Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Archive 6

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Supernovae

I was about to create a List of Supernovae, after seeing that there weren't too many supernovae listed in Category:Supernovae and thinking that a list of them would be nice, when I googled to check the completeness of the category and found [1]. After coming out of the shock of seeing just how many supernovae have actually been discovered (I was thinking ~100 at the most), I started wondering: what's the notability that supernovae require to have an article on Wikipedia? We obviously can't have articles about them all. Mike Peel 17:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Though it isn't the criterion I had in mind when I started thinking about this, I would say that only those individual supernovae that reach naked-eye brightness have a chance to be notable enough to rate their own article. 1987A certainly does. 1054 (the Crab supernova), yes, though it arguably belongs as a subheading in the article for the Crab Nebula and not by itself as a supernova. SN 1572 (Tycho's) and SN 1604 (Kepler's) warrant articles too. Having just added a paragraph about 1972E to the history of supernovae observation article, I would say it does not merit its own article, even though it might have in the '70s and '80s when it was a key example and leaned very heavily upon by everyone doing supernova physics. Most of the others that appear in that list of supernovae seem to me also likely to be figurative flashes-in-the-pan, that is, interesting only in the context of current events, and in a few years they won't be worth separate articles of their own. BSVulturis 19:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Maybe this list represents the "most notable" supernovae in the "historical" sense. With this I mean the supernovae that expanded knowledge about these objects or astronomy as a whole. For example, the first supernovae found to be outside of our own galaxy, the first with a light curve measured using photographic methods, a.s.o.. Also, the "standard" types maybe part of this list as they were defined, historically. Hope this helps. Awolf002 19:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm planning on putting the following articles up on AfD: SN 1986G, SN 1994D, SN 2003B, SN 2004dj, SN 2005B, SN 2005bc, SN 2005cs, SN 2005df and SN 2006F. None of these seem to be notable, either historically or scientifically; if I'm wrong, please let me know. Mike Peel 19:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Remember perhaps that notability is not subjective, nor is notability the same as fame or importance. If we can find a peer reviewed scientific paper written about the supernova, and at least one other published work (say a webpage) about the SN, then I think we can say that it is notable, even if you do not consider it important (e.g. from a historical perspective) or famous (e.g. that it achieved naked-eye brightness). If a scientist has gone to the trouble of writing a paper about it, then it most definitely is "worthy of being noted". Some of the above supernovae do have papers written about them. Others do not. Perhaps we should AfD those that do not. Richard B 20:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I should probably also add that I've put Category:Hypernovae] up on WP:CfD (see here). It seems pointless to have a category with only one article lying around, with no indication that it will gain other members in the future. Mike Peel 19:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with BSVulturis that only supernovae that reach naked-eye brightness should receive their own article. See, for example, the discussion on SN 2002ap and SN 2003gd in Messier 74. An ADS Abstract Search on either of these objects will show that professional astrnomers have published multiple papers on each individual object. In my opinion, any object that is the sole subject of multiple journal papers deserves its own article. (Individual articles could be written for each of these supernovae as well. SN 2002ap in particular has been the subject of extensive debate.) Dr. Submillimeter 20:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean to disagree with BSVulturis. ;-) Awolf002 20:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I fixed this. Dr. Submillimeter 20:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Reading WP:N, I guess I drew the line too high, and as that language stands, the other supernovae are notable enough. I have reservations about that policy, but that's a different topic. BSVulturis 21:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I also strongly recommend keeping Category:Hypernovae. Multiple hypernovae have been identified, although they are not very common. Based on one of the references in the supernovae section of Messier 74, the category could contain SN 1998bw, SN 1997ef, SN 1997 dq, SN 1997 cy, and SN 2002ap. An ADS Abstract Search also turns up SN 2003lw, SN 2003jd, and SN 2003dh. Given that professional astronomers have published multiple papers dealing with these individual objects, enough material is available to create meaningful Wikipedia articles for the objects. The category is useful and should be kept. Dr. Submillimeter 20:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If that is the case, then Hypernova is in dire need of an update. At the present it says that "No hypernovae explosions have been definitively observed, and the explanation has fallen from favor as it has become clear that gamma ray bursts are beamed into very narrow opening angles of less than 1% of a sphere, so that ordinary supernovae can power them." Mike Peel 21:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to choose and add an appropriate warning template to the article. Dr. Submillimeter 21:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have now retracted my nomination of the category for deletion. Mike Peel 21:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that categories and lists are used in different ways and we should not mix these two concepts. All notable supernovae should have an article in WP and be in the Category:Supernovae, as discussed by Richard B above. However, a list would be a special article for supernovae that are "special" in some way, I would submit. Anything wrong with this approach? Awolf002 21:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Only that, based on past experience, in producing a "list" it's generally a good idea to have the inclusion criteria well-defined and sufficient restrictive to keep the page manageable and verifyable. (Unless you want the page to pass through the AfD mill in short order.) Personally, however, if a supernova is suitably notable then I'd like to see it included on the "History of supernova observation" page instead, or perhaps on a "recent results" page. — RJH (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This association/project page/policy proposal seems to violate Wikipedia is not a Social Club... and the Wikipedia:Birthday Committee by my interpretation *is* a violation of WP:NOT. 70.51.8.123 09:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector is now FAC

Hi, I just nominated Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector to be a Featured article candidate. Hopefully, you all think that the article is excellent and can support it. ;) But if not, please offer constructive criticisms on how it might be improved, which will be much appreciated. Thanks very much for your help! Willow 10:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Of possible interest

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric universe (concept). Comment as you will. --ScienceApologist 14:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Moon PR

I put the Moon article up for peer review again to see if there is anything else needed for FA. Please comment. — RJH (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Worklist?

Should some of the entries on the WPAO Worklist be moved to a WP Astronomy worklist? These appear to be candidates for a relocation:

A case might also be made for these:

as they are general topic pages rather than specific objects. — RJH (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and move all the terms if you want. (Is "HI region" a real term? I always hear about HII regions but never HI regions.) Dr. Submillimeter 20:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I must admit that before now I've never heard the term "H I region" either. But there is an Encyclopædia Britannica article on the topic and it gets 16,300 ghits. — RJH (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the second list should appear at both wikiprojects. 70.51.9.51 06:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

...which means they'll need to be maintained in both locations. It's too bad wikipedia doesn't have an automated means to handle quality tracking; it would make this process much easier. Anyway I copied the list over to the Astronomy worklist and let this one alone. The later is somewhat out of date, however. — RJH (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It does. See Template:Physics and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Physics articles by quality for an example. I'll set up a system like this for this WikiProject, and the other astronomy ones, when I get the time... Mike Peel 21:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:WPAstronomy

I decided to stop procrastinating/making a queue of things that need doing, and actually do something. I've set up Template:WPAstronomy, which can be placed on the talk pages of astronomy articles using {{WPAstronomy}}. An article can be marked as an astronomical object by using {{WPAstronomy|object=yes}}. Note that all articles marked as objects will appear as being part of WP Astronomy and WP Astronomical Objects, which I thought would be the best approach; if not, I can create a seperate template for astronomical objects. Ratings can be done as described at Template:WPAstronomy/usage.

A bot should come along and create pages listing the articles sometime in the next 24 hours; I'll provide links to them here when they've been created (or keep an eye on Category:Astronomy articles by quality and Category:Astronomical Objects articles by quality; the pages should appear in there). These pages will subsequently be automatically kept up to date by the bot (updating approx every 24 hours).

I operate a different bot, Peelbot, which should be able to do automated tagging of article talk pages with this new template, if people want. I need to put in two requests if people want me to do this; one to update the software I'm using so that it can support the object tag, and another to get approval to do the tagging using a bot. I would then need a list of categories and/or pages that need tagging. Mike Peel 22:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The following pages have now been created by the bot (I found a button to run it on these pages immediately, rather than leaving them to later):

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Astronomical Objects articles by quality, with log and statistics pages.
Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Astronomy articles by quality, with log and statistics pages.

Additionally, I've added an astrophysics parameter to the template, so that only one template is needed on pages covering astrophysics subjects, which currently fall under both WP:Astronomy and WP:Physics. Mike Peel 22:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

HI Region used here, Cache abstract, thanks, CarpD 10/1/06

It has been suggested here that the banner {{WPAstronomy}} be merged with {{WPSS}} and {{WP Space exploration}} into a hypothetical {{WPSpace}} banner. This would take a good amount of work, that i'm willing to take on (with help, hopefully!). Comments welcome here. Mlm42 09:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Eclipse cycle: confusing, or not?

I recently put a "confusing" banner on two sections of eclipse cycle, but this has been challenged by someone who appears to be the person who wrote the sections. Would someone please be so kind as to weigh in with an objective third opinion? Also, I was considering placing the same confusing banner on the subsection "Saros series" of Saros cycle, so I'd appreciate it if someone could consult with this topic as well. Lunokhod 15:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

List of smallest stars

This stub list article is up for AfD. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of smallest stars.) Personally I don't have an issue with that page going away. It's difficult to see why it would be notable. But I thought I'd make mention in case there's an objection. — RJH (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the Month

Supernova is the new Science Collaboration of the Month. Good work! NCurs e _work 06:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD of interest

Comment here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph Juergens. --ScienceApologist 18:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Astronomical coordinate templates

We seem to have three sets of astronomical coordinate templates:

All coordinates	RA	Dec
Template:AstroCoord Template:EqCoor	Template:AstroCoord-RA Template:EqCoor-RA Template:RA	Template:AstroCoord-Dec Template:EqCoor-Dec Template:DEC

Is there a reason for this, or can they be merged into one set of three templates? Mike Peel 10:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I now see that there's discussion about this above. Has anything changed in the last month and a half with respect to this debate?

Additionally, Template:Galaxy demo still exists; I plan to nominate this for deletion, or alternatively moving to user space, fairly shortly unless others here think it should remain. Mike Peel 13:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue seems to have died. I do not know if Friendlystar is still pursuing the project; he has been relatively inactive. Given the inactivity, it may be justified to delete all except Template:RA and Template:DEC, although Friendlystar should be notified first. Friendlystar may have also left a few other unused templates within Wikipedia that could be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 14:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion

Please see the "Astronomical coordinate templates" section of Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 7. Thank you. Mike Peel 18:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes

It seems I touched a nerve by editing some of the astronomical object infoboxes without discussing things first. Sorry about that.

I've been trying to tidy up the wikicode of the infoboxes, as well as trying to make them more uniform. So far I have edited:

Also, I'm part way through Template:Infobox Constellation [8], but have reverted myself as I introduced formatting problems on the pages that include the template; I plan to fix those pages before reinstating my modifications. I plan on editing the remainder of the astronomical infoboxes; I just haven't gotten around to them yet.

If there are any issues with the changes I have made to the templates, please discuss them here, and/or revert my changes if you feel that is necessary.

For people here who haven't seen my template work before, I am fairly experienced with templates. I have written or done serious work on, amongst others: Template:Infobox Telescope, Template:Infobox Space telescope, Template:Infobox Observatory, Template:Physics. I've yet to encounter any (major) problems with the changes I've made to templates in general.

Changes I would like to see made to the templates in the future include:

Moving to Template:Infobox Galaxy and similar names, in line with most infoboxes on Wikipedia
Removal of the "see also" links; these really belong in the article, not the infobox
Addition of parameter descriptions (see e.g. Template:Infobox Telescope)
Increase in optional fields, as well as a decrease in compulsory fields (i.e. those that show up in the infobox whether you give them values or not).
I would also like to see Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Infoboxes stripped down to be a simple list of infoboxes available (and probably moved to the main wikiproject page), rather than the current discussion and examples; discussion and notes on the individual templates should go on the template pages, and discussion of the infoboxes overall should be here.

Please let me know your thoughts on the above, and also any modifications you want to see made to the infoboxes to make them more useful. Thanks. Mike Peel 15:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if they used consistent names for common fields. For example, some have a 'constellation' field and others have a 'constellation name' field. Perhaps this could be done with an inheritance scheme? For example, probably all want RA and DEC fields which could be in a base template used by the others. Also for cases where parsecs is given in parenthesis, it would be nice if the parens only showed up if a value was supplied, further, the distance field needs to be consistent across templates too.WilliamKF 16:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

(I had to fix Template:Galaxy cluster; all of the RA and Dec disappeared from the templates.)

In response to Mike Peel's suggestions:

I like the renaming suggestion.
I agree with removing the "See also" links in the infobox. (This is one of the things I wanted to discuss here.)
The parameter descriptions make sense. I would like to add some comments on these regarding at least extragalactic objects.
I have concerns about "optional" fields. Are you planning on adding more fields to the templates, or are you simply talking about having the fields appear blank when the template value is not given. If you are discussing the latter, then I would be happy.
I am happy with rewriting the Infoboxes subpage.

In response to WilliamKF's comments:

I too would also like to see more uniformity in the parameters for the infoboxes. I am guessing that WilliamKF can do this fairly quickly with AWB.
If someone can do something magical where the parentheses disappear from a "distance" line when a distance is not given in parsec, I would also be happy.

I have been brooding on some changes to the infoboxes for a while. Since Mike Peel opened up the issue of modifying all of them, here are some of my suggestions.

Use a single color scheme for all of the templates. I do not know why, historically, we have the multicolor template scheme, but it seems strange that galaxies and galaxy clusters have the same color while nebulae are divided up into three separate colors.
Remove all items from templates that require calculations based on theory applied to existing measurements (e.g. the "radius" line in the Starbox template), that require calculation based on uncertain measurements (e.g. the physical radii that were once given for galaxies), that are going to be blank for most objects (e.g. the "remnant type" line in the Supernova template), or that are going to be difficult to interpret (e.g. the "radius" line in the diffuse nebula template). In my personal opinion, adding numbers that are based on uncertain measurements/theory is misleading; it gives the false impression that the numbers are actually measured.
Try to list the information in a uniform order on all infobox templates. For example, decide whether to put "constellation" first in all of the templates on clusters, nebulae, and galaxies. (I think it's partly my fault that the templates do not appear uniform.)
Merge the diffuse and dark nebulae templates and rename them as the "nebula" template. (Planetary nebulae are different physically and can be given a different template.)
Remove the "quasar" template (which, if the "see also" links were removed, would look like the "galaxy" template) and create a "galaxy high redshift" template that leaves out the distance and apparent dimensions.
Create two more galaxy cluster templates: one for Abell clusters where the angular size can be measured but the number of galaxies cannot be accurately counted, and another for compact objects such as Stephan's Quintet where the size and number of galaxies can be counted. (If it is also possible to make fields appear or disappear from one template as needed, that would work.)
Some of the templates have "dist_ly" fields instead of "dist" when only one distance field is really used (such as the galaxy template). It would be nice to turn "dist_ly" into "dist". However, if someone can solve WilliamKF's problem with the parentheses appearing when they are not wanted, I would be happy leaving "dist_ly" and adding "dist_pc".

I will stop with these comments. I can probably come up with more later. Please let me know what you think. I also suggest letting this discussion run for a few days to give everyone a chance to respond. Dr. Submillimeter 22:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought of one more thing: We should consider whether we want to create category links within the templates. For example, Template:Galaxy cluster automatically adds Category:Galaxy clusters to all articles. I still do not know if this is a good idea ofr a bad idea. Dr. Submillimeter 22:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

(reply to the original post)

Maybe we should convert the existing Extrasolar Planet templates into the multipart extrasolar planet templates (Planetbox begin etc.) and remove the original one as redundant.

Asteroid infoboxes could be splitted in same manner as the star template, for most asteroids there are not enough information to fill the complete infobox.

The Infobox Constellation has some recently added parameters which are problematic:

The parameter "main star" (= stars that form the constellation pattern) is not evident and is not unambiguous; there are several ways to draw a pattern, and the information content is minimal. The parameter "Bright stars" (V < 3^m) parameter should be sufficient.
I don't see why the number of Flamsteed/Bayer designated stars should be shown. The number of B/F stars vary depending on source and how they're counted; for example, is the optical double α^{1, 2} Capricorni one or two Bayer designated-stars?
"Nearby stars" (d < 50 ly) is impossible to get right. There are large number of poorly known red dwarfs within that distance. Unless it is meant to include only stars above a certain magnitude (which makes it very arbitrary).
Note that "nearest star" often include the nearest star listed in List of stars by constellation, not the actual nearest known star in that constellation. For example, Gemini infobox lists Pollux as the nearest star, which is far from truth.--JyriL ^talk 22:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

General replies to the above:

I like the idea of having a standard astronomical object template, that can be called from within the other templates. Which fields should this include? Bear in mind that these would be optional, so do not always have to be filled in, but they should not include object-specific things. Currently, I'm thinking of including the following, in this order:

(nearest) Constellation
Position: RA and dec (using Template:RA and Template:DEC)
Epoch (J2000, etc.)
Distance (options for km, ly, pc and redshift)

Any others? I've deliberately left out the name and image (I think that they should be in the individual templates), as well as the magnitude (this isn't universal; not all objects can be observed in the optical).

I agree with having a uniform colour scheme. In fact, I'd recommend not using colours in the infoboxes; they don't serve any purpose.
I disagree with removing options that will be used in a fair few template calls, although I agree that the numbers in the infobox should not be derived but just quoted and referenced. I have no problem with removing variables which no, or very few, pages call.
I agree with the merging of templates where appropriate.
Comments on the parameters on parameters that will only be present on individual templates, such as the points raised about Template:Infobox Constellation by JyriL above, should probably be made on the appropriate template's talk page.
I'm torn with the automatic category adding that Dr. <mm proposes; on one hand, it's elegant, but on the other hand it's not the standard wikipedia way. People normally expect to see the category links at the bottom of the page, not hidden in a template where they can't easily be modified. Additionally, most pages will already have the category links on them, so this would just duplicate the links. Mike Peel 19:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

On the see also links, I'd say to move them where they show on templates like one for Template:planetary nebula as a link to the type of object and a link to the list of those objects at the top. WilliamKF 02:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Why? I tend to think that the most important information in the infobox should go at the top, with the least important at the bottom; so why are the see also links more important than the rest of the information in the box? Additionally, why do we need to have them in the infobox at all? In most cases, the type of object will be wikilinked to in the article's first sentence. The list of objects can either be found in the "See also" section, or by going to the object's category. Mike Peel 11:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Templates using parser functions

From the above comments, it seems that people here don't realise what can be done with templates using parser functions. These enable the use of if (and more complicated) statements in the templates, which mean that optional parameters can be used. When no value is given to an optional parameter, it won't appear in the infobox - and by that, I mean both the parameter and the value. It will appear as if the parameter doesn't exist, until someone looks at the template call commands. This can be good or bad; it's good as the infoboxes look cleaner, but it's bad because visitors to the page won't know that the parameters need to be filled. The latter can be avoided by giving the parameter a null value (e.g. a "?"), which forces it to be displayed.

As nothing beats a real-life example, take a look at Template:Infobox Space telescope. When no parameters have values, the infobox looks like the one on the right of that page. For an example where some, but not all, of the parameters have values set, see COROT. Hubble Space Telescope, on the other hand, has many more of the values set.

This means that there is no need to split infoboxes into multiple templates, as has been done with the star template (which I'll have to redo at some point, methinks). It also means that there's no need to create multiple infoboxes for similar objects that have slightly different information available for them; the extreme would be having a single infobox for all astronomical objects, but that would be an awfully complex template, so grouping objects in terms of "Galaxy clusters", "Galaxies", etc. works much better.

The big disadvantage with this type of template, though, is that the templates tend to get very complex, and can't be easily edited by those that aren't familiar with them. For an example of this, see the code behind Template:Physics.

Hopefully all of the above makes sense. Any questions? Mike Peel 23:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That is an incredibly useful feature. I would like to see it added to the galaxy and galaxy cluster templates (once this discussion is finished). I do agree that the code may be formidible to some people. It would be bad if, for some reason, Mike Peel stopped working on Wikipedia and no one else could disentangle the code. Desptie this, I am still in favor of adding the complex code to the infoboxes. Dr. Submillimeter 23:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Makes a lot of sense. Yes, I think #if statements make multipart templates unnecessary. For an "end user" a single template is considerably easier. That outweights the complexity of the template itself.--JyriL ^talk 23:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Moving categories into templates could categorizing much easier, especially in the case of stars and asteroids, which have multiple subcategories. For example, if a galaxy is listed as "spiral" in the infobox, the category changes automatically into Category:Spiral galaxies instead of Category:Galaxies. In a similar manner, the correct constellation category would be selected automatically. #if statements make selecting the right catalog category easy (e.g. if for example the {{{NGC}}} parameter is not null, the article is listed in the Category:NGC objects category).--JyriL ^talk 23:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Another drawback to the parser function is an apparent built-in limit on the number you can include on a page. (Beyond that amount you start experiencing errors, as we did with the long worklist page.) — RJH (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

On the auto categories, be alert to need to do sorting. For example, if NGC cat is automatically added, the category entry needs to be four digits, i.e. [[Category:NGC object|0343]] for NGC 343. This comes up in other ways too, for example the Andromeda I to IX galaxies need good sorting. WilliamKF 00:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I am going to suggest not including categories in the templates for one reason: by not including the categories, it is possible to sort the categories on the individual articles' pages (which is currently done in a type of logical fashion for galaxies). If the categories are included in the template, then the template forces the categories to be placed first in the category list at the bottom of the article. Dr. Submillimeter 10:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Category sorting is a problem, but managing the categories in thousands of articles manually is time-consuming and tedious job.--JyriL ^talk 16:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If the categories are not tied to a template, that frees up the possibility that a user with editing software (such as WilliamKF) or a bot can sort the categories. I would prefer that to binding the categories to the template. Dr. Submillimeter 17:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Comet

Please see User:Mike Peel/template (permalink) for a proposed update to Template:Comet. I'd recommend comparing the example given with the template currently in use at Halley's Comet. Comments/suggestions? Mike Peel 11:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Renaming astro-stub to astronomy-stub

I have proposed that Template:astro-stub be renamed to Template:astronomy-stub. Please comment at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/January/7. Thanks. Mike Peel 10:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Planet

Earlier Discussion moved to Template talk:Infobox Planet. Mike Peel 17:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Should Template:Extrasolar Planet and Template:Comet be merged into Template:Infobox Planet? They use much the same parameters. Mike Peel 23:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I see rather important differences in the sets of parameters. This does not look like a good idea to me. Awolf002 00:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it some more, I agree with you with Template:Comet; that should not be merged into Infobox Planet. I'm less convinced with Template:Extrasolar Planet; I've actually already coded the three important template differences (detection method, longitude and time of periastron); see Template:Infobox_Planet#Exosolar_Planets. Mike Peel 10:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, we can give that a try. I'm just a bit "put-off" by the complexity of Template:Infobox Planet. Who is going to understand and maintain an even larger, merged template? Awolf002 12:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering: would a better name for this template be Template:Infobox Natural Satellite? Mike Peel 22:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Would this be applicable to moons and rings as well as planets? Dr. Submillimeter 23:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably not rings, but definitely moons. I've actually been working through the moon pages converting them to this template (previous to this, they've had wikicode infoboxes, not a template); for examples of it in use, see Phobos (moon) or Moon. Mike Peel 08:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we could avoid using the term "natural satellites" if the template does not apply to both rings and moons. However, I do agree that, with only a few exceptions, most of the lines in the templates for planets and moons are similar. Dr. Submillimeter 09:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm wary that the template currently uses the word "Planet" to describe pretty much everything that goes around the sun or another object, given all of the recent arguments over the definition of this word of late. Hence I've been trying to think of an alternative word. The best I've come up with so far is "Natural Satellite" (Ckatz's suggestion of "Infobox Small, Medium, or Large Lump of Rock, Gas, or Ice, possibly Spherical, that May (or May Not) be a Planet" is sadly a little clumsy, and doesn't roll off the tongue that easily). Do you have any suggestions? Mike Peel 09:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that we should use the same template for the Sun infobox, so maybe something like SolarSystemObject or PlanetaryObject would be appropriate. Lunokhod 11:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked into it yet, but I was planning on using Template:Infobox Star for the Sun, once it's complete. I don't know how similar the template parameters are yet, though. Mike Peel 11:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I liked the name "PlanetaryObject". It communicates that the object is planet-like without actually identifying it as a planet. Dr. Submillimeter 19:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Protoplanetary nebula vs Preplanetary nebula

In working on Protoplanetary nebula I see that there is confusion on the naming (see article and its references) and that some propose using the term Preplanetary nebula instead. However, the idea has not caught on broadly yet. What do folks think about making Preplanetary nebula the preferred term on wikipedia to avoid the confusion issues cited in the article? WilliamKF 00:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A title search on "preplanetary nebula" versus "protoplanetary nebula" at the ADS Abstract Service (with the "synonym replacement feature turned off) shows that "protoplanetary nebula" is preferable. "Protoplanetary nebula" has been used in the titles of 121 papers; "preplanetary nebula" has been used in 22. Dr. Submillimeter 10:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A Google Scholar search gives 819 results for "Protoplanetary nebula", and only 83 for "preplanetary nebula" (and asks me "Did you mean: "protoplanetary nebula" "). That confirms Dr. <mm's findings. It is not for us at Wikipedia to try to rename something (or help in renaming something), so I would recommend sticking with Protoplanetary nebula for the article's name until preplanetary becomes more popular in the literature (if it does). Mike Peel 11:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

What about "proto-planetary nebula" (639 hits). It makes clear that the prefix "proto-" refers to "planetary nebula", not just "planetary" (cf. "protoplanetary disk"), which could be misleading.--JyriL ^talk 16:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A title search at ADS Abstracts turns up 104 titles with "proto-planetary nebula" versus 121 with "protoplanetary nebula". It does not appear to be a style choice by an individual journal, either; ApJ has used both. Dr. Submillimeter 17:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The searches for "Protoplanetary nebula" will include both papers related to both planetary nebula and protoplanetary disks, whereas a search for "Preplanetary nebula" will only include the one. Therefore, the above numbers don't tell us much as currently gathered since they don't filter out the protoplanetary disk papers. It might be that once filtered out, the Preplanetary term looks more compelling. WilliamKF 21:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that this article made it to the main front page as a DYK article today! WilliamKF 20:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

One last warning to this Vandal?

Maybe I am being a little harsh, but this guy User_talk:151.198.233.90 seem to perform vadalims on other pages. I am not sure of the protocal, so I thought I bring this up here. Last vandalims was on the Stellar classification, but he seemed to have fixed it. Thanks, CarpD 10/1/06

Special:Contributions/172.206.107.228, this guy has nothing but vandal posts. Thanks, CarpD 10/1/06

Report this to Wikipedia:Abuse reports. Dr. Submillimeter 09:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately prepubescent vandals are a dime a dozen on WP. I've given up on trying to obstruct them. The process needed to get a page protected is also broken, as far as I'm concerned. I've just settled on regularly monitoring a handful of pages and reverting where necessary. — RJH (talk)

Planet Infoboxes TfD's

Please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 11. Mike Peel 20:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Planet Infobox/(22543) Ranjan is still in use. You'll need to deference that to avoid an objection from me. ;-) Otherwise it looks good. Thanks! — RJH (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I thought I'd put the new infobox onto (22543) Ranjan, but it seems that I forgot to press save before closing the window, or something. :-/ It's fixed now. Mike Peel 21:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Plasma cosmology live!

As some may be aware, plasma cosmology has been the subject of a few disputes here at Wikipedia. The article was recently rewritten. Come and judge, edit, reference, and comment on it. --ScienceApologist 01:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Cubewano

Should Cubewano be named that, or Classical Kuiper Belt object? A discussion on this on the talk page of that article came up with no consensus. The latter name gets over 1000 hits on Google Scholar, while the former only gets 13. Additionally, "cubewano" gets 13,000 normal Google hits, while classical Kuiper Belt Object gets 155,000. Hence, I think that the article should be renamed. Any comments? Mike Peel 11:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Twotino was turned into Resonant trans-Neptunian object a while ago. Perhaps cubewano should also be turned into a redirect? Dr. Submillimeter 17:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Lunar year with Lunar calendar

It has been proposed that Lunar year be merged with Lunar calendar. Please leave your comments on the talk page. Lunokhod 13:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Astronomical templates

I've tried to collate all astronomical templates into three categories: Category:Astronomical templates and its' subcategories, Category:Astronomical infobox templates and Category:Astronomical navigation templates. I've also put together a list of all astronomical infoboxes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Space/Astronomy templates/Infoboxes. If I've missed any, please add them to the categories/lists. Thanks. Mike Peel 16:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for change of Template:ConstellationList: I would like it to be hideable like [[User:Rursus/Dont collapse darn]]. Demo: original call to {{User:Rursus/Dont collapse darn}} removed to save readers patience. (If wanna see, click prev link).

May I change?? Twirling his moustaches, does: Rursus 19:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't see a problem with this. Are you planning on making it open by default, or hidden? Also, are you planning on copying the new template into the place of the old one, or editing the content pages to point to your new template? I would strongly recommend the former, before tagging your fork for speedy deletion. Thanks. Mike Peel 19:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Open by default, copying the def in [[User:Rursus/Dont collapse darn]] into the Template:ConstellationList - since replacing all occurrences of {{Template:ConstellationList}} with {{User:Rursus/Dont collapse darn}} would be a huge task. Twirling his moustaches, does: Rursus 20:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Mike said OK, nobody else objected, so I'll be so bold as to doit now, after a suitable pdoeliaytey (polite delay – some1-else that's bothered by all missing words in natural language that my tongue searches to find??) Twirling his moustaches, does: Rursus 11:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it myself – it's hidden by default, it should be open by default. I'll be back! Twirling his moustaches, does: Rursus 11:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Was forced to reimplement it in order to make it expanded by default. Now it should look infinitesimally different from the original – including colors! Twirling his moustaches, does: Rursus 12:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hot on the success (?) with this template, I wish to streamline the constellation navboxes to look alike, for the mess that the sum of them displays, behold Constellation: See also! Twirling his moustaches, does: Rursus 14:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Do we even need most of these templates? For example, is Template:ConstellationsByBartsch needed to indicate that Bartsch named two constellations, or is Template:ConstellationsRoyerAltered needed to indicate that Canis Major was split into two constellations? We would probably be better off without most of them. Dr. Submillimeter 15:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be fitting to reduce their number I believe. Like making one template for post-Bayer modern additions, and one template for obsolete constellations, and some such. Rursus declamavi; 17:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation systems

WilliamKF has switched over to using the Harvard Reference/Citation System, which places authors' names and dates of publications in the locations where the author is cited and then lists the references at the bottom of the page. See Stingray Nebula, for example. This brings up a complex style issue that should be addressed here: Do we want to stay with the footnote citation system that we have been using, or do we want to switch to this inline reference system.

I think you can use both, as I have at Stingray Nebula, there I have footnotes that refer to the Harvard references. WilliamKF 00:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I see advantages/disadvantages to both citation methods. The Harvard system does look more like the system used in scientific publications and avoids some technical issues that are problems with the footnote system (reference duplication and reference sorting). The footnote system, however, is already more widely used in Wikipedia and may be more familiar outside of scientific research. Moreover, footnotes are more graceful when used to reference information in infoboxes.

I advocate continuing to use footnotes (but to harvard refs) in infoboxes (see Stingray Nebula). WilliamKF 00:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that we reach a consensus on the system to use just so that the articles have a uniform appearance and so that we avoid strange edit conflicts. Could other people (especially WilliamKF) comment? Dr. Submillimeter 08:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to point to Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines. The guideline uses the footnote system, although they do not address the issue of footnotes versus inline text directly. The guideline is endorsed by several other WikiProjects, who all may be using the footnote referencing style at the moment if they endorse the citation guidelines page. Switching to a different citation system is really going to require feedback from other people. Dr. Submillimeter 08:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The Harvard system is actually used in a minority of scientific journals. The vast majority use the numbering system that Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines recommends. The inline system makes the text difficult to read when editing, but not on the page itself. It also does automatic reference sorting. The Harvard system makes the article itself difficult to read and editors will sometime miss putting the reference in the correct order. I like Harvard but not for wiki pages. --Bduke 09:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I prefer Harvard referencing when doing non-wikipedia work, but here I tend to prefer inline references, for the reasons listed above by Bduke. Inline referencing has the big advantage that the reference goes into the same plase as the text, hence making the adding of references much easier (only one edit is required). The wikicode does get more complex as a result, but I don't think that's a huge disadvantage. The harvard system here isn't that well developed yet; I would like to ultimately see a system whereby the code in the articles is the same, and visitors can choose whether they want to see harvard or numbered references.

Having said all that, I don't think it matters which system we choose on individual pages, so long as that page is consistent and the editors of that page have decided which system they want to use. Mike Peel 09:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Mike Peel's final comment here. Regardless of which system is used, it should be used systematically across all astronomy articles, al least to maintain uniformity. Having the two different systems could confuse readers and writers, and it definitely will look sloppy. (This is why Wikipedia has style guidelines that are applied across all Wikipedia articles.) Dr. Submillimeter 10:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

And that of course was what Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines was all about and it now has the support of at least 4 Science WikiProjects - Physics, Maths, Chemistry and Cell Biology. It also has support outside science on WP. I think we should all stick to it. --Bduke 10:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines do not reject the Harvard system but use the inline numbers as an example and I think the projects that have accepted it will not use Harvard as journals in those areas rarely use Harvard. I was perhaps less than clear above. --Bduke 10:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I prefer Harvard referencing when writing primary and secondary research articles because the attribution of ideas to the original authors is most clear. However, wikipedia is a tertiary source, which is supposed to reflect a consensus based primarily on secondary sources (i.e., review articles and the like). In my opinion, the footnote system is perfect, because it depersonalizes the information that is presented. Researchers names, in my opinion, should only be called out in the text of an encylopedia when they have made a major contribution to a field (such as Einstein, as an example). Lunokhod 11:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The scientific citation gudelines uses footnotes, but they point out near the top that "Harvard referencing" (the WP term for parenthetical author-year referencing) is perfectly acceptable. The issue of which is superior tends to lead to long circular discussions that don't accomplish much. In practice, the principle is that we avoid disturbing previous work to the extent possible. This does lead to differences between articles, but it avoids fruitless arguments and revert wars.

Another problem you will run into in trying to make a "house style" for astronomy articles is that footnotes are used in different ways by different articles. Some articles like Mars have no actual references section, but put the title "References" above the footnotes and put full bibliographic data in each footnote. Other articles like 0.999... put limited information in the footnotes and list the references in the references section. Other articles like Recursion theory use parenthetical referencing for published sources and footnotes for unpublished (internet) ones (a convention common in some journals). Although consistency is a laudable goal, it isn't feasible right at the moment. CMummert · talk 12:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I advocate using the Harvard citation system for scientific / technical articles on Wikipedia, with the modification of using the footnote system for info boxes and for the rare citations that does not fit into the Harvard citation template. This has the following advantages and no other citation system at Wikipedia has all of them:

Readers unfamiliar with the field can tell how recent a citation is with ease, right as they are reading the article, without clicking footnotes and bouncing back and forth.
Readers familiar with the field can evaluate the authority of the reference is with ease, right as they are reading the article, without clicking footnotes and bouncing back and forth.
For the reader, a name and a year is more meaningful than a footnote number, particularly where several sources are referenced several times.
The reference section can be easily kept in alphabetical order (primary) and year (secondary).
It is thus easy for a reader to scan the reference section to see if a favorite author is included, or a favorite paper or book.
Editors work with clean text, uncluttered by long citations with multiple authors. Reading the source text becomes as easy as reading the article. All the long citations are kept in the References section.
The editor checks in one place, the references section, to see if a reference is there. It is easy and natural to avoid duplicate references.
1. With the footnote technique, one has to search the whole article to see if a reference has been given already and what codename is used for it.
2. With the footnote technique, it is easy to end up with duplicate footnotes that reference the same paper and it is tricky to find them because the edit source does not include the actual number of the footnote, so it has to be found by context.
The reference section can have additional references that are general authorities for the article or for background that may not have citations in the article text. These integrate seamlessly.
Harvard citations allow footnotes to be used as footnotes and not do double duty as references. Thus footnotes can be used for quibbles and expansions on minor points.
Footnotes can cite Harvard references.

The Harvard system as implemented in Wikipedia is superior for scientific and technical articles. For other articles, such as about celebrities, the footnote systems is appropriate. Hu 05:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with some of the "ease of use" points brought up by Hu. The footnote system, which adds links from the text to the references, may be more intuitive for the average reader, especially if the average reader has more experience with non-technical Wikipedia articles that use the footnote system. Moreover, I doubt that the non-technical reader would appreciate the "more meaningful" date and year citation, it may appear to clutter the text. In contrast, the footnote system is easy for both technical and non-technical readers to understand.

I also strongly disagree with adding references not used by the article. This is not allowed among professional journals and should not be done in Wikipedia. Such information belongs in a "further reading" section, not a references section.

At this point, I am leaning towards recommending using the footnote style for consistency across Wikipedia (despite the problems with consistency that already exist). Dr. Submillimeter 09:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Harvard system has links to the references too, which makes it as intuitive for the average reader. Placing extra references in a Further Reading section would be a fine policy and is a decision independent of choosing Harvard references.

At the request of an editor, here are two examples of articles using the Harvard system: Emergence, Stingray Nebula. Hu 20:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, the inline system works better than the Harvard/author-year system. I find the latter to be just a tad annoying, and the average Wikipedia user would likely find it baffling. - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 21:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Basin Groups article proposed for deletion.

I have proposed the Basin Groups article for deletion. Please leave your opinion at the appropriate page. Lunokhod 10:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

50000 Quaoar - GA work underway, help please?

I've nominated 50000 Quaoar as Good Article, and have received a review noting various things that should be done to bring it up to GA status. I've started work on some items but need help on others (especially referencing). So if anyone can help on improving it, it would be much appreciated. Thanks! - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 21:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Are Burpers RRATs?

As the subject says: are Burpers the same thing as RRATs? Mike Peel 18:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No. RRATs emit short radio bursts (2–30 milliseconds, cf. [9]). The only object called a burper, GCRT J1745-3009, emitted radio bursts ~10 minutes long. Spacepotato 20:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Should burper be in Wikipedia? An ADS Abstracts search on the term turned up nothing related to pulsars. Maybe the term was used once in a press release and then forgotten? If this is the case, then perhaps it should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 23:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been talking to someone who works in the subject (mainly on RRATS), and they hadn't heard of the name - although they did know of the source. I'm currently leaning towards redirecting burper to GCRT J1745-3009, rather than trying to put this through AfD. Any comments? Mike Peel 22:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I anticipate that the results of an AfD would be to turn it into a redirect. Hence, turning the article into a redirect would be best. We also have Category:Burpers. Would you like me to make the category disappear? Dr. Submillimeter 23:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can, then please do so. Otherwise, it can just be passed through WP:CfD. Thanks. Mike Peel 23:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I depopulated the category. Wait four days, and then I will mark the category for speedy deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 09:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The category has now disappeared. 23:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Mike Peel 08:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Last I check (in late 2006), Burpers may be Nulling neutron stars or a suspected Quark star. [10] I put the different neutron stars that I know of in [11], hope this helps. Thank, CarpD (^_^)

Comet Hyakutake

I have nominated Comet Hyakutake 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.Mike Peel 10:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

SA units for "year"

I noticed that the starbox templates had been modified to use units of "a", which is apparently the SI unit for year (presumably from annum.) (I switched them back temporarily until I could get some feedback.) While I'm hardly against the use of the metric system, it seems to me that "mas/yr" is the widely used units for proper motion. Units of "mas/a" is likewise pretty obscure to me. It also seems like "a" could be confused with semi-major axis. Likewise an age in units of "a" is also obscure; it looked like a typo. Is there a consensus on which is preferable? Thanks. — RJH (talk)

I think that the proper abbreviation for annum is "an", not "a", and they seem to be exactly the same thing (i.e. 1 mas/yr = 1 mas/an). I'd say keep as mas/yr (wikilinked to an appropriate explanation, or alternatively mas/yr), as (as far as I know) that's the current standard way of putting it. At the least, years are used everywhere on this planet, aren't they? Mike Peel 23:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief, there is no SI unit for year! "annum" is commonly used in geology, though as a geologist, it is never clear to me if this means "years" or "years ago." NIST suggest just spelling the entire unit when it is not standard, so I would go for replacing "a" with just "years". Lunokhod 23:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Years (abbrebiated as yr) are commonly used in astronomy, even if they are not officially SI units of measurement. Dr. Submillimeter 09:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. — RJH (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

An is French for year... which is why I think it shows up as an so often. 70.55.85.124 11:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The symbol "a" is used to specify Julian year (astronomy) to avoid ambiguity since there are a number of (slightly different) Year#Astronomical years. Although "a" is the recognized symbol for year [12] and more precise, we should not assume that the reader is familiar with this uage. I agree that it is better to use "yr" in an infobox.--mikeu 16:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

At some level, this anal-rententive definition for year is not necessary. The differences are much smaller than 1% for most of the described units for year. We could probably just use "yr". Dr. Submillimeter 17:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said, "I agree that it is better to use "yr" in an infobox" because using "a" is too obscure for readers of a general reference like Wikipedia.--mikeu 18:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Earth's "other moons"

A question that seems to recur every so often on the Moon page is: Where do I find information about Earth's "other moons"? Of course, Earth only has one natural satellite, but there have been a handful of objects that have been discovered that can be descibed either as a quasi-satellite (which has the same orbital period, but different eccentricty) or as a co-orbital moon (which has the same mean distance from the Sun as the Earth, but orbits in a horseshoe orbit about the Earth). It think that this information should be collected onto a single page, but I have no idea as what to call it. Does anybody have a suggestion that is not factually incorrect? Lunokhod 23:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There's always Quasi-satellites and co-orbital moons of Earth, although it isn't that catchy. Mike Peel 23:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Orbital companions of Earth? - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 01:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Moons of Earth would seem to fit the bill... then redirect Earth's moons, Earth's natural satellites, Natural satellites of Earth, Co-orbital moons of Earth and Quasi-satellites of Earth to it. 70.55.85.124 11:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that "Moons of Earth" is a factually incorrect phrase. Lunokhod 12:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

As it turns out, that's true, but the question is not absurd. See Longo & Morris May 1986 Astronomical Journal vol 91 pp 1238-1241, on a sensitive search for other, small, natural satellites of Earth in close direct orbits. BSVulturis 16:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Could this be covered at near Earth asteroid? Dr. Submillimeter 16:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dr. Submillimeter. Most of the suggestions above would make excellent headings for a new section there. If it grows too large and takes over the article, it can always be split off later. Spiral Wave 20:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Image issues with NGC 5195

It looks like Image:NGC 5195.jpg (along with most of the text previously in the NGC 5195 article) was copied from the SEDS article on this galaxy. However, SEDS may have copied this image from a NASA website. Does anybody know how to handle this? (The people who previously cleaned up astronomical image copyright violations appear to be inactive.) Dr. Submillimeter 10:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that you put the image through Wikimedia Common's speedy deletion process, and replace it with an image from a Hubble site (e.g. the ones at [13]), which are copyright free (see the bottom of the page). Mike Peel 10:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Could someone else do this for me? I am not set up for working in the Wikimedia Commons. Dr. Submillimeter 13:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the image in the article with Image:Messier51.jpg, and tagged Image:NGC 5195.jpg for speedy deletion at the Commons. I can crop the new image so that it only displays NGC 5195, rather than both that and NGC 5194, if you want.

Something else to consider: would it be worth merging NGC 5195 with Whirlpool Galaxy? Mike Peel 17:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE DO NOT MERGE NGC 5194 AND NGC 5195! See my previous discussion (under a different username) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Archive 4#Splitting galaxy pairs. I am planning to add a short discussion on the LINER nucleus of NGC 5195 that would not belong in a discussion on NGC 5194. Similarly, a discussion on the star-formation in the spiral structure of NGC 5194 would be out of place in a discussion on NGC 5195. Also, the data in the infoboxes would be confusing.

I have also been working slowly to separate other galaxy pairs. For example, I recently separated NGC 3226 and NGC 3227. Although the two galaxies are interacting, their properties are different. NGC 3226 is a dwarf elliptical with little molecular gas and a LINER nucleus. NGC 3227 is a Seyfert galaxy with stronger star formation activity. (NGC 3227 also needs clean up; I am still working on it.)

These two examples demonstrate that the galaxies should not be discussed together unless they are much further along in the merger process (such as is the case for the Antennae Galaxies. Please do not merge the articles. Dr. Submillimeter 18:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

OK; that makes sense, and is fine. I won't suggest it again. Mike Peel 18:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Astrobox templates up for deletion

I have nominated the Astroboxes for deletion; please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 28. Thanks. Mike Peel 22:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible Astronomy Featured Topic

(This message copied to WP:Astronomical objects, WP:Space, and WP:Astronomy)

Hey! I was looking around for groups of articles to nominate as a Featured Topic, and I came across Upsilon Andromedae, b, c, and d. All four of these articles are GA class, and together fulfill every requirement of a FT, except that none of them are Featured Articles themselves. If one of them, preferably Upsilon Andromedae itself, was promoted to Featured Article, then the Topic as a whole would most likely pass FTC. So, if anyone wants to shoot for that, have at it! Also, if any members of this Wikiproject know of a group of articles that fits the criteria, then please nominate them! Thank you! --PresN 18:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Mathematical symbols in infoboxes?

I removed the mathematical symbols (e.g. a for semi-major axis, P for period) from Template:Infobox Comet when I reworked the template; they've since been added back. Personally, I don't like having them there as they clutter up the template unnecessarily (note that I like them fine when they're in equations, or are being used as common abbreviations in a text, but defining them unnecessarily seems pointless to me), so I'm tempted to revert their addition. However, I've had a spate of people disagreeing with my wiki-opinions recently, so I thought that I should check this here first. What do people here think? Mike Peel 21:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mike Peel on removing the symbols. Why use mathematical symbols and plain text? We do not do this in templates for objects outside the Solar System. Dr. Submillimeter 22:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I put them back for no other reason than making it easier to add information for new comets ! If you follow links to comet data they always use the symbol notation, and it can get a bit confusing. Whilst we are on the subject of revising the template, perhaps we could add in the standard measurements for some of the characteristics (AU, a, etc) in the template itself, instead of having to include them on each comet entry. Engleback 08:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not understand this argument. The template lists the parameters by name, not by symbol. When people add information to the templates, they add it to "perihelion" or "semimajor", not "q" or "a". The wikilinks in the templates also lead to articles with titles based on the quantity name (e.g. semimajor axis) not the quantity symbol (e.g. a).

Could we receive additional opinions on this? Dr. Submillimeter 09:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is redundant to have the variable name and mathematical symbol together. This doesn't seem to give any additional information, it clutters up the infobox, and it seems to me that if you actually wanted to plug these numbers into an equation that you would probably already know what the symbol was. Lunokhod 10:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There is an argument for keeping them - in that some official data - e.g. like this - C/2006 P1 (McNaught) only uses the symbols - although there is a link to an explanation on this site. It would be far easier to verify or add to the data at a glance for a general user with the symbols left in place in the infobox. Richard B 13:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be written for the general reader, not the scientist. Moreover, the average scientist does not need these symbols to understand the Wikipedia entry, and the average reader will not be interested in the symbols. Furthermore, someone experienced with professional catalogs should be able to transpose between symbols and actual names. (As a professional, I work with "D_25" and "m_V" all of the time, but I am still willing to write these as "major axis" and "apparent magnitude" for Wikipedia articles.) Dr. Submillimeter 14:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've now reverted the addition of the symbols to the comet infobox. My revert can always be reverted if we decide that they should be kept in the infobox. Mike Peel 21:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone consider putting the standard astronomical measurement units in the infobox, such as AU for perihelion, to avoid having to put them in each rendition of the infobox in the article ? Engleback 12:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Independent evidence for human Moon landings into Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Accusations

Please leave your comments on the talk page. Lunokhod 00:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Is that an astronomical object or category of astronomical objects? Else: NOPE-Negative-Nix-Njet-No! Rursus declamavi; 21:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Article up for deletion: Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings

Please leave your comments on the appropriate page. Lunokhod 20:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Unconfirmed bodies of the Solar System?

Proposed by Deuar on Talk:S/2004 S 6 in October. I was going over some old edits of mine, and noticed this had never been responded to. Any interest? --Patteroast 09:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I was confused by the older discussion. What does "unconfirmed" mean? Dr. Submillimeter 15:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking for "unconfirmed", "disproven", "lost", or all three items?

unconfirmed, ie. Vulcanoid Asteroids.
disproven, ie. Neith, Venus' moon
lost, ie. asteroid 4161 PLS, lost in 1960, but recovered as asteroid 1992 BU, in 1992?

Thanks, CarpD 10/2/07

I was thinking along the lines of moons such as S/2004 S 6, or S/2000 J11, etc. I would say any lost objects that are currently lost would fit as well, although whether or not to include objects that have been confirmed but previously were not may not be a good idea (as almost all objects had a period of being unconfirmed in their past). As for things such as the Vulcanoids or Neith, I'd say those would fit (and they're already included in) the category 'Hypothetical bodies of the Solar System'. --Patteroast 16:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

An open-ended category is easy to destroy at WP:CFD. In particular, all-inclusive categories for astronomical objects with uncertain status have been deleted before. Category:Uncertain galaxies was a good example; it included objects that were predicted by theory, objects classically treated as star clusters that could have been galaxies, objects classically treated as galaxies that could have been star clusters, and parts of galaxies that were misidentified at one point as independent galaxies. As you can see from this list, lumping all of these things together is unhelpful, which is why we destroyed the category.

For the moons you describe above, I would suggest using a category with the name "candidate" or "potential". The best title that I can think of is "Potential planetary satellites". This would be unambiguous and would serve your needs. What do you think? Dr. Submillimeter 17:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked more carefully at S/2004 S 6 and S/2000 J 11. If the Wikipedia descriptions are correct, I would not group these two objects together. S/2004 S 6 is a faint, fuzzy object found near one of Saturn's rings that may or may not even be solid. Hence, it is unclear as to whether it is a moon. S/2000 J 11 appears to be a solid object, but its orbit has not been calculated accurately. These two things are different; do not group them together. We do not need an all-inclusive category for things where measurements of any properties (mass, diameter, orbital radius, etc.) are highly uncertain. Dr. Submillimeter 17:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, perhaps those two were not the best examples, I really only used S/2004 S 6 because that's where the discussion originated, in my mind I was just considering S/2000 J11-type situations. I was also not aware of the uncertain galaxies category and its demise. Anyway, I'm not really dead-set on getting this category stated, I just happened across a proposal I thought was interesting and wanted to gauge interest, and there doesn't seem to be much. --Patteroast 18:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

S/2004 S 6 is a bit of a special case, I think. Along the lines of the above discussion, Potential planetary satellites or how about Unconfirmed satellites would sound the best. The second version has the advantage that it's clear that even the body's orbit is uncertain. Finally, you don't want to go into bodies orbiting the sun, since this leads to thousands of ever-changing unconfirmed minor planets, a list of which is completely spurious.

How many such unconfirmed moons are there, anyway? Presumably they mostly consist of freshly spotted irregulars of the giant planets, (and a bunch of asteroid moons which don't have their own articles). Deuar 19:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Questions about Jupiter article

I posed some questions on the "Talk:Jupiter" page and I was hoping for some feedback. If it isn't too much trouble, would the members of this project mind taking a look and sharing their opinions? Thank you. — RJH (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There was no interest expressed, so I'm implementing significant (Bull in a China shop) changes to the article. Hope the results are satisfactory. — RJH (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for merger: Apis+Musca = Musca

Hereby I humbly request the Community for permission to merge the stubby article Apis (constellation) with the more advanced article Musca (constellation). The reasons are covered more indetail on the talk page of Apis, but in essence my opinion is that "Apis" was the old name for the constellation which today is named "Musca". Rursus declamavi; 22:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. However, please use inline citations (e.g. footnotes) to reference the material. Dr. Submillimeter 09:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good habit. Rursus declamavi; 09:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Now, done. Rursus declamavi; 10:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Andromeda-Milky Way collision nominated for deletion

Andromeda-Milky Way collision has been nominated for deletion. Please go comment. Dr. Submillimeter 23:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was keep.--mikeu 16:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Wanted: Tabulæ Rudolphinæ star catalogue/Hevelius star catalogue

The article the Rudolphine Tables sezz that Tycho's and Kepler's all star positions are in Tabulæ Rudolphinæ, but does this catalogue (meaning: the tables, images or UTF-8 text) exist on the Net? Same for Johannes Hevelius' star catalogue. Anyone that knows anything?? Rursus 10:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Tabulæ Rudolphinæ online entries 254-268. Om nåt skall göras ordentligt, får man göra det själv. (Rursus'es telltale) Rursus 20:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings into Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Accusations

This is hopfully the last time... Go to the talk page to leave your opinion. Lunokhod 16:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Use of "a" for year

The planet infoboxes have been modified to use "a" to indicate "year". While technically correct and useful in scientific communications, this is non-common usage and most readers are not going to understand what it means. It seems equally non-helpful to abbreviate "day" as "d" — RJH (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The other astronomers that I know and I use "yr" for year. That would be preferable to "a". I see less of a problem with using "d" for day. Dr. Submillimeter 17:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"a" is non-standard usage. Even in geology, one only uses "ka, Ma, Ga", and never "a". As there are no SI units for year (and I don't think so for day either, though I should check), I would vote for either "year" or "yr", and "day". Lunokhod 17:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Rursus 20:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

We seem to have a consensus, so I changed the year symbol to "yr" and the day symbol to "d" the eight planets, Ceres (dwarf planet), Pluto, and Eris. I suspect that this is a problem in other articles on Solar System objects. (Who uses "a", anyway?) Dr. Submillimeter 20:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. By the way, the Jupiter article is a FAC nominee again. So far it seems to be on the way to a successful FA promotion. — RJH (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The article has been promoted. — RJH (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. "yr" is an abbreviation, unlike the symbol "a". It localises the unit, an undesirable effect. NIST SP 811 (1995) says "Although there is no universally accepted symbol for the year, Ref. [6: ISO 31-1] suggests the symbol a." That's what we should stick to. Urhixidur 23:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The abbreviation "yr" is simply easier to understand. Moreover, it is used by many professional astronomers, including me, and the Astrophysical Journal and Astronomical Journal do accept "yr" in articles. Moreover, the abbreviation "yr" is easily understood by non-astronomers. Dr. Submillimeter 10:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this needs to be hashed out. Obviously, in all cases the first occurrence of the unit would be linked (to Julian year (astronomy) and day, respectively).

For the year

Use the ISO 31-1 suggested symbol a

Support. In my opinion, the presence of a link (to "year") means any "confusion" on a novice reader's part will be momentary, and he will learn something from the experience. Sticking to the English abbreviation lessens the universality of the infobox, in contrast with the other measurements. Urhixidur 13:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Use the English appreviation yr

Support — Avoids confusion as the abbreviation is clearer to most readers and "a" is not widely used. (My brain keeps wanting to interpret "a" as semi-major axis, for whatever reason.) — RJH (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Spell out the unit (e.g., year(s))

Use only the SI units of time (e.g., s and its multiples)

Use a mixture

For example, Earth's sidereal period as "31.558 1500 Ms (break) 365.256 366 d (break) 1.000 0175 years".

For the day

Use SI symbol d

The day is listed in Table 6, Non-SI units accepted for use with the International System of Units.

Support. Seems a no-brainer to me. Urhixidur 13:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Support — At least it isn't "j" (jour). But I have no problem if somebody wants to use "dy" or days. — RJH (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Spell out the unit (e.g., day(s))

Use only the SI units of time (e.g., s and its multiples)

Use a mixture

Portal:Solar System

I have just started a Solar System portal, at Portal:Solar System. Feel free to contribute. Atomic1609 14:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Good initiative. Membership? Rursus 14:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There probably should be a solar system project page as well. As it is now, there is a Moon project, and martian geography, but that's about it. Lunokhod 19:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a WikiProject. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Solar System. Note that I have recently moved it there from Wikipedia:WikiProject Solar system. Atomic1609 22:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Lunokhod was saying that the section "WikiProjects" has only those WikiProjects in them?? But now there is more so it really doesn't matter. Branson03 18:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

My bad, it was already there, oops! Branson03 18:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Proliferation of Wiki Projects

Did we really need another astronomy-related WikiProject? As it is, astronomy-related discussions are spread out over several WikiProjects, and half of the astronomy-related WikiProjects are inactive. Dr. Submillimeter 01:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I share your concern that the large number of projects might be a bit overkill, and ultimately limits there usefulness. However, I think that solar system could be potentially useful. I think that what we should do is try to consolidate some of the pre-existing projects that are either inactive or redundant. For example, I would suggest the following

Consolidate astronomy and astronomical objects.
rename Martian geography to Mars to increase its scope.
Merge constellations with astronomical objects
Merge spacecraft, launch vehicles, space missions, space travelers, space colonization, timeline of spaceflight, and unmanned space missions into space exploration (or perhaps manned and unmanned space exploration).
Merge mars spacecraft into newly renamed Mars project.

These are just suggestions. I think that it should be up to the members of these projects (if they are active) to decide what to do. Lunokhod 10:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that it might be needed, but it depends... First of all: there's a need of some complete list of subportals/wikiprojects pertaining to astronomy (and maybe space techs). Subprojects may come and go, depending on the development of research and our activity, the two antagonic troubles are information overflow in too long discussion lists, versus hardness to find relevant discussion. What's actually needed is some kind of coordination on the astronomy level. I'll think a little more about it, and see what I can do... Rursus 10:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

There should be complete lists of astronomy-related wikiprojects at Wikipedia:WikiProject Space/Projects and portals at Wikipedia:WikiProject Space/Portals; if there are any that aren't listed there, then please add them. Mike Peel 10:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank You! I found necessary information near that "article" and made some kosmetic hacks, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Space/Members_all. If it works as intended, You will not see that anything has changed, nor understand what I speak about. (I'm hacking templates for easier trans-project/portal surfing!) Rursus 19:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just put together a proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space/Reorganisation, which will reduce the number of projects from 17 to just 6. I think it would be better to centralise discussion on this, as it affects several projects. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 15:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Ephemerides

Found these, some of them have been prodded. 70.51.8.30 06:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm intrigued to find this here, since I came to this page to find out what these huge tables actually are. They seem to crop up all over the place, sometimes occupying most of an article, sometimes being—other than an infobox—the whole of an article. Yet none that I have found thus far has any link to indicate to the non-expert what any of the figures mean or are useful for. What are they, and what use are they? (Can I assume from the section header that these tables are somehow related to this?) TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 14:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

These tables are supposed to list various information on the positions of these objects as seen from the Earth. "Conjunction" and "opposition" refer to the position of the objects with respect to the Sun as seen from Earth (with conjunction indicating that the planet is "behind" the Sun and opposition indicating that the planet is on the opposite side of the sky from the Sun). The stationary terms indicate that the object does not appear to be moving relative to background stars as seen from Earth. This happens frelatively frequently for objects outside of Earth's orbit around the Sun.

This information looks poorly presented. Listing the conjunction, opposition, and stationary dates on the same line is confusing. The maximum brightness and minimum distances apparently correspond to the "opposition" dates only, although that is not apparent from the way the data are presented. The diameters should vary over time as the objects move towards and away from the Earth; maybe the diameters correspond to maximum diameters (when the objects are closest to the Earth), but that is unclear.

I would be willing to submit an AfD nomination for all of these pages. These are just pages with raw numbers. Most of the information is unreferenced, and some of it is not even interesting. What do other people think? Dr. Submillimeter 14:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say AfD or TransWiki to WikiSource (or something). The asteroid articles also need cleanup, since the tables were integrated into the main articles... 70.55.84.23 06:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Aspects of Mars cannot be reprodded... does someone want to take this to WP:AFD? 132.205.44.134 22:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

user:Michael riber jorgensen deprodded Uranus Neptune and Pluto. 70.55.88.134 04:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Exploded Planet Hypothesis

Exploded Planet Hypothesis has been AfD'd. 70.55.84.23 06:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Large pathetic galaxy

Large pathetic galaxy is up at AfD. Please comment if you have any interest. Chrislintott 07:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

ROTFL, sorry I missed that! Was that a name of an article really? :-) Rursus 11:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Asteroid ephemerides

An emphemerides ("aspects") of 2 Pallas was introduced by anonymous user 85.74.29.233 on July 7, 2005. Judging by the contributions, it looks like this user did the same for other asteroids. My feeling on this is that an ephemerides doesn't really belong in wikipedia. Since I can't find a suitable reference I'm thinking of removing it from the 2 Pallas page. Does anybody have an objection to this, or a good alternative? Thank you. — RJH (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think most people support this. Also, see the discussion on similar emphemerides up above. Dr. Submillimeter 15:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

e.g. I support removal of these tables. They serve no useful purpose as far as I can see, clutter the articles, and are often out of date. Anyway, would you use ephemerides seen on Wikipedia without checking the source first? Deuar 17:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can only believe these tables are none too useful for planning an observing/photography session. Probably it's there mainly for astrology usage. So we could always include the Horizons online ephemeris link instead. — RJH (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I honestly do not believe the tables were for astrology myself. They were probably created by someone who wanted to show off their ability to program an ephemeris-calculating tool. User:Lunokhod has had some problems dealing with people like that. Anyhow, the link looks like a much better alternative. Dr. Submillimeter 22:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Could be. Many of the web references I found on the subject of asteroid ephemerides seemed to be related to astrology, so I just assumed... If the data is legitimate astronomical information then possibly it would make more sense to transwiki it to wikisource, for example. There is an astronomy category. Would the name "Asteroid aspects" be suitable? — RJH (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Star cluster

I was reading up on some stellar clusters, so I have updated the site and added subgroups, Super star cluster, Extended cluster, & Embedded cluster. Just wanting a look over to make sure I did not miss anything. Thanks, CarpD 21/3/07

Super star clusters should not be a subgroup of globular clusters. Super star clusters are very young stars and are more like open star clusters in this respect. Globular clusters are generally very evolved stellar systems. However, a discussion on how globular clusters may form from super star clusters should remain in the globular cluster section. Dr. Submillimeter 09:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I moved the SSC under OC. About the precusor, I am not familiar about that. So, I copied part of RJHall's remark on it in the Globular Cluster's main page. Hope that is not a problem, RJHall. Thanks, CarpD 21/3/07

No problem here. The paragraph seems a little brief though. — RJH (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody help the Pismis 24 cluster?

User:Fra1ft dropped two rather unwikified (and probably machine-translated) articles PISMIS and Pismis 24-1 into our article space (as well as some related images with insufficent source and license info). As they are they should be WP:PRODded but perhaps somebody can make one nice little article out of this? A bio-stub about Paris Pismis [14] wouldn't hurt either (that one I can start, if there are no better volunteers) --Pjacobi 20:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This almost looks like someone is advertising his results on Wikipedia. PISMIS is a real open cluster according toSIMBAD. Pismis 24-1 is a designation that is not recognized by SIMBAD. However, I found this preprint abstract on the object. I would suggest that both articles tenatively be kept but that someone use the astro-ph preprint and some other articles from the ADS Abstract Service to improve the articles. Dr. Submillimeter 22:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed the astrosurf link and added an APOD link. Also looking for the relevance of this page, PISMIS. Removed that link from Pismis-24. Uncertain what this page is for, PISMIS 24-1. This is the best edit I can do, for now. Thanks, CarpD 21/3/07

Category:Free astronomy software

I have proposed merging Category:Free astronomy software into Category:Astronomy software. Most of the software listed in Category:Astronomy software is also free, so the subdivision does not seem appropriate. Please go state any opinions you have at WP:CFD. Dr. Submillimeter 22:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please review "Black hole" article

I've completed pass 1 of the edit of Black hole discussed in Talk:Black_hole#Possible_restructure? Please check it for errors, inconsistencies and serious omissions. For comparison, the previous version of the article is at [15]Philcha. Talk:Black_hole#Please_review_the_recent_edits states the objectives of the edit.

I've also asked Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics and Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy to review Black hole, and I'm informing these projects that I've asked Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects to review Black hole.

Dr. Submillimeter commented that Black hole is too long, and I think that for each major "entry point" article WP needs a plan which defines how much detail goes where (Talk:Black_hole#Please_review_the_recent_edits).

My $.02 worth: I agree with Dr. Submillimeter, in that the article seems to be trying to cover too many different aspects of the subject. The current sections 1-6, 8, 11, and 13-18 appear to be the core topics. Sections 9, 10 (and possibly 8) could be an article on black hole astronomy, while sections 7 & 12 are interesting from a "What if?" perspective. Also the article as a whole has too many lists that should be prose. — RJH (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that a more general overview should sit at black hole, and subarticles should be created for astronomical black holes, black hole physics, history of black holes, black holes and quantum physics. 132.205.44.134 21:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Most black holes are "astronomical black holes". The only things that may not be "astronomical" are some tenatively-indetified things found in particle accelerators (according to the article). I would suggest placing a higher-level summary of "astronomical black holes" (without using that term) at black hole and simply using supermassive black hole, intermediate mass black hole, and stellar mass black hole. To some degree, this is already done, but maybe it can be cleaned up a little. Dr. Submillimeter 22:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

All right, but I don't believe this approach would significantly reduce the length of the main article. The usual method is to create daughter articles and apply a summary style to the main page. I was just contemplating how that might be done in the context of the current structure. — RJH (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Planet

The planet article has been neglected of late, and it would probably be a good idea for multiple people to read and edit it. It is classified as a core topic, recently had its "good article" status revoked, and on the whole it really needs some clean up. So, I am asking anyone who has some spare time to come look at it, give their opinions, and possibly make a few edits. Thanks--Vsst 03:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

planetary aspects

These pages have appeared at WP:AFD. 132.205.44.134 23:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. The entire AfD process is an exercise in inconsistent cynicism and dealing with snide remarks from aggresive individuals. People will rally to keep unsourced, non-encyclopedic content (*COUGH*crap*COUGH*) and then a handful of people will toss out perfectly good material that has been many months in development. Sometimes it seems like it's easier to deal with stuff like this quietly rather than going through the gauntlet. Anyway I was WP:BOLD and modified these pages to be entirely astrology-specific, as I'm guessing that the on-line ephemeris information is probably much more useful for those interested in astronomy. It looks like the "Aspects" tables have already been yanked from the minor planets pages. Hopefully this doesn't offend anybody here. — RJH (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, they've been deleted. 132.205.44.134 22:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Could someone delete the links from the Mars, Uranus and Pluto pages? They seem to be protected. 132.205.44.134 22:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Beta Pictoris

The article for Beta Pictoris is quite small, and while not quite a stub, is pretty pathetic for such an important object. It could do with some serious expansion. SIMBAD lists a lot of scientific papers which would be good references. Chaos syndrome 19:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Earth FAC

The Earth article is up for a Featured Article Candidate again. It has been reformated to appear more like the other planet articles and the reference list has been significantly expanded. Please take a look and leave your comments. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Uranus

I propose that this WikiProject should work on the Uranus article as it is now the only article within the Solar System featured topic that does not have good article or featured article status. Atomic1609 22:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I'd be interested, but at present I'm preoccupied with expanding asteroid belt. — RJH (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:T_Tauri_star - T Tauri star star

Added reference to CTTS & WTTS types. But after reading the article, I am uncertain where to add this information. I went looking for this article, because I have very little knowledge on protostars. I do know that CTTS & WTTS have a small difference. I noted the differences in the discussion section. Thanks, CarpD 3/4/07

T Tauri star looks nicely written. The extra information on the subtypes of T Tauri stars is probably needed, but adding it to the existing text would require editing the text quite a bit. It would also be nice to have lengthier descriptions of the T Tauri stars rather than very brief statements on the observational phenomenology. Maybe you can just hold back on adding that information and wait for someone to incorporate the information into the article. Dr. Submillimeter 21:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Most likely. I am unfamiliar with in this area. I also noticed that Hα detection is also a signicant factor. But I am not sure what Hα stands for. Thanks, CarpD 3/04/07

H alpha is a specific spectral line in the emission spectrum of hydrogen. Astronomers use it all the time to trace star formation. I know little about T Tauri stars myself, but I think that the H alpha emission may be less relevant than the basic structure of the stars (a central protostellar object, an accretion disk, and polar jets), which is what is already described in the article. Dr. Submillimeter 08:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing. I noticed that this template, Template:Star Formation is not on the page Herbig-Haro object, yet the template states it in there. Thanks, CarpD 3/04/07

Template:Star Formation honestly does not look useful for navigation. It seems to be a list of some articles with varying connections to star formation. For example, much of the interstellar medium is not connected to star formation. I am also certain that many relevant pages on star formation (e.g. HII region) are left out of the template. Maybe it should be deleted? Dr. Submillimeter 08:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it could still be used, but it's in heavy need of reorganization, why f.ex. are T Tauri star and Herbig Ae/Be stars not Classes of Objects, while Herbig-Haro object is? The image could be smaller too. Rursus 11:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the template/look up table thing. But (correct me if I am wrong), is HAeBe the similar to T Tauri stars, but more massive? Also, I added a proposed listing for the template in the discussion section. Thanks, CarpD 4/04/07

Umm, my memory, and the article Herbig Ae/Be stars tells me that they're analogues, i.e. similar, as you say. I'll take a look at that discussion. Rursus 22:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Request to move Ptolemy Cluster to Messier 7

I just made a request to move Ptolemy Cluster to Messier 7. "Messier 7" and "M7" are used far more often then "Ptolemy Cluster". I had never even heard of the alternate name until I encountered the article while working on disambiguation pages. Please go voice your opinion at Talk:Ptolemy Cluster. Dr. Submillimeter 11:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Moving this list List of dark nebulae

How do you rename a page without having the old name link to it? Because this page is not a list of dark nebulae, it is a list of Barnard objects. Though, very empty if I say so. Thanks, CarpD 5/04/07

After moving the page, go to WP:RFD and follow the procedure there. It is fairly simple to nominate these redirects for deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 06:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to take a look. So, would "List of Barnard objects" be a good title? Thanks, CarpD 7/04/07

List of Barnard objects would be fine. The list does contain some objects at the top which are not individual Barnard objects (although most appear to be multiple Barnard objects). Is this move appropriate? Dr. Submillimeter 10:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

aspects of asteroids

A whole lot of asteroids appear to have these ephemerides sections attached to them. See asteroids starting at #10, and continuing on and on and on. 132.205.44.134 21:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

These lists are horrible. Just delete them. (They only go up to asteroid 96.) Dr. Submillimeter 00:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I completely agree. — RJH (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Categorization of astronomers by religion

A few people have been categorizing astronomers by religion; see Category:Astronomers by religion. I have nominated the category tree for deletion. I personally think this is a bad idea, as religion has no influence on the careers of any astronomers that I know. Please go voice your opinion here. Dr. Submillimeter 09:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it occurred to me that the astronomers I have known at the Vatican Observatory are probably influenced by religion more than average, although they are exceptions. Still, for the vast majority of astronomers that I know, religion generally does not influence their careers. Dr. Submillimeter 10:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Greek and Roman astronomers

I just nominated Category:Greek and Roman astronomers to be renamed Category:Roman astronomers. Combining the Greeks and Romans together just seems confusing. Also note that Category:Greek astronomers already exists. Please go voice your opinion at WP:CFD. Dr. Submillimeter 00:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Astronomical units of length

Is there any object to a migration of the category Category:Astronomical units of length to a slightly broader group called "Category:Astronomical units". That would allow the inclusion of topics such as Angular diameter, Solar mass, Solar luminosity and so forth. — RJH (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, perhaps it would be better if you supercat it? It fits under Category:Units of length. 132.205.44.134 22:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate to have an astronomy-specific sub-category of units of length due to the uniqueness of some of the values. Added CFR entry under Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_12#Category:Astronomical_units_of_length. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Meteoroid → Meteor

User:Smkolins has proposed that meteoroid be renamed meteor 132.205.44.134 22:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is the proposal? I did not see in at Talk:Meteoroid. Dr. Submillimeter 10:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:RM#Incomplete and contested proposals. It was originally a speedy proposal, but someone contested it. 132.205.44.134 21:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Planetary mass type nominated for deletion

Planetary mass type is now nominated for deletion. I basically nominated the article because it uses neologisms and appears to include original research. It is also redundant with the well-referenced material in planet. Please go comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planetary mass type. Dr. Submillimeter 08:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Also note that subterrestrial has been nominated for deletion. Please go comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subterrestrial. Dr. Submillimeter 10:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for merger Celestial Atlas into Uranography

Hi. Intrested to discuss? Then go HERE! Rursus 10:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Solar nebula renaming

~~Planetary formation→ Nebular hypothesis~~ Solar nebula → Nebular hypothesis - Serendipodous 20:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

See WP:RM for the suggestion.

70.51.11.38 03:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

stub-type planet-stub has been nominated for deletion

See WP:SFD, User:BlueEarth created the stub type template:planet-stub/category:planet stubs 132.205.44.134 23:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Micrometeoroid merge to meteoroid

User:Rsduhamel proposes that micrometeoroid be merged into meteoroid. 132.205.44.134 15:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with micrometeoroid, in that it confuses micrometeroid and micrometeorite. 132.205.44.134 15:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Exploding planet

I have a bit of a mystery on my hands. In the early 19th century, Wilhelm Olbers suggested that the asteroid belt may have originated from a destroyed planet. The "Phaeton" article covers this in some depth, but appears to lack any credible scientific sources to dispute the idea. The asteroid belt article also includes an unsourced, single paragraph about why this idea is now (supposedly) widely discredited among scientists.

When I search the web, though, what I find is a mass of seemingly Velikovsky-style proposals for why the idea of an exploding planet (as a source for the belt) is in fact accurate. These include theories of an atomic destruction of the planet, observational evidence from the Bible, and a tie-in of the K-T boundary event! (See this for example.) What I don't find, however, are solid, scientific sources for why this is complete bullocks (pardon my French). The only evidence I've found (so far) contradicting this hypothesis comes from Simon Newcomb. But this was back in the 1860s and was based on the lack of common orbital intersections. (Which is easily discounted by considering collisions and perturbations.)

I'd love to put this baby to rest with some good scientific references. Any suggestions? Thanks!!! — RJH (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Observational evidence from the Bible would need to be correlated with observations from cultures that did astronomy, as Jews and early Christians did not. I would not credit any evidence from the bible on astronomical phenomena without correlation. You can interpret the bible in so many ways, that it's not a real source of anything, except philosophy. It's like reading Nostradamus.

Various theories of solar system formation and simulations thereof, I wonder if we can dig up some references to them, as some of them show that Jupiter's formation disrupted formation of a planet in the asteroid belt. (or even stunting Mars).

The undifferentiated nature of many asteroids argues against a destroyed planet... again requiring looking up papers and then showing why lack of differentiation is indicative of anything besides being undifferentiated.

Atomic destruction of a planet? That'd be a big bomb... how many petatons? (it'd be easier with a smash by another planet, or anti-matter)

If this is done, it should be in a separate article... otherwise the asteroid belt article would turn into a pseudoscience debunking article, or a history of the scientific theories about the asteroid belt. 70.55.85.67 06:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The very concept of an exploded planet is easily discredited by simply computing the required energy. Take Earth. Simplifying things, we'll assume constant uniform density. The energy released by the addition of a shell of thickness dr is GMm/r, where M is 4πr³ρ/3 and m is 4πr²ρdr. Integrate over r equals zero to R (the Earth's current radius):

E=\int \limits _{0}^{R}{\frac {16}{3}}G\rho ^{2}\pi ^{2}r^{4}dr={\frac {16}{3}}G\rho ^{2}\pi ^{2}\int \limits _{0}^{R}r^{4}dr={\frac {16}{15}}G\rho ^{2}\pi ^{2}R^{5}

Plugging Earth's values we get a staggering 2,2×10³² J (5,4×10²² tTNT, 54 zettatons of TNT), which is to say the entire Sun's luminous output for nearly a week, or the annihilation of 2,5×10¹⁵ kg of matter (the mass of an average largish asteroid such as 951 Gaspra). For an impact to release that kind of energy, you'd need to drop 3,6×10²⁴ kg on Earth, that's 5,6 times the mass of planet Mars!

Urhixidur 15:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This is clever, but unless you can cite a reference that shows this derivation, it unfortunately qualifies as original research. Dr. Submillimeter 15:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

So... the kinetic energy of the Earth's orbital motion = 0.5mv^2 = 9×10^32 J. That's of the same order of magnitude as the above. Unless I am completely off base here, with a high-angle collision between a pair of planetary bodies, I'm not seeing that it is completely out of the question. — RJH (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The above derivation rules out one planet exploding by itself, but it does not rule out the possibility of two smaller planesimals colliding with each other (which might have been expected in the primordial Solar System).

One possible thought: the asteroid belt exists in a broad band that includes a series of orbits that would be in resonance with the orbit of Jupiter. While this is not necessarily proof against the possibility of an exploded planet, it adds more evidence to the possibility that a planet never formed there in the first place. This may the more appropriate way to argue against the exploded planet hypothesis. Dr. Submillimeter 20:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There must be an old paper or book somewhere that built the case. I should check the local library. — RJH (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a recent presentation concerning a case for a fifth terrestrial planet in the inner belt region:

Raymond, S. N., Planet Artemis: the case for the formation and delayed destruction of a fifth Solar System terrestrial planet, Astrobiology Science Conference, 2006.

(See also: Long-Destroyed Fifth Planet May Have Caused Lunar Cataclysm, Researchers Say) Maybe the idea still has some slight merit? The most common reason I see listed in opposition to a destroyed planet being the source is the current mass of the belt being too low. But it seems to me that most of the resulting debris could have been subsequently expelled due to perturbations by Jupiter. So I'm not completely buying that argument.

It's also interesting that this paper:

O'Brien, D. P. "The Primordial Excitation and Clearing of the Asteroid Belt--Revisited", Icarus, 153, 338-347

somewhat favors a model whereby the mass of the belt is swept out of the system by a handful of planetary embryos (0.13-0.37 earth masses) within the belt region, and these were subsequently removed by Jupiter's gravitational influence. That makes for some interesting collisional possibilities. Hmm, intriguing... — RJH (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Long story short, this reference gives an argument based on the marked chemical differences between the asteroids:

Masetti, M.; Mukai, K. (December 1, 2005). "Origin of the Asteroid Belt". NASA Goddard Spaceflight Center. Retrieved 2007-04-25.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

It seems to solve my problem. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Neptune Peer Review

Because Neptune is an A-class article, I started a peer review for it. Feel free to review it or address some of the criticism so it can become a featured article candidate. The Solar System featured topic (currently the only Astronomy-related featured topic) is almost all featured articles and this makes it one step closer. — Pious7_Talk ^Contribs 19:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Extrasolar planets and Category:Planetary systems

Is anyone familiar with these categories? According to their descriptions, Category:Extrasolar planets is used for stars with one planet, while Category:Planetary systems is used for stars with multiple planets. In plain English, however, "planetary system" would usually refer to any star with a planet, and "extrasolar planet" would refer to planets (not stars). Would people object if I reorganized these articles following my above interpretation? Another option would be to rename one or both of the categories to more clearly indicate their contents. Dr. Submillimeter 20:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

So this would turn "Planetary systems" into a star category, and "Extrasolar planets" only contains articles of planets themselves? 132.205.44.134 22:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. An alternative might be to have a "stars with planets" category, but that sounds dorky. Dr. Submillimeter 22:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds ok to me. 132.205.44.134 22:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Uranus on WP:ACID

Uranus was been nominated for the Article Creation and Improvement Drive and needs support. As it is the one planet that is not a good or featured article, voting for it to keep it alive (and then helping improve it when it is selected) will help strengthen the one Astronomy-related featured topic. — Pious7_Talk ^Contribs 20:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)