Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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
Main / Talk
Popular pages
Main / Talk
Main / Talk
Main / Talk
WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects  (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects 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.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

Moons of Jupiter[edit]

Should the table be shaded different colors to show what moons belong to each group? See the Moons of Saturn article. Note how it is shaded according to the groups each moon is in. We should do something like that for the Moons of Jupiter article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 16:50, 8 July 2013‎ (UTC)

A user has already expressed his interest and might begin coloring.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 18:18, 8 July 2013‎ (UTC)

Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from February 2012[edit]

Please discuss this at WT:AST#Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from February 2012 to avoid unnecessary duplication. Modest Genius talk 17:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Hello, there are numerous articles on asteroids (hundreds, if not thousands, in the above category - they have been tagged for notability (Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects)) for two and a half years. Many of them will be notable but it's hard for a non-specialist to establish this. Can anyone help? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

We've been discussing this issue for years. A,B,C,D ; and a similar issue, concering exoplanets, now that there are thousands known E ; the latest discussion occurred earlier this month at WT:AST -- (talk) 06:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Local Supercluster[edit]

With the announcement of Laniakea, the redirect Local Supercluster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (LSC) becomes problematic, as Virgo Supercluster is now just a subcomponent of the local supercluster. And the local supercluster is now VirSClG + Hya-Cen SClG.

Should "Local Supercluster" (and variants) become a disambiguation page, keep pointing to Virgo Supercluster, or be repointed to Laniakea ?

The problem is that most published material up until this point treat Hya-Cen and Vir as separate structures, and LSC refers to only VirSC

-- (talk) 12:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I would go with a dab page for the moment - as you say, most previous material actually refers to Virgo. This new claim has only just been published and has not been verified by other groups yet. Modest Genius talk 12:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
In fact I just did it. Modest Genius talk 12:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
The page has been tagged with a cleanup notice by a bot. We need to check and correct incoming links. Most will likely need to be repointed to VirgoSC -- (talk) 07:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately the tools for fixing this have been shut down by the WMF, apparently in a short-sighting and ideologically-driven dispute with the user who operates them (part of the fallout from shutting down the Tool Server and dispute over the way software is deployed here). Without the standard tools I'm unwilling to do all the work manually. Modest Genius talk 11:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Reverted for now per WP:BRD. Per WP:TWODABS, a two-link disambiguation page is not required to perform the navigational function where one topic can be deemed primary, as this function can be accomplished with a hatnote. A disambiguation page should not be made for the sake of having one; these get in the way of readers finding what they are looking for. It should only be made where the topics are too ambiguous or too numerous to be addressed in a hatnote. bd2412 T 13:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
There is the possibility of covering the idea of a "local supercluster", and how that idea evolved, through the period prior to defining the VirSC, then VirSC, to now, with Laniakea. There are implications to living in a supercluster, versus strung out on a filament or in a void cluster. -- (talk) 05:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, but which is primary? Until this week the Virgo Supercluster was definitely the one, but the (many) publications since then have all used it to mean Laniakea - try a Google News search for "local supercluster". I don't think there's a clear-cut primary meaning at this time. Modest Genius talk 13:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
"Until this week" suggests a high level of WP:RECENTISM. We can't tell whether that trend will settle in a few more weeks, but when we evaluate for primacy, we look just to the usage of the term across its entire existence, not just in recent days (compare Avatar). No reader will be astonished to find this link leading to Virgo Supercluster, and any reader who was looking for the other meaning would find it in the hatnote, which is about as direct as sending them to a disambiguation page would be. In mathematical terms, readers are almost never looking to land on a disambiguation page, so if 51% are looking for one meaning and 49% are looking for the other, having them land on the first satisfies 51% and leaves 49% one click away from what they were looking for; having them land on a disambiguation page leaves ~100% on the wrong page, and still one click away from what they are looking for. bd2412 T 14:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Recentism might be a problem with popular culture things, but with new scientific discoveries it's less likely to go away. However, I'm not particularly bothered so hatnotes are fine. Modest Genius talk 15:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
By the way, despite the toolserver issue, AWB still works just fine, and is the fastest tool to clean up large numbers of links. bd2412 T 14:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Interesting, but it's not supported on my operating system and I don't particularly want to start installing extra software on several different machines. It also seems like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The toolserver worked, I don't understand why it needed to be broken. Modest Genius talk 15:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
"Recentism might be a problem with popular culture things, but with new scientific discoveries it's less likely to go away." - Recentism is as much in issue in science as it is in popular culture. New discoveries need to be independently confirmed, then confirmed again. Zyxwv99 (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


We should probably expand the article to cover the various ways to define superclusters (such as how concentration of clusters was used previously, evolution from Zeldovich pancakes, and the new determinations by peculiar motion for Shapely, Laniakea, Perseus-Pisces, Lepus)

  • Should VirSC et al now part of Laniakea be treated as "former superclusters" [1] or remain in the current superclusters list [2] ?
  • Should the list be split off to List of superclusters ?

-- (talk) 08:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambuigation page for Local Supercluster and renaming Virgo Supercluster[edit]

I think it must have a disambuigation page, telling LSC may refer either to Virgo or Laniakea. That may avoid confusion, I think. As for Virgo SC, now just a part of Laniakea, it may be renamed. I think Virgo Galaxy Lobe since it is only a lobe of Laniakea. Don't forget also the Hydra-Centaurus Superclusters. Just commenting... SkyFlubbler (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

We are already discssing "Local Supercluster" in a section above, see #Local Supercluster -- (talk) 06:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Subdivisions of superclusters above cluster have been called "clouds" before... so it might be in the future (and only in the future, as in, we have to wait for it to shake out) these structures may be called "superclouds" or "subsuperclusters" or something. But we will have to wait and see what happens. -- (talk) 06:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
WP:NOR/WP:V Please do not add unreferenced material such as "Virgo Galaxy Lobe" to articles, as you did here [3] . What sources do you have that use the name "Virgo Galaxy Lobe" ? WP:V, the name must be verifable. WP:OR if the name is not used outside of Wikipedia, it is not something that Wikipedia can use. WP:RS the name must be used in reliable sources. -- (talk) 06:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:Distant galaxies[edit]

I noticed this beast. There's no description in the category, so I have no idea what the inclusion criteria are. It seems odd to create such a category without describing what it means. "distant" has different meanings to different people / in different fields. Is this a useful categorization, and if it is, how should it be defined? -- (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's useless without a definition. There isn't a scientifically defined one, so I don't see any reason to keep this. Modest Genius talk 12:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

P Doradus[edit]

"P Doradus", the Bayer designation for the variable star known under Variable star designation as R Doradus, has been nominated for deletion -- (talk) 05:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The page has been kept. -- (talk) 06:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal[edit]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

CarloscomB articles[edit]

As most regulars here are no doubt aware, in 2008 there was an incident in which CarloscomB (talk · contribs) created many unsourced, inaccurate, and badly-formatted astronomy stubs. Although the most egregious errors seem to have been fixed, there are still many errors, and every article he created needs to be checked for accuracy. For the past few months, I have been actively working on cleaning up all his articles, one by one, but the sheer number makes it so that even if I do one per day, it will take over a year to clean up all of them, and I have far less free time at the moment than I used to.

Therefore, I'm asking for help in this cleanup effort. At User:StringTheory11/CarloscomB cleanup, there is a list of all articles he created, plus instructions on what to do to clean them up. If anyone here wants to help me with this, it would be hugely appreciated. Pinging @Ruslik0: and @Kheider:, who appear to be the only two editors who commented on discussions involving him in 2008 (when he was active) who are still active now. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I will try to help. Ruslik_Zero 19:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, will try and clear a few as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Majority of them are not notable and should be deleted. Ruslik_Zero 19:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I think "majority" might be an overstatement, but certainly a sizable amount are non-notable. I think I've dealt with all non-notable stars of his already, but there's still plenty of deep-sky objects and stellar remnants that need checking for notability. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
@Ruslik0:, there's a few more now with expired PRODs. I can't delete them myself, though, since I'm the one who PRODded them, unless we want to play WP:IAR in this cleanup effort. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Object naming convention[edit]

I've started a discussion in the astronomy portal about object naming conventions, after I noticed there are various ways to use spaces and dashes in names (e.g. M82 X-1, M82X-1, M82-X1, etc...). (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention[edit]

This is a notice about Category:Astronomical objects articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. Iceblock (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

What's the point of creating this category? The field is "astronomy", and Category:Astronomy articles needing expert attention already exists, and is not filled to the brim needing subcategorizing. Is this supposed to be populated by |attention=yes from the WikiProjectBanner? -- (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I created this category because other editors have tagged its member articles with {{Expert-subject|Astronomical objects}}. The category is not populated by attention=yes. Personally, I don't see a problem with few members is categories for expert attention, unless there are lots of related categories with few members in each; the goal is to get the member count to zero. And the category should be kept even after it's emptied, so that future requests for expert attention is recorded in the category. Iceblock (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
3/4ths of "Category:Astronomy articles needing expert attention" are articles on astronomical objects.
Where does |attention=yes categorize its articles? If they don't categorize into the same categories, then there seems to be a duplicate category tree needing merging for all "|attention=yes" categories (or lack thereof, if it doesn't categorize, it should categorize into the same categories as this schema). -- (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
-- (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I have now moved the four articles from Category:Astronomical objects articles needing expert attention into Category:Astronomy articles needing expert attention. I do not know about categorizing articles by using attention=yes. The categorizing into Category:Astronomy articles needing expert attention is made by adding the template {{Expert-subject|Astronomy}} at the top of the page or at the top of a section. Iceblock (talk) 03:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)