Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

WikiProject Astronomy
WikiProject Astronomy Main / Talk	Importance ratings Main / Talk	Article ratings Main / Talk	Image review Main / Talk	Astronomical objects Main / Talk	Constellations Main / Talk	Popular pages Main / Talk	Members Main / Talk

Portal:Mars' FPR

Mars has been nominated for a featured portal review. Portals are typically reviewed for one week. During this review, editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the portal from featured status. Please leave your comments and help us to return the portal to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, portals may lose its status as featured portals. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GamerPro64 (talk • contribs)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Astronomy will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in astronomy's history, society and culture. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Plenty of good female astronomers. Heck, the ladies did almost all the heavy lifting in stellar astrophysics about 100 years ago (Leavitt, Jump-Cannon, Payne-Gaposhka(sp?), etc). Lots more, too. I wouldn't mind getting a drive encouraging editors to improve their articles. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Beatrice Tinsley, Ruby Payne-Scott, Margaret Burbidge, Jocelyn Bell Burnell...I have the biography of Tinsley on my shelf if anyone would like to collaborate on that one. Iridia (talk) 05:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

+Margaret Mayall.[1] Regards, RJH (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone! Great to see conversation taking place about potential article creation and expansion in regards to the ladies of astronomy. Perhaps an article drive for women in astronomy for March? I'll help promote your work as best as I can, and encourage others to participate. Maybe we can do some online outreach to astronomy groups/clubs? Sounds like you are on the verge of a game plan, perhaps we can add a few article or concepts here: Wikipedia:WikiWomen's_History_Month#Upcoming_online_events. Thanks for your enthusiasm! SarahStierch (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Excellent initiative! For those who read French, the monthly magazine La Veillée de nuit (Night Vigil) featured a series of articles on women in astronomy, from November 2011 to February 2012. It can be found at http://veilleedenuit.info CielProfond (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I've started chiselling some shape to Priscilla Fairfield Bok, whose four-decade collaboration with her husband Bart Bok counts as one of the great astronomy partnerships. Does anyone have access to her obituary, which was published in Sky & Telescope, vol. 51, p. 25 (1976)? A scan would be very handy. Iridia (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I can probably get that for you, but I'll need a place to send it to. AstroCog (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks! My email is now switched on. Iridia (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Drat. My access doesn't go back that far (from home). I'll try a friend who might have access and get back to you one way or the other. AstroCog (talk) 02:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the only access to that will be through on-site microfiche. For me, at least. Perhaps there's a die-hard here who has a closet of physical copies? AstroCog (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Dark matter and Oort

A while back, Afjvanraan (talk · contribs) made a handful of edits to Dark matter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), stating that Oort inferred its existence in 1932. This was reverted shortly thereafter due to lack of appropriate citations. The account went inactive (they had a total of 8 edits).

Now, similar information was added by Aarghdvaark (talk · contribs), who seems to have been editing several articles in similar ways since 31 January.

Could someone who knows their history please vet the latter user's contributions? This pattern of activity raises warning flags (though it's always possible that the edits are correct). Might also be worth asking them if the former user was related in any way. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Dark matter in particular seems to attract a lot of controversy wherever it is mentioned in Wikipedia. I suppose that's inevitable. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Samad (crater) - hoax?

I am unsure, and there is entire category of similar articles - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samad (crater) Bulwersator (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It's listed in the USGS Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature, which I think is pretty authoritative. They list the name as being adopted by the IAU in 1982, making it official. As to whether it's notable, well that's unclear. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Features on a geologically active world such as Enceladus should be notable enough to keep. We just need locate the Voyager source image(s) for Volcanopele's uploads.-- Kheider (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Eh, didn't we just go through a comparable argument for the minor planets? It'd be better to satisfy WP:GNG, then there would be no room for dispute. :-) Regards, RJH (talk)

Observatory question

Could project members please take a look at WP:VPM#Problem with observatories? It's a question regarding some asteroids and (I think) the observatory which discovered them. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What is the question

Good morning

Yes : the asteroids are:

• 4231 Fireman
• 4242 Brecher
• 4305 Clapton
• 4309 Marvin

The question is: discovery site :

Harvard College Observatory (in the Harvard University), in Cambridge, Massachusetts ?

Oak Ridge Observatory in Harvard, Massachusetts ?

UAI Minor planet center references:

• 4231 Fireman (UAI MPC)
• 4242 Brecher(UAI MPC)
• 4305 Clapton(UAI MPC)
• 4309 Marvin(UAI MPC)

hypothesis: confusion Harvard College Observatory and Oak Ridge Observatory.

Thank you --Jean-François Clet (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

For 4231 Fireman at least, the Dictionary of minor planet names lists it as being discovered at the Harvard College Observatory. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Commons' problems with some astronomical image

There is an ongoing effort by some admins on commons to delete all MESSENGER and New Horizons images. (See here and here). I think this is not justified because they use very specious interpretation of their image use policies. I think the astronomical community needs to know and participate in all those discussions. Ruslik_Zero 08:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I bumped into a similar situation here. Thincat (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"It may be simulation..." Facepalm. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and it may be a painting by Gustav Klimt. I got to Commons after this image was listed on Wikipedia both here and here so it is under triple attack. I have just seen a plaintive plea from the uploader at File_talk:Syrtis_Major_Map.JPG. Thincat (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

To my (non-expert) eye it looks like that the original image was almost certainly created by a US agency thus is public domain, but the website it is sourced from is not. If the image can be proven to be created by NASA or USGS, then the problem would be fixed. Perhaps you could find it on http://ida.wr.usgs.gov/ ? Modest Genius ^talk 11:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Mmm. The image use policy on the source website is here. Thincat (talk) 11:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Stellar classification

I feel that this page is still incomplete by missing the following information.

1. Harvard prefix - which are not really used much, ie. d, sg, g, & c.
2. Variable stars - I feel it needs a small description with a main article link to Variable star.
3. Extreme wD classes - There should be a mention that there are a few WDs that are practically in their own classes. ie. KOI types (ie. KOI-81) and a few AJ papers that described extreme types, ie. DZQO types [2] (1996).
4. Guest star - probably should be a mention due to this having the word star in it.
5. Exotic star and Neutron star - probably needs a mention on it. And neutron stars can be plotted on the HK diagram but would be far below. I've only seen 2 pictures of this on the net and seen many more questions asking where it would be placed at, example [3].
6. Green stars - why they don't exist and they appear white. (although some claim they see a green tint).
7. Hot subdwarf OB, is not mentioned. Uncertain where it should be placed.

Any thoughts is welcome, thanks, Marasama (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Neat HR diagram, [4]. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You should probably bring this up on the talk page of the article, rather than here. Modest Genius ^talk 13:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

id of NASA image

File:ISS011 Upheaval Dome.jpg is without source but there is "iss011ed7428" (probably image id) on the bottom - unfortunately I was unable to use it to locate image. Maybe somebody know how to use it Bulwersator (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Gotta love Google and editing the URL. :P

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseop/photo.pl?mission=ISS011&roll=E&frame=7428 Thanks, Marasama (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Nebula needs a major overhaul

I been trying to overhaul the page, but I'm stuck with unable to gain reference and what I would type would be unreference. Asking for help on fixing this page up.

• As seen on the page Talk:Nebula#Listing_types, there are more types than the classical types.

Looking for guidence; thanks, Marasama (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Marasama. Personally I'd like to see more development of the diffuse nebula section. Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei by Osterbrock and Ferland (2006) looks like a potentially useful core reference, which you can then supplement with related journal articles via Google scholar. You might see if that book is available in your local library system. Otherwise, at least some of the book's content is available via Google. Regards, RJH (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

T Tauri star - same issues as the Nebula section

As this page is missing chucks of data, ie. CTTS types.

• As also shown on Talk:T_Tauri_star#CTTS_.26_WTTS.

Thanks, Marasama (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Commons

Some issues about Commons: have cropped up, see WT:ASTRO. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

User Box

I put together an alternative userbox ({{User WPAST}}) that employs the same graphic we use in the WikiProject template. The original User:Icez/User Astronomy, which uses the astrological symbol for Saturn, is included (bottom) for comparison:

Userboxes This user is a member of WikiProject Astronomy This user is a member of the Astronomy WikiProject

Does it need further refinement? Regards, RJH (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I like it. Can you widen the picture, or make the border black so it blends with the background? Just my 2 cents, but I think it could look more attractive that way. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It had a black border originally, but seemed a little stark to me. Shrug. I tried changing it to a dark gray so you can barely see the border, but it should still match up with neighboring boxes. Is that okay? Regards, RJH (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I like it this way, too, and with the new image it's more quintessentially "astronomy" than the astrological symbol. I'll use it! Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the astrological symbol one should be deprecated and removed from the project page, the new one is much better. Modest Genius ^talk 14:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

One other thought, shouldn't it read 'is a member of WikiProject Astronomy' rather than 'is a member of the Astronomy WikiProject'? The former sounds a lot nicer to my ear. Modest Genius ^talk 15:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The other user boxes at Wikipedia:Userboxes/WikiProjects flip back and forth quite a bit. There doesn't seem to be any consistent rule to apply. I went ahead and changed it. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Glossary of astronomy terms

While going through some recently-rated astronomy articles, I'm finding quite a few may not have much potential for expansion. A couple of examples are Morning width and Starfield (astronomy). I thought it might help to set up a glossary article, Glossary of astronomy terms (as has been done with a number of other fields: cf. Category:Glossaries on science). Regards, RJH (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

We also need to improve coverage on Wiktionary. It's rather poor there, perhaps a satellite WikiProject at Wiktionary for Astronomy would be good? 70.24.251.71 (talk) 07:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The glossary in the Astronomical Almanac could be a start. It is in the public domain in the US, but maybe not elsewhere. The copyright statement on the reverse of the title page reads "© Crown Copyright 2010 This publication is protected by international copyright law. No part of this publication may be reproduced...without the prior permission of Her Majesty's Nautical Almanac Office...

"The following United States government work is excepted from the above notice and no copyright is claimed for it in the United States...M1–M18...." M1–M18 is the glossary. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

That may as be, anon. I haven't spent much time with that project, since there's just so much that needs improving upon around here. :-) Regards, RJH (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should also have glossaries for subfields and subtopics? glossary for astronomical objects , glossary for constellations , glossary for telescopes etc... 70.24.251.71 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC).

For the first, we do have Astronomical object, where I suspect the big table might work better as a hierarchically-organized glossary. I'm not sure what you'd put in a glossary of constellations, but a glossary of telescopes (telescopy?) would be good. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

RFC at Big Bang

There is now an RFC at Talk:Big Bang on the subject of the degree to which religious interpretations of the Big Bang should be mentioned in the article. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Planetarium software

I am sitting at a lecture about how to enter comets into your program, and am shocked to fail to find a general article about this kind of software. Just a bunch of individual articles about individual products. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I use various planetarium software packages on a regular basis, so I'm fairly surprised too. Turns out the relevant page was redirected to Planetarium some time ago. I removed the redirect and started a stub. You're welcome to expand. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)