Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 → Archive 29

Image check requested of History of Mars observation

They are requesting an image check of the FAC nominated article History of Mars observation at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Mars observation/archive1. Please could somebody knowledgeable of the FA process do a check of criteria 3 (licensing, captions, alt text, and so forth) and see if everything is up to snuff? It shouldn't take too long. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It's been promoted. Thank you to those who contributed to the FAC. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

starbox variants up for deletion

Several experimental starbox variants (which may or may not figure in the contribution history of the current templates) have been nominated for deletion. See WP:TFD for July 30. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 05:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Also linked from Template:Starbox astrometry experimental. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Gamma Arietis

I tried to clean up and reference the Gamma Arietis article, but I ran into some issues with different source seeming to designate one member or the other as the Ap star. The SIMBAD site lists gamma-1 as the B9V star and gamma-2 as A1p. I wanted to use North (1998) as a reference for some of the stellar properties, but it seems to list HD 11502 (gamma-1) as the Ap star. I thought this might just be a mislabeling, but then I discovered Renson & Manfroid (2009), whose database entry also lists HD 11502 in its catalogue of Ap and Am stars. OTOH, Glagolevskij & Gerth (2010) lists HD 11503. Now I'm not quite sure what to believe. Perhaps they are both chemically peculiar? Regards, RJH (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:HIP objects

Category:HIP objects has been proposed to be renamed -- 70.24.247.242 (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

New editor's zeal

Errr nice enthusiasm but....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

That's clearly not his own work, and those are images of the Sun. They need to be nominated for deletion. Modest Genius talk 20:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and it looks like a picture of the Sun taken through an H-alpha filter, then colorized. Probably not quite what I'd call realistic. Regards, RJH (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
His image of Rigel will not be taken for 2489 years. -- Kheider (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Dang, that had me thinking for a bit there....I was musing on light years and distance....and it was something much simpler.... :P Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Phoenix galaxy cluster

Should this be a section within Phoenix (constellation)? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe we've been merging astronomical object articles into their associated constellation pages, probably because constellations are just artificial assemblages of mostly unrelated objects. Some other examples include Centaurus Cluster, Eridanus Group, and Perseus Cluster. Regards, RJH (talk) 00:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
No, constellations are just areas of sky, nothing more. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 05:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank folks. I learned something new. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The central galaxy of the cluster is making news headlines now... [1][2][3] -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 13:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

R136

R136 in 30 Doradus might need updating. According to some recent news, R136 is a composite star cluster caused by two clusters merging together... [4][5][6] -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

NGC 6304 Article

Stumbled on NGC 6304 while trying to help with the new page patrol backlog. It was already tagged as having zero references. I spent a couple of hours in Google, added an infobox and sources to the tiny stub... but I know nothing about globular clusters and little about astronomy. Please take a quick look to be sure I haven't done something very stupid and unencyclopedic? Thanks, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ) (cont) Join WER 04:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi DocTree. It looks fine to me. Here's a couple of pointers that I hope are useful:
  • It isn't really necessary to individually cite every name in the Other designations section. I usually just put the references at the end of the list unless there is one specific name that is being cited.
  • Although SIMBAD is a good place to find data, to me it is in certain respects a tertiary source (per WP:TERTIARY). I usually prefer to use the academic sources listed by SIMBAD because that gives a better idea of the origin of the data. (SIMBAD can list multiple sources that give the same value, some of which may have obtained that from other sources.)
An age estimate is available from Forbes & Bridges (2010) if you want to include that. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

54 Ceti naming issue

The name of this article may be an issue. The star is currently in the Aries constellation. Many older references from earlier epochs do list a star called "54 Ceti", even though it was located in the modern boundaries for Pisces. However, later sources no longer use that name and I haven't had any luck finding a source showing they are the same star. The SIMBAD entry doesn't even list "54 Cet". Should we just rename this article to "HD 11257"? Regards, RJH (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Prudent, yes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I was able to confirm that HR 534 is 54 Cet using the online Bright Star Catalogue. Still not sure if it should stay at the present name, but a lot of web sites seem to use '54 Ceti' so an article move case may be a little weak at this point. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Galactic globulars

This table may be useful for building our articles http://physwww.physics.mcmaster.ca/~harris/mwgc.dat

It can also be accessed through a query interface http://gclusters.altervista.org/index.php

-- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

We could probably do with a page that's a guideline to building reliable articles about stellar objects. (Headbomb suggested this on the WP:AST talk page.) It could include an appendix of widely-applicable references such as this. I know there's a few citations I find myself using over and over. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

NGC 5427

Should NGC 5427 redirect to Arp 271 ? NGC 5426 currently does, but the opinion at AFC seems to be that we should write galaxies articles for each of them instead of having redirects to the galaxy-pair aritcle. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 05:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

We could always just redirect for now and let somebody create the separate articles when they have the motivation. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Image:Jup ganymede comp.png

File:Jup ganymede comp.png has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Unicode/extended ASCII Superscripts

Found this after seeing it in a discussion... WP:SUPSCRIPT recommends avoiding these as they reduce accessibility of articles, and searchability. Since I've noticed that many astronomical objects with superscripted names have been moved from the plain number character to the unicode superscripted number character (instead of using DISPLAYTITLE), this could affect us. I do note that I remember a discussion some years ago that stated we should not be using unicode superscripts in article titles, but I see quite alot of unicode-d superscripted pagetitles for astronomical objects, so this may have been superceded or just ignored since it was established.

Ofcourse the big problem with unicode superscripts is that they don't go up to 9 or include 0 in most fonts, whereas objects sometimes exceed 9 with superscripted Bayer designations, so already use up 1-9, and 0; meaning that our articles are inconsistently using two different character ranges to do superscripting; or will appear with missing character glyphs for unsupported unicode characters (or a blank space).

70.24.251.208 (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, an example is the Chi¹ Orionis article. It makes sense to use HTML superscripts, but this seems like a task for a bot. Or perhaps several bots; one to set the proper DISPLAYTITLE and rename articles with unicodes in their names, a second to convert the unicode superscript characters inside articles, and perhaps a third to create the appropriate redirects where needed. Regards, RJH (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I should at least be able to catch some of these as I update the star articles. Is the preferred astronomical naming convention Chi-1 Orionis, Chi 1 Orionis, or Chi1 Orionis? Regards, RJH (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I assume the latter, along with a suitable usage of {{DISPLAYTITLE}}. Modest Genius talk 20:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
It looks like that is the style followed by Pi4 Orionis. I'll go ahead and change to that style, although I suspect it may come up for debate later. Regards, RJH (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

As an experiment I modified the DISPLAYTITLE of Pi4 Orionis so it looks more like the unicode characters. I'm curious what you think of that approach? (It can always be put back later.) Regards, RJH (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, no. The look is inconsistent between IE and Firefox, so I removed the extra formatting. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

No idea what is the general preference between Chi1 Orionis and Chi-1 Orionis, but I usually prefer the latter because jamming a number onto the end of a word looks a bit weird in normal text. Superscript also looks weird, like a footnote. I generally use either Greek-letter and superscript (χ1) or Latin with hyphen (Chi-1), but I admit that is my own preference rather than any kind of standard. 46.126.76.193 (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The dash format probably makes sense for database entries, but I'm not so sure about a formatted publication such as Wikipedia. I looked for some IAU guidelines on the matter, but they primarily seem to focus on later star catalogues. Personally I don't care all that much which format gets used, as long as it is consistent. I'd rather avoid a belabored dispute like we had with the planet names. Regards, RJH (talk) 04:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on patterns I've seen so far, it would probably help if all of the "Stars of X" templates (where X is a constellation name) had their unicode characters fixed as well. (See {{Stars of Corona Australis}} for example.) That will help avoid having editors create new articles using those formats. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

This could and should be enforced by a bot. If someone can summarize what the bot should do with regards to pagenames, displaytitles, and redirects, then it would be a pretty simple WP:BOTREQ to make, and the bot would probably be an easy thing to code. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
This is perhaps most easily done with an example:
In a few cases I also needed to modify a category sort from the unicode character to the number.[7] Regards, RJH (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

For those star articles where I could identify this as a problem in the title, the issue has been addressed through WP:RM. Thanks to everybody for their comments. I also went through and modified the constellation templates to use the superscript format per WP:SUPSCRIPT. There may still be individual articles where the problem exists, but I'm attempting to resolve those as I continue my sweep through the constellation star articles (which is going to take a long, long time to finish...). Regards, RJH (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've decided I'm not going to be updating any more star articles. Time to move on to something else. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

List of most massive stars

I find the list in this article odd. Shouldn't each star be listed separately on the list, instead of combined listings by name? -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 12:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Interwiki and categories in lists of minor planets

Some of lists of minor planets have a lot of interwiki (for example, see List of minor planets: 16001–17000). The most part of them comes from a lesser lists (such as List of minor planets/16001–16100) that form this bigger list via transclusion. If there are no objections, I'd like to move all interwiki of the lesser lists into a tag <noinclude> with my bot that prevent them to penetrate into the bigger lists. --Emaus (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

{{JPL small body}} links

There's a discussion going on about whether or not to include links to discovery/orbit diagrams/physical parameters/etc... in the JPL database ext link template.

i.e. [8] vs [9]. Please comment at Template talk:JPL small body. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

image:172460 asteroidbelt.gif and (172460) 2003 RT11

file:172460 asteroidbelt.gif has been nominated to be deleted as unused. (172460) 2003 RT11 has been prodded for deletion as non-notable. Weren't we redirecting these to the list? -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 01:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

image:172460 asteroidbelt.gif has been renominated for deletion. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:STARNAMES

STARNAMES was recently modified, per comment at Talk:J0651, which also contains observations. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:SDSS objects

apparently, we have a Category:SDSS objects ... is this indiscriminate? There are 500 million entries in the catalogue -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 06:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:2MASS objects

apparently, we have a Category:2MASS objects ... is this indiscriminate? There are 300 million entries in the catalogue -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 06:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Starbox astrometry

Is there any way we can make the inline references appear after the units? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

We'd need to add a separate reference parameter for each current parameter, or remove units entirely and make the editors add units in the parameter. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 22:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Y-type stars

We currently have a Category:Y-type stars, I was under the impression that the definition of Type-Y was still under discussion? (which spectral characteristics should be used to define it) -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

All those brown dwarfs are referred in the literature as Y-type. So, existence of this category is justified even if the definition of Y spectral type has not been finalized yet. Ruslik_Zero 16:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

82 G. Eridani → 82 Eridani

The Gould designation star 82 G. Eridani has been proposed to be renamed to the Flamsteed designation form 82 Eridani; see Talk: 82 G. Eridani. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Asteroid redirects

Alot of asteroid redirects are up for deletion, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 October 10 -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 05:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Halley's Comet

Halley's Comet has been requested to be renamed, see talk:Halley's Comet -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 05:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

image:Pluto2.jpg

file:Pluto2.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 06:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Pi2 Ursae Majoris

Pi2 Ursae Majoris has been requested to be renamed, see talk:Pi2 Ursae Majoris -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 05:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:Planetbox orbit

I recently made an unnecessary change to Alpha Centauri Bb because I misunderstood the semi-amp parameter. The title for that item currently links to amplitude and I didn't notice the description of semi-amplitude later in that article. I have now created a redirect Semi-amplitude to the correct section and I think we should change the item title to link to that. I also suggest a clarification to the documentation: 

| semi-amp = <!--velocity semi-amplitude (m/s); this is a measurement of the central star's velocity changes-->

It will be far easier to maintain these templates if we create the standard subpage structure including document and sandbox subpages. For example suggested changes can be prepared in the sandbox and easily discussed with an example on the test page. I suggest that I do that first for this template, check these changes in its sandbox, update the template with those changes and then check back here before adding corresponding document subpages to the other templates. --Mirokado (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

--Mirokado (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I've finished adding the doc subpages to the various enclosed templates. {{Planetbox reference}} and {{Planetbox separation}} have an inconsistent implementation, with the subtitle centred and using includeonly instead of letting the template display its no-parameter form when viewed and other coding differences. The infobox might well look better with all the subheadings centered, but in any case I think they should be consistent unless there is a note in the documentation saying otherwise, and the coding should be harmonised. Comments welcome. --Mirokado (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Google Chrome 100,000 Stars

Found this http://workshop.chromeexperiments.com/stars/ -- you can explore the local 100,000 stars with it, but you have to use Chrome browser. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Timeline of farthest detected object

I would be interested in an article called "Timeline of farthest detected object". It can be similar to "History of the tallest buildings in the world".
—Wavelength (talk) 04:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

We already have such an article List of the most distant astronomical objects contains a timeline of the most distant object detected (of any type), as well as the current most distant objects by class. Simply make a redirect to the section in that article. Ofcourse, it is a bare timeline, with little annotation. Do you mean you want expanded commentary? -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 06:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. List of the most distant astronomical objects#Most distant astronomical object recordholders (version of 02:01, 28 November 2012) has what I had in mind. (If I remember correctly, I searched in the categories, but I did not look at every article.)
—Wavelength (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

most distant object inclusion criteria

I'ved opened a discussion on the inclusion criteria used for the new table appearing at List of the most distant astronomical objects, see talk:List of the most distant astronomical objects. I'd like to set better inclusion criteria for the list of most distant objects, since right now it is unbounded, and ill defined. The old tables were defined by being the most distant by type or most distant of all at the time of determination. The new table is just the several most distant at this time, with no lower bound as to where to cut it off. I suggested limiting it to 10 objects, but it's been expanded past that to become a "select list" but what selection criteria is used is not mentioned. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 07:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

PH1

Having a bit of a disagreement on Talk that could really do with other interested voices chipping in. It concerns the reporting of certain exoplanet names as "official". ChiZeroOne (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Use of the word "candidate"

We are using the word "candidate" oddly in some of our articles. Normally I would simply correct the usage and not waste everyone's time, but I expect there will be pushback if I do that, so I'd like to discuss it here first.

The OED defines a "candidate" as,

One who seeks or aspires to be elected or appointed to an office, privilege, or position of honour, or who is put forward or selected by others as an aspirant
fig. and transf. Sometimes simply = Aspirant, seeker for

That is, a candidate is not in the position they or others are aspiring to, but may attain that position if they are accepted. If they are already in that position and this has simply not been recognized, they are not "candidates".

In several articles, we call bodies which may be dwarf planets "dwarf-planet candidates". This wording does appear in the lit. However, it is not a universal description; most authors refer to them as "likely" (etc.) dwarf planets, not as "candidates". It is also inaccurate when not used in the sense for example of Tancredi et al.: According to the IAU definition, these bodies either are or are not dwarf planets according to their physical and dynamical characteristics. That is, they may be candidates for naming or adding to the IAU list of dwarf planets, but not candidates for their own nature. The IAU has implicitly recognized this on several occasions, when it has said that there are likely to be dozens or hundreds of dwarf planets (not dozens of candidates) waiting to be discovered,[10] and that if a body named as a dwarf planet turn out not to be one, its recognition will be revoked. That is, just as in any other scientific category, the naming and recognition does not make a body a dwarf planet.

It is perhaps this word which has caused confusion on WP. We've had at least two editors argue that a body *becomes* a dwarf planet when it is added to the IAU list, rather than simply being recognized as a dwarf planet by the IAU. This idea contradicts the IAU's own position, and I think the confusion is reinforced by the inaccurate use of the word "candidate".

Mike Brown accepts several additional bodies as DPs, and ranks about 400 in order of probability. However, he doesn't call these "candidates" anywhere I can see, but "likely", "probable", "nearly certain", "possible", etc. Alan Stern speaks of a dozen-plus "known" DPs. Tancredi, in advising the IAU to add additional DPs to their list, calls them "probable" and "possible" DPs. He does use the term "candidate", but in the context of evaluating whether they fit the criteria established by the IAU:[11]

We present the criteria as a step by step decision tree:
... If there is a direct measurement of the relative roughness with values < 1% and the shape correspond to a figure of equilibrium, the candidate is accepted (Case I).

This is the correct usage of the word "candidate".

When an asteroid shows signs of a coma, we mention that it is a possible comet, not a "comet candidate". When an unidentified clump is found in Saturn's rings, we say that it is a possible moon, not a "satellite candidate". Etc. I suggest that for dwarf planets we only use the word "candidate" in the sense of a candidate for evaluation or recognition as a dwarf planet, as per Tancredi. That is, Sedna is a candidate in the context of Tancredi's or Brown's evaluation, but otherwise it is simply a probable/likely/etc. dwarf planet, per the wording of Tancredi, Brown, or others. — kwami (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

No, a body becomes a dwarf planet when the IAU recognizes it, and loses its status when the IAU revokes it. Bodies are nominated for recognition to the IAU. Thus a "candidate" dwarf planet is a body which is under study so that it can be proposed, or has been proposed to the IAU for recognition as a dwarf planet, but has not yet been accepted. A failed candidate would be one which the IAU has rejected for recognition. It would be the same as being a name on a search list for membership in an honors body. Dwarf planet recognition does not function like many scientific categories, as it needs recognition by the IAU to be accepted. The possible dwarf planets, are the population from which candidates are drawn. A star is a start based on the general acceptance of the scientific community, not the bureaucratic recognition of the IAU; some categories require bureaucratic recognition (such as a planet of the Solar System, or a dwarf planet of the Solar System).
Yes, anything on our pages that are not under study for, or have already been advanced for recognition as a dwarf planet should not be called candidate, instead should be called possible.
-- 65.92.180.225 (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Several people have made this claim, but no-one has produced a source to support it. It contradicts the IAU itself. Do you have any source that {DP} is a bureaucratic rather than scientific category? If it is a bureaucratic cat, we need to change dwarf planet, which currently defines it purely in terms of hydrostatic equilibrium and orbital dominance. We would also need to redefine small Solar System body accordingly, and remove DP from the population entries in the info boxes. As for actual candidates, in your opinion would they be only the three bodies advanced by Tancredi et al., or are other bodies under consideration?
If it is a bureaucratic cat, that would resolved most of my problems with the current state of the articles. I rather doubt it is, however. Whenever anyone has edited the articles to say it is, they've been immediately reverted. — kwami (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, assuming there's no evidence that DP is a bureaucratic cat, pace the anon. IP. Any other feedback on limiting the word 'candidate' to candidates in a particular study? — kwami (talk) 02:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

WISE object notability

There's a question about the notability of various articles on objects discovered by WISE, see Talk:WISEPC J150649.97+702736.0 where a merger has been suggested. -- 70.24.245.16 (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:NASTRO applies as usual. The fact that they were discovered by WISE is irrelevant - they still need the same level of coverage as any other star/asteroid/whatever to establish notability. The fact that this object was presented in a paper entitled 'The first hundred brown dwarfs [...]' suggests that it doesn't meet the threshold. [feel free to copy these comments to the article talk page] Modest Genius talk 00:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I think WP:NASTRO needs to discus how close a star, brown dwarf, or exoplanet needs to be to be notable? 50 ly? 20 ly? Perhaps there should be a section called 5.x "Dealing with nearby stars, brown dwarfs, and exoplanets"? -- Kheider (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
None of those. Distance is irrelevant. If you set any arbitrary cut-off distance then all you've going to get is a bunch of non-notable M or brown dwarfs massively outnumbering everything else within that range. You'd also have to start arguing about what counts as a 'star' and where the spectral type cut-off is. If they're really interesting they'll receive serious study. Modest Genius talk 01:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Amen, brother! Testify! AstroCog (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I think deleting a star, brown dwarf, or exo-planet within 20 light-years of the Sun would be a case of just pointing at a policy or guideline. -- Kheider (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
According to that list, there are only nine known brown dwarfs within that range; If that's still true then I'm inclined to agree, and even if not those nine probably have notability owing to their early discovery. But it doesn't seem all that relevant to this discussion. See also my reply at your cross-post at Talk:WISEPC J150649.97+702736.0#Notability. Andrewa (talk) 02:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I was wondering where best to discuss the wider questions raised by Talk:WISEPC J150649.97+702736.0#Requested move and being discussed at Talk:WISEPC J150649.97+702736.0#Notability and I see you are ahead of me here. Good to see.

See also Talk:WISEPC J150649.97+702736.0#2MASS etc. Andrewa (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It is highly inappropriate to discuss 2MASS objects on a WISE page. You should discuss that here, or at Talk:2MASS. Off-topic discussions at a WISE object page about the group of 2MASS objects is wrong, since anyone watching 2MASS pages would never see it. It will never get into the 2MASS talk archives, or the project talk archive and be easily searchable either. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 05:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
See that page for my reasons for revoking your unilateral close of the discussion there.
Agree that any discussion that results in action on 2MASS articles needs to go in their talk pages. But that's not the stage we are at here. I raised 2MASS at Talk:WISEPC J150649.97+702736.0 because we still have a large multiple Requested Move pending on that page, and the information I added is relevant to that discussion. Please don't unilaterally hide it. Andrewa (talk) 06:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
2MASS objects are not WISE objects, discussing 2MASS objects and what to do with them at the WISE discussion is inappropriate and off-topic. Per Talk Page Guidelines, those discussions should be removed, so I hatted it. You opened a new discussion on the notability of 2MASS objects, on a page unrelated to 2MASS objects, clearly off-topic discussion. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Agree that 2MASS objects are not WISE objects, as I said on the other page. Partly agree that discussing 2MASS objects and what to do with them at the WISE discussion is inappropriate and off-topic (my emphasis), it is IMO important to note in that discussion that there are at least 175 and possibly many more potential articles for which some of the same arguments may apply if we take the most generous approach to notability and then apply it consistently, so the discussion is relevant that far (with 2MASS given there as just an example), but agree that the 2MASS pages will need to be flagged at some stage if the discussion impacts them, and discussion of the more general issues brought here, as I have done. Disagree that I opened a new discussion in any relevant sense, this new discussion was a subheading of the old [12], or originally not even a subheading, the heading was an afterthought [13]. I had hoped that adding the subheading would be helpful but it seems to have mislead you.
And a bit curious that you choose to reply here and not, so far, on the WISE page, which seems a better place to discuss the details of what is or is not relevant to the discussion on that particular page. This discussion here is rather cluttering this page IMO, for no benefit. It would be better just to link to the discussion there, in my opinion. But happy to make the main discussion of this relevance side issue here if you so desire and others do not object. Andrewa (talk) 14:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're going on about. reply here and not there ??? You replied here at 14:26 13 Dec, you replied there at 9:02 13 Dec. These replies postdate all my replies. How can I reply to you after 9:02 when all my replies predate that time?
As for the appropriate venue for the discussion of 2MASS objects, it is most definitely NOT the WISE page. As I have repeatedly stated, it is an off-topic topic of discussion, and should not be taking place on the WISE page.
Yes, it was a new discussion, which you opened by stating that there are also 2MASS objects to consider, which is a non-sequitar in relation to WISE objects, since the page in discussion does not appear to be a 2MASS object. It doesn't matter if it is a subheading, it is clearly a new discussion on a topic unrelated to the article in question, therefore off-topic per WP:TALK, and should be removed.
If you wish further discussion on the 2MASS notability issues, move that section here or to Talk:2MASS, per Talk Page Guidelines. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Disagree, and I think we have spent more than enough time on this. Andrewa (talk) 07:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
From WP:TALK Talk Page Guidelines:
  • Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal.
  • Off-topic posts: If a discussion goes off-topic, the general practice is to hide it by using the templates {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} or similar templates. This normally stops the off-topic discussion, while allowing people to read it by pressing the "show" link. At times, it may make sense to move off-topic posts to a more appropriate talk page.
Yes, we've probably spent enough time on this. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 07:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
See [14]. Andrewa (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
If you wish to reopen the discussion on 2MASS objects here or at Talk:2MASS, that would be well, since it would get rid of the clutter of procedural disputes at the WISE article talk page. I'd suggest you hat-collapse that section as I did initially, when you move your starting point about 2MASS notability to a different talk page. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Meaning that you still don't see that my focus is merely on the WISE object RM. It raises lots of issues but I can't follow them all up, nor do I need to, that's what collaboration is about. We disagree on the helpfulness of your hatting my mention of 2MASS on the WISE discussion page, but I suggest you let this one drop. It is merely cluttering the discussion. Andrewa (talk) 05:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Apologies to the WikiProject (of which I am not a member) for the clutter on these pages concerning procedure. 70.24.247.127 does have a point that a wider discussion here is appropriate and I note that they started this section and support that action.

My main agenda is to close the RM at Talk:WISEPC J150649.97+702736.0 in a way that lays the best possible foundations for the future. If I've been clumsy in this, again I apologise.

IMO we do need to have at least an interim decision on whether any distance criteria at all are relevant. If you dredge through the above, you'll see that unfortunately the two discussions are heading in opposite directions on this. See #Refocus below. Andrewa (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


Refocus

The discussion at Talk:WISEPC J150649.97+702736.0#Refocus is leaning towards a merger rather than a move for WISE objects in general, but to keeping some of the stubs relating to the objects closest to Sol, which is contrary to the general consensus above IMO. Comments? Wider participation in that specific discussion would also be appreciated. Andrewa (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd particularly like to suggest here that perhaps a slightly looser notability criterion for stub articles is appropriate, in practice at least. In particular, merging the article on the brown dwarf suspected of being the closest to Sol is not a good idea, even if for articles in general distance from Sol is not a criterion, and even if as at present that claim is unsourced. Instead WP:AGF and give that particular stub the chance to grow.

See for example the stub at Ferrières, Manche. I don't think there would be any benefit in deleting or merging this. The fact that it's at a certain level of administration is a prima facie case that we may eventually have an article. Similarly, astronomical objects that seem to be biggest, smallest, closest, further away, any of these interesting extremes are likely to be the subjects of further study, and useful stubs.

But that opens a can of worms as to exactly what the distance criteria should be. These are exactly the sorts of things a WikiProject can deal with most effectively. TIA Andrewa (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Andrewa already knows that I consider any star/brown dwarf within 20ly to be part of the stellar neighborhood and worthy of an article. As of now, we only know of ~22 brown dwarfs within 20ly of the Sun. Given the Nemesis, Tyche, and Nibiru effects on culture/society I think it is worth having an article on the nearest brown dwarfs. In the articles one can go into more details about the results of various different distance estimates, etc. for that one specific object. -- Kheider (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, apologies for making yourself repeat that. The discussion has been rather messed up on both talk pages, and everyone else seems to have given up on it. Andrewa (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I haven't seen a convincing argument for why things closer than 20 ly are worthy of articles? Why not 30 ly? Why not 3000 ly, the functional limit of geometric parallax measurements? My point is that arbitrary objects do not have inherent notability. None of the objects here being discussed have been convincingly shown to pass GNG, let alone our very own notability criteria. Distance is not a notability criteria, and if it is being proposed that it should be, then this is not the venue for it - that should be done with a centralized discussion at the talk page for Notability (astronomical objects). It was suggested above that some fictional objects, which admittedly have captured the imagination of fringe pseudoscientists, are a basis for adding a close distance criteria. This suggestion relies on nothing more than a non sequitur. What have some fictional objects to do with 2MASS or WISE brown dwarfs? Answer: nothing. My suggestion is to merge all the WISE and 2MASS brown dwarf info into tables on the "list of" pages that are most appropriate, as WP:NASTRO calls for in these cases. I'm astounded this discussion has gone on this long without arriving at this result. AstroCog (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Astrocog, have you even followed the discussion? This very topic started in the article WISE 1506+7027 which is possibly the nearest brown dwarf to the Sun! To claim such an object is not notable is ludicrous. Space is big and EMPTY and it is time that WP:NASTRO have basic criteria for objects in the immediate stellar neighborhood. I mentioned Nemesis and Tyche largely because there is a fragment of our society (See the 2nd sentence of Wikipedia:NASTRO#No_inherent_notability) that suffers from cosmophobia. As co-authors, you and I both KNOW that WP:NASTRO was created to deal with the thousands of main-belt asteroids that were created by bots. When it was written I also knew it would be quoted by editors to needlessly attack articles they do not care for. -- Kheider (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
But what does that have to do with an arbitrary distance cutoff? If that particular star is notable, there will be sources to back it up. If the 'closest brown dwarf' claim is true, there will be plenty of them. There's no need to add some arbitrary new rule to NASTRO. Modest Genius talk 19:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I have followed the discussion. WP:NASTRO may have been started because of the minor planet stub problem, but we wrote to be as general as possible. I think this is a perfect case study of where it should apply. I don't deny that some brown dwarfs may be notable, but if we start making exceptions based on the cases you are suggesting, then it sets a precedent that we won't even follow the guidelines we democratically wrote and decided on ourselves. These myriad brown dwarfs seem to me no different in practical terms than all the minor planets that are now better served in lists. If the object notable, it will have been studied extensively. The one you say might be the closest, but it has received little study. When it does, and more information is available (beyond a bunch of physical parameters...now this is sounding just like the asteroid discussion...), then a stand-alone article is merited. The cosmophobia argument still has nothing to do with these particular objects - like I said, a non sequitur. I haven't seen any needless attacking of these articles - rather I've seen reasonable questioning of where to place their content. Just like with the asteroids, these recently created single-article stubs for brown dwarfs contain little more than physical stats - perfect candidates for inclusion in tables on "list of" pages. Anybody looking for information on these objects would be better served by such a table - for now. Again, none of these even meet the GNG, so why modify WP:NASTRO with an exception? Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


General comment: you're getting bogged down with this idea of there being '2MASS objects' or 'WISE objects'. The survey which detected them is utterly irrelevant. No object inherits notability from the surveys it appears in. Instead these are stars, brown dwarfs, asteroids etc. Notability rests upon the actual properties of the objects and their coverage in reliable sources. All this discussion of WISE vs 2MASS vs whatever else is a waste of time. Modest Genius talk 19:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that any WISE-discovered brown dwarf will have been discovered in the last 2 years, obviously there will be little coverage in the uninformed general media. All brown dwarfs (and exo-planets) have been discovered relatively recently, where as asteroids/stars have been well known for hundreds of years. So yes, there should be a general rule that allows the development of a select-group of articles about the nearest objects. -- Kheider (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Sources don't have to be from the general media. And that's nonsense anyway, since there's plenty of coverage for e.g. Alpha Cen Bb, which was only discovered a few months ago. The key point is whether something is notable and has received significant coverage in reliable sources, not how long it has been known or how it was found. Again, what does it matter whether any particular brown dwarf was discovered by WISE or not? A brown dwarf is a brown dwarf, regardless of how it was discovered. Many have been known for over a decade. Modest Genius talk 23:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
If this project proceeds with blindly re-directing Category:Brown dwarfs all that will be left in Category:Brown dwarfs will be brown dwarf companions to naked eye stars, much as (hypothetical) Nemesis is to the Sun. Is this what this project truly desires? -- Kheider (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
No-one is suggesting to do that, that's a straw-man argument. The original question was whether certain articles meet WP:NASTRO or not, and if not, what should be done with them. I entirely agree that any existing article which does not meet the current version of NASTRO should be redirected to a relevant list article. Modest Genius talk 19:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Other than the following 6 brown dwarfs (Teide 1, 2M1207, CFBDSIR 1458+10, SDSS J1416+1348, WISE 1541-2250, WISE 1828+2650) can you name any other brown dwarfs (that are NOT companions to a star) AND have received significant coverage? (EDIT: I am not sure the above 6 even qualify for significant coverage.) -- Kheider (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Why force an article on something that hasn't achieved notability yet? What is wrong with waiting until an individual brown dwarf does receive significant coverage? If the answer is "it never will", then maybe it doesn't need its own article. You have accused others of using NASTRO against articles they don't like, but you seem to be shifting your goalposts for articles you do like, namely the brown dwarfs. At first, you were saying they were notable because they were nearby. Now, you're arguing they're notable because only brown dwarfs in binary systems have received coverage. I guess I would rather get at the heart of what it is you are wanting here. You acknowledge that the asteroid problem existed. There's no practical difference here, so are you attached to the brown dwarfs because you like them, or is there some other reason to give them special treatment? AstroCog (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
How can you honestly compare a couple dozen of the closest brown dwarfs out to ~20ly vs a list of 18,126 main-belt asteroids? It seems a handful of editors were annoyed by the main-belt asteroids and still refuse to allow defined-criteria for some article creation (unless it meets their personal definition of "significant coverage".) -- Kheider (talk) 14:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
NASTRO was debated for a long time with dozens of participants - hardly a handful of editors imposing their personal preferences. I know I personally endorsed many compromises in the guideline. One of those compromises was the redirect language. Rather than delete outright the minutia related to things like asteroids, and in this case, brown dwarfs, those objects are redirected to a list, which better serves the WP almanac function, and more importantly, better serves those who may actually be searching for this information. A table can compile the known physical parameters of many objects, which individually may not even meet the general notability guideline. One of the common objections to NASTRO when it was first proposed was that it could allow the creation of articles for objects that don't meet GNG. That objection was resolved when NASTRO was modified so that wouldn't happen. The objects in question in this discussion don't meet GNG, so it's not a matter of applying personal definitions of significant coverage. Please answer this: what is wrong with having the information on these pages (just numbers and stats!) compiled into a table on a list? What is wrong with then making individual pages for objects when they meet GNG? Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
In an individual article one can go into more details about the results of various different distance estimates (Photometric vs Parallax), etc. for that one specific object. I have never seen a generic list article include that kind of detail, probably because it would clutter up the list and become more confusing for a casual reader. Many readers will not know that there is a difference between photometric and parallax estimates. -- Kheider (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Many of the non-2MASS/WISE objects listed at Category:Brown dwarfs are real stars that just happen to have a brown dwarf companion and thus the star-article is included in Category:Brown dwarfs. I myself have edited very few of the brown dwarf articles before this WP:NASTRO issue came up. My concern is that I think objects within the stellar neighborhood (~20 ly of the Sun) should be allowed stand alone articles that can be expanded by interested editors. The issue of too many exo-planets articles has also come up in the past and I think my solution allows some flexibility for interested editors without those editors feeling as if they are being alienated by this project. I think it is pathetic to re-direct almost all of the solo brown dwarf articles simply because WP:ASTRO has failed to come up with a reasonable rule to deal with objects within the stellar neighborhood. -- Kheider (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Well then that's the crux of the problem. I think NASTRO is perfectly fine for dealing with objects in the solar neighbourhood, and there's no need for special rules about them. The guideline was agreed by consensus here, and the only person arguing against it is you. Modest Genius talk 23:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I personally have no problem with an interested editor working on such an article as you described. I would like to think such action is a good-faith effort to improve actual content. If it's just naval gazing, i.e. tweaking a table of parameters, using just a couple of references in which the object is one of many studied, then I think it would be stretching the spirit of the project. If such inconsequential tweaking is then being applied to a host of similar articles, with no real content additions, and with no reasonable hope it ever happening, then we're back to the asteroid scenario. The only reason this issue seems to have come up is because a host of these articles were created (got on my radar because of the project alerts), all essentially identical except for the objects having different names. AstroCog (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Likewise. Without wanting to rush things, I think we have a rough consensus here (one voice dissenting) that WP:NASTRO applies to the 30 articles listed at Talk:WISEPC J150649.97+702736.0#Requested move, and that they all fail it. Personally I'm reluctant to apply this to WISEPC J150649.97+702736.0 itself and perhaps a few others but if that's the (rough) consensus here I'll go with it, as it's the WikiProject members here who will end up doing the work this decision leads to either way. Andrewa (talk) 16:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
When you guys are done decimating 167 objects in Category:WISE objects please move on to the 417 exo-planets at Category:Extrasolar planets and finish off with the 48 objects at Category:Quasars since I am sure most of these exo-planets and quasars do not have significant coverage as required at WP:NASTRO. -- Kheider (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't need to all happen immediately. The most important thing is to get the guideline and its interpretation agreed, and then to somehow clearly flag those articles which may not meet the notability guideline in order to reduce the amount of time people waste creating still more articles which are just going to be merged, wasting still more time. Andrewa (talk) 08:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

About the 2MASS objects, most of the time, when editing, I've encountered them as galaxies. I'm rather surprised the category (Category:2MASS objects) doesn't contain many galaxies. I am concerned that with millions of entries in the 2MASS rolls, that categorization by 2MASS number is indiscriminate, (the same goes for SDSS Category:SDSS objects, which the survey also contains millions of entries in their rolls) -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

See my comments above about the pointlessness of referring to anything as a '2MASS object'. Many thousands of objects have entries in the various 2MASS catalogues; that does not make them a homogenous or even special class of object. Modest Genius talk 23:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

On arbitrary criteria

Many criteria used in Wikipedia are to some extent arbitrary. While we scrupulously avoid WP:OR in article content, some is inevitable in choosing article topics. For example WP:MUSICBIO reads in part Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable) (my emphasis). Why two albums? Why not one or three? Or see Category:Percussion instruments invented since 1800. There's nothing magic about the date 1800, we just needed a specific date that would allow us to guide readers to inventions such as the acme siren and distinguish traditional musical instruments from modern inventions.

I'm still uncomfortable about questioning the notability of WISEPC J150649.97+702736.0. It seems to me to be inherently notable, and if the guidelines indicate otherwise then the guidelines are wrong. Andrewa (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Megamerge

There seems a general consensus above that a great many of the articles in Category:WISE objects and Category:2MASS objects (and I would add, perhaps also members of other subcategories of Category:Astronomical surveys, such as UGPS J0521+3640 for example) all fail Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects).

On the other hand, many of not all of these articles contain encyclopedic information which is not contained in any current article. So there is also a general consensus that the solution is merge and redirect rather than delete.

This represents a great deal of work to do, and is not a new issue, see for example Talk:2MASS J07491255+5552336 for a valid notability query unanswered since 2009.

But possibly more important, it also represents a great deal of wasted effort on the part of the creators of these articles, and a risk of much, much more of the same to come. This in turn risks losing valuable contributors when they see their hard work thrown away through no fault of their own.

I have posted a general warning on the WISE and 2MASS category talk pages [15] [16], but this will have little if any effect. Other suggestions welcome. Andrewa (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Please, do not misrepresent you personal opinion as consensus. Ruslik_Zero 16:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I thought I'd been fairly conservative in the claims of consensus above... exactly what is it that you think is untrue?
I object strongly to the charge that I misrepresent anything above, in fact it seems to itself seek to misrepresent my views. Just for the record, I do not personally agree with some of the general consensus I see. (And I would have thought this was obvious from the preceding discussion.)
But the important thing is how to move forward. Do you see any consensus? If so, what is it?
If not, where to from here?
Or, dare I say it, do you not wish to recognise consensus just because you don't agree with it? I did think my claims were conservative, as I said above. I was certainly trying to be. Andrewa (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
For evidence of the consensus I see, see Talk:WISE 1506+7027#Move and particularly this contribution which passed without comment on that occasion. Andrewa (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

No other comment? Perhaps in view of the tone of the only one I've had it's not surprising.

Traffic both here and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy seems a bit slow at present, but I've posted a heads-up there [17] and at the notability guideline talk [18].

Please note that I'm not personally supporting this megamerge, despite the charge of misrepresentation above. What I am trying to do is to clarify the application of the notability guide in this particular area to prevent further wasted effort and the loss of contributors to which this will inevitably lead. Andrewa (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, but there's nothing to clarify, vis-a-vis notability (astronomical objects). NASTRO is clear - there's no inherited notability just because these are brown dwarfs or because of close distances. The guideline couldn't be more straight-forward as to the course of action for these objects: merge into a list and redirect the names. There's not that many - and the information won't be lost. If the stub-lovers don't want to build a better table to handle the information, then that's another matter. To me that would indicate a lack of interest in these objects in the first place...thus supporting that they're not notable in the first place. ;-) Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. What is and isn't notable enough for its own article is clearly set out in that guideline. As for when everything gets tidied up, well whenever someone gets around to it. There's no rush. But it's also pointless for anyone to continue creating stubs on non-notable stars, because they can and will be redirected at some point, without notice. Modest Genius talk 19:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
(With reservations about the sringing again) Agree that the important thing is not to fix this urgently but to try to reduce the number of new occurrences. Actually that's exactly what I was trying to say above. Not very clearly perhaps. Andrewa (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
If you personally want to take on the work (or start a project) to create a list that contains all the relevant data (with proper referencing as the articles do now), go ahead and start it. Once the list is populated with the relevant data, we can discuss your mega-merge. Your megalist should probably contain no less than the type of information at WISE mission#Brown dwarf table, but obviously needs to include every article that you want to merge. -- Kheider (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's the problem... who if anyone will do this? I'm afraid I'm not offering, just for the moment, for several reasons. One of them is of course this, and I note that nobody else has commented on this particular post. So despite the comment to which you seem to be replying (but I'm not sure the stringing is quite right [19]) there still seems some risk that the work I might otherwise do will just be discarded in time.
And to repeat, I'm not proposing this. Megamerge is my term but not my idea. It seems to me to be the (rough) consensus. But it's pretty rough at best. One comment agreeing so far, versus two comments already that seem disparaging, including your own which has elements both ways. Andrewa (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Agree. But see above. Andrewa (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
PS and I'm sorry to make you repeat yourself, but the message doesn't seem to be getting through. So perhaps we both need to be broken record a bit. Broken record ia actually a very effective assertiveness technique according to Smith. Not sure how effective it is at producing consensus however, Andrewa (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Canis Minor

I've listed for Peer Review here as I feel blocked just looking at it. Just need a bit of help dislodging the editing mental block....Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok - peer review now closed - thanks for the comments! Now at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Canis Minor/archive1 Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Template & categories for astronomy catalogs

Hi, I have a few suggestions:

Does this WikiProject object to any of the above? – Fayenatic London 17:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It should be called Template: Astronomy catalogues , I don't see why it never included the "ue"
If we rename the category, it should be Category:Astronomy catalogue templates, Category:Solar System catalogue templates and Category:Minor planet catalogue templates ; but I don't see a point in renaming the succession template category. They are succession templates, so should say that.
-- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
"Catalog" is the US spelling. According to WP:ENGVAR we should not prefer one form of English over another. I renamed Template:Catalogs as Template:Astronomical catalogs to follow the article Astronomical catalog.
I acknowledge that all three categories hold "succession templates"; that is, the templates provide links to the preceding and successive numbered objects in astronomical catalogues. My view was that "succession" is more appropriate for entries with a historical succession, such as office holders, or geographical succession such as railway stations. In the case of catalog entries, there may be no significance in location/time between successive entries. However, if there is no support from this project to change "Category: X succession templates" to "Category:X catalog templates" then I will leave them as they are. – Fayenatic London 17:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think I've see that use in astronomy from Americans though. The New York Times uses "catalogue" in astronomy contexts. [20] -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Infobox astronomical object / infobox deepspaceobject

Do we have a generic infobox for celestial bodies? I seem to recall one, but I can't find it. It'd be useful for extrasolar objects whose objecttypes for which we don't have specific infoboxes for. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Luminous blue variable star

Luminous blue variable star has been requested to be renamed, see talk:Luminous blue variable star -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

4179 Toutatis (Chang'e 2).jpg

image:4179 Toutatis (Chang'e 2).jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

101 Virginis

I just cleaned up another CarloscomB (talk · contribs) article, 101 Virginis, which contained a copyright violation from ISBN 9781852334987 [21] -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

AE Andromedae

AE Andromedae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 06:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I translated the French Wikipedia article into this. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

S/2011 (134340) 1

S/2011 (134340) 1 has been proposed to be renamed "Vulcan", see talk:S/2011 (134340) 1 -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

LBV list

I've suggested that the list section at Luminous blue variable be split off into a separate article. See the discussion at talk:Luminous blue variable -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 07:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

latin-letter Bayer designation renames

see talk:HD 82668, where two HD stars are requested to be renamed into their ambiguous latin-letter Bayer designation forms -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

U Andromedae

U Andromedae has been prodded for deletion. I think it's probably better to keep it around, to prevent someone from misconceiving it as Upsilon Andromedae, since inevitably it will end up as a typo-redirect to υ And - if it is deleted. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Its been deprodded -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Action on WISE object notability

I started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WISEPC J234841.10-102844.4 to begin dealing with the objects discussed at length above. Nominating many articles is a lot of work so I started with a few and if there is consensus we can hopefully start from there. I envision deleting those articles that obiously fail WP:NASTRO while keeping those on List of nearest stars and those discussed for a peticular reason in the brown dwarf article. Thoughts? Hekerui (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Update: I opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WISEPC J222623.05+044003.9. Hekerui (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

So you have basically nominated 97 WISE brown dwarf articles for deletion instead of merging them to a list as was discussed in January! -- Kheider (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
AfD does also handle merging, but I agree that the nomination should have been to merge rather than delete. I've commented on the AfD. Of course the whole process could be sidestepped if the list was populated now, rather than waiting for all the articles to reach AfD. Modest Genius talk 12:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Physical properties don't require a merge, they are taken from lists in the sources, so you would use those to create a list. Which no one has done. Yet I get labelled with for doing something instead of complaining. Hekerui (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Hekerui, I labeled your Afd because you have been borderline forum shopping, and based on your own wording above, you do not appear to want to bothered with "a lot of work" (lazy?). I am the ONLY editor that has currently merged any of the WISE articles to List of brown dwarfs#Field brown dwarfs! -- Kheider (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I suggest we deescalate this and have less warning labels and accusations, please. Feel free to work on a list, I don't think it does harm, but I don't see what merging happened, because a list with basic facts does not need to rely on those articles. I don't think I am lazy for not making a big list, but I don't see the use of a directory of all WISE objects. Best regards Hekerui (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
If you are not part of the solution (merger to a list per the January consensus), you are part of the problem. -- Kheider (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Grey hole

We have an article on Grey hole that is unreferenced, and a different article on Gray hole and a different redirect at Gray hole ... -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Both articles we have are different from the definition I've previously encountered Bibcode:1993AAS...182.5507B -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The apparent uselessness of the article at Grey hole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has come to the attention of some bloggers, like at http://tortoisepotato.blogspot.it/2012/12/wikipedias-grey-hole.html -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Glad to see it has become a disambiguation page, but why has the spelling been changed to 'gray'? Article titles are supposed to stick to WP:ENGVAR, and the article was at Grey hole (Gray hole was a redirect). Modest Genius talk 13:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The grey hole page was eliminated, since it was a hoax. The current gray hole disambiguation page covers concepts that use the spelling "gray". There is no ENGVAR issue, since the disambiguation page was never located at "grey hole" -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I think that's somewhat disingenuous (there was at least an article at Grey hole), but am not sufficiently bothered to argue about it. Modest Genius talk 18:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
None of the uses on the disambiguation page use the spelling "grey", so it wouldn't be located at "grey" in any case. 1993AAS...182.5507B uses "gray hole", the network attack article uses "gray hole", the Q star article uses "gray hole". etc. Only the hoax article used "grey". So the majority spelling is "gray". -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 09:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

latin letter Bayer designated stars in Camelopardalis

Several capital latin letter Bayer designated stars in Camelopardalis have been requested to be renamed, see talk:M Camelopardalis -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Benkenobi18

Per discussion at Talk:M Camelopardalis ‎, it was discovered that Benkenobi18 (talk · contribs) has been making duplicate star articles, of articles that already exist on Wikipedia. So, someone may wish to examine the star articles created by this user, and check to see if an existing article already covered the topic under a different name or spelling. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed files

The eight largest TNOs file and the related one with the dwarf planets was changed so that Pluto's moons are in the same font and color as the remaining moons. The dwarf planet file was also updated so Pluto has all five moons. Just wanted to let you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.114.202.32 (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Main sequence stars

See Talk:A-type main sequence star where the spelling of "main sequence" is up for discussion, for several star article names -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 04:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

Can anyone review this? Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It was copy-and-pasted into mainspace, so contributor history is missing from the article. The AFC was rejected because it was pasted into articlespace? Seems like a history splice is needed instead of a rejection -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Detached binaries

Category:Detached binaries has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

PMS stars

See WT:PHYSICS where a discussion on PMS stars is occurring -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 03:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Notability (extrasolar planets)

FYI, a new guideline has been proposed, WP:Notability (extrasolar planets), see the RFC on it at WT:Notability (extrasolar planets).

NOTE: our existing notability guideline is located at WP:NASTRO

-- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 06:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Moons of Jupiter

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 76.0.29.118 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 8 July 2013‎ (UTC)

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.29.118 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 8 July 2013‎ (UTC)

File:Cluster.jpg

File:Cluster.jpg has been nominated for deletion. The 2008 upload has a NASA watermark on it. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Blitzar

The Blitzar article appears to conflate two different classes of objects, the one proposed by Falcke and Reazzolla ("blitzar"-class Fast Radio Bursts), and the type studied by Thornton, Bailes et al. (unnamed type of FRB (Fast Radio Burst)) From examining the two papers, they seem to be coming to different conclusions as to the origination of their respective signals (Fast Radio Bursts). -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:CelestialRef

Hi, I've created a new template which automatically adds a ref with links to various sections of SIMBAD. Work in progress.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertinventor (talk • contribs) 14:38, 19 July 2013‎ (UTC)

This has nothing to do with WP:NASTRO, and should never have been indicated that development of this template be discussed at the NASTRO page. That is a highly inappropriate suggestion. Development should either be discussed here (WT:ASTRO) at WPAstronomy (WT:AST) or at the template itself (template talk:CelestialRef), but never at WT:NASTRO. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 08:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't know. Have removed the rest of the text below. Wasn't sure where to post. Robert Walker (talk) 09:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
This is WT:ASTRO, and an appropriate place to discuss this. WP:NASTRO (the notability guideline) is the wrong place to discuss this. (Note the additional "N") -- 09:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.128.222 (talk)
Okay yes I understand now, will reinstate the section I just deleted below. Robert Walker (talk) 10:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


Examples

{{ CelestialRef | Barnard's Star }}

Yields: Barnard's Star [1]

{{ CelestialRef | Barnard's Star | bib=show }} adds link to pre-expanded bibliography

Yields: Barnard's Star [2]

{{ CelestialRef | HD 189733b | plot=5 }} adds link to plot of all stars within 5 arcmins

Yields: HD 189733b [3]

{{ CelestialRef | Crab nebula | image=show }} adds link to Aladin preview image

Yields: Crab nebula [4]

{{ CelestialRef | Gliese 146 | siblings = show }} adds link to siblings

Yields: Gliese 146 [5]

For other examples and documentation see Template:CelestialRef

More options etc can easily be added. Interested to hear any suggestions or comments, thanks!

(removed links to StarRef - to make it easy to delete with speedy delete, has been moved to CelestialRef) Robert Walker (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Barnard's Star at SIMBAD.
  2. ^ Barnard's Star at SIMBAD - Bibliography.
  3. ^ HD 189733b at SIMBAD - Star plot.
  4. ^ Crab nebula at SIMBAD - Image.
  5. ^ Gliese 146 at SIMBAD - Siblings.

Template:Planetbox discovery

Is it possible to add "Other detection methods" to the the "Planetbox discovery" template? This would show follow-up detections through follow-up measurements of the planet after discovery method as many extrasolar planets have been detected through more than one method (often to confirm the planet). Examples:

  • 55 Cancri e: Discovery method: Radial velocity. Subsequent detection methods: Transit
  • Kepler-62d: Discovery method: Transit. Subsequent detection methods: Transit-timing variations
  • HD 189733 b: Discovery method: Transit. Subsequent detection methods: Radial velocity, polarimetry
  • Kepler-76b: Discovery method: Relativistic beaming. Subsequent detection methods: Transit, radial velocity, orbital phase reflected light variations
  • Gliese 876 b: Discovery method: Radial velocity. Subsequent detection methods: Astrometry

I think it could be helpful. --Artman40 (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done We now have parameters discovery_method, title "Discovery method" (linked) and detection_methods, title "Other detection methods" (shorter than "Subsequent detection methods"). The new parameter is only visible if discovery_method is set. The sandbox + testcases support has been improved since I last used it, we can now preview the changes to a template using the testcases or a live article, this makes it much easier to test the code. --Mirokado (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. It seems to be working fine. --Artman40 (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It will be important to ensure that the methods listed in these parameters, particularly the other methods one, are actually mentioned with context and sources in the articles. Artman40 please make sure that is the case for your suggestions above. --Mirokado (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Outdated inaccurate map needs to be replaced

We received the following OTRS email (ticket 2013072910001292), and the sender specifically asked that the information be forwarded to those who can do something about it. So, here you are:

The following map that you have on several of your webpages concerning the 163 Erigone occultation of the star Regulus on 2014 March 20 is inaccurate, outdated and needs to be replaced:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Erigone_Regulus_path.png

The following new updated much more accurate interactive google map should be used in its place:

http://www.poyntsource.com/New/Google/20140320_32317.HTM

I do not know how to put this kind of a map on your webpages. I hope that you do.

Thanks! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

This is already under discussion at WT:AST#Outdated inaccurate map needs to be replaced, so if anyone has any comments please post them there. Modest Genius talk 20:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Replacing LOMP with something with potential to be great.

Help me follow WP:NASTRO. Let me explain: Nastro says that we should not be simply reproducing the Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s database of minor planets here, but the “dealing with minor planets” section, once you try to follow it, seems to be doing exactly that. I want to resolve this by interpreting NASTRO as saying that we turn List of minor planets into something meaningful, something more, or better somehow than merely a transfer of data from there to here. Unless that is done, I don’t think we can rightly follow it and transfer NASTRO-failing article contents there.

One of the most jarring problems with List of minor planets (LOMP) is the lack of a place to state what the object even is (a main belt asteroid, a mars crosser, or one of the Greeks and Trojans, etc.) It’s not clear what the purpose of LOMP is, actually. Some outside the box thinking I was privy to sounded like a great idea to me. It was to not present LOMP object as numbers, but graphically, something like this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJsUDcSc6hE

It is clear that this orbital data isn't meaningful in this LOMP. Unless it's presented as spins and orbits and such as only graphics can do, it's useless. Therefore, LOMP should be replaced with DBOMP, if you will, a data base of minor planets that could some day be used to create a visualization of these non-notable objects into the belts and clusters and so on that that makes them notable not as individual things but as a coherent belt or cloud or whatever that is notable.

Presenting these objects in list form, as I’m supposed to do on LOMP, seems wrong. Without some kind of point that it could lead to something actually useful someday, it's just sad and pointless and clearly why such things as Wikipedia:NOTSTATSBOOK were written.

If you agree that this is the right direction to go in, I’ll start asking around for technical help to make it a reality, and see about amending NASTRO to allow us to keep this data not just at LOMP per se by name, but to allow also the possibility of a successor to LOMP that has the potential to be something really great for the people to see and learn from and for us to work on. Chrisrus (talk) 04:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Chrisrus (talk) 04:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how having LoMP prevents you from creating another list set for each of those dynamical groupings. The NASTRO just recommends against creating an article for each minor planet. Expanding LoMP to include type and grouping and basic magnitude/orbital characteristics, would be useful -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in expanding LoMP categories if it is to be useful. That looks like a big job, however, and I wonder whether it's worth doing. Please read on.
You are right. The existence of LOMP does not stand in the way of the creation of a DBOMP visualizer.
You are right about NASTRO about making new articles. But it is also true that NASTRO asks us not to delete any PENFMPAs "Pre-Existing NASTRO-Failing Minor Planet Articles", of which there are so many that the job must be done by bot. We should instead convert each into a redirect for each term to referent's location within LOMP, where it's information is to be housed. Doing this work is difficult without wondering "what is the point"? What is the goal of LOMP? Discussions ensued and I heard this idea to use it as a database for a visualizer that would present the belts and other groupings in a way that makes sense for the people. Otherwise, please remove the redirect requirement and permit simple PENFMPA deletion without the requirement that we redirect to LOMP.
NASTRO itself says we are not to simply re-produce databases found elsewhere. NASTRO's directions on dealing with minor planets in the section below shouldn't contradict this. No guideline should say we should not X and then later on require that we do X. So NASTRO should not ask for PENFMPA redirection to LOMP but rather allow simple deletion.
LOMP is not a step toward the Minor Planet Visualizer, which would be created by going to source. There is no good gained by requiring PENFMAs be converted to redirects. Simply allow us to delete them without redirecting to LOMP. I asked the others before and they said any Minor Planet Visualizer project would just go directly to the same JPL Minor Planet Database Browser (JPL MPDB) that the creators of these Pre-existing Nastro-Failing Minor Planet Articles presumably got them from in the first place. So redirection to LOMP is useless and be removed from NASTRO:Dealing with minor planets. Chrisrus (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how an update would cause too many problems, if we use a canonical database to source the update to, a bot can be requested to add the few additional columns needed. As for redirection, that just makes sense per the guidelines on redirects. Deleting the article will not prevent someone from coming along and recreating the redirect, per the redirect guidelines.
Any MP visualizer would seem to need to be a direct link to an external site functioning as a redirect, or exist on a different project, as any such thing would not meet article standards guidelines. Redirection to an external site fails the redirect and external link guidelines. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Does LoMP meet article standards such as Wikipedia:NOTSTATSBOOK and WP:NASTRO's own admonition "It is not the job of Wikipedia to needlessly duplicate content in these databases."? If these objects are not appropriate even inclusion on a list article on Wikipedia, perhaps it would be better, as you say, to send their information to another project such as the commons where they may be kept in a database and the resulting visualization can be used in appropriate places on Wikipedia, because LoMP seems pointless and in violation of those guidelines. I am trying to follow NASTRO's guidelines as to Dealing with minor planets, and it would be much more logical and simple to just delete NASTRO-failing articles without having to follow a pointless directive to relocate them to the basically useless List of minor planets, so may I change that part of WP:NASTRO#Dealing with minor planets so that it no longer requires this needless extra step? Chrisrus (talk) 05:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Stars at AfD

There are a bunch of stars at AfD in need of input. These are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I encourage editors from this project to participate in the large handful of debates happening right now. We are in particular need of those editors knowledgeable in the application of WP:NASTRO, especially here. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

NGC 4866 as imaged by Hubble.jpg

image:NGC 4866 as imaged by Hubble.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 11:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/(31345) 1998 PG

The above submission in Afc may be of interest. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

It's looking good to me. I'd approve it and give it a spitshine, but since it's not been submitted yet, I don't really know if that should be done now, or if we should wait until it's formally submitted. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm iffy on this, because the creator used original research twice in the article (an original calculation, and an un-sourced remark about the probability of Earth impact). It's cool that this asteroid has a moon - but I could locate only one substantial paper in which this object was the subject of significant study. It's possible a notability case could be made for this particular object, but it's not clear in the article as-is. Looking at the creator's contributions, I noted that they have also started asteroid articles that clearly don't pass WP:NASTRO. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
doi:10.1006/icar.2000.6375 and doi:10.1051/aas:1999115, plus the moon, puts this in the "notable enough" camp for me. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree. :-) Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I have accepted it. Is the title correct? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects/Archive_23&oldid=1137393938"