Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:AST)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Astronomy
WikiProject Astronomy
Main / Talk
Importance ratings
Main / Talk
Article ratings
Main / Talk
Image review
Main / Talk
Astronomical objects
Main / Talk
Constellations
Main / Talk
Popular pages
Main / Talk
Members
Main / Talk
WikiData
Main / Talk
WikiProject Astronomy (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
Shortcuts:

{{infobox astro object}} and {{infobox cluster}}[edit]

{{infobox astro object}} has been proposed to be merged with {{infobox cluster}} ; for the discussion see WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 21 -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I've gone through and fixed all the error where the astro object infobox was used when the cluster infobox was suitable. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Sardanaphalus‎ and I revamped the sh!t out of {{Infobox astro object}} today. I went through astro obj transclusions to make sure all old parameters were updated.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  19:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
This issue is still open -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

{{infobox cluster}}[edit]

As this is badly named, I've also nominated it for renaming, see template talk:infobox cluster -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_21[edit]

Actually, many different astronomy templates have been nominated on this date -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

What are you even tring to say Tetra quark (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Not to be snarky, but he's literally saying there's a number of astronomy-related templates that have been nominated and listed on that page, if editors are interested in discussing them. Huntster (t @ c) 14:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this to our attention, 67.70.35.44. Much appreciated. Andy seems to be trying to condense templates over several WikiProjects, based strongly on parameter similarity.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  17:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, my. This is indeed an urgent matter. SkyFlubbler (talk) 11:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
This issue is still open -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Older featured articles[edit]

Hello all. Now that WP:Featured articles has seen its first decade, we are working through our oldest FAs to bring them up to modern standards. Two WP:AST articles from 2006—Enceladus and Crab Nebula—need a bit of attention. They are really in quite excellent shape considering their age, but both articles have acquired some uncited statements and external linkcruft over the years, and gone a bit outdated, as their main authors are no longer active. Hoping that I can get some subject matter experts to tidy them up and bring them up to date. I have watchlisted both articles and will help however I can. Thank you! Maralia (talk) 05:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to pitch in at Crab Nebula, although I'm not necessarily an expert. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Ping @Arianewiki1:, who is an expert on the subject and has cleaned up a somewhat similar article (Cat's Eye Nebula) recently. Ariane, would you mind helping here, since you know more about the subject than me? StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Stellar classification requested move[edit]

I've posted a requested move for one of our project's most popular and vital articles, stellar classification; details can be found at talk:stellar classification. Any thoughts would be appreciated. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

This issue is still open -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015[edit]

Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2015 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than fifty users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Miyagawa (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cosmology[edit]

Hi, guys. Somehow a well-intended user has created a new project that is related to ours, the Cosmology WikiProject. There are only three members in it, so anyone in here is invited to join. This project needs discussion, improvement, and members.

And, I think it must be a branch of ours, like the WikiProject:Astronomical Objects. Do it on its talk. SkyFlubbler (talk with me :-D) 20:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The link is Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I am the creator of the project. Thanks for mentioning it here! If you guys intend to improve the page, make sure to take a look at the talk page and the edit summaries first. Thanks Tetra quark (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

List of minor planets (again)[edit]

Whilst clearing the unassessed articles for this project I came across a lot of subpages for the List of minor planets. Almost all of these subpages (each containing 100 minor planets) are duplicated in the larger 1000-planet lists. Should these subpages be deleted as duplicates? Primefac (talk) 05:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

In this case, the subpages are actually transcluded onto the larger pages (the ones with colons), so they are not duplicates. That being said, I can't see a reason to have the information in the articles contained in subpages, and would advocate for a merge-and-delete to the larger lists. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Conflicting Data on Wiki for Star Distance (Light Years)[edit]

I am an amateur astronomer trying to do a simple thing: determine the distance and magnitude of stars.

The problem is: the figures for distance (LY) and magnitude (VIS) on the Wiki tables for constellations often, even for prominent visible stars, differ with the figures for same on the wiki links for the individual stars.

For example Jim Kaler publishes the distance to Beta Herculis as 148 light years, which agrees with the 'list of stars' distances published under the constellation maps in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stars_in_Hercules

However, when we click on the Wiki link for individual stars in the list, e.g.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Herculis

The page for the individual star reports a significantly different distance to the star (139 on 'star' page versus 148 on 'list of stars' page).

This is not an isolated example. I could cite dozens of cases where there is conflicting Wiki data.

Which distance is correct?

Is there a source that has the latest most accurate distances to stars? (e.g. Hubble parallax)

Thank you for your assistance.

Mark 23.29.196.252 (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Nice find. Based upon the Hipparcos parallax data, Beta Herculis is more likely to be 43 parsecs (139 ly). However, we can launch a clean up for the list. Can you link those dozen stars so we can adjust them? I will try to use the Hipparcos data. SkyFlubbler (talk) 07:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Does this mean I get an asteroid named after me? [LOL]
My data source is HYG at: http://www.astronexus.com/hyg (says it uses Hipparcos parallax distances circa 2006)
Using HYG (unknown validity) almost all the star distances are off in the Wiki 'list of stars' page by a material amount. I call anything over 1% difference material. By this time in astronomical observation we should have parallax distance pinned down don't you think?
Here are some examples of the prominent stars in Hercules: (distance LY)
BAYER HIP HD W_Star W_List HYG LY Diff % Diff
β Her 80816 148856 139 148 139.2 8.8 6%
ζ Her 81693 150680 35 35 35 0 0%
δ Her 84379 156164 75.1 78 75.1 2.9 4%
π Her 84380 156283 377 367 376.7 -9.7 -3%
α1 Her 84345 156014 360 382 bad data
μ Her 86974 161797 27.1 27 bad data
η Her 81833 150997 112 112 108.7 3.3 3%
ξ Her 87933 163993 160 135 136.8 -1.8 -1%
γ Her 80170 147547 193 195 192.7 2.3 1%
ι Her 86414 160762 455 495 444.4 50.6 11%
ο Her 88794 166014 338 347 338 9 3%
(W_Star) is the distance on the Wiki Star's individual page
(W_List) is the distance on the Wiki Constellation All Stars page
Most of the time, the W_Star page matches the HYG distances. But in some cases it does not.
HYG has some corrupted data for some stars. It is not a reliable source.
Iamtoliman (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
There are many discrepancies like this in the various lists articles. There is no automatic mechanism for keeping them consistent with the individual star articles, hence when the star is updated with new data the list can become out of date. Feel free to bring them back into like, but don't just grab some number out of your head or a 20 year old blog and stuff it in. Usually an individual star article will have the latest and greatest data, but that isn't guaranteed so checks the references. Lithopsian (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The HYG "blog" as you call it is a website that was updated in 2006, which makes it 8 years old. So, don't understand your comment 'some number out of your head'.
There is a scientific controversy as to the accuracy of the Hipparcos distances. I would direct your attention to the Wiki on Hipparcos, quoting:
The Pleiades distance controversy
One controversial result has been the derived proximity, at about 120 parsecs, of the Pleiades cluster, established both from the original catalogue[41] as well as from the revised analysis.[13] This has been contested by various other recent work, placing the mean cluster distance at around 130 parsecs.[42][43][44][45]
In August 2014, the discrepancy between the cluster distance of 120.2±1.5 parsecs (pc) as measured by Hipparcos and the distance of 133.5±1.2 pc derived with other techniques was confirmed by parallax measurements made using VLBI,[46] which gave 136.2±1.2 pc, the most accurate and precise distance yet presented for the cluster. According to the authors of the study, "The unrecognized nature of such an error is especially dangerous when one considers that Gaia, the successor to Hipparcos and very similar in design, is just now starting its Galaxy-mapping mission".
Based on these comments, not 'some number out of my head', my thinking is the Hipparcos data itself is suspect.
Iamtoliman (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what your beef is. A blog, new or old, is not a reliable source for this sort of data. Neither is your own head. The Hipparcos data may be suspect, but that isn't for you to decide. If an alternative published paper derives a conflicting value and considers the Hipparcos data to be suspect then by all means put it in Wikipedia. Lithopsian (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps we could get a bot to update the list of stars in xyz articles' distance parameters with the values from within the star articles themselves? That would make sure they are consistent. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Can we put a link to the source of the distance data? And, the date? And the degree of scientific accuracy? (e.g. +/- %)

Thank you to whoever cleaned up my table.

Iamtoliman (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding data - alot of this highlights just how difficult and fiddly estimating distance actually is. The pleiades example shows that even researchers have challenges. The main thing is that articles can list more than one distance and hopefully identify the sources of that measurement. (This holds true for luminosity mass etc.). Presenting science like this I think is actually more fascinating than handing down data like it came from the ten commandments or something. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The first thing we learned in Physics was every scientific measurement must come with a +/- range of its accuracy.

The second thing we learned was when you add two estimated figures, you must combine the +/- range of each estimate.

So 10 +/- 2 PLUS 3 +/- 4 EQUALS 13 +/- 6

The masses out there [awful pun] will not appreciate this nicety, but the boffins certainly will, along with any serious student actually trying to use the data, not just admire it like candy in a window.

23.29.196.252 (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

If those errors are a multiple of a Gaussian standard deviation, or something like it, then error propagation would tell you that the sum is 13 \pm \sqrt{2^2 + 4^2} \approx 13 \pm 4.5. Dragons flight (talk) 07:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I was a professional statistician by trade. Hence, squinting at data comes natural to me. But concerning the errors, "IF" means "(I) have not the (F)aintest idea". Iamtoliman (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Source

As a general point to everyone here: distances need to be cited to reliable sources. At present the best source for most nearby stars is the 2007 re-reduction of the Hipparcos data. The catalogue is available online for free, as is the paper which describes it. The catalogue actually lists parallax rather than distance, but handily the star infobox accepts this as input and will automatically calculate the equivalent distance. I also encourage editors to include the uncertainty, which is also available in the catalogue and supported by the infobox. These data will of course change in future as research advances, particularly when the Gaia catalogue is published. Modest Genius talk 22:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Uncertainties in radius, mass, density, and semi-major axis[edit]

List of Solar System objects by size currently includes most of the uncertainties of the radii of the best-known objects, but notably lacking are those of Earth and the Moon, also from the infoboxes in their articles. More often, the uncertainties in those objects' densities and especially mass are missing.

Similarly, the uncertainty in the semi-major axes of those objects is normally missing. I have already found that the Moon's is known to near-millimeter precision and increasing at 3.8 cm/year, but strangely I have so far failed to dig up a more precise value of its semi-major axis than the one listed in its infobox. Moreover, the Moon's semi-major axis listed in orbit of the Moon is quite different from the one in its infobox, which means at least one of them is dead wrong.

Does anyone know of one or more sources that list these so that these can be added? --JorisvS (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The accuracy of the measurements of the sizes of the Earth and Moon is far better than the non-sphericity both on a large scale (oblateness, etc.) and a small scale (mountains, basins, etc.). There is no point offering a ridiculously tiny margin of error for a single value for the size of these objects because it is entirely meaningless. There are detailed models of the lunar profile developed for purposes such as occultation timings, even more detailed models of the level of the Earth's surface, but these go far beyond what this article needs. I'll go look at the orbit numbers now ... Lithopsian (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not just you. I tried looking into this too, and all I found were very precise values for the radial velocity and change in precession rate, but no hard "the semi-major axis of the moon's orbit is: blah", anywhere in the 21st century finer than a km...   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  16:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Orbital mechanics isn't me speciality, but I think I know what is happening here. The semi-major axis quoted in the main Moon article, and in most other places, is not strictly the geometric definition of the semi-major axis of an ellipse. Instead it is the reciprocal of the time-averaged value of the reciprocal of the radius. In a perfect world this is the same as the semi-major axis, but the world isn't perfect so it is actually slightly different. In the Orbit of the moon article this is listed as the "inverse sine parallax" (although I'm not familiar with that term and I don't think it is in common use), while the semi-major axis value is the geometric mean distance of the earth-moon radius. Both are "correct". Lithopsian (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
If you wanted, you could use 2 references - one for a semi-major axis at a certain date, and another for the velocity, and do the math in a note[note], saying "as of year-end 2014, [etc.]".   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  16:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
On 2013-Jan-01 the semi-major axis of the moon was 2.56802E-03 AU. On 2014-Jan-01 it was 2.58208E-03 AU. On 2015-Jan-01 it will be 2.55964E-03 AU. There really is no neat one-size-fits-all solution because of on-going perturbations from the Sun, Jupiter, Venus, etc. -- Kheider (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
What's your source for those values?   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  15:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
The Earth-Moon-Sun interaction is complicated enough that when measured from the Earth-Moon barycenter, the apparent semi-major axis of the Moon undergoes substantial (+/- 1%) swings over the lunar orbit. If you want to define a semi-major axis for the moon, you presumably need to take some sort of long-term average. Computed by direct averaging, you'd need to consider hundreds of years of orbits to get a 1 km precision in the average, though I suspect one could probably find a better way of describing the parameter that eliminates the apparent variation due to the orbital interactions. It may be worth noting that the time-average rate of recession isn't actually measured directly from lunar distance, but rather inferred by using the range observations to measure changes in mean motion (i.e. \dot a = -{2 a\over 3n}\dot n). Dragons flight (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

AU vs au vs ua[edit]

What symbol should be used for the astronomical unit in Wikipedia articles. I have seen mostly either AU and au, but the international standard symbol turns out to be ua. Please comment at the Astronomical unit talk page. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The recent IAU resolution (2012, Res B2) says "au", and that's all (with AU) I've ever seen in English papers. It's not a SI unit (proper), so I think the IAU position trumps SI. Tbayboy (talk) 06:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I believe that "ua" is an abbreviation of the French term, unité astronomique. Evensteven (talk) 08:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Although I'm usually all for going with whatever the standard is, I don't think I've ever seen "ua" used, not once, and thus I cannot support it. I'd be inclined to stick with AU, since it seems to be used most. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: Most of the discussion action seems to be taking place at the Astronomical unit talk page. Evensteven (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

For your information: The vast majority of editors involved in the discussion about harmonisation prefer not to adopt a single unit symbol for astronomical unit. Of the reasons presented, the only one I could follow was a preference to follow whatever unit symbol was used in the sources. Several editors also expressed the view that the discussion did not even belong there, so I am not planning to respond further on that page. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Please note the comments from that discussion indicating that WT:MOSNUM would be the proper venue for any such discussion. In contrast to Dondervogel, I did not see a "vast majority" of editors preferring not to discuss, and there was good participation there. While I was among those who did not regard "harmonization" as productive or necessary, I did not get Dondervogel's sense that everyone agreed with that, but rather that there was broad support that if WP were to adopt a standard that the world usage has not established, that the MOS was the proper place for it, and that the discussion should happen there. That would be the best place to watch for any continuation. Evensteven (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

What I said was "The vast majority of editors involved in the discussion about harmonisation prefer not to adopt a single unit symbol". Out of 6 editors who expressed a clear opinion, 5 opposed harmonisation. I agree that is not "everyone", but it is literally all but one. As far as the "right place" is concerned I don't see why a discussion on the use of the astronomical unit cannot take place at Talk:astronomical unit, but if there is no will for harmonisation the discussion is pointless, wherever it is held. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I think there is no need to get exercised about it. If the discussion is pointless, it was nevertheless you who brought it to WT:MOSNUM, which is fine with me. It might be good to see if a wider group of the editing community shares your view. I don't oppose "harmonization"; I merely ask "harmonization with what"? True "harmonization" would ensure editing in harmony, which I would hope would be the goal of any discussion. Evensteven (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I did not mean to imply that you oppose harmonisation in general. The discussion was about adoption of a single unit symbol across WP (i.e., to make a choice between ua, au and AU in WP articles), and that is what you and the other editors oppose.
  • I did not take the discussion to mosnum. I just posted a note there to advertise the existence of the discussion, in order to encourage wide participation.
Dondervogel 2 (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: User:Dondervogel 2 has moved the disucssion to WT:MOSNUM#What is the correct symbol for astronomical unit?. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 16:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@ASHill Did you read my reply to Evensteven? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, there's still a section there. I guess it's up to responders where to put their comments, and they can find us here too. Evensteven (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Prefer 'au' (per the IAU resolution) but 'AU' is also acceptable (per common usage). Define and link on first use either way. There's no need to force every article to use the same nomenclature, but it might be slightly easier for readers. I doubt it's worth the effort though. Modest Genius talk 22:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
There is no mechanism to force articles to do anything, but there is a mechanism to provide a uniform guideline. My original question was about which was preferred between AU, au and ua. You have answered that question clearly enough, but the consensus at Astronomical unit was that it is better not to standardise at all, i.e. to allow individual articles to make a free choice between these three symbols and (presumably) any other symbols or abbreviations they care to think of, such as a.u. or A.U. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Once again, Dondervogel, I question your characterization of the consensus. The presumption of "any other symbols" being included is all yours, it seems to me. It is irritating to see preemptive supposition replace what others have said. Evensteven (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@Evensteven Are you irritated because I point out the unwillingness to standardise, or because I have misinterpreted that unwillingness? If it is the latter, please clarify what I have misunderstood. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
It is you who must do the work of clarifying what you have misunderstood; I am unable. You have the means before you. It is present in the comments left in this discussion thread. Evensteven (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Language question[edit]

Concerning Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 4, 2015, I've got a quick language question: if a star is "one of the strongest sources of ultraviolet radiation in the night sky", will a significant number of readers think that "strongest" means it puts out more UV than than other stars, not that its visibility from Earth in the UV spectrum is stronger? - Dank (push to talk) 23:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

It is quite clear to me that the "strongest source" must mean the source is stronger than other sources. If in the context of UV power I would assume it means the most powerful UV source. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
@Dank: I agree, it could be confusing for readers. Maybe we could change it to "from Earth, it appears as one of the strongest sources"? That way, the fact that it is only apparently the strongest is more emphasized. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
My suggestion is "one of the brightest sources of ultraviolet radiation in the night sky". Dondervogel 2 (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
This was worded correctly at Epsilon Canis Majoris. The correct statement is that it is "the brightest source of extreme ultraviolet radiation in the night sky"; the extreme ultraviolet distinction is important and can't accurately be omitted (and this statement is what the source says). —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 05:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that correction! I've added the word "apparent" per this discussion and per John's edit ... he wanted to vary the prose a bit. - Dank (push to talk) 05:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Am I being dense, or by "strongest" are we talking about strongest absolutely, as in ergs released by the object, or strongest relatively, as in ergs received from it on Earth. And even if we are talking relative, are stars really the strongest in general. What about the nearer galaxies, each collectively? And do other distant sources that emit in higher frequencies appear strongly in ultraviolet on Earth due to red shift because of the expansion of space? Even if these questions sound silly, I find the whole point of the statement confusing, because ... which stars? They vary absolutely so much according to class, and again even more relatively according to distance from Earth! Do not other objects somewhat fill in the range, and where does that leave the meaning? Evensteven (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I think that even to an astronomy audience, it will be understood that "in the night sky" refers to "in the night sky of Earth" rather than as viewed from an exoplanet or from interstellar space. --John (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
You're not being dense. Thinking about this more, "strongest" is a lousy word, as indeed it's not clear whether it's referring to luminosity or brightness. In fact, I'd normally associate "strongest" more with luminosity than with brightness, though brightness is correct here. (This is clear to me in context, but I could probably be classified as an expert.) "Strongest" also doesn't appear in the source which supports the statement; "brightest" is the word used there. I'll change this in the Todays' featured article, Canis Major, and Epsilon Canis Majoris. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 17:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Turns out that this issue was only present in the Today's Featured Article summary; "strongest" was introduced in the edited version of the lede of Canis Major. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 17:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Lists at AfD[edit]

People here may be interested in three lists I have just sent to AfD: List of stellar angular diameters, List of spiral galaxies, and List of unconfirmed exoplanets. Rationales can be found on the AfD pages. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Correcting image – request[edit]

This image is a nice way to compare the sizes of natural satellites to each other and to the terrestrial planets, but some things are wrong. First, Pluto is in there. Secondly, Mars is too small relative to Ganymede, though roughly right relative to Earth. Is there someone who'd like to fix this? --JorisvS (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

First, Pluto has every right to be in there. Second, does that mean that Ganymede is too large relative to Earth? Primefac (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
A) No, Pluto is neither a satellite nor a (terrestrial) planet. If it is included, the other dwarf planets would also have to be included, but that makes a different comparison, which also be a nice one, though. B) On closer inspection, the problem of the sizes appears much more complicated. Earth is a bit too small compared to the rest, except Ganymede and Titan, which are much too big compared to the rest. And I may not have spotted all of the problematic sizes. --JorisvS (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Sizing issues aside (which I will work on fixing and reuploading), the description on the image is "Relative sizes of the 25 Solar System objects smaller than Earth." It makes no implication about Pluto's status, and neither do any of the en.wiki pages that use it (one even says "dwarf planet Pluto." Primefac (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
(and yes, I am being incredibly pedantic on this one). Primefac (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be best if there are two: the satellites compared to the planets and everything. Note that the image's title is "relative satellite size", that's why I said that it was wrong that Pluto was in there: aside from the inner planets, it's the only one included. I think the description got changed later, because it includes more than just satellites, notably Pluto, and then it was added that all those other objects are missing. --JorisvS (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The image will be fixed (see below), so I'll make sure to give it a suitable name before uploading. Primefac (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

To answer the size question - if Earth were to scale with everything else in this picture, Io would only be one pixel wide (and 3/4 of the bodies sub-pixel size). Therefore, either Earth becomes a larger-than-the-frame segment (like the Sun in most Planet pictures) or it gets nixed altogether. Best option is probably scaling everything relative to Nereid or similar-sized body. Primefac (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Io is approximately 2/7th the size of Earth, so it would be substantially bigger than one pixel. Your strategy sounds sound, though. --JorisvS (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, turns out I'm just an idiot and didn't remember to set my spreadsheet formula properly. All the current images will fit perfectly fine on the current image with only minor tweaking necessary. I shall do that post-haste. Primefac (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
@JorisvS:, if this looks good to you, I'll upload and switch all the wikilinks.Primefac (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Already much better, though their placement is a bit irregular: the southern poles are now not at the same height. --JorisvS (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
You missed one: Enceladus looks too big. It should be just a touch bigger than Miranda, and about half the size of Tethys. Maybe you confused diameter with radius? Tbayboy (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that. It was already way too big in the original. Also, Rhea and Oberon are best switched positions. Although the same size to within uncertainty, Rhea is likely the bigger one. --JorisvS (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, I didn't mess with the top row since they were fairly close to what they should be. Should have figured someone would notice :p The south poles weren't all at the same height to start off with, but I suppose they did get a bit more skewed. Primefac (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed, but their placement should be regular regardless. --JorisvS (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Done, comments welcomed. Primefac (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Visually-speaking, I think it looks good except for the gray box around Callisto. Huntster (t @ c) 16:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I checked and found no mistakes. If you could make Triton and Pluto images overlay with the other images on the left, it'd be better. Tetra quark (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Done. Primefac (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Could you also switch Rhea and Oberon? And could you remove Pluto from this satellites comparison and then make another one that includes it, along with at least Ceres and Vesta (and maybe the other (IAU) dwarf planets if it can be made to look okay). --JorisvS (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I suppose Rhea is slightly smaller than Oberon. Primefac (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
No, it's slightly larger. --JorisvS (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • For near-future consideration: If Ceres and Vesta are added, then later this year this could become a montage of all the larger, sub-Earth-sized, imaged bodies (after an update). Tbayboy (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Some of the names don't look horizontally centered, like at least Enceladus, Miranda, Proteus, and Nereid (by visual approximation only). Can you line up all names with their object centers (for pedantry's sake)? Looks great otherwise!
Good point, will do! Primefac (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, the bottom of the Moon's image appears slightly higher than the bottom of the other images.
The bottom of all images are perfectly aligned. I checked that before. Tetra quark (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Earth" doesn't appear in all caps like everthing else. Though that may be on purpose, idk.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  17:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that, it was in the original image and I forgot to fix it (but I will). Primefac (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • There is also a weird streak over the image of Venus. --JorisvS (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The image I used was the satellite image from NASA, it's the bit where the satellite didn't go over. I might be able to find another complete one, I just didn't like the lower-quality version in the original. Primefac (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
That would make it look better. --JorisvS (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Hopefully this meets the majority of the above comments. Everything is lined up, Pluto has been shifted, Rhea/Oberan switched, and the top row is sized properly. Primefac (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks like it belongs in a book or encyclopedia or something.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  22:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I still think Pluto is out of place in the current comparison, but it looks way better than it used to! --JorisvS (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I like Pluto there as a nice right-hand bracket. Plus, Charon appears on top, so it's more than appropriate to have Pluto on the bottom.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  00:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
If Charon were the reason to include it, we should include all four giant planets, because their moons are in here. What good reason really is there to include it? Sentiment isn't. --JorisvS (talk) 10:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The description says it's for "Solar System objects smaller than Earth", so including the gas giants would change the scope of the image. Including Pluto wouldn't. I'm not one for sentiment, but I don't want to swing too far in the opposite direction either and actively reject its presence. Pluto's a thing, people know about it/of it, and it's nice to know how big it is compared to everything else. Simple as that. If nothing else, it helps illustrate where on the size-spectrum a dwarf planet sits.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  13:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Preach it, Brother Reding! AstroCog (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
And the title says satellites. I'm not against Pluto's inclusion in a comparison like this one, but if included other objects in the presented size range should also be included. --JorisvS (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I understand your point. There are several satellites lined up and Pluto is a combo-breaker. But there are also three planets in there, so people will understand its not just about satellites. And the reason for adding Pluto is because it is a very well known object. There is no point in adding other similar sized bodies that nobody has heard of Tetra quark (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
At least Ceres and Vesta with Dawn. Eris is also a candidate because it led to Pluto's "demotion", though it has no real usable image, but maybe that can be solved akin to Pluto. Then, if three of the five IAU dwarf planets are included, why not all five? --JorisvS (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
If 5 can fit, sure, if Primefac doesn't mind adding them >.>   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  15:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I'm only seeing it now, but could a better image of Europa be used? And maybe we could also use higher-quality images of Earth, Mars, and Mercury? --JorisvS (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Too late, it's already done. I may update the image with higher-res images if I can find them, and/or add more bodies, but no guarantees. Primefac (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Relative sizes of 25 solary system objects smaller than Earth.
WikiMedia:User:SteinsplitterBot/Possible copyvios wasted no time, it seems. Just wanted to let everyone know.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  21:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
What would be the possible copyvio about it?? --JorisvS (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not overly surprised, it's very similar to an image that already exists. It's a bot that flagged it, though, and when a human actually looks they'll see it's a derivative work (which is perfectly acceptable under the licence it was created). Thanks for the heads up, though, Tom! Primefac (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Follow up[edit]

I'm thinking of putting this image work of art up at each satellite's page, and maybe some of the planets' pages, as long as:

  1. a size-comparison image doesn't already exist
  2. there's a good spot for it
  3. it doesn't make the page look cluttered
  4. there aren't already a lot of images on the page

Decreasing in size (for the lazy) (not struck = missing some kind of size-comparison):

Satellites: Ganymede (moon), Titan (moon), Callisto (moon), Io (moon), Moon (moon?), Europa (moon), Triton (moon), Titania (moon), Rhea (moon), Oberon (moon), Iapetus (moon), Charon (moon), Umbriel (moon), Ariel (moon), Dione (moon), Tethys (moon), Enceladus, Miranda (moon), Proteus (moon), Mimas (moon), Nereid (moon)
Planets: Earth, Venus, Mars, Mercury (planet)
Dwarf planets: Pluto

Anyone object/want to help?   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  14:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Can do, I'll be sure to strike through what I've done to make things easier. Primefac (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Looks like most are FA'd and need very little work... Titania (moon) is missing an Earth-Moon-moon comparison image, which would fit with the other FA'd moons. I'd like to make that one myself, please :)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  16:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
It looks like making Earth-Moon-moon comparisons is the way to go for the satellites. I struck the ones with a size-comparison image. I'll make them!   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  16:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Enceladus starts using the British Isles as a size comparison, so I'm thinking that's the way to go for the smaller satellites, alongside an Earth-Moon-moon comparison until they start becoming ≲ 10-20 px (using the pixel scale of the Earth in the other FA'd moon articles as a reference).   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  16:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, Earth-Moon-moon might be difficult with the really small ones like Nereid and Mimas, British Isles is a good comparison. Primefac (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Enceladus is still just doable, though already pretty borderline. I think I'd prefer an Earth–Moon–Enceladus comparison over the Earth–Enceladus comparison presently in the article. --JorisvS (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I also think the Pluto–Earth comparison could be improved, especially if the Moon would be included. --JorisvS (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I concur. I'll do Earth-Moon-thing comparisons for things ≧ Enceladus, probably later today & tomorrow.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  17:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
You guys are doing an awesome job by adding the size comparison pics in the articles. Keep it up! Tetra quark (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Tetra. All done with Earth-Moon-things ≧ Enceladus in File:25 solar system objects smaller than Earth.jpg now.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  20:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Size comparisons for Solar System objects smaller than Enceladus[edit]

At the standard image size of 250px, the typical Earth-Moon-thing comparison image shows Enceladus as only 8px wide in its article. It's not much use using the same format for the smaller moons, so we've got to figure out a nice comparison format for the smaller satellites, maybe by combining the ideas behind the TNOs and the British Isles comparisons. Since this is not a small undertaking, getting a WikiProject Astronomy consensus seems like a good idea before someone (Primefac?? :) starts working on it.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  20:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd be happy to make the images. We should definitely have a consensus about what comparisons we're making, but also we need to figure out what Commons already has to avoid unnecessary duplication. My vote (to keep this talk page from getting huge) would be to create a Worklist subtopic to keep track of everything (assuming there are enough interested people to make such an undertaking worthwhile). Primefac (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
For the smaller bodies such as Enceladus and Mimas, perhaps a better comparison image would be to use Mars or Ganymede as the largest object in the image, rather than Earth. I suggest Ganymede since it is the largest moon, and Mars because I'd guess that most people know the rough relative size of it compared to Earth. StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I like the idea of reappropriating the large-format comparison to use as the small-format. What if we combine this with a country (or something else, maybe even Enceladus itself) by putting the Moon where Earth normally is, since it's smaller than Ganymede (which works to our advantage in this case; Ganymede is starting too big in my opinion), then put another common-ish object where the Moon normally is? The United States is too large (25% wider than the Moon), but the British Isles are at least at the scale we're looking for. I'd say people have a better idea of the size of the British Isles than of Mars (plus Mars is too big anyway).   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  14:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Simply enlarge the Moon and don't show the whole Earth. Leave just about 1/4 of it showing on an edge. Another idea is to compare the size of the smaller moons with a country or continent. You get a satellite image of, say, England, and use it as scale Tetra quark (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I like that, enlarging it and not showing the whole Earth. I think it best shows the relative sizes. A comparison with a country may also be useful, but it doesn't show the relative size of the satellite compared to Earth and the Moon and I don't think people will know it intuitively then. --JorisvS (talk) 12:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Since it's for small objects, don't show the Earth at all. Overlay the object on the Moon, showing it against the mare, giving it something familiar to compare against. These objects are small enough that the numbers alone are meaningful in a human sense: most people have travelled far enough to have a good sense of how far 400 km is. Tbayboy (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I suggest if you put a sub-image showing a zoom in portion. I don't support the use of countries, because 1. This is astronomy, not geography, and 2. Not everyone knows a size of a definite country, and 3. Not everyone lives in England to know its size. Just an example, I live here in the Philippines, and Tetra quark himself says he's in Brazil. So using England as comparison would be unfamilliar to us. SkyFlubbler (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Zoom won't be necessary; if the Moon is 100px the smallest body (Nereid) will be 9-10 pixels, large enough for a Wiki image. Primefac (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
What about the United States? Most readers live there Tetra quark (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm in the U.S., and I think that using any country would be a bad idea, since they're all irregular in shape, making it harder for readers to discern the actual size. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
For instance, this comparison of Enceladus and the UK Enceladus moon to scale-PIA07724.jpg is more illustrative than the image Tom.Reding added, in my opinion Enceladus Earth Moon Comparison.png Tetra quark (don't be shy) 19:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Enceladus is a big jump (in smallness) from Tethys and starts the parade of smaller objects. Since it's a transition between "large" and "small" (relative to the Earth-Moon-thing format) it's nice having the large-format comparison next to what will be the small-format comparison (whatever it is) on that page.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  13:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I think both the Enceladus–Earth–Moon comparison as the Enceladus–British Isles comparison add value for our readers. For the smaller satellites it would be the same. --JorisvS (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

FLC for Savilian Professor of Astronomy[edit]

If anyone can improve the astronomical content of Savilian Professor of Astronomy, then please comment at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Savilian Professor of Astronomy/archive1. Thanks, BencherliteTalk 07:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Three new stubs[edit]

They could use a bit of help, if you have the inclination. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live![edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

article quality bot?[edit]

Hi, can someone tell me how often the bot runs? The one that checks the articles for quality and upgrades their rating from stub-class to C-class to B-class? Thanks. Lehasa (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no bot (that I know of), though I often take the uncategorised articles and give them a ranking. Primefac (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
How can a bot possibly know whether an article is good or not? I am confused Tetra quark (don't be shy) 00:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Tetra quark, you'd be surprised what well-trained computers can do. However, in this instance it's the real-life humans who do article rankings.Primefac (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
@Primefac:Now that I think about it, an article rating bot would be very helpful. People's ratings are completely arbitrary and no one ever changes the it after the article has been improved. For example, I posted the banner of my Cosmology WikiProject on talk pages and almost blindly rated them. Actually, I mostly just copied the ratings of other wikiprojects Tetra quark (don't be shy) 00:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
An article rating bot would need to know the subject matter to assess the articles properly other than for pure English form and grammar, and whether sources exist or not (and possibly if the exact terms occur in the source) Though that doesn't stop people from writing journal article bots that spit out gibberish that gets past peer review and published into reputable academic journals. Actually, many people who rate quality of articles seem to blindly copy the quality rating over from existing banners (ie. FA/A/Start/Stub). Somepeople even blindly copy the importance ratings over, though that is invariably wrong. There (is?/was?) a bot that runs that auto-copies stub-quality over to all banners but I don't remember which circumstances it runs under. I suppose a bot could be made to autoassess as stub , and if a stub is no longer a stub could autoupgrade to start class, but doing more than that probably wouldn't be worth the error rate. FA/A/GA-class articles require manually nominations and assessment subpages. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Capitalize the "U" in "universe" or not?[edit]

Now that I've got access to AWB and its find and replace feature, I had the idea to ask you guys whether the word "universe" should be capitalized or not. A few sources claim that it is ok to write it either way, but the problem is that the word is found both capitalized and not in different articles and sometimes in the same article, so we must reach a consensus to choose the best way to use the word and stick to it.

In my opinion I'd choose to capitalize it, but of course, I can't do such a major change without talking about it before Tetra quark (don't be shy) 00:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The topic has been open for 9 days at Talk:Universe, with no responses. An archive search for "capitalize" gives results from 2006, 2011, and 2013. Did you read through and consider those before posting? What are the major points? Which do you agree with and which do you disagree with?   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  01:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
@Tom.Reding: It doesn't matter if I read through the archives. I have to ask for your opinions before making a significant edit Tetra quark (don't be shy) 02:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
This is a tough one. When we are talking about our universe as the Universe, I believe that it should be capitalized, just as when we are talking about the Sun or the Moon. On the other hand, when we are talking about a universe as in the context of the multiverse or that a universe must have some qualities to support life. I believe it should not be capitalized, just as when we talk about a moon or a sun of a different planet. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
seems simple- the Universe, a universe. Bhny (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
We have the same problem with "moon"/"Moon" , "earth"/"Earth" , "sun"/"Sun" , "solar system" / "Solar System" / "Solar system". There are too many articles using "earth" to mean the planet instead of meaning dirt or ground. Ditto for our lunar companion -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
"Wow. There really are many missuses of the lowercase "earth". What is worrying is that I found those errors on popular articles like Saturn and Sirius. Tetra quark (don't be shy) 06:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I think the above commenters have it exactly right: capitalise when speaking in terms of a proper noun, lowercase when speaking in general. Huntster (t @ c) 05:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
For the moment, I'll check the articles and spot usage errors of upper/lowercase moon, earth, sun and solar system. Considering I'll be checking astronomy related articles, chances are that words like Sun and Earth should be capitalized most if not all the times.
And by the way, what if we retire the lowercase version of those words? Instead of using "a solar system", should we use "a star system"? It sounds more formal and more encyclopedia-like. Anyway, this probably has been discussed before Tetra quark (don't be shy) 06:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The generic "solar system" is usually used to mean "planetary system" (a system of objects around a star or stars) and not "star system" (a system of star(s) which might contain other stuff) though; there also being "stellar system"... -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 06:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The term planetary system refers to a planet and its moons orbiting it. There is the Solar System and there are other star systems. Solar, star, solar, sol, sun... star. Well, let's not get off topic. You know what I was trying to say Tetra quark (don't be shy) 06:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Planetary system is a system of objects (planets and stuff) in orbit around a star. Which is how ESO uses it, Scientific American, Astronomy Magazine, Wired, Princeton University, arXiv, Caltech, etc. It is not "planet+moons", it is "star+planets" -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
There are multiple reasons for capitalising (or not capitalising) Universe. Thus, AWB would be a very bad way to handle this issue, as it has to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Primefac (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
@Primefac: No, AWB is good at that. I basically have to find the term "the universe", check the context and replace with "the Universe". Or I can also simply find "universe" and check the context to see if it should be capitalized. Tetra quark (don't be shy) 21:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support capitalizing Universe. I agree with Bhny. We talk about our Moon, and moons of other planets. We capitalize Galaxy when we are talking about our own, but other galaxies don't get the capital. Similarly, we should capitalize our Universe but not other hypothetical parallel universes. Reyk YO! 06:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • In line with several other editors, I support capitalising if in the sense of the one and only Universe, and oppose it in the sense of multiple parallel universes. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
@Dondervogel 2: Fine, I guess that's the final decision then. Tetra quark (don't be shy) 21:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Tetra quark: Could you explain exactly what you are doing in the 100+ edits relating to "universe" that you have done in the past few days? I see from this edit that you changed "the universe" -- but you didn't change "Einstein's static universe" or "the Einstein universe" or "model of an expanding universe" or the template that has "Age of the universe", etc. ... Also: you're not changing to Universe if universe is inside quote marks, right? I didn't see an example, but I know you've changed sun to Sun inside a direct quote, so I hope this exception has been considered. I do not see in WP:MOSQUOTE that such changes are prohibited, but I don't see that they're allowed. According to an earlier discussion "The Chicago Manual of Style says "Retain original capitalization, spelling, and punctuation in titles and quotations from early modern sources ...". Or take Oxford: "In quotations from printed sources the spelling, capitalization, and punctuation should normally follow the original" (with exceptions that don't seem to apply here). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
--> It seems like all the edit summaries have called the attention of more people, which is understandable. I will try to answer to all of you above. First of all, I want you to keep in mind that I didn't edit those articles based on my preference. All I care about is to do what's more correct. As you can see, I asked here which way we should use the word and I didn't influence anyone in my message (although I left my opinion).
So, according to the MOS, it's ok to capitalize words like "sun" when they are in an astronomical context (As in "the Sun is a main sequence star") and it's not ok when it is not. The word sun, for example, can be used to refer to stars in general as well ("our sun is our primary source of energy". Implying -> there are other suns), and yes, it should be lowercased. When it comes to the word "universe", the same rule can be applied. There is the Universe (which means, the totality of existence) and there are other uses of that word that can refer to one universe in a multi-verse, or used in a philosophical way, or even when referring to wildly different things like "Miss universe". Even though MOS doesn't have an specific example that mentions the word universe, it's pretty clear the same rule should be applied, as everyone above my last message has agreed.
@Peter Gulutzan: that was a first step at changing the word. In the find and replace feature, I typed in "the universe", considering that pretty much all of the cases in which that term is used it refers to the Universe. If I hadn't put the "the" there, it would take a really long time to sort what words should be capitalized or not; that's why "Einstein's static universe" wasn't changed. I do intend to do more detailed edits soon. (Update: I've made the changes in a few articles. Take a look: Albert Einstein [1] Giordano Bruno [2] List of cosmologists [3])
And no, I'm not changing anything inside quotes, file links, templates, refs, link targets, and so on. I really may have capitalized the word "sun" inside a quote accidentally Tetra quark (don't be shy) 04:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
This approach to changes in Wikipedia adoption of style is what many editors soon learn editing can sometimes be a joke. In this case, a typical nitpicking editor finds a flaw in the AWB and exploits it. Worst, they deliberately find a common term not in the adopted procedure, then exploit it by enforcing or imposing some change for the sake of it. IMO, the changes being made here by Tetra quark are a deliberate attempt to stir the pot rather than solving a problem. From past behaviour, this individual seems more than happy to impose his views on others rather than doing so by actual consensus, and basically avoiding WP:GF.
Clearly, the adoption is as follows.
"Universe" with a capital 'U', refers to "THE universe" as a proper or given name. I.e. "The Universe is a big place."
"Universe with a lower case 'u' refers to universe when referred to as a place . I.e. "Travelling for future humans to explore the universe is difficult."
Other similar usages are;
"The Sun is at the centre of the Solar System."
"The sun shone through the window."
"The Earth is the only place in the solar system that is known to have life."
"The astronaut looked down on the earth from the International Space Station."
Carte blanc changes already made here by Tetra quark is tantamount to vandalism.
If you want to make such changes, you should wait a significant amount of time. Already half the contributors disagree with you, but you still went just change Wiki pages anyway.
As an long term editor, I will be using the usage explaining above, and will revert any changes imposed by this User.
Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Who's disagreeing with Tetra quark('s edits) on this except you? I can only see people who agree with capitalizing if it is the one and only, but not in other cases. It looks to me that he saw the consensus and acted on it. You should try WP:AGF here. --JorisvS (talk) 09:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
First, @JorisvS:, read the main commented thread, about half of the replies have mentioned that there are almost as many exceptions to the "the Universe" rule as there are valid reasons, or that AWB should not be used for such specific updates. Second, @Tetra quark:, you waited a grand total of 20 hours before deciding that consensus was raised; we're one of the more active WikiProjects, but seriously, give us some time to discuss! You would have seen Gronk Oz' post about the existing MoS. Additionally, your blatant disregard for past precedent ("It doesn't matter if I read through the archives") is rather worrying and I completely agree with Arianewiki1 that your existing edits should be thoroughly checked and reverted if incorrect. I think it's great that you're enthusiastic and wanting to improve Wikipedia, but there is NORUSH to push changes through, which has been happened a lot lately. Primefac (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Which thread? Besides, those things do not say anything about the consensus here that where it refers to the one and only it shouldn't be capitalized. --JorisvS (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
You are not listening regarding the problem. AWB has a direct warning about adopting its use I.e.
Consensus is really, really important here, because is effect users and the interpretation of text. A good example is your edit on Alpha Centauri, where you, changing the sentence to read "On June 10, 2013, scientists reported that the earlier claims of an Earth-like exoplanet orbiting Alpha Centauri B may not be supported." (my bold.) Earth-like is plainly wrong, it plainly should be earth-like Where is the consensus to do that? (The article here is discussing universe not our home planet!)
My other minor issue is thaaft Tetra quark is likely to have English as his second language, after his native Portuguese. (I'm concerned with the implications of these changes. He has already admitted "I really may have capitalized the word "sun" inside a quote accidentally", which shows the dangers of this approach.
So please stop editing this carte blanc until the issue is properly sorted. Thanks Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
NOTE: I did some tracking on the example of Earth-like versus earth-like, which I wrongly attributed to JorisvS (talk). Although my point is valid, I'm incorrect to attribute this to his work. My humble apologies. (I'm having problems with sorting out these edits, as most naturally will.) It is struck out above in my earlier post. Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


@Primefac: Well, the thing is that Gronk Oz would not have commented if I hadn't made the changes. All the edit summaries have called the attention to this page, and the thing is that people will only leave a message if they have something opposite to say. Users who agree with the changes will not comment.
Also, this is an encyclopedia, and capitalization errors are serious problems. What concerned me the most was ambiguity. While editing, I stumbled upon several cases where the word universe when referring to the universe was indeed capitalized, so we had to choose a definite way to use the word. Tetra quark (don't be shy) 15:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


@Arianewiki1: Ok, well.
1st: I didn't do anything based on my preference. As I said, I didn't try to influence anyone in my first message
2nd: You're wrong - "The astronaut looked down on the earth from the International Space Station". The word "earth" in this case IS capitalized. It is referring to our planet.
3rd: As I said above, all the edit summaries have called the attention of many people. The thing is that people will only leave a comment here is if they have something to oppose. When you say you will revert my edits, you're pretty much disregarding the dozens of people who are ok with them. Cheers, Tetra quark (don't be shy) 15:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
'-->

Tetra quark said; "Now that I've got access to AWB and its find and replace feature, I had the idea to ask you guys whether the word "universe" should be capitalized or not."

It sounds like a User with a new toy. AWB is not designed to do thing on a whim. The question is valid, but the drastic implementation causes drama to sort things out. Yet there are now +500 pages these changes have been applied to, and this includes 'earth', 'sun', 'moon', 'solar system'. This also applies to astronomical as well as non-astronomical subjects. I.e. J. Marvin Herndon. What is worse, these changes have been applied across references as well.

The first chance to discuss this is by Tetra quark 00:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC), but the changes were implemented just before 17:17, 16 January 2015, leaving less than 16 hours.

No one replied to his statement Talk:Universe on 22:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC), until Gopher65 at 12:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC) then Isambard Kingdom at 13:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC). Both advised to avoid doing so and advised on the problems with context. This left almost no chance to correct this.

Worst AWB has changed this to other words like 'earth', 'sun', 'moon', 'solar system', also WITHOUT ANY Consensus.

Why bother debating this, if the edict has already been implemented? Damage done.

Yet this is abusing AWB in clear violation of the usage policy of AWB.

Should this issue submitted be via WP:DRN ? Arianewiki1 (talk)

  • This is turning into personal attacks.If you are new to this discussion, please read the whole post to see what consensus we came to. The changes won't be undone because of one user. Tetra quark (don't be shy) 16:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's see. First. You accuse me on my talk that; "I didn't get in a content dispute. You were the one who started everything."

This is not the issue. You have implemented the AWB without any adequate consensus or agreement, and have total disregarded the consequence of your actions, even when you were advised of the issues and risks.

As for the quotes above.

1st: I didn't do anything based on my preference. As I said, I didn't try to influence anyone in my first message
That is not relevant. Influencing people is not the problem, it is the way you have damaged +1000 articles with AWB when you were expressly advised not to do.
2nd: You're wrong - "The astronaut looked down on the earth from the International Space Station". The word "earth" in this case IS capitalized. It is referring to our planet.
Just shows how little you comprehend the usage of these terms. It's an example of your opinion not the consensus view. (What is worst, is that you have changed a lot of references, which have the correct usage as published.)
3rd: As I said above, all the edit summaries have called the attention of many people. The thing is that people will only leave a comment here is if they have something to oppose. When you say you will revert my edits, you're pretty much disregarding the dozens of people who are ok with them. Cheers,"

So what. It also disregards the other who don't think it is OK, and whom you just ignored.

If you wish to defend your position, just go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard and make you case.

In the meantime, please don't revert any future pages with this specific issue until this is resolved. Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Tetra quark said; :"This is turning into personal attacks. If you are new to this discussion, please read the whole post to see what consensus we came to. The changes won't be undone because of one user."

There is no personal attack here.

It is clear you are not listening or do not understand the problem here.

Stating there is consensus when there is not shows clearly that point.

Furthermore, my objection was the way you have done this, not necessarily because I object to the changes.Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1: I take this to be a very unambiguous sign that there is a clear consensus to capitalize "Earth", "Moon", "Solar System", and "Sun". Tetra quark's edits regarding this are appropriate. Maybe Tetra quark should have allowed more discussion time, but I understand why he went ahead: everyone who came here basically said the same thing about it.
Also, Arianewiki1, that AWB warning does not call for consensus, but for taking full personal responsibility. AFAICS, Tetra quark is doing that. So what if a mistake is occasionally made? Mistakes are bound to be made because we're all humans and we all make mistakes, whether we're using AWB or not. Also, "Earth-like" should be capitalized because it means "(being) like Earth", referring specifically to our planet. --JorisvS (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Section 3 of AWB says ""Do not make controversial edits with it. Seek consensus for changes that could be controversial at the appropriate venue; village pump, WikiProject, etc. "Being bold" is not a justification for mass editing lacking demonstrable consensus. If challenged, the onus is on the AWB operator to demonstrate or achieve consensus for changes they wish to make on a large scale."
Tetra quark violated this provision, probably deliberately by his actions, to avoid proper scrutiny.
Conclusive statement stating "...that AWB warning does not call for consensus, but for taking full personal responsibility, is plainly absolutely false.
An occasional error on one page is understandable. +1000 is tantamount to a deliberate provocative act, especially mad worst that no single editor could possibly fix it page by page with out almost months of effort - whose wicked effect was implemented by machine code.
If editors are given such things, and abuse the privilege defined precisely by the rules, they ought to be sanctioned for any abuse of them. Yet the rule seems to be punish the complainer and reward the transgressor for such violations. Achieving consensus is rewarded, even when another wantonly tries so desperately to conceal that someone might disagree. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
You're the one who put the above banner here. It does not call for demonstrating or achieving consensus in all cases, but only in cases where the changes could be controversial. Given the discussion here, with everyone basically saying the same thing, it didn't appear that it would be controversial. --JorisvS (talk) 11:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
@Arianewiki1: Do you disagree with capitalizing "Universe" where it refers to the one and only and not where it doesn't? Or do you only disagree with the speed at which Tetra quark took action? --JorisvS (talk) 11:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it would make a great deal of sense to turn this discussion into a broader discussion, through the Wikipedia:Request for comment system, to get input of those who may have more general linguistic knowledge than those editors who are specifically interested in this project and watch this page. Having said that, most of these terma, as I have already said at the WP:DRN discussion, are generic terms primarily and secondary names secondarily, and it would probably be better to go to WP:MOS or some similar more appropriate page to get broader input from the community, probably best received through RfC. John Carter (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Q. All the references that have these terms in them have been now changed. Most astronomical papers have all lower case or mixtures of them to make them unique. How are these going to be repaired now? Sources like the Astrophysical Data Service, for example are structured that way. Arianewiki1 (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Re WP:MOS I decided to look if there was earlier discussion there. I found the original editor's explanation about Capitalization of celestial bodies for sun earth moon -- it was discussed on the talk page and some authorities (though not NASA) were consulted. I did not find any talk page discussion or edit summary explanation about the addition of solar system by this edit of January 9 2012. The latest arguments were about Capitalization of sun only two weeks ago. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I have added a section in the Wikipedia Manual of Style/Capital letters talk page: Capitalization of universe. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW - if not already considered, a relevant reference for the discussion *may* be the "Style Guide for NASA History Authors and Editors" at the following link => http://history.nasa.gov/styleguide.html - especially? => "Astronomical Bodies: Capitalize the names of planets (e.g. Earth, Mars, Jupiter). Capitalize moon when referring to Earth's Moon, otherwise lowercase moon (e.g. the Moon orbits the Earth, Jupiter's moons). Do not capitalize solar system and universe." (and more? - see link) - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Where it says "Do not capitalize solar system and universe." I don't, personally, agree with NASA, but I certainly think arguing about this sort of thing can be a waste of time. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree either. I agree with the MoS on this one. There are several solar systems (although the technical term is star system or planetary system). The same can be applied for "universe" (even though this word isn't on the MoS). There is a difference between talking about the Universe and "Miss universe". Tetra quark (don't be shy) 17:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes I mentioned it on the DRN and on the MOS talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:DRN[edit]

A request for dispute resolution has been filed at the dispute resolution noticeboard. However, I don't see an issue that is appropriate for the dispute resolution noticeboard, the purpose of which is to improve an article by moderated discussion. I see at least two issues. The first appears to be a more general issue about capitalization, which, as User:John Carter has said, could be better addressed at a manual of style talk page, if necessary by a Request for Comments. The second is a complaint about an editor's use of the AWB tool, and a demand that his privilege of using the tool be revoked. DRN is not a forum for administrative requests or for conduct allegations. Is there an issue about the content of a specific article or articles? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The statement by me is specifically with the second item you mention. I agree with some of these modifications, but the issue is that Tetra quark should have gained consensus over a much longer timeframe, rather than less than 16 hours. He They were advised not to do this, but then changed it anyway, and gave no indication of that change. There are numerous problems, which are specifically the change was with the word 'Universe' or 'universe' as the title in this discussion, yet Tetra quark also change all 'solar system', 'earth', 'moon', etc. without bothering to engage to find any consensus at all.
Making changes to +1000 plus pages, is plainly serious enough to allow some reasonable discussion. Hence the the dispute resolution noticeboard. This was not done. All other problems with the dispute resolution are irrelevant.
Tetra quark claims he had consensus WHEN HE MADE THE CHANGES, when the evidence says otherwise.
The only question to answer is; Should Tetra quark who made such carte blanc changes by sanctioned for his improper changes without gaining proper consensus to do so? Evidence presented at the time of the placement the dispute resolution noticeboard, appears to validate this point of view.
1) Tetra quark should have left much more time to gain consensus
2) Tetra quark has done everything in his power to avoid scrutiny on this issue. I.e.
  • Tried to close this thread with archivetop [6] (and clearly broke the three edit rule)
  • Attempted to manually block this page by archiving it [7]
  • Then the request to archive was later deleted . [8]
  • In later discussions refuses to engage in solving the issue, and claims false negatives to justify Tetra quark actions. I.e Keeps stating (many times)" is it that difficult to notice that there was a consensus", [9], when at the time of the actual AWB, there clearly wasn't consensus. , etc.
So based solely on the evidence here, there was not justification to impose the edit on +1000 pages.
Hence, the request for sanctions using AWB tool by not allowing realistic debate and consensus to be properly reached.
Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Question. Should I have posted this at the dispute resolution noticeboard, under Talk:WikiProject Astronomy discussion [10], rather than here?
I'm not sure? Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

CALIFA[edit]

While exploring DRAFTspace for WPCOSMOLOGY articles, I found an interesting astronomy draft article that might be worth saving, Draft:Calar Alto Legacy Integral Field Area Survey. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 06:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I found some extra sources and listed them on the draft's talk page. There are also lots of Spanish ones but, because I speak no Spanish, I can't evaluate them for content or reliability. Even with the sources I found I still question the topic's notability. Perhaps it should be merged to Calar Alto Observatory. Reyk YO! 08:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I know some Spanish, so I'll look at the sources, and if it seems that they demonstrate notability, I'll move the draft to mainspace, since other than notability, it looks good. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Hmm, even without spanish sources, I believe that the topic is notable, having been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works. That said, I don't feel comfortable moving it to mainspace right now, seeing as the draft was rejected by another AfC reviewer, @Mr. Guye:. Mr. Guye, what are your thoughts on why the subject is not notable? StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Indeeda, that's worth publishing Tetra quark (don't be shy) 16:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I have moved it to article space. My first guess for previous declining is that the references are not independent of the topic. But AFC decliners should add a clear comment so that contributors can improve. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I rejected it because of inadequate sourcing. StringTheory11, if you believe that it is still notable anyways, I'm perfectly fine with it. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I added a template on top warning about the lack of references Tetra quark (don't be shy) 19:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone copyedit the lead section of Universe?[edit]

As I told Primefac not long ago, I consider to be myself a pretty calm and comprehensible person, but one thing that makes me totally lose it is when dealing with immature people. If anyone could do me a favor, copyedit that monstrosity before more more lurkers have the displeasure of reading that. Thanks Tetra quark (don't be shy) 21:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Probably not since it is now protected :) Lithopsian (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I suggest working on the Universe talk page. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization of universe[edit]

There is currently a discussion about the capitalization of Universe at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Capitalization of universe. Please feel free to comment there. sroc 💬 13:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

9Spitch[edit]

Hi, while browsing WPAST's cleanup listing, I came across this galaxy. While certainly notable based on the press it has received, I have been unable to find its RA and Dec anywhere online, nor its entry on SIMBAD. Does anyone by chance know these items of information, or where I could find such info? StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

StringTheory11: I did a little rewriting on that piece, removing some significant original research. One of the folks at Spacewarps provided a link to the SDSS survey record for this object. I've added what I could to the infobox. Please, review and fix anything I've messed up. Huntster (t @ c) 04:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks man! StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

IC 1101[edit]

We really need to come to some kind of resolution regarding what to use as the size for IC 1101. Mainstream sources continue to widely report a range of figures, averaging on 5.5 Mly in diameter, which seems to be a misunderstanding by the media dating back to 1990 regarding the extent of a reported faint halo. NED, citing de Vaucouleurs (1991), gives a major/minor axis of 114.68 by 58.49 kpc (374.0 by 190.8 kly). Clarke (2004) says "more than 600 kpc". On Talk:IC 1101, Peter Erwin's math says the diameter is 1,060 to 1,480 kpc (3,500 to 4,800 kly), while Arianewiki1 finds a major/minor of 139.86 by 54.39 kpc (456.2 by 177.4 kly).

My first thought would be to use the NED data, but given the tremendous disparity between different reports, I think this needs a degree of consensus from the community. I'd appreciate any and all thoughts so as to put this to rest. Huntster (t @ c) 21:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

That really is a problem. I just added that information back there because in the past an editor removed it based on original research. He was a professional astronomer and he kept claiming there was no way the galaxy was that big, but failed to supply a reference. I used the diameter that was on Phys.org, which is a website that has a fairly good reputation, but of course, it can always be wrong Tetra quark (don't be shy) 22:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Diameter estimates vary from x to y. If the highest estimate is correct, IC 1101 would be the largest galaxy observed. This could be a good way to put it. Tetra quark (don't be shy) 22:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I will do a bit of digging, see what the academic journals say and see if I can find some commonality between them. Primefac (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree. As a quick fix, why not give a range to be more explicit about the discrepancy: Major axis between 114.68 kpc[ref 1] and 1,480 kpc[ref 2]? As for a longer term fix, this problem isn't specific to IC 1101, but to any diffuse (fluffy) halo galaxy. I haven't looked into the current handling on other diffuse galaxy pages, but this might be an opportunity to either initiate a reporting convention or to modify the template in a favorable way (i.e. by adding a half-light radius parameter or the like, perhaps only used in times like these (to avoid back-checking all |size=s currently quoted in all {{Infobox galaxy}} templates)).   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  22:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Regarding size, galaxy edges extend well beyond the visible edges seen in images. (I already explained it here [11]) Simply put, diameters of galaxies are measured, breadth and width, in arcmins, which are taken from photographs or astronomical plates. These taken images are often at different wavelengths. I.e. blue (B), infrared (IR), hydrogen-alpha (hα) and even NIR bands, like J or K. Therefore, sizes are dependant on wavelength. Traditionally, size should always specify the colour band. My recommendation, is to use the commonplace visual photographic diameters, similar to the ordinary images placed in articles. (In telescopes, much of the outer portions of the galaxy are invisible, and we see perhaps a third to one-fifth the diameter of the
True physical diameters are based on similar ideas. As sizes vary depending on distance, a scale is produced, which is expressed as a number in parsecs per arcsec. (It is based on the fixed 'standard' value at distance of 1 Mpc. per arcsec. times the true diameter. N.B. It is actually more complex than this.) This is done to analyse the differences between measured plates.
Diameters quoted should be of simple visible wavelength images, which makes more sense. My exampled calculation major/minor of 139.86 by 54.39 kpc (456.2 by 177.4 kly) quoted in the talk page result is on this assumption.
I note the last correction by Tetra quark has two errors. It is 5 million light years NOT 5 light years. Also you should express size in terms of kiloparsecs (kpc.) as well, which is actually the proper referred term in calculations.
Please note, accept for correcting Tetra quark errors, I have not edited IC 1101 before this, but only attempted to answer this questions on the talk page. Tetra quark stating "Who removed this information in the past was doing so based on original research." is a deliberate accusation not supported by evidence. I.e. You must state who removed it and you must where it was based on original source. It is bordering on WP:GAMING.
Comments. Huntster statement of; "...while Arianewiki1 finds a major/minor of 139.86 by 54.39 kpc (456.2 by 177.4 kly).", is not precise. I exampled how the calculation was done, and expressed a result. Notably, this was only on the talk page NOT the article.
Tom.Reding. The half-light radius parameter is only used on globular and open star clusters. It cannot be used on galaxies, as the distribution of light is far from even. (How would you distinguish between galactic core, spiral arms or halos, for example?)
Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Arianewiki1, as mentioned in the article, IC 1101 is an elliptical galaxy, not a spiral galaxy. Half-light (or some scale-length) radii exist as contours for ellipticals. Regardless, I'm only providing direction towards a solution, not a/the solution.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  01:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for reminding me it was an elliptical. (Too much to think about) I did appreciate you thought. The idea of half-light radius, if you thought of an elliptical as a super globular cluster, but I have not seen in seriously discussed in the literature. Half light radii are based on the King models, and assume a kind of kinematic distribution. Half-life radii have been used in comparison with tidal radii, etc. Rotation profiles of ellipticals are vastly different. No this doesn't add to a solution here, but I thought you deserved some explanation for the idea. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

This has been a big problem in the last few months. I looked upon SIMBAD, providing an angular diameter of 1.22 arcmin, which corresponds to somewhat 1.5 Mly. Not too large for my opinion, and a big mistake. It's like what happened to NGC 6872. Press releases say it is the largest spiral, unaware of the even larger Malin 1. What makes it here is, it is most likely IC 1101 is less than 2 Mly in diameter, like those Virgo Cluster members.

The radius of 5 Mly was most likely to be the X-ray emission of A2029, which spans about 1.5 degrees. The size was unlikely to be 5 Mly. I used the Hubble constant by Planck, giving 700,000 ly radius. SkyFlubbler (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we need to focus more on finding references. If all sources indicate that the galaxy is x light years in diameter, that same wrong information will have to be on wikipedia too. What we need to know is what source(s) to use. All I know is that we have to leave some information on the article about the size of the galaxy because many people go there because of it. Tetra quark (don't be shy) 04:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Research papers will always be considered more reliable than a media report. That's why I favor the NED figures, which are sourced to the 1991 paper. Huntster (t @ c) 05:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, sure. Tetra quark (don't be shy) 05:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, NED's fine. Which figure do you use then? [12]
Also saying "Research papers will always be considered more reliable than a media report." means what. Many media reports are based on the research paper, anyway, released by the authors to highlight their work. Media reports are often available to quote, while the professional papers and catalogues, do not have free access to their works. Worst, the size depends on the wavelength of the source. GALAX or 2MASS, for example, appear in the research papers, and have wildly different sizes. I.e. the 2MASS size is 98.9×63.30 arcsec.
Actually, the result 1973 POSS1 103a-O image, which is from the UGC Catalogue, is probably the closest, because it is nearest the visible wavelengths. The RC3 catalogue is from blue image. Great for spiral galaxies, as the spiral arms are bright in the blue wavelengths from the hot luminous O-B type blue stars that formed there. As there are few blue stars in elliptical galaxies, which have consumed most of their gas, that can be rather dismal in blue wavelengths, appearing smaller than they are. This is why in NED [13], the small table "BASIC DATA for IC 1101", uses the RC3 for the redshift, but quotes the 1973 size.
However, I've already have explained this above.
True apparent size is also based on distance, whereas, closer galaxies appear slight smaller in size than more distant ones, only because their light is dimmer.
Criteria should be.
  1. The diameter should be quoted from visual images. I.e. POSS1 103a-O or POSS2 103a-O
  2. If no visual image is available, the diameter quoted should include the Plate colour info.
  3. All diameters should be referenced to their source. I.e. RC3, PGC, UGC. (RC3 tell you the size in from a B-plate.
  4. Other wavelengths beyond the visible should quote the size and source. I.e. 2MASS, which is applicable to under-luminous galaxies.
  5. Else any size should be referenced to the source where it was taken.
  6. If size cannot be determined, the example calculation for IC 1101, which is simple to understand, should be used.
Considering all the errors involved, quoted sizes are mostly 20% to 40% in error. Most quoted results are rather poorly known, anyway.
If you really want to be pedantic, we could use T. Padmanabhan's "Theoretical Astrophysics. Vol 3, Galaxies and Cosmology", Cambridge University Press, (2002). However, explaining dimensional reductions here, is beyond our scope. (Note too, the word 'universe' isn't capitalised all the way through it.)
Comment: Notably Tetra quark saying "If all sources indicate that the galaxy is x light years in diameter...", is actually an utterly impossible condition, because the true size is dependant on many variables to gain a results. I've never seen it ever happen. Among the astronomer's this isn't standard, hence the sources of diameters differs from one source to another. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Effective radius in Fisher (1995), which is a combination of five other studies, is given to be 42±8", which corresponds to ~130kpc (407kly) diameter. Couldn't find any more, oddly enough. Primefac (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
@Primefac This based on RC3 blue plates, making the galaxy much smaller than it is visually. They were measuring for the velocity curves. 42±8" is about half the visual data quoted in NED - smaller because it is an elliptical. I could contact some profession astronomers about then, but then it becomes 'personal research.' The ordered list of possibilities, stated above, is adequate for general purposes. Any quoted source must be verifiable. Either average everyone you find, or quote the visual one. I could do the 'official' Padmanabhan's method, but it is some complex, and relies on other data, it is frankly a waste of time. If it were me, I would use the PGC and then the RC3. This would cover all the bright galaxies, and none would be the wiser.
If Tetra quark has a better idea, either state it, or adopt common sense for general reader on galaxies. Simple. Arianewiki1 (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Minor planet redirects from March 2014[edit]

Soon after the ides of March last year there was very narrow consensus (1 other editor) on Category talk:Main Belt asteroid stubs to turn all (or most) minor planet stubs into redirects to List of minor planets: xxxx–xxxx. Solo Toady (talk) (contribs) initiated the discussion, received support from @Chrisrus: (ping) 5 hours later, began redirecting 12 hours later, redirected about 326 asteroid pages, then quit Wikipedia literally the next day after receiving a request to stop from @Kheider: (ping). I spot-checked about a dozen non-current versions and most are still redirects, so I'm left wondering (as anyone who might stumble across these):

  1. Revert these ~300 redirects, restoring the stub articles?
  2. Do nothing?
  3. Manually or WP:Bot request to make the remaining several thousand minor planet articles redirects to their corresponding List of minor planets page?

I'll leave a pointer on the category talk page to here, and I'll try not to induce bias with my opinion right now.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  03:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Chrisrus has left comments about the viability of asteroid stubs before, at Category talk:Asteroid stubs -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 08:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I believe it is better to put them all in a list, as long as there is a description and a thumbnail image if possible. Just my two cents Tetra quark (don't be shy) 03:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
We've discussed this issue several times before. That category talk page was the entirely wrong place to continue it. archive AArchive 1Archive 2Archive 3 -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 08:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Wow, I had no idea I'd be delivering a flaming bag of poo here. The most recent, relevant (imo) discussion is that started by @StringTheory11: (ping) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive table of asteroids 1#Minor planet redirection bot? in August 2014. The older discussions (≲ 2012) potentially predate existing notability guidelines, brought up by Fram here July 2014. Spot-checking a handful of Solo Toady's 300 redirects reveals that he was operating on:
  • asteroid stubs with ≤ 1 external link (specifically, to JPL) YesY
  • asteroid stubs created by either ClueBot II or Merovingian YesY
  • asteroid stubs < 2000 bytes (with only 15 exceptions, the largest being 3469 b) YesY
  • asteroid stubs beginning with any number (as opposed to only those > 2000) N
as (mostly) prescribed (after the Solo Toady fact) by StringTheory at bot requests, so the same rules would apply.
Therefore, my take on all this would be to revert redirects to those pages starting with a number < 2000, to effectively match the now-completed bot request. This amounts to at most 51 20 pages, listed here User:Tom.Reding/Minor planet redirects from March 2014. I wouldn't want to do so without getting the approval of StringTheory and/or Kheider, though.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  15:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I initially delayed my response to see what other people might think without them reading my personal bias. My concern with Solo Toady was that I did not want to see hundreds or even thousands of low numbered asteroids re-directed without a proper discussion involving several people. I have always enjoyed working with StringTheory. On the other hand, I have accused Chrisrus of Forumshopping since October 2013. In March 2014, I did NOT know Chrisrus was using Solo Toady to forward his crusade. Undoing 20 of of the 321 re-directs is probably the most reasonable solution, though even many of them may not be very notable. -- Kheider (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like Chrisrus should be brought to WP:AN as a having serially and persistently for years had a problem with articles that Chrisrus has campaigned against ignoring existing discussions, and being disruptive editor. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 08:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll do so after a few days (Monday), pending additional comments.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  14:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

What I would like to know is how many of Category:Main Belt asteroid stubs are NOT re-directs to a list? -- Kheider (talk) 12:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Aren't the ones in italics redirects? --JorisvS (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
There're 14,622 articles total in that category though, and at 200 articles/page = a lot to look through, so that sounds like a WP:BotReq, unless there's an easy way in like Emacs to check for italics.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  21:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I figured out an easy way (but I'm leaving for the weekend). In AWB, grab all the pages in the category, then set the only skip option as "Page is redirect", then go through the list. AWB's log tab keeps track of whether you clicked skip or if it automatically skipped (i.e. is a redirect). Save the log, Ctrl+H replace "redirect" with "blah" and have it count how many instances of "redirect" there are. Have fun! (If no one does this I will, gladly)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  21:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Category search returned 14,640 pages; 482 redirects; 14,158 articles.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  17:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I still support StringTheory11's August 2014 bot request. Too bad no one has worked on it. If Chrisrus had directed Solo Toad to start with higher numbered asteroids, Solo Toad might have fixed a large part of the problem instead of being driven away from Wikipedia. Chrisrus seems to be his own worst enemy. -- Kheider (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)