Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 37
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 30 | ← | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 |
Imperial/U.S. customary units in the infobox
Should imperial/U.S. customary units be present in the infobox of astronomical objects in general?
- Option 1: No for all articles
- Option 2: Yes for info cited to sources that only use imperial units, otherwise no
- Option 3: Yes for all articles
CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Context: Right now, the use of imperial/U.S. customary units are inconsistent among articles (for example, Sun, Mars, Earth and has imperial conversions, but Pluto, Mercury (planet) and Ceres (dwarf planet) don't). For articles that do use imperial/U.S. customary units, they also have SI conversions and often uses {{convert}} template.
- CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- MOS:UNITS applies, with the alternative being units conventional to astronomy. Praemonitus (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- If so then all U.S. customary units be removed from these articles. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- MOS:UNITS applies, with the alternative being units conventional to astronomy. Praemonitus (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Specifically for science articles (not necessarily for biographies or histories), per MOS:CONVERSIONS: "...in science-related articles, supplying such conversion is not required unless there is some special reason to do so." To avoid conflict, I'd include the linked policy in the edit notes. Also, I'd hesitate to apply this to the Earth article. Praemonitus (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm opposed to imperial in general, but we need to keep it when citing values that are given in imperial. The reason is that when we convert to metric, not only may there be rounding errors, but we often change the number of significant digits. And when sources are in imperial, their source data was often in metric and there are already conversion errors involved. Often when we convert back, our figures differ from the original -- that's been a recurring problem with our data. Better to give it in imperial with our metric conversion following in parentheses. Editors will then be aware of the potential for error and try to find the original figures, which should be used instead. When our sources use metric, then we should use metric only, unless our source converted from imperial. In all cases, I think we should attempt to use the original figures, or as close to them as we can find. — kwami (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
We should be using metric units for everything except for material which is specifically US material. Wikipdia is not owned by the US. It is world wide and vast majority of countries now use metric. Bduke (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter if it's US/NASA. The issue is fidelity to the data. If a US source publishes in metric, we should use metric. If a UK source publishes in imperial, so should we. — kwami (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- No. We are not writing ransom notes with words cut out of other publications. We are giving coherent explanations that are based on reliable sources. To make our articles coherent, we should choose units appropriate to the article, and give the most appropriate unit first. If the unit given in a source is different from what we choose to list first, we can use the convert template in a way that the value copied from the source listed first and the converted value is given first. Since this thread is about infoboxes, it isn't even necessary to give the value from the source in the box at all, so long as it is in the body of the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- That's what I said, at least for the original data appearing first. Unless we explain that the figure given second is primary, and not just added because someone wanted to plaster imperial all over WP. We don't want someone coming by and deleting the data because that's all they think it is. — kwami (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- {{convert}} has a function of just displaying the output. So it is possible to conserve the original data in some way. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- That's what I said, at least for the original data appearing first. Unless we explain that the figure given second is primary, and not just added because someone wanted to plaster imperial all over WP. We don't want someone coming by and deleting the data because that's all they think it is. — kwami (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- No. We are not writing ransom notes with words cut out of other publications. We are giving coherent explanations that are based on reliable sources. To make our articles coherent, we should choose units appropriate to the article, and give the most appropriate unit first. If the unit given in a source is different from what we choose to list first, we can use the convert template in a way that the value copied from the source listed first and the converted value is given first. Since this thread is about infoboxes, it isn't even necessary to give the value from the source in the box at all, so long as it is in the body of the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Astronomy data is often published with excessive numbers of digits; far more than is justified by the margin of error. I don't think we need to worry about the accuracy of the conversions. The appearance of excessive accuracy can be misleading in and of itself. We're not an original source for this data, and often we can get by with presenting rounded values. Praemonitus (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. That's very often the case, and in such cases conversion errors are not an issue. If we have something at ridiculous (and spurious) precision in imperial, then I have no problem simply converting to metric and ignoring the published units. But not infrequently, especially with initial news reports and even beyond that with crude estimates, data is published to very few sigfigs in imperial, and we do introduce a significant error when converting. Say, the impact of an asteroid est. to be 10 miles in diameter -- what do we convert that to? 15 km? 20 km? Usually I see a misleading 16 km, a precision that is not justified by the source. — kwami (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Again, {{convert}} can be helpful here, by using "round=5" or "round=25" to round to the nearest .5 or .25. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed. I just think that in such cases we need to be clear to the reader that the source data is in imperial, not that we just decided to add a conversion to imperial. — kwami (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Again, {{convert}} can be helpful here, by using "round=5" or "round=25" to round to the nearest .5 or .25. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. That's very often the case, and in such cases conversion errors are not an issue. If we have something at ridiculous (and spurious) precision in imperial, then I have no problem simply converting to metric and ignoring the published units. But not infrequently, especially with initial news reports and even beyond that with crude estimates, data is published to very few sigfigs in imperial, and we do introduce a significant error when converting. Say, the impact of an asteroid est. to be 10 miles in diameter -- what do we convert that to? 15 km? 20 km? Usually I see a misleading 16 km, a precision that is not justified by the source. — kwami (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2 seems the right solution to me. If the referenced source is in miles, we should give that value in the infobox for verification, along with a km conversion. If the source was in km, there's no need for miles. A conversion into au or pc might be more useful anyway, depending on context. The sentence about 'science-related articles' in MOS:CONVERSIONS applies and makes sense to me. Modest Genius talk 11:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- There's a problem though with the wording of Option 2: "Yes for info cited to sources that only use imperial units, otherwise no."
- The problem is that sources often include a conversion to metric with spurious precision (e.g. 10mi/16km, where the 10mi is the original number and only an estimate), and the wording of Option 2 means we'd cite only that conversion. That conflicts with the spirit of the MOS warning "Be careful especially when your source has already converted from the units you're now converting back to." That's not just a potential problem with converting back, but with dropping the original number and citing only the converted value. In my example, we shouldn't cite "16 km", but rather something more like "10 mi (10-20 km)" or "10 mi (approx. 15 km)", or even just "10-20 km" or "approx. 15 km". — kwami (talk) 12:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- In those cases, I think it's fine to use the US units in {{convert}} with disp=out, so the original is displayed to editors for verification and the metric is displayed to readers for consistency. So yeah, the wording in the MOS should advise using the original quantity and doing our own conversion. -- Beland (talk) 01:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, added to the MOS. — kwami (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Perfect. I think that addresses all my concerns. (Sorry, I didn't see the extraneous changes that I typed somehow.) — kwami (talk) 02:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- In those cases, I think it's fine to use the US units in {{convert}} with disp=out, so the original is displayed to editors for verification and the metric is displayed to readers for consistency. So yeah, the wording in the MOS should advise using the original quantity and doing our own conversion. -- Beland (talk) 01:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
RFC: Imperial/U.S. customary units in astronomy object infobox
As a month passes by and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#Imperial/U.S._customary_units_in_the_infobox did not reach to a consensus, I think it is time to ask the wider community.
- Option 1: Omit all of imperial/U.S. customary units in infobox, but allow using {{cvt}} to convert numbers from the source to SI units
- Option 2: Only use imperial/U.S. customary units in infobox if the source itself only use imperial/U.S. customary units
- Option 3: Allow imperial/U.S. customary units in infobox
CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- CactiStaccingCrane, this is exactly the same question - if there is no firm consensus from one RFC, why do you think a second one will garner it? Primefac (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- That's because my first RFC is somewhat vague and did not gather enough activity. I do believe that the second RFC will come to a definite consensus. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- None of the above. Do not use imperial/US customary units so that they appear in infoboxes. If the source only provides an imperial/US customary unit, or the imperial/US customary unit is better because the SI unit contains unjustified excess significant figures, include the imperial/US customary unit in the body of the article or in a footnote. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Can you explain further what you meant by "excess significant figures"? Can we just trim them out for the sake of brevity? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Sometimes a source will give a value in imperial, such as 93 million miles, which has a few significant figures. The source will give a sloppily-converted value in SI, such as 149.7 Gm in parenthesis. If this value were given in the Wikipedia article it would likely be wrong, because the conversion was calculated from the rounded value, 93 million, rather than the true value. For example if we were talking about the semi-major axis of the Earth's orbit the true value is 92955902 and the value in km, rounded to four digits, would be 149.6 Gm. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Can you explain further what you meant by "excess significant figures"? Can we just trim them out for the sake of brevity? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- This is similar but not identical to the question you asked a month ago, which is confusing. Option 1 is now closest to my preference, but not quite what I would have chosen. More broadly, where are you proposing this rule would go? With what wording? Is there a problem that needs fixing?
- In my view, astronomy infoboxes should use a) professional astronomy units (parsecs, solar masses etc.) and b) an SI equivalent if relevant. We don't need to convert everything e.g. listing every star's mass in kilograms isn't helpful to anyone. I wouldn't include an imperial conversion at all, unless the only units available in the references were imperial and the conversion to more appropriate units is shown. I highly doubt that there are many sources that are reliable, only use imperial, and have no alternative better source that gives the value in astronomical or SI units, so that's a very rare edge case. Modest Genius talk 17:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- As a rule, astronomy infoboxes should contain standard astronomy units, plus SI if relevant (and only if relevant), but no imperial conversion. I'd say that Imperial conversions could be provided in prose, but should never be primary, and shouldn't go in at all unless the number is of significant interest to non-scientists. I'd add that any rule relying on the specific source adopted - such as Option 2 - is a nonsense because it opens the gate to people just switching the source to something that matches their unit preference. (And yes, people really do do this.) Kahastok talk 18:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- We might use only SI in the info box, but imperial in the text if that's what the original (or oldest attested) measures are given in. My worry is the errors that creep in by converting a rough estimate (e.g. 10 miles as a guestimate) into something that looks spuriously precise (16 km). — kwami (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- As for cherry-picking sources, we want the original data, not imperial conversions. Only if the original data is in imperial should we use imperial. Sometimes the oldest source we have has converted SI to imperial, and later SI might be back converted from the imperial. We don't want to copy that. This is mostly a problem with press releases. But once we can access the original data, we should of course go with that. — kwami (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- This is all already considered in WP:UNITS, and I'm not sure why this topic should be an exception to the standard rules there? Of course if there is an actual quotation (direct or indirect) then you preserve the quote. But if the first person who measured the distance to Mars did it in smoots, that would not be a good reason for us to use smoots for the purpose. Kahastok talk 18:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- If that's the only measure we have, then yes, we should give the results in smoots. I'm not talking about the oldest measurement, but about the original units of the measurement we use. — kwami (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- This is all already considered in WP:UNITS, and I'm not sure why this topic should be an exception to the standard rules there? Of course if there is an actual quotation (direct or indirect) then you preserve the quote. But if the first person who measured the distance to Mars did it in smoots, that would not be a good reason for us to use smoots for the purpose. Kahastok talk 18:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- My view on each of these proposals:
- Option 1: Easily the best as there is realistically no context in astronomy in which imperial/USC is preferred over SI (or other scientific units, including occasionally some pre-SI metric relics). My main objection is to the use of the term "source" since, every time a proposal has arisen for source-based units, it has quickly become apparent how problematic and unworkable it would be. It's perhaps best to clarify that (as I understand) what is being suggested here is the use of the convert template with the disp=output only flag, so if a number is quoted in imperial/USC we can still take that information from the source but display it in appropriate units only e.g. {{cvt|120|mi|km|disp=output only}} → 190 km.
- Option 2: This seems to be just a more explicit proposal for source-based units, which I would oppose as described above.
- Option 3: No, as in the real world there's no case in which the very marginal benefit of such unnecessary conventions is worth the clutter added by their inclusion. Our overarching guidance is to provide conversions only where they are, in context, likely to be useful to readers. If someone is hell-bent on knowing the diameters of the moons of Mars in furlongs, they have access to other conversion tools. This also makes me wonder exactly what "allow" means – allow individual editors to do whatever they want, regardless of MOS-level guidance or stylistic consistency across astronomy articles?
- So if we were to adopt any of these, my !vote would be for a clarified version of the first. A more general comment would be that, as others have observed above, this is spelled out in realistically enough detail already at WP:UNITS, so any guidance specific to this WikiProject should simply be a clarification of what that MOS guidance means specifically for the articles it maintains. It's important not to focus obsessively on problems that don't exist, or don't really manifest in article-space, so unless there is a recurrent problem with editors obsessively adding imperial/USC units to astronomy infoboxes, I'm not sure see a clear use case for this guidance. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Option 1. I favor being slightly stricter than MOS:UNITS and discouraging US/imperial units in infoboxes about astronomical objects, rather than just not requiring converting to them. Kwamikagami has just added (and I tweaked) advice to MOS:CONVERSIONS which should address the concerns raised above about rounding and significant figures and retaining the original source units for verification (e.g. use disp=out for US/imperial quantities we want to keep for editor verification but display to readers in metric only). This means there is no reason to use US/imperial just because a source does so. Infoboxes are crowded, and the quantities involved are usually mind-blowingly large anyway, so it's more important to convert to the astronomical system of units than to US/imperial units. So perhaps some wording like this:
- "In infoboxes for astronomical objects, follow MOS:CONVERSIONS making the International System of Units and astronomical system of units primary, but do not display US conventional/British imperial units. Display conversions from SI to astronomy units if appropriate."
- -- Beland (talk) 03:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree about restricting Imperial. What does it mean to anyone to say that Jupiter "weighs" X pounds? (Okay, we have pound mass now, but still.) No-one has any comprehension of what numbers that large mean. They're only useful for comparison, and units don't matter for that. The only figure likely to mean anything to anyone is that the Earth is 93M miles from the Sun, which I learned as a child, but the AU takes care of that: say that Jupiter is at 5 AU, and is doesn't matter if someone memorized the AU in miles or km. Lots of people have memorized the circumference of the Earth is 24k miles, but we hardly mention circumferences in the info boxes. Other than that, imperial is pretty meaningless.
- I'd like to take it further, though. People have been going around converting exponential notation to SI prefixes (terameters and zetagrams or whatever). Those are also pretty much useless. IMO we should use exponential notation with basic SI (MKS) units.
- Personally, I prefer the engineering convention of restricting exponents to multiples of three, even though my background is in physics, because it makes comparisons easier to have the same scale for similar objects. Certainly in tables (e.g. most massive objects in the SS), the header should specify the exponent so that the columns can be sorted easily, but I think it would be useful even in info boxes. But even if we go by the physicist convention, that's better than SI prefixes. — kwami (talk) 03:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Astronomy
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- This discussion has been copied to talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Manual of Style. Praemonitus (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I put together an early draft of a MoS guide for astronomy under Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Manual of Style. It is intended to embed what has thus far been tribal knowledge for this WikiProject and its associated task forces. For comparison, other such style guides can be viewed under the "By topic area" tab in the infobox. What do you think of this proposed guide? Do you disagree with what is stated? What else should it cover? I'm sure it can be significantly expanded. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 05:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- This is very helpful. I particularly appreciate the linking to other relevant guidelines. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- I would suggest adding something discouraging the usage of computer-generated 2d/3d models in the lead image when suitable alternatives are available; this prominently applied to Miranda, where a 3d model was used as the infobox image for several years in lieu of an image or image mosaic.
- It may also be worth mentioning an apparent informal convention to use full-disc images of visited Solar System objects when possible, as the Sun, all nine planets (except for Venus, which does not have any full-disc true-color images on commons), Pluto, Ceres, and all visited moons seem to follow this convention. A similar/analagous convention seems to be in place for imaged galaxies and DSOs too. ArkHyena (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Makes sense. I've seen truncated images from Hubble in the lead image spot, which might not be ideal. A pair of examples are NGC 5506 and NGC 5634. Praemonitus (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Of course! There may also be an additional caveat needed in that quality/accuracy still has priority over full disc. To provide a planetary example, this[1] quarter-full image of Europa takes precedence over this[2] full disc image, which is lower-resolution and exaggerated color. ArkHyena (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Makes sense. I've seen truncated images from Hubble in the lead image spot, which might not be ideal. A pair of examples are NGC 5506 and NGC 5634. Praemonitus (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- As there didn't appear to be any serious objection to this proposal, I added it to the project sidebar so it can cook longer. Eventually, I hope it can be proposed as an addition to the MoS. Praemonitus (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Abbreviations
A style question came up during a recent edit discussion: should infobox data entries preferentially use abbreviations or words? For example, 'Mly' or 'million light years'; 'AU' or 'astronomical unit'; 'Gyr' or 'billion years'; 'g/cm3' or 'grams per cubic centimetre'. In my mind the infobox should be kept compact by sticking to abbreviations, with the word usage being left for the article body. Is there a preference? Praemonitus (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, it's already covered by the MoS: "Where space is limited (such as tables, infoboxes, parenthetical notes, and mathematical formulas) unit symbols are preferred." Praemonitus (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
AI
It's probably not an issue yet, but should we mention AI-generated illustrations? For example, "AI-generated illustrations should be avoided unless their accuracy is confirmed by an astronomy expert. The AI system may have been trained using copyrighted material, so the legality of such use is unclear." Praemonitus (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- New here so I don't know if it has already been covered in a more general guide or such, but I believe mentioning AI-generated images is a good idea. It's better to cover everything before it becomes a problem, than having to adjust it later in my opinion. AstroChara (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- The copyright rules for AI-generated images is commons:AI-generated media. If we prepare rules for objects that have never been photographed (such as exoplanets), gone millions of years ago (Theia, Mars with oceans), or just hypothetical (a terraformed Mars), they should be for any way to create such an image, be it AI, an artist's work or whatever. Cambalachero (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- I guess that artists and the astronomy experts are also trained using copyrighted material. Is the legality of the use of their work also unclear? Johnjbarton (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- You're taking the piss, right? Primefac (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think you are misunderstanding the issue with source materials and AI. Artists in all genres and authors in all fields re-mix material. That's Standing on the shoulders of giants. The legality of that re-mix is never clear cut. That's why we have courts, law suits, and lawyers. Furthermore, the legal onus is on the person who causes the material to be displayed, not on the creator. I can copy Monet in my home all day and night. Only when I sell my painting on the street will it be illegal. Similarly, the AI generation won't be illegal, uploading the image that infringes on a copyright will be. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- The legality of that is already established via the ramifications of plagiarism and the fair use law. No such ruling exists for AI; it's not even clear they can generate patents. Praemonitus (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- The discussion was copyright, not patent. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for stating the obvious. I was making the point that the legalities on the use of AI output are far from settled. Praemonitus (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- I do agree here. The morals and merits of AI art can be debated here endlessly, but the primary concern is that laws surrounding AI art (and really, AI anything) are young and volatile, and potentially subject to rapid near-future changes. It would probably be wise to at least require AI-generated material to be clearly marked as such. ArkHyena (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- The discussion was copyright, not patent. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- You're taking the piss, right? Primefac (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- As for the way an AI generates an image, unless there is an actual case law over that, I would dismiss the whole thing of "they used copyrighted images for training" as immaterial. The only thing that is truly relevant is the final image, the result of the prompt. If that image is derivative, then delete (or don't upload), under the same conditions we would with any other non-AI image. Cambalachero (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- My concern is that there is current controversy about the use of copyrighted web content for training, which may ultimately lead to take-down orders. Praemonitus (talk) 12:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Praemonitus: I like the way you worded this, and I agree with a fairly broad restriction on use of AI images without prior vetting and/or secondary sources. - Parejkoj (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
SIMBAD and NED
The guide contained the following entry, which was removed with this edit:
- However, in general they should not be cited as a source for the infobox data because the information is subject to change over time and comes from multiple overlapping sources. However, they are useful as a stable reference for the other designations listing.
with the comment "I disagree, it is better to directly cite SIMBAD or NED as sources for the infobox, as it makes it easier to verify the information."
I have seen cited data removed from these sources, so they should not be considered stable. An example of this is the coordinate information, which is subject to refinement over time, with the old data being replaced. Instead, in many cases they do provide stable references that can be used to directly cite the data. Hence, I'd caution against using SIMBAD or NED directly.
Are there any concerns about this? Praemonitus (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Units
A few suggestions:
- I think it would be good to pick one symbol for astronomical unit, and I think right now we almost always use "AU".
- Surface gravity should probably be displayed in standard gravity units in addition to m/s2, and it would be nice to use "g0" instead of "g" to avoid confusion with grams.
- Conversions between multiple SI expressions should be discouraged (e.g. both km/h and m/s, which I do see).
- This section is a bit unclear on whether both SI and astronomy units should be used, or only one. In infoboxes (and prose where it's not excessive) I would argue for both. It's much easier to intuitively grasp huge distances and masses in AU, light-years, Earth gravity, Sun masses, etc., so very worthwhile to convert into these if necessary. I like the idea of converting to metric units as well because it allows intuitive comparisons across measurements - for example, how much bigger is the Earth than its orbit around the Sun? And as much as I want everyone to learn the scientific units from birth, it's a bit kinder to Americans who have come halfway and learned either metric or astronomy units but still haven't gotten a handle on the other.
- I'm agnostic as to whether metric or astronomy units should be primary where both are given via conversion, and I'm actually fine with just making whichever the cited source is using as primary for convenience. But whatever the rule is it should be made clear up front.
-- Beland (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Redirects with no information
I've been finding some NGC object topics that were redirected to a list, but the list had no entry for that subject. Examples include NGC 6237 and NGC 6245. There are also redirects to pages with no information on the subject. An example of that is NGC 6057. I think the reader would expect to find something about the subject on the target page. Praemonitus (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Similar to my (probably to be rejected) deletion request list above, NGC 6057/NGC 6053 just shouldn't exist. It's not notable and all the entries for it are just catalogs. For things like that, just delete them. We can have someone add them to the list page if they want. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at List of largest stars
There is a move discussion at List of largest stars for changing the name to List of largest known stars. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- The result of the discussion was "not moved". Praemonitus (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Well we can argue about this until we're blue in the face, but if you search on "List of largest known stars" it'll point you to the right page. I'd say, "good enough". Praemonitus (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
HR 5171: Contact binary or not?
There is a contradiction between the content of the article and the talk page. While the article explicitly says that HR 5171 is contact binary, the latest talk page discussion says that it isn't based on a newer publication from 2019. [3] This needs to be fixed in the article. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
AfD nomination of RX Telescopii
RX Telescopii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RX Telescopii. Please post your comment there and help deciding the fate of the article. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Sun FAR
I have nominated Sun for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 750h+ 01:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Changes to Template:Infobox feature on celestial object
Hello! I've started a discussion proposing some changes to the aforementioned template. Although this template is primarily concerned with planetary geology and Solar System-related topics, I invite you all to join the discussion and give your comments. ArkHyena (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Galactic coordinate system
The page Galactic coordinate system contains this picture:
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/12/Artist%27s_impression_of_the_Milky_Way_%28updated_-_annotated%29.jpg/220px-Artist%27s_impression_of_the_Milky_Way_%28updated_-_annotated%29.jpg)
with a caption saying it shows the galactic longitude. The article says that this is measured from the galactic centre. Doesn't the picture show coordinates centred on our Sun, though? Or have I misunderstood? Marnanel (talk) 10:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- I believe you have misunderstood; it isn't centred on the galactic centre, it is centred on Earth and 0° runs through it. Primefac (talk) 11:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with @Marnanel The way I see it, the image is centered on center of the Milky Way with a faint overlay coordinate system centered on the Sun. The caption claims:
- Artist's depiction of the Milky Way Galaxy, showing the galactic longitude.
- However, the image shows no longitude at all. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Um... you say you see
a faint overlay coordinate system centered on the Sun
but that there is no longitude. That is the longitude. Primefac (talk) 11:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Um... you say you see
- The image shows the galactic longitude, and the caption in the article is correct about its orientation. It does not say "is measured from the galactic center" anywhere. Primefac has it right. How might we reword it to make it more clear? - Parejkoj (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- The longitude is not labeled and yet there are many labels in the diagram, including a coordinate system that does not match the topic. So it's fine if you already know what the galactic longitude is. The right fix is a different image. This image without the labels (which are cool) would be better. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm confused: what do you think is incorrect about the diagram? It is labeled "Galactic Longitude" on top, and the coordinate system is the correct one: centered on the sun, 0º through the galactic center, right hand rule. The additional labels are not necessary, but I think they provide useful context. - Parejkoj (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, the overlaid coordinate system seems correct. It's just so finely ruled that it can't be viewed directly from the article. Praemonitus (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ok thanks for your patience. By magnifying the image and by reading your description carefully I can now indeed see the words "Galactic Longitude". If you don't know what it is, you don't know to look for the tiny letters at the top.
- I rewrote the caption. @Marnanel does that help? Johnjbarton (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. Thank you (all) for your help! Marnanel (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, the overlaid coordinate system seems correct. It's just so finely ruled that it can't be viewed directly from the article. Praemonitus (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm confused: what do you think is incorrect about the diagram? It is labeled "Galactic Longitude" on top, and the coordinate system is the correct one: centered on the sun, 0º through the galactic center, right hand rule. The additional labels are not necessary, but I think they provide useful context. - Parejkoj (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- The longitude is not labeled and yet there are many labels in the diagram, including a coordinate system that does not match the topic. So it's fine if you already know what the galactic longitude is. The right fix is a different image. This image without the labels (which are cool) would be better. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
What does this Ks/mu notation mean?
PSR J1903+0327 says "A near-infrared companion, KS = 18 (2.22 μ), is observed in Gemini North images at its radio position..." What do "KS" and "μ" mean in this context? I see "μ" used in Reduced mass and Standard gravitational parameter but if it's one of those, I'm not exactly sure how that relates. This notation was in the first draft of the article added by Wwheaton, but they have not been an active editor for a few years, so I thought I'd ask here. Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 03:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- I found a source[4] for the Ks value. According to this[5] article, Ks seems to be a line or band in the near-infrared. I'm not sure what μ is supposed to be; I assumed it was a different unit for magnitude but this pdf[6] uses the symbol for proper motion. Since it's a binary companion, that seems to be what the symbol stands for, but I can't be certain. ArkHyena (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Aha! That means the "μ" is for micrometre, as a wavelength of 2.22 μm is in the infrared. Oh, and actually it's the center of the K band, according to that article. Based on the second source you found, 18 must be a magnitude. Excellent fact hunting! -- Beland (talk) 07:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Good to hear that you've found out what μ meant! I spent a bit too long digging up proper motion figures for the pulsar and was quite confused as to why none of the figures matched the 2.22 figure from the article. ArkHyena (talk) 08:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- It should probably be listed as μm; I don't think I've ever seen just μ used. Primefac (talk) 11:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I already changed it to "μm" because that's what MOS:UNITSYMBOLS requires. Across thousands of articles I've fixed recently, I've seen a few instances of just "μ" that I also changed. As micrometre says, that was the official symbol until 1967. -- Beland (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- It should probably be listed as μm; I don't think I've ever seen just μ used. Primefac (talk) 11:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Good to hear that you've found out what μ meant! I spent a bit too long digging up proper motion figures for the pulsar and was quite confused as to why none of the figures matched the 2.22 figure from the article. ArkHyena (talk) 08:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- "μ" alone should be micron, which is equivalent to micrometre -- 65.92.244.143 (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Aha! That means the "μ" is for micrometre, as a wavelength of 2.22 μm is in the infrared. Oh, and actually it's the center of the K band, according to that article. Based on the second source you found, 18 must be a magnitude. Excellent fact hunting! -- Beland (talk) 07:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ks-band redirects to K band (infrared), but doesn't detail what Kx is -- 65.92.244.143 (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- An explanation would certainly be welcome if you have any interest in researching it. -- Beland (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- The parenthetical Ks should just be deleted. If the ref does not explain it and we don't understand it, it's not verifiable content. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- I have added an explanation with citation. See also Photometric system. -- Beland (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- The parenthetical Ks should just be deleted. If the ref does not explain it and we don't understand it, it's not verifiable content. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- An explanation would certainly be welcome if you have any interest in researching it. -- Beland (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Input on image for presolar grains
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/Vial_of_presolar_grains_in_suspension.jpg/220px-Vial_of_presolar_grains_in_suspension.jpg)
I've just uploaded an image of a vial of presolar grains, and while I've added it to Orgueil, I don't want to overwrite the image of Stardust since that's both a great image and more dramatic. It doesn't actually show any presolar grains, however, so I thought I could help remedy that. It also may be pertinent for AGB stars. I don't want to start slapping one of my own images all over a whole host of related articles, so any input on where this may fit best would be appreciated.
I will try and get an SEM image directly of presolar grains wider than 200px up at some point! Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
lookback time
Time is a pretty important issue in cosmology, but I have not found a good article. I did some work on cosmic time but the reference point issue is not well referenced.
Some articles use the term "lookback time", but lookback time was a redirect to Before Present, an article about radiocarbon dating. I repointed it to cosmic time, but this is not sufficient. I am unsure if "lookback time" is really related to the more technical cosmic time. Please review. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Proposed change to minor planet / dwarf planet naming convention
I have proposed a change to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects). Your input would be welcome! Renerpho (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
GAIA Data Releases
We have {{Cite Gaia DR2}} and {{Cite Gaia EDR3}}, as well as the latest {{Cite Gaia DR3}}.
Should their be an effort to modernize DR2/EDR3-based citations to DR3 when possible? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- That's already been happening to many star articles. However, it's not always possible, particularly for bright stars. Praemonitus (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- It is currently occuring, but will take some years to update all articles. Many articles still use astrometric data (parallax, proper motion) from Hipparcos as well. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Does this "unsolved problem" make sense?
Please see the Talk page topic: Are_voids_in_space_empty_or_consist_of_transparent_matter? Johnjbarton (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs
There is a requested move at List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs to move the name to List of nearest stars. Discuss the move if you want, to help the creation of a consensus.
The discission is located at Talk:List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs#Requested move 31 May 2024. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- The result of the discussion was "moved". Praemonitus (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Move discussion at 90482 Orcus
It has been requested to move 90482 Orcus to Orcus (dwarf planet). Your input at the discussion (linked above) would be welcome. Renerpho (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
The redirect Smaismrmilmepoetaleumibunenugttauiras has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 13 § Smaismrmilmepoetaleumibunenugttauiras until a consensus is reached. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Great for trivia at parties, I'm sure. Thanks Galileo. Praemonitus (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Exoplanet art by Mvargic
User Mvargic has been adding a lot of exoplanet art to Wikipedia, each image comparing the sizes of exoplanets to Solar System planets. However many of these exoplanets don't have known sizes - only their (usually minimum) mass is known - and the images depict them with sizes "assuming Earth-like composition". This is misleading and I think these images should be removed. Any size comparison image for an exoplanet with an unknown size should be like Exoplanet Comparison Gliese 581 c.png, showing a range of possible sizes for different compositions.
At least two of these images, G 9-40 b.jpg & GJ 9827 System.jpg, are also in blatant contradiction of known features (cf. WP:ASTROART). The sizes of these planets are known so these have some informational value, but G 9-40 b & GJ 9827 d are depicted as rocky planets which is known to not be the case (their densities are too low). SevenSpheres (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Some pictures (like those used in articles created by me, HD 63433/d and GJ 3929/b) decipts known features and seem to be true. I am not sure about other planets, most of these other planets have virtually nothing known about them except minimum mass and basic orbital parameters. 21 Andromedae (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Those are planets with known sizes (except GJ 3929 c) so those images do have some informational value. They don't "depict known features" beyond size but at least don't contradict known features. SevenSpheres (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support in removing most, if not all of them; these seem to clearly fall under WP:FRINGE and/or WP:SYNTH. These images serve little, if any, educational purpose, and only serve to confuse and give the false impression that we know more about these planets than we actually do. ArkHyena (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Some images can be helpful, but these artistic illustrations should be added with caution. 21 Andromedae (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- G 9-40 b & GJ 9827 d are not depicted as rocky but volatile-rich mini-neptunes with cloud decks and hazes of sulfur compounds Mvargic (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Help needed to define "mean radius" and "mean diameter"
Your help would be appreciated at Talk:List of Solar System objects by size#We never define "mean radius". Thank you! Renerpho (talk) 10:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I am expressing concern about the list of brown dwarfs. This article is in a deplorable state, entire sections are almost unreferenced, objects refuted years ago are still in the list, many brown dwarfs are missing, tags like "more citations needed" have been in the list for over 8 years... In my opinion, this article should be rewritten from scratch. 21 Andromedae (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Requested moves for Lunar soil and Martian soil
This may be of interest to this Wikiproject and I doubt either of the talk pages on those articles get too much traffic, but I've requested Lunar soil and Martian soil be moved to Lunar regolith and Martian regolith. I could be a little biased here as a regolith specialist, but I've basically never encountered consistent use of "soil" here outside of either much older papers or some more general public conversations, where regolith is still more common (and this seems to be backed up by google trends), and both articles accidentally distinguish the Lunar and Martian surfaces from the main regolith article. I would have just done it but there was a recent rename discussion on Lunar soil after someone renamed it Lunar dirt, so I didn't want to just plow ahead.Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for informing us of the move discussions. I don't know the literature well enough to make a call one way or another, so I'll leave that for more editors more experienced in the field. I added some comments regarding WP:CANVAS, because you go into detail on your argument here. I don't think that's a problem at all, I purely did this for transparency and clarity. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think that's perfectly fair, I've added in the text from here into both of the requested moves so there's not extra information visible here that isn't visible to anyone coming to this wikiproject. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Are these "dishes" tasty (or should i keep them away from English-wiki)
At another English version of Wikipedia, there are a bunch of new articles of stars. Link,
simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/47.186.42.50
. Please say if I should not bring those over to English-wiki.--One of the sources used, is "Facts for Kids|url=... kids.kiddle.co/List_of_largest_known_stars|": would that be a source that one should steer clear of? Thanks, 2001:2020:301:A9E4:CD87:5740:719B:B2A7 (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- No. That site places advertisements on top of free content from List of largest stars. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Many of those stars probably aren't notable, and the sources used seem pretty random - some are reliable sources, some not. The "Facts for Kids" site you mention is clearly a Wikipedia mirror, so not a reliable source. SevenSpheres (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Most of (if not all) these stars would fail our notability guidelines for astronomical bodies, so it's better to don't create them. Also, most of these articles use unreliable sources e.g. Universe Guide. 21 Andromedae (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Does the Pisces–Cetus Supercluster Complex actually exist?
This will be a review of this supposed structure. The only extant papers mentioning this are by R. Brent Tully dating back to 1986 and 1987. The conclusions of his papers have been challenged in recent years, for instance this 1989 as well as another 1992 paper by Postman et al. suggesting that there is no statistical significance of the supposed complexes from clumps in random simulations. After that there doesn't seem to be any explicit papers supporting its existence, and Tully just ended up in 2014 by having Laniakea.
We should review once more if this warrants an article on its own, or even at least be updated to conform to newer papers. It might as well just be a memoriam article of a pseudo-supercluster complex that was subsequently dismissed. SkyFlubbler (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Well these folks seem to disagree:
- Scott C. Porter, Somak Raychaudhury, The Pisces-Cetus supercluster: a remarkable filament of galaxies in the 2dF Galaxy Redshift and Sloan Digital Sky surveys, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 364, Issue 4, December 2005, Pages 1387–1396, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09688.x
- And this review mentions Portman's work as not definitive I would say:
- Stefano Borgani, "Scaling in the Universe," Physics Reports, Volume 251, Issues 1–2, 1995, Pages 1-152,
- Johnjbarton (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- The paper by Porter and Raychaudhury refers to the Pisces–Cetus Supercluster, which is different from the much larger supercluster complex. The supercluster complex consists of this Pisces–Cetus Supercluster + Perseus-Pegasus and Pegasus-Pisces Chains + Sculptor Wall + Aquarius-Capricornus + the Virgo–Hydra–Centaurus region, and extends for about a billion light-years. There is only a brief mention of Tully's 1987 paper on the introduction and noted it as "speculated."
- I can't seem to access the Borgani paper due to a paywall, but looking on what is available information he did not seem to cite Postman's (not Portman, btw) two papers. Regardless if even Borgani dismissed Postman or not, Tully himself in a 1992 paper did show some ample evidence but then retracted his claims a little bit and said that the present evidence for the Pisces-Cetus SCC (or any structure within the supergalactic plane on the scale of 300 h/Mpc) is "far from conclusive", with further statements on the summary stating that it was "unsatisfactory" with "predictions which must be tested by more rigorously defined samples", which never fully materialized.
- This is evidenced by the fact that Tully no longer cited any of the aforementioned papers mentioning the Pisces-Cetus SCC in any of the 26 references of the 2014 paper on Laniakea, further strengthening the conclusion that he may have given up in supporting the existence of the Pisces-Cetus SCC. SkyFlubbler (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Ok but to me this all makes the case for clarifying the article. The topic is even more notable. (However the lack of citation is not a verifiable source as this may be for many reasons).
- The Borgani review is available via the Wikipedia library > Science Direct (Elsevier) > Advanced search > Show all fields > Title. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- I tried to go for the Wikipedia library version of the article, but I cannot view it due to software limitations, and any attempts to download it also failed (I am using a mobile phone). But I did see the three papers by Postman in the references, so I will nonetheless give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it did cite the works by Postman as not definitive.
- It still doesn't invalidate the claims from Tully himself that the evidence present did not constitute firm evidence for the existence of the Pisces–Cetus SCC.
- "Ok but to me this all makes the case for clarifying the article. The topic is even more notable."'
- I think you missed my emphasis that the only existing literature mentioning this structure came from the late 80s and early 90s, and even so that calls its existence into question. With no subsequent mentions in the literature, and the subsuming of a new definition of a supercluster in 2014, the Pisces-Cetus SCC fails to meet WP:NASTRO. I suggest instead to have it relegated as a section in the Galaxy filament article, as the current article is too short, anyway, coupled with information from the papers that question its existence. SkyFlubbler (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted articles resurface
The following articles went through AfD with the result being deletion. They have since been restored with the comment, "I brought back this page for consistency. This was the only eclipse from ####-#### to not have its own page. I'm not sure why it was deleted, but it should not have":
- Solar eclipse of December 24, 1916
- Solar eclipse of January 5, 1935
- Solar eclipse of July 19, 1917
- Solar eclipse of July 30, 1935
- Solar eclipse of June 13, 2094
So it goes. Praemonitus (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think you revert with summary "AfD had WP:CONSENSUS". No need to discuss. (Any discussion should have occurred before restoration.) Johnjbarton (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Somebody else is welcome to do that; I've had enough of these tiresome battle of late. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hah, so I see.
- If anyone is having a bad day and needs a laugh, type "Solar eclipse of" in to the search bar. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Somebody else is welcome to do that; I've had enough of these tiresome battle of late. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Nonmetals in astronomy
I have a question about the notion of metals and nonmetals in astronomy, and the exclusion of a reliable source in this regard.
The context for my question follows.
So, the start of the Nonmetals in astronomy section of Nonmetallic material reads:
- A quite different approach is used in astronomy where the term metallicity is used for all elements heavier than helium, so the only nonmetals are hydrogen and helium.
After the second paragraph, which starts, "About 45 years later, Gustav Kirchhoff and Robert Bunsen noticed that several Fraunhofer lines...", there used to be a third paragraph, as added by me:
- "The astrophysicst Carlos Jaschek, and the stellar astronomer and spectroscopist Mercedes Jaschek, in their book The Classification of Stars, observed that:
- 'Metals' (a term which is used very equivocally). Stellar interior specialists use 'metals' to designate any element other than hydrogen and helium, and in consequence ‘metal abundance’ implies all elements other than the first two. For spectroscopists this is very misleading, because they use the word in the chemical sense. On the other hand photometrists, who observe combined effects of all lines (i.e. without distinguishing the different elements) often use this word 'metal abundance', in which case it may also include the effect of the hydrogen lines. It is important to make sure in each particular case what the author really meant."
See: Jaschek C & Jascheck M 1990, The Classification of Stars, Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, p. 22, ISBN 978-0-521-26773-1.
Ldm1954, who will no doubt speak for himself, has removed the paragraph on the grounds that, in his view, "This is editorializing, and shouldn't be done", and "original research and verging on academic dishonesty" and that, "It adds nothing".
This seems like a case of unjustified censorship to me, even if done with good intent. Editorialising is a WP concept, referring to editorializing by WP editors. It does not apply to reliable sources. In this context, asserting that J & J are editorialising "which is definite [and] not appropriate", is meaningless.
J & J are matter-of-factly laying out the situation when it comes to the conception of what a metal is in their respective fields. The knock-on consequences are which elements are regarded as nonmetals in astronomy, as per the first sentence at the start of the Nonmetals in astronomy section of Nonmetallic material.
The J & J extract adds useful information by nuancing the understanding of metals in astronomy and related fields
How do WP:ASTRONOMY members view this? Thank you. --- Sandbh (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- This seems like a reasonable inclusion, though I wouldn't be able to make a call on this. However, shouldn't this information be in Metallicity itself? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- For rigor, the above statements by Sandbh contain significant factual errors:
- @Ldm1954 never removed the paragraph.
- The main paragraph without the first and last sentence was added by @Sandbh on June 27 in this edit
- @Sandbh added the first and last sentences in this edit
- @Headbomb reverted this addition as editorialized here
- There was then an edit skirmish with @Sandbh reverting @Headbomb, and my reverting in turn.
- There followed a brief discussion in talk where @Ldm1954 and @Headbomb commented that this paragraph added little, and I also mentioned that J & J were editorializing.
- N.B. Metallicity already has more information and is already pointed to as the main. In Nonmetallic materials I have added a little about the history of how the term metallic originated with Kirchhoff & Bunsen interpreting Fraunhofer lines using metals in their lab, which I
was going to suggesthave suggested be added to Metallicity Ldm1954 (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)- @Ldm1954: I apologise for my error of fact concerning item 1, and appreciate your setting the record straight, as to the sequence of events. — Sandbh (talk) 05:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think that paragraph does provide some interesting historical perspective. It doesn't feel like editorializing to me: Jaschek is saying how the various fields used the term differently. Could those claiming it's editorializing say more about why they think that? I think in modern astronomy, that distinction has mostly melted away (spectroscopists have shifted to the astronomy "metals as all Z>2 elements), but that last sentence is a good reminder that terms are different in different fields. I feel like the paragraph is slightly more appropriate for Metallicity, but a random reader would probably end up at Nonmetalic Materials first, I'd expect? - Parejkoj (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- I can't speak for @Headbomb. My reservation is that the lede to Nonmetallic materials already has as it's second sentence Depending upon context it is used in slightly different ways, so the whole page is an attempt at a WP:NPOV presentation about the assorted science uses (with hopefully none missed). If card carrying astronomers are happy to vouch that J & J are not going too far with their statements about "the field", I am OK with it. Statements here can be used if it is challenged. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Split discussion at Sirius
There is a discussion at Talk:Sirius to split the page into a new page called Sirius B. This discussion might be relevant for some people of this wikiproject, so help to gather consensus for split or not split this article! 21 Andromedae (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Use of ScienceDaily as a source
@Warrenmck and XOR'easter: Due to the recently closed Drbogdan discussion on ANI which centered around, in part, using press releases as sources, I am posting this query here about the use of ScienceDaily press releases in our articles to establish best practices. Recently, User:Galilean-moons added ScienceDaily to the article Syntrichia caninervis regarding its potential use for establishing life on Mars (assuming some form of it doesn't already exist).[7] Because this use of press releases was recently discouraged, I am wondering how these recent edits fit into the larger discussion about this kind of reporting. The Guardian has also reported on the subject.[8] Moving forward, is this an acceptable use of ScienceDaily? Should The Guardian be used instead? Or are there other guidelines that you recommend for editing this page? Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think of ScienceDaily as press releases in the sense of an organization public relations output. Rather these are uncritical summaries of primary publications for the purpose of generating ad revenue. The primary publications may or may not have been peer reviewed and almost certainly are not cited. The only sense in which ScienceDaily is a secondary source is that they filter for interest. (Our page on ScienceDaily says they are primarily press releases).
- I think these cases need to evaluate the primary reference and not the ScienceDaily summary per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PSTS Almost always the primary ref will be WP:TOONEW and have no citations. Similarly for the Guardian. In this case it's not clear the paper was peer reviewed.
- To put it another way: readers can get this kind of info from ScienceDaily. This is an ecyclopedia. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Let me reformulate my question: instead of using ScienceDaily, can a citation to the following source be used instead: Li X., Bai W., Yang Q., et al., (2024). The extremotolerant desert moss Syntrichia caninervis is a promising pioneer plant for colonizing extraterrestrial environments. The Innovation. 5 (4). The article appears to be peer reviewed. Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Depends upon the content being referenced, see WP:PRIMARY. This seems like a case that might pass many of the tests, esp. the reference is open access and not narrowly technical. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- You all might want to see [9] - or even raise the issue again. Doug Weller talk 14:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Might be important considering that what links here shows it is presumably used more than 350 times as a citation. Viriditas (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- You all might want to see [9] - or even raise the issue again. Doug Weller talk 14:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Depends upon the content being referenced, see WP:PRIMARY. This seems like a case that might pass many of the tests, esp. the reference is open access and not narrowly technical. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Let me reformulate my question: instead of using ScienceDaily, can a citation to the following source be used instead: Li X., Bai W., Yang Q., et al., (2024). The extremotolerant desert moss Syntrichia caninervis is a promising pioneer plant for colonizing extraterrestrial environments. The Innovation. 5 (4). The article appears to be peer reviewed. Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Johnjbarton: I've made these changes. I realize that you said you don't like The Guardian, but I think it's acceptable to use it like this. I'm also fond of citing the primary and the secondary together. Viriditas (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Viriditas Thanks! Your edits are clearly an improvement. I believe the previous content is inappropriate without secondary refs. For examples
- "S. caninervis is well-known for its ability to tolerate drought conditions,..."
- An uncited primary ref can't verify "well-known"
- Except it does in the paper, citing two papers? Viriditas (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- An uncited primary ref can't verify "well-known"
- "Research has shown that S. caninervis can ..."
- One paper is not "research has shown"
- The "research" refers to multiple cited papers. Viriditas (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- One paper is not "research has shown"
- "Some studies have even suggested..."
- One study is not "some".
- Multiple studies are cited. Viriditas (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- One study is not "some".
- "S. caninervis is well-known for its ability to tolerate drought conditions,..."
- And so on. It is this kind of extrapolation that the page WP:PRIMARY is trying to avoid. To put it another way, the content if correct, could easily be refed correctly. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Johnjbarton: I don't know what your time constraints are like, but I not only appreciate your help with this, but I would also like to ask you for additional reviewing. User:Dcotos hasn't submitted this to DYK and I would like to nominate a hook, but we are up against a deadline. If you could take a quick glance at the article and wield your axe to its benefit, that would be helpful. Viriditas (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I should note that there is additional research in the literature that supports its status as an extremophile. I just added another one. Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Viriditas Sorry I'm sure what you are asking here. DYK? hook? deadline? Johnjbarton (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm asking if you think the current version of the article, as it stands right now, is problematic. Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think I just answered my own question. The primary author did not paraphrase and quote correctly, and much of the article is written far too close to the sources. It needs to be rewritten. Viriditas (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Let's follow up on that articles Talk page. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm asking if you think the current version of the article, as it stands right now, is problematic. Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Johnjbarton: I don't know what your time constraints are like, but I not only appreciate your help with this, but I would also like to ask you for additional reviewing. User:Dcotos hasn't submitted this to DYK and I would like to nominate a hook, but we are up against a deadline. If you could take a quick glance at the article and wield your axe to its benefit, that would be helpful. Viriditas (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Viriditas Thanks! Your edits are clearly an improvement. I believe the previous content is inappropriate without secondary refs. For examples
- @Johnjbarton: I've made these changes. I realize that you said you don't like The Guardian, but I think it's acceptable to use it like this. I'm also fond of citing the primary and the secondary together. Viriditas (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Request at Teahouse
For the interested, Wikipedia:Teahouse#Please_help_me_with_an_article. New editor wishes help for article about Andrzej (Andrew) Pohorille, astrobiologist, who no longer falls under WP:BLP (well fine, he died recently). Draft at Draft:Andrew Pohorille. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)