group=a0910>[http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1936PASP...48..214P]</ref>
| period_unitless = 143.6065 [[day|d]]
| eccentricity = 0.562 ± 0.007
| periarg_primary = 349.03 ± 0.98
| periastron = 2427898.567 ± 0.194 JD
| k1 = 47.50 ± 0.53
| k2 = 117.4 ± 2.8
}}


α Centauri
Orbit[a0910 3]
PrimaryA
CompanionB
Period (P)79.91 ± 0.011 yr
Semimajor axis (a)17.57 ± 0.022"
Eccentricity (e)0.5179 ± 0.00076
Inclination (i)79.20 ± 0.041°
Longitude of the node (Ω)204.85 ± 0.084°
Periastron epoch (T)B1875.66 ± 0.012
Argument of periastron (ω)
(secondary)		231.65 ± 0.076°
{{Starbox orbit
 | name=B
 | primary=A
 | period=79.91 ± 0.011
 | axis=17.57 ± 0.022
 | eccentricity=0.5179 ± 0.00076
 | inclination=79.20 ± 0.041
 | node=204.85 ± 0.084
 | periastron=B1875.66 ± 0.012
 | periarg=231.65 ± 0.076
 | reference=<ref group=a0910>{{cite journal
  | author=D. Pourbaix, et al.
  | title=Constraining the difference in convective blueshift between the components of alpha Centauri with precise radial velocities
  | journal=Astronomy and Astrophysics
  | year=2002 | volume=386 | issue=1 | pages=208–285
  | url=http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A%26A...386..280P
  | accessdate=2008-06-15
  | doi=10.1051/0004-6361:20020287 }}</ref>
 }}


70 Tauri
Orbit[a0910 4]
PrimaryA
CompanionAa
Period (P)6.2752 ± 0.0073 yr
Semimajor axis (a)0.1005 ± 0.0019"
Eccentricity (e)0.7011 ± 0.0063
Inclination (i)124.97 ± 0.92°
Longitude of the node (Ω)216.58 ± 0.82°
Periastron epoch (T)2442840.8 ± 5.8 JD
Argument of periastron (ω)
(secondary)		274.24 ± 0.48°
Semi-amplitude (K1)
(primary)		12.25 ± 0.32 km/s
Semi-amplitude (K2)
(secondary)		13.33 ± 0.26 km/s
{{Starbox orbit
| reference = <ref group=a0910>Table 6, [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...479..268T]</ref>
| primary = A
| name = Aa
| period = 6.2752 ± 0.0073
| axis = 0.1005 ± 0.0019
| eccentricity = 0.7011 ± 0.0063
| inclination = 124.97 ± 0.92
| periarg = 274.24 ± 0.48
| periastron = 2442840.8 ± 5.8 JD
| node = 216.58 ± 0.82
| k1 = 12.25 ± 0.32
| k2 = 13.33 ± 0.26
}}

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
  3. ^ D. Pourbaix; et al. (2002). "Constraining the difference in convective blueshift between the components of alpha Centauri with precise radial velocities". Astronomy and Astrophysics. 386 (1): 208–285. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020287. Retrieved 2008-06-15. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)
  4. ^ Table 6, [3]

Image usage check

I'm currently working on the Beta Pictoris article which needed a major overhaul (had to revert out some text blatantly copied from SolStation per WP:CP), and am looking to insert a few images. I've come across this montage, but I'm not sure about the licensing issues: the right-hand part looks like it might be tricky license-wise. Any advice on this matter much appreciated. Icalanise (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Also if anyone knows of a good free image of Beta Pictoris (the one already in the article is fine for illustrating the dust disk, but it does not show the star itself which is hidden behind the occulter) that would be helpful! Icalanise (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Planetary Nebula Abell 39

I've created a new article on the planetary nebula, Abell 39. Please take a look and see if you think this rates C-Class assessment or higher. There is not much more out there in the literature, so I'd be interested in ideas to expand this article if you have any. Thanks. WilliamKF (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... is there a need for a set index for all the ambiguous Abells? 70.51.9.124 (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Appeal for your help - Star catalog names: changes to the starbox templates

Hi from Wikiproject:Disambiguation. As AndrewHowse noted in a posting above, we have a real problem at the moment with the star catalog abbreviations in the new articles about stars that are being created. The catalog abbreviations (NSV, UBV, GC, etc) in the starbox are being created as links, but they are not pointing at articles about a star catalog - instead, they are pointing at disambiguation pages which may or may not have a link to info about the catalogue, or even at articles which have no relevance to a star catalog at all. For example, click on PMC and HIP and see where they take you!

WP:WPDAB exists to remove links to dab pages and redirect to the correct target. All these incorrect new links are having to be fixed manually, which involves a lot of time and effort. It would be really appreciated if project members here could amend the starbox templates so in future, star catalog abbreviations will pipe to appropriate articles rather than dab pages. For example, [[GC]] could be amended to [[General Catalogue|GC]] and [[SAO]] to [[Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory Star Catalog|SAO]]. Is this possible? If so, many, many thanks in advance. Karenjc 13:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

  1. This problem has nothing to do with the template in question, which is {{Starbox catalog}}. This template simply passes along the wikitext used as its argument. I see two possible solutions to this problem.
    (a) Social. Most or all of these articles are being created by a particular editor. A social solution to the problem would therefore require altering this editor's behavior, something which I am not sure how to do.
    (b) Technical. This is an easy way to ameliorate the problem as it is ideal for script-assisted disambiguation, something which I see is already being done by some members of your project (such as User:R'n'B.) Most acronyms in {{Starbox catalog}} can be mechanically disambiguated by a script, so that an article can be cleaned up with just one human action (approval of the script.) I have provided some sample Python code to do this in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Starbox catalog disambiguation.py.
  2. The acronym GC should not be disambiguated to General Catalogue, as this itself is a disambiguation page. It should be disambiguated to Boss General Catalogue when it refers to a star and to General Catalogue of Nebulae and Clusters when it refers to a galaxy, nebula, cluster, etc. I see that in many cases GC has been disambiguated to General Catalogue of Nebulae and Clusters inside {{Starbox catalog}}. Unfortunately, this will generally be incorrect.
  3. Re the disambiguation of these articles, it may be useful to refer to the Dictionary of Nomenclature of Celestial Objects [12], an online database of acronyms appearing in astronomical designations. Also, many of the lists of alternate designations have been taken from SIMBAD, a database of astronomical objects. For example, if you search for the star HD 8801 in SIMBAD [13], a list of designations similar to that currently in our article will appear in the "Identifiers" section. Clicking on each designation will reveal which catalog it refers to.
Spacepotato (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The social aspect has been tried without much success so far, though doubtless we can keep trying. But your other suggestions are very useful, particularly the code and the links for clarification on catalogue designations. Thanks for your response and your help. Karenjc 22:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
It was suggested before that the {{Starbox catalog}} template be modified to accept a series of arguments; one catalog per argument. The template can then be set up to use the appropriate catalog links, &c. That may solve the issue with the editing.—RJH (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Units for exoplanetary orbits

I've noticed that {{Planetbox orbit}} includes support for various alternative units for various quantities, however some of them seem rather unhelpful. Does anyone seriously use megaseconds when talking about orbital periods? Or quote distances gigameters - even the solar system planets articles use km. I'd propose supporting AU and km for the distance properties, days and years for the times, and dropping the megaseconds and gigameters. Icalanise (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have proposed a few suggestions regarding cleaning up the feature creep in this template on its talk page. Icalanise (talk) 11:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Help with star catalogue abbreviations

Hi, I hope some members of this project can help resolve this issue. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of Wikipedia articles about individual stars or objects using {{starbox catalog}}. Many of these contain links to cryptic abbreviations that are presumed to be astronomical catalogues, but many of these abbreviations do not appear on List of astronomical catalogues. I recently compiled a list of all abbreviations found in {{starbox catalog}} references, and listed those that I could not identify on Talk:List of astronomical catalogues. Presumably some of these are typographical errors, but many of them are likely to be abbreviations for catalogues for which no Wikipedia article exists, or perhaps one does exist but hasn't yet been indexed on List of astronomical catalogues. (This becomes particularly troublesome when the abbreviation does link to a Wikipedia page, but one that has nothing to do with star catalogues; as you will see, the majority of the links on the Talk page linked above are blue, not red, but do not lead to any information that is likely to be helpful to a reader trying to find out what a star designation means. Rather, they are far more likely to confuse such a reader.) Any assistance you can provide in identifying these mystery abbreviations would be appreciated. --Russ (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

See my comment 3 above. Spacepotato (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, those resources are helpful. And you are correct in noting that, if we know for sure that a particular abbreviation corresponds to a specific Wikipedia link, it is a simple matter to fix those. However, it is still going to be difficult for non-experts to determine how to fix some of these links. For example, is Hipparcos Input Catalogue different from Hipparcos Catalogue? Is the 2-Micron Sky Survey (IRC) different from the 2-Micron All-Sky Survey (2MASS)? Then there's the whole GC (Boss) vs. GC (Nebulae) mess you referred to above. And, if we don't find a reference to a particular abbreviation in the sources you cited, does that mean it's a typo, or perhaps is there somewhere else to look? If members of this project who are familiar with the subject matter get involved in repairing the starbox links, we are more likely to get accurate results than if you leave it to others. --Russ (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there is a difference between the Hipparcos Input Catalogue (HIC) and the Hipparcos Catalogue (HIP), though for the most part the two systems are the same. There are a few cases where a given HIP number does not refer to the same star as the HIC entry with the same number though, e.g. HIP 10270 = ADS 1693 A but HIC 10270 = ADS 1693 C, or HIP 55624 = HIC 55622, plus there are several more examples (though this constitutes a tiny fraction of the total number of entries in either catalogue). However the HIC seems to be rarely used - after all, the actual Hipparcos data is in the HIP. Icalanise (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Oddly, the catalogue entry for HIC 10270 says that HIC 10270 = GZ Andromedae (= ADS 1693 A.) Spacepotato (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination for Beta Pictoris

I've spent a while performing much-needed improvements and expansion to the article about Beta Pictoris and have nominated it for Good Article status. Icalanise (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Astronomical Objects

A collection of Wikipedia articles is being collected together as Wikipedia 0.7. This collection will be released on DVD later this year, and will be available for free download. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles; a team of copyeditors has agreed to help improve the writing upon request.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 03:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The list is missing white dwarf and black hole. I'm not sure why Jet_Propulsion_Laboratory and Deep_Impact_(space_mission) are included. The poor ratings for physical cosmology and Universe continue to be an embarrassment. =) —RJH (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Interesting that Rings of Jupiter makes the list while Rings of Saturn does not... Icalanise (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I can understand the former, as it is a highly polished article. Guess somebody needs to tackle the latter and bring it up to snuff.—RJH (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Also Gliese 581 c is still mildly toxic on the talk page. This will be fun trying to work out which version avoids POV! :-) Icalanise (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

planet categories sent to CfD

I've nominated Category:Sub-Jupiter mass planets, Category:Sub-Earth mass planets, Category:Super-Jupiters, to WP:CFD, because they are totally arbitrary and non-defining characteristics, and should not be categorized in such a manner. 70.51.9.124 (talk) 06:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Starboxes for two stars

Similar to how {{Starbox observe 2s}} works, I have constructed the same idea into {{Starbox detail}} and {{Starbox character}}.

{{Starbox character 2s}}
{{Starbox detail 2s}}

To me, having the title seems to do much better on the eyes (among other things) than using a solidus. — NuclearVacuum 16:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have them a test on the article "Gamma Cephei". — NuclearVacuum 16:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The obvious drawback is the significant amount of infobox bloat. Do we want to consider implementing a [hide] option on some of the starbox sections?—RJH (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I do have an idea to remove these many boxes into one box, but I currently do not have the expertise to code this idea. Is that what you mean by "hide?" — NuclearVacuum 19:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe I have found the proper code to use for {{Starbox detail}}. I implemented the code on the template, and it seems to be working for both a single star and a binary system. I would like to implement this action to all the starboxes, so as there is not an overflow of boxes for a specific amount of stars. Could anyone help out with this code work? — NuclearVacuum 19:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is valid to assume that both stars of a binary system will have the same metallicity - especially when interacting (or post-interacting) systems are taken into consideration, funny things can potentially happen. It should be possible to specify this property for both stars, and it shouldn't be automatically inserted for the other star when only one value is given. Icalanise (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  1. A two-column format seems more compact and clearer. See Alpha Doradus and {{Starbox 2}} for an example.
  2. Re this subject in general, it should be possible to display a mixture of per-component and overall values. For example, in a short-period binary, it makes no sense to display proper motions and radial velocities for each component individually—these values should be given for the barycenter of the system. Also, color indices are often easily available for the whole system but not for individual components. This is simple in the double-column format as we can place component A values in the left column, place component B values in the right column, and center values which are for the whole system. Spacepotato (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
However consider that the 2-column format may be problematic on older computer monitors/ones with vision-impaired settings to make everything big, where not as much horizontal screen space is available. Icalanise (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
It is true that the two-column format doesn't work well on very narrow screens. Still, it's usable at an 800-pixel screen width. Also, at ~350 pixels in width, the box currently in Alpha Doradus is comparable in width with other boxes such as those in Gliese 581 c (~300 pixels) and Xenon (~360 pixels.) Spacepotato (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:MinorPlanets Navigator

{{MinorPlanets Navigator}} is up for deletion at WP:TFD 70.51.8.158 (talk) 08:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Diacritics in minor planet names

I have made a proposal that diacritics in minor planet names should be omitted at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (astronomical objects)/Archive 1#Diacritics in minor planet names. Icalanise (talk) 22:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional change to {{Starbox detail}}

I added an optional field, rotational_velocity, to this template to give v sin i in km/s. This (a) clarifies that what is displayed is v sin i and (b) frees up the rotation field for the display of the rotational period of the star, if it is known. Existing articles will not change unless edited to use this field. Spacepotato (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation guide in Starbox observe

The way the pronunciation guide is presented in the Starbox observe template is a bit confusing: it looks like there is an extra field in the template, but as far as I can tell, no article using this template actually puts a pronunciation guide in. Do we actually need the link in there? Icalanise (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no extra field in the template. The reason this text was added was that the pronunciations given in the constellation articles themselves (Andromeda, …) are only for the nominative case, not the genitive. So, the only function of the pronunciation guide is to link to the constellation pronunciation guide in List of constellations, which does give pronunciations for the genitives. I think a better solution to the problem would be to add genitive forms and pronunciations to the lead in the constellation articles. Spacepotato (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your idea. The pronunciation link in the starbox is inelegant.—RJH (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, the pronunciation link is removed from the template. Icalanise (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

M-100 rename

M-100 (rocket) has been proposed to be renamed to M-100, a redirect to the dab page, which also lists Messier 100. This is part of a renaming of rocket articles. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry/Titles/Poll 70.55.203.112 (talk) 12:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

2006 definition of planet

2006 definition of planet has been nominated for renaming 70.55.203.112 (talk) 04:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Heading levels being altered by CarloscomB

Just a heads up to let you know that User:CarloscomB has apparently decided that top-level headings are bad and is going through multiple astronomy articles changing all instances of

==this kind of heading (top level heading)==

to

===this kind of heading (subheading)===

This breaks the page structure. I've cleaned up a few but it seems he is very fast at editing a lot of articles. I tried to bring this up on his talk page but it has been ignored. Icalanise (talk) 09:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well he's still doing this and not responding to his talk page, so I filed a notice at WP:AN 70.51.8.75 (talk) 06:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


Hmm... looking at some pages he's worked on, I think he doesn't always log on... addresses in the 189.68.*.* (Sao Paulo, Brazil) may be associated with him. Does anyone know how to do a block range contribution search? 70.55.200.131 (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Volcanism on Io

I stumbled across this:

Wikipedia:Peer review/Volcanism on Io/archive1

—RJH (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Bayer designation redirects

I have nominated a number of incorrect Bayer designation redirects for deletion. Spacepotato (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Found another one (M Arae→Mu Arae), added it as a separate section on the RFD page because Spacepotato's big batch of Bayer badness already has several replies. Icalanise (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

CarloscomB article names

CarloscomB has created some weird articlenames:

70.51.8.75 (talk) 07:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

What names would be preferable?—RJH (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
In the astrophysical context, is a PMS star a pre-main sequence star or a post-main sequence star? Whichever one it is, that would surely be preferable. Icalanise (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
PMS is pre-main sequence, but that's a confusing abbreviation that I think should be avoided on Wikipedia. I'd name the category Category:Pre-main sequence stars, as appears to have happened already. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 22:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
For the anon xxx, I would suggest SDSS J130114+2743 or similar longer versions ; For the not-Quasar, I would suggest 3C171/3C 171, since it's not a quasar it should not have "QSO" and the article should not call it a quasar. As for the DQHerc variables, either way would be good, consistency between the article and category name would be nice. Personally, I would prefer the variable star designation versions for the two stars in Aql... 70.51.8.75 (talk) 05:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
The articles GRS 1915+105 and SS 433 should be left at their present titles as these designations are far more frequently used than the variable star designations; you may verify this by making a literature search. By the way, neither of these articles was created by User:CarloscomB. Spacepotato (talk) 07:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
CarloscomB is obviously doing a good job, don't point fingers! And go get yourself an account, so we can se who you are! Otherwise the designations seems to be sensibly chosen, according to the practices of astronomy, except that "Anon" thing that should be "SDSS", probably a SIMBAD search facility rather than a catalogue. Said: Rursus (☻) 07:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

COROT→CoRoT

On the basis of the capitalisation given in various scientific papers and on SIMBAD I have proposed moving COROT and the various COROT-Exo planets to use the form CoRoT (this is one of the capitalisations used on the mission website) - details and discussion at Talk:COROT#Requested move. Icalanise (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Do orbit diagrams of planetary systems constitute original research?

I am currently involved in a debate with User:GabrielVelasquez at Gliese 581 c about whether orbit diagrams constitute original research, even when they are created straight from the data included in scientific research papers. Assistance would be welcome over at the article's talk page. Icalanise (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Importance rankings

In an effort to produce a consistent ranking scheme for Astronomy articles, the following page has been copied from a similar listing under the Physics Wikiproject.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Importance ratings

It's still somewhat skeletal, but is gradually being filled in. Please have a look and see if you have any comments. If this becomes acceptible, it may make sense to link it into the project talk page templates, such as {{WPAstronomy}}. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It is actually already linked to {{WPAstronomy}}. Ruslik (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes well I suppose I was thinking in terms of the red link at the bottom of the template. Perhaps an approach like the one used at the bottom of the {{Physics}} template would work instead?—RJH (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree physics template is better. Ruslik (talk) 08:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I added a request to the template talk page.—RJH (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Asteroid renames

The following two moves have been requested at WP:RM ; See Talk:List_of_asteroids#Requested_move

70.51.10.188 (talk) 04:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately we also have:
—RJH (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
It looks like the top level names all got moved, but none of the sub-links. That would be a pain to do without a bot, unfortunately.—RJH (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
There appears to be an open bot approval request relating to this issue: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval#Chris G Bot. Icalanise (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Messier objects -> Messier object

Looking at some of the other catalogue pages, it seems that the List of Messier objects and Messier object articles would be best served by a merge. Since I'm a layman just trying to bring this up to featured for a contest =p, I wanted to clear it by y'all first. --Golbez (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me.—RJH (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Won't that make it overly long? Though the Messier object article could do with some expansion, since the catalogue is used widely, some more about usage should be put in. 70.55.200.131 (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
The article is only twice as long as the intro to the list; the size change will be negligible. --Golbez (talk) 06:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Article size suggests that the article size be no longer than 30-50K. As long as it remains under that amount I think it will be okay. If the page gets too long, we can always fork off the table again.—RJH (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree for a merger. (The list is a little bit "naked"). Be bold! Said: Rursus (☻) 08:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The list article needs entry M102 fixed, Messier 102 states it's an undefined value, while the list says it's an NGC galaxy. 70.55.200.131 (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

CarloscomB

I would bet he's Portuguese or a Lusophone, because of this edit [14], which would explain some of the tortured English.

I think CarloscomB enjoys floating tables waaay too much, they're not working well in several cases.

  • CarloscomB created a redirect low-mass stars, to star formation. I think this is an inappropriate place to point it. But I have good destination for it. Can someone work with it?
  • CarloscomB is adding galaxy group/cluster designations to the "other designations" area of galaxy infoboxes, for every galaxy in the group/cluster.

70.55.200.131 (talk) 07:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've initiated a move request at WP:RM for Template:NGC 92 → Template:Robert's Quartet 70.55.200.131 (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I've initiated a speedy move request for the lists
  1. List of Stars M 38 → List of stars of M38
  2. List of Stars NGC 1907 → List of stars of NGC 1907
  3. List of stars NGC 1893 → List of stars of NGC 1893
  4. List of star NGC 2281 → List of stars of NGC 2281
  5. List of stars NGC 7686 → List of stars of NGC 7686
70.55.200.131 (talk) 11:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I moved them to "in" variant (see this for the reason). Ruslik (talk) 09:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I sent List of Stars of Hyades & List of stars of Hyades to WP:SPLICE 70.55.200.131 (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've mady a speedy rename CFR for:
  • Category:Post-AGB Star variables to Category:Post-AGB variable stars
70.55.200.131 (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Multiple planetary systems

Category:Multiple planetary systems ... er, shouldn't that be Category:Multiple planet planetary systems? It looks odd to me right now. 70.55.200.131 (talk) 04:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Or even just Category:Multiple planet systems, which to me seems slightly less awkward. Icalanise (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I sent this to CFD, with both options. 70.55.200.131 (talk) 12:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
This was deleted as OCAT 70.55.86.100 (talk) 09:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

About PISMIS and Pismis 24-1

The article about PISMIS should be deleted, as Pismis is the name of the author of a catalogue, and not the cluster itself. There are three possible references for the catalogue: Pismis, P. 1957. "Un Nuevo Cumulo Galactico En Puppis." Boletin de Los Observatorios Tonantzintla y Tacubaya 16 (June): 37-38. Pismis, P. 1959. "Nuevos Cumulos Estelares En Regiones Del Sur." Boletin de Los Observatorios Tonantzintla y Tacubaya 18 (Aug.): 37-38. [Which lists Pismis 1 to Pismis 24] Pismis, P., M. A. Moreno, and I. Hasse. 1979. "Internal Motions in H II Regions. VI. S 140 and the Associated CO Cloud." Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica 4, no. 4 (Aug.): 331-335.

Also, it is clear from Star Clusters (Archinal and Hynes, 2003), that Pismis objects should have only ONE number, for example Pismis 24, and NOT Pismis 24-1, which probably refers (at least in http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006astro.ph.12012M) to a part of the cluster, and not the whole cluster.

CielProfond (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed in this case, because: the article on "PISMIS" is 1. erroneous, and it is an 2. one-liner article. Normally a rewrite would be preferred, but deleting this one, just deletes a false statement that nobody should need to read. (However: an article on the catalogue and project PISMIS would be desirable). Said: Rursus (☻) 08:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Ehhhrrm, this Pismis guy,
compiled a catalogue of 2 globular and 24 new open star clusters in the Galactic Plane between = 225° and = 353°.
according to this PDF. We may delete PISMIS and later add an article on P. Pismis for the guy, and later on the catalog on Pismis. Said: Rursus (☻) 08:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
And here: SIMBAD list of objects Pismis X ranging from 1 to 24. Said: Rursus (☻) 08:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Øh! Somebody have "corrected" the article by making a redirect to Paris Maria Pişmiş. This is good. I'll see if also can contribute. Said: Rursus (☻) 20:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
While reading the replies to my question/comment, I was amused to see that many people thought that Pişmiş was a guy, while in fact it is a woman. I have to admit that I was in the same situation before I read the article about her on here (Wikipedia). Crazy how many women astronomers there are/were, whom we think are men. Gotta say that names in foreign languages are sometimes hard to "decipher" for gender -- plus some names can apply to both men and women, such as "Claude" in French or "Terry" in English.
The second external link in the article about Paris Pişmiş is "Two Turkish Lady Astronomers", an interesting article about her, written by Dorrit Hoffleit, and also mentioning Janet Akyüz Mattei. It mentions Mrs. Pişmiş's autobiography (Reminiscences in the Life of Paris Pişmiş: a Woman Astronomer). Does anybody know where I could buy a copy of this book? I've looked on amazon.com but found nothing.
CielProfond (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

proposed merge of Comet nucleus

There is a proposed merge of Comet nucleus into Comet. Please comment at Talk:Comet nucleus. --mikeu talk 20:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed layout change to Planetbox templates

I propose making a layout change to the Planetbox templates (e.g. {{Planetbox orbit}}, {{Planetbox character}}, etc.): instead of putting the variable names in their own column, to use smaller text in the property name column, i.e. instead of: 

{| class="toccolours" style="margin: 0 0 1em 1em;"
{{Planetbox character
| minimum_mass = 4
| radius = 1.2
| temperature = 1000
}}
|}

(for this example, I'm not floating the table, but I wouldn't be changing that!) to use something more like the following:

Physical characteristics
Minimum mass (m sin i)4 MJ
Radius (r)1.2 RJ
Temperature (T)1000 K

this follows the precedent set by the Starbox templates, and can lead to (small) space savings if variable names longer than one character (e.g. m sin i) need to go in the template. Icalanise (talk) 12:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It makes sense in my opinion. Ruslik (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Mean anomaly for solar system planets

The various planet infoboxes for planets in our solar system include the quantity "mean anomaly", a quantity which describes how far around its orbit the planet has travelled, a value which is continuously changing. Since the elements are generated by HORIZON which does include as its output a time of periastron, a quantity which changes more slowly than the mean anomaly so is likely valid for longer, it may be better to switch the infoboxes to use that. Icalanise (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects/Archive_12&oldid=1237410797"