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)

Renaming stars to lowercase latin-letter Bayer designations[edit]

See WP:RM June 17 and 16 for several stars that are proposed to be renamed to the lowercase latin letter Bayer designations from other designations.

See Talk:PP Carinae and Talk:HD 84810 and Talk:HD 84810

-- (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

For the third link, I think you meant Talk:V357 Carinae. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Oops, yeah, thanks for the correction. -- (talk) 04:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
See also talk:HD 92139 -- (talk) 06:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Be X-ray binaries[edit]

I have requested a move of the article Be X-ray binaries at Talk:Be X-ray binaries#Requested move 13 July 2014. Main issue that has been raised is the use of a slash in the proposed destination page Be/X-ray binary, would appreciate some further input on the subject. (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

3 Arietis[edit]

3 Arietis is nominated for renaming, see talk:3 Arietis -- (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorting in Category:Periodic comets[edit]

Hi WikiProject Astronomical objects. I notice there is inconsistent sorting within Category:Periodic comets - some articles are sorted by number (e.g. 102P/Shoemaker is listed under "1") whereas others are sorted by name (e.g. 177P/Barnard is listed under "B") - is there a preference for one or the other? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 06:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

My personal opinion would be to sort the number title by number, and sort the comet-X title by name (ie. "1P/Halley" is "0001", while "Comet Halley" is "Halley";) if the comet article is located at some other name, sort that by lowercase name (ie. "Halley's Comet" sorts to "halley"). Create redirects if they are missing for sorting purposes. -- (talk) 07:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

To do list...[edit]

List moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Worklist Solar system 06 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talkcontribs) 03:46, 6 August 2014‎ (UTC)

To do what exactly? As some are FA-class, it isn't to bring them to FA-status... -- (talk) 05:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I was more thinking of a table as it shows what's been done and what is still to improve (I guess). Seems a lot easier to quantify when it is laid out in a table. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
That would be a lot of articles to list, there being some 27k articles currently tagged. Wouldn't the toolserver pages linked to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Astronomical Objects articles by quality statistics be what you're looking for? -- (talk) 05:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, I should put together some sort of list of every star article's quality...that would take a lot of time though... StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
We can just keep adding to this one...not sure where to put it though. Iwonder which will be the first stub.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm running Anomie's linkclassifier.js, which shows that, fortunately, nothing on list of brightest stars is a stub. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects/stars_listing ? Leaving it here would be a hindrance to other discussion, especially considering how big it will grow (and possibly crash people's browsers due to lack of memory) -- (talk) 07:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah - will just check existing pages as well to see if any is a good location. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
We can find the order of brightness for all stars by checking this query, as long as the V-mag column is enabled in list display in the SIMBAD settings. I'd bet the first stub is some bright star in Argo Navis with no Greek Bayer designation. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

"Gliese 581 d"[edit]

The usage of Gliese 581 d (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) is under discussion, see talk:Gliese 581 e -- (talk) 07:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Important articles missing[edit]

I just started the article 68 Cygni in January of this year and from what I've found it's an incredibly interesting and important star. That got me wondering; how many other mid-importance or higher stars do we currently not have articles on? If this one never got an article, I'm worried that the number may be higher than we think. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it's likely that we're missing such articles. Considering that every time I look at a planetary system's star article, it is rated as "mid" importance, there are likely many missing stars for planetary systems. (I don't particularly agree with rating exoplanet and planetary systems as mid-importance all the time) -- (talk) 07:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, well there's something for me to do now; those certainly are not mid-importance. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
...and this is going to be a big job. After just checking the GA-class articles, there's going to be a lot of work to do... StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I created a worklist of the most-studied astronomical objects, and let's just say it's not pretty to look at. It shows how atrocious our coverage of galaxies and nebulae is compared to stars. Thus, I will no longer work on star articles unless I see something blatant, and will instead work on galaxy and nebula articles. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
One of the reasons I've been ploughing through constellation articles is that it is a good way of reviewing alot of the objects located within the constellation's borders and seeing what needs including/creating/improving. Agree - have seen numerous stubby stubby object articles - some nebulae would make good DYK pictiures too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Per redlink OriNebCl*, we have a subtopic of that Orion OB1 Association, and the supertopic Orion Molecular Cloud Complex, so it isn't entirely missing.
Per redlink TauMolCldCmplx, we have a subtopic of that Taurus Molecular Cloud 1
for redlink 3C345, be aware of the unrelated redirect Hércules B (as this is radio object Hercules B)
-- (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, for topics as important as these, only having a super- or sub-topic article isn't adequate. The object in question needs to have an article. I notice that WP is especially lacking in coverage of active galaxies and star-forming regions, which are incredibly important. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I've used {{Virgo}} as a prototype for a new constellation navbox which contains all objects in a constellation, not just stars. Thoughts? StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Gliese 581 images[edit]

Hi, wonder if anyone here would be able to help out with images for the Gliese 581 article: it would be great to have a diagram of the 3-planet orbital solution, and also if it's possible to get an image of the debris disc that was resolved by Herschel (would it be possible to use [1]?). (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2014 (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" [2] or remain in the current superclusters list [3] ?
  • 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 [4] . 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)