Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Commons:COM:WikiProject Astronomy ?

Per the previous section, as both images discussed there reside on WikiCommons, should we set up a WikiProject Astronomy on Commons? There are already spin-off projects of other en.Wikipedia projects on commons, such as Commons:Commons:WikiProject Aviation -- (talk) 04:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

New article

Hi, I just pushed a new small article on the Blanketing effect that would need someone else to give it a review. Anybody up to it? Cheers. Gaba (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

My only question is the following sentence:
"The combination of both these effects results in the position of stars in a color-color diagram to shift towards redder areas as the proportion of metals in them increases."
This sentence is phrased in terms of a plurality of stars, but other sentences in the paragraph in which it is embedded discuss stars in the singular, i.e. "a star's spectral absorption lines", "the star's radiant energy", "fraction of elements other than hydrogen and helium that compose it" and so forth.
Should the sentence in question be rephrased in a singular sense? Your call. I didn't want to make any changes myself. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The thing with using singular is that it might give the impression that a given star will change its position in the color-color diagram as the proportion of metals in them increases which is not true. The proportion in metals in the outer layers (the metallicity) does not change throughout a star's life span so the position of a given star in the TCD never changes. But given a group of stars with different metallicities, their position will change in the TCD as I select stars with different metallicities in that group. Too convoluted? Regards. Gaba (talk) 11:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Astronomy Software

I assume that astronomic type software (anything from star positions to enhancing images of observations to seti-online) come within this project (but I may be wrong, please tell me :-). Is there a general article, maintained by this project, about the variety of software available, and articles about software in particular application areas (as opposed to articles about particular computer programs) ? Thanks. --Tony Wills (talk) 01:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they are within scope, and we have a category for them Category:Astronomy software ; -- (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I was looking for an article that might be used to tie them all together. A few of the software articles are essentually orphaned, not linked to from any other article. I happened to do some editing on the Registax article and was wondering how best to fit it into the scheme of things. By the way, that article needs input from someone who actually uses it to describe the features etc. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, what sort of astronomy software are you interested in? There can be no single "astronomy software" article, since software is so disparate. A single article cannot cover both a subroutine library and a software planetarium, or software for calculating dust extinction from that used to calculate orbital dynamics, unless you want a computing in astronomy article, which would be very general indeed, and would not list software at all. -- (talk) 07:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Sidereus Nuncius Medicean Stars.jpg

File:Sidereus Nuncius Medicean Stars.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

This submission is of relevance to this Project. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

  • It appeared to be ready as a main space article so I moved this article to the main space. It is now an article on Wikipedia. Project members feel free to copy edit as needed. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Long Hertzsprung Russell Diagram.jpg

image:Long Hertzsprung Russell Diagram.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- (talk) 07:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Stellar metamorphosis

There is a deletion discussion about the pseudoscientific idea Stellar metamorphosis. More input from experts is welcome, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Commented. Thanks for bringing this garbage to the attention of the community. Cheers. Gaba (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
For anyone else who's interested, the direct link to the deletion discussion is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stellar metamorphosis. Modest Genius talk 11:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
The article has now been deleted. Modest Genius talk 10:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this, what about image:Differing Matter Content of the Milky Way Galaxy.png ? It's been tagged as viable to move to commoons. Shouldn't this be deleted? -- (talk) 07:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Both File:Differing Matter Content of the Milky Way Galaxy.png and File:Long Hertzsprung Russell Diagram.jpg have been nominated for deletion. Neither seems likely to survive. Modest Genius talk 10:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC on new policy

I have started an RfC on a proposed new policy for the notability of extrasolar planets. A link to the discussion is here. Wer900talk 04:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

List of planets discovered by the Kepler spacecraft

I am currently working to make the list of planets discovered by the Kepler spacecraft a featured list. To start, I have made significant progress in bringing the article up-to-date and have removed extraneous prose. Would anyone here be willing to help add in the remaining planets (Kepler-70 to Kepler-76), improve the color scheme for the table, fix our unnecessarily long sea of references, or add new prose as required? I would be grateful for anyone's involvement. Thanks, Wer900talk 22:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Well for a start none were 'discovered by the Kepler spacecraft'. The Kepler spacecraft is not sentient. They were discovered by various teams of astronomers using data from the spacecraft. The article should be renamed List of planets discovered using the Kepler spacecraft and the prose changed accordingly. Be consistent whether you're including planets discovered or merely detected (admittedly I'm not aware of any seen in Kepler data which were previously known). Modest Genius talk 13:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
If we were to use "using", we could eliminate "the" and "spacecraft" (as we couldn't use Johannes Kepler, he being a sentient being while he was alive). As for "deected" Kepler-1b, 2b, and 3b were discovered by HATnet or the TrES project; Kepler helped to uncover their properties and therefore they were given Kepler designations; nevertheless, use of "discovered" with a qualifier above the table is completely warranted because the vast majority of planet on the list were, indeed, discovered with Kepler data. Wer900talk 18:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
If I may express an opinion, I would suggest that the full "List of planets discovered using the Kepler spacecraft" title would be the best solution simply because it eliminates any potential confusion, and is easier from a readability standpoint. Not a big deal, certainly, but I think it would look better in the long run. Huntster (t @ c) 22:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I've WP:BOLDly moved the page to the requested title. Feel free to revert if you disagree for some reason. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

List of IC objects

Did anyone notice that List of IC objects was deleted, for reason that could be used to delete our asteroid and NGC lists? -- (talk) 10:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm undecided as to whether directory-type lists consisting almost entirely of redlinks are useful to have on this encyclopedia. Reyk YO! 10:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Without being able to see the contents of the article, I have no idea whether that was justified or not, or whether it has any relevance to the other list articles. But at the very least that deletion discussion should have been advertised to this project. Modest Genius talk 11:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    • How could it have been? That deletion discussion took place in June 2006; this Wikiproject was only founded in August 2006. Reyk YO! 11:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Hah! Good point. I just looked and the month and date, and thought it was a few days ago... Modest Genius talk 11:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I took a look at the deleted page, and it really wasn't useful at all, just a sequential list of all IC objects (aka, just a list of numbers) with virtually no associated data. While I normally have no problem with lists, even lists with lots of redlinks, this particular list did nothing better than the associated category, Category:IC objects. Huntster (t @ c) 12:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Hmm. If that's the case, maybe it would be a good idea if somebody could recreate the list in the format of the NGC object lists, which give necessary information. That way, the list would actually serve a purpose separate from the category itself. Using a bot would seem to be the ideal way to do this. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
      • That sounds like a good idea to me -- (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
        • If someone would like to work on this, I would be happy to restore the list to your userspace, but any re-publishing back to article space must represent major overhauling and improvement, no small feat for a list of more than 5300 objects. I would suggest it should be presented to this and other interested projects for approval before republication. Huntster (t @ c) 03:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


To let people know, I've nominated Perseus (constellation) for FA. Any feedback is appreciated. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Commented there. Wer900talk 20:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Circumstellar habitable zone

I have nominated circumstellar habitable zone for FA; as with StringTheory11's Perseus (constellation), any feedback will be appreciated. Wer900talk 20:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:PRODled articles which use Autostar Suite as sources

I'm doing prod cleanup, and I noticed a number of star articles which are being proposed for deletion because they may not meet WP:NASTRO, all the articles in question are sourced by the Autostar Suite CD. Is this a WP:RS? --wL<speak·check> 02:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Is it the program you use to program the autotracker on Meade telescopes? -- (talk) 06:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I've never heard of it, and couldn't find any useful info. Could you provide an example article it's being used in? If we knew what sort of data it's being used for, we could suggest a reliable alternative. Modest Genius talk 00:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

PSR B1919+21 - Article improvements

I've managed to sort out the references for this article and added a link to a recording of the pulsar. Re-assessment is needed. Also I've added a note to the talk page that a dramatization of the discovery was made around the 40th anniversary of the pulsars discovery. I cannot remember any details other than those I noted on the talk page. Help finding it and thus adding to the detailing of the cultural history of the discovery would be most appreciated.Graham1973 (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I've reassessed the article to C-class, but unfortunately I currently have committed to too much stuff on wiki currently to work on the article. If I happen to come across anything though, I'll let you know. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Graham1973 has removed the indication of the February 2013 merger performed by Wtshymanski from LGM-1 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) from the talk page. Since it was performed already, how is closing the old poll considered "vandalism"? How is adding a notice about the merger, per standard practice, considered vandalism? How is migrating the banners over considered vandalism? -- (talk) 02:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
An administrator has restored the post-merge integration of -- (talk) 06:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Modifying the Observable Universe topic

I have spent considerable time mofifying two sections in the Observable Universe topic (Mass and Matter Content). However, the revisions are in Microsoft Word. I do not understand "wiki markup" language. Can someone convert it for me so it can be submitted? I could paste in this area or email the three pages. Thanks, Jim Johnson Jim Johnson 23:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjohnson2222 (talkcontribs)

What do you mean by "Microsoft Word" markup? And you can paste it to talk:Observable universe/workpage , where work usually goes on Wikipedia articles (it will be easier to maintain attribution as well, if you post it there) . At the very start of the page, please add:
before you paste your material. -- (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, Jim Johnson has posted it to the subpage -- (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

This is why the modifications are needed. Jim Johnson 21:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC) The documentation on the four methods of computing mass (atoms) is confusing for a couple of reasons. It should be clear that the first and fourth methods include ISM and IGM; the second and third do not. The third method uses a radius of 13.7 billion light years but does not acknowledge that the expanded radius would produce 39 times more mass. I believe the fourth method also implies the smaller radius. The average mass of stars based on their distribution in the Milky Way is E33 gm not 2 x E33 gm. (One point of possible contention is the number of stars, the existing quotes four sources with up to 100 times more stars than I assume, 1022 (which is actually at the low end of the references). There may exist more small stars than traditional estimates but if so there mass would be considerably less than 1030 kg so I think my number is preferred.) In method two, dark matter and dark energy are mentioned as if they apply only to this method; this should precede the method discussion. And last, calculating atoms rather than just mass adds to the confusion. The revision is simpler and accurate. The editing is based on a reference document I recently published. The main reference “The Cosmic Energy Inventory” Astro-Physics, 2004

Is there a consensus for these proposed modifications? Also, are they really needed? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Also, these proposed modifications do not seem to be presented in an encyclopedic manner (see: WP:Encyclopedic and WP:TONE). The tone, is supposed to be "formal, impersonal, and dispassionate". Furthermore, interrogatives usually don't work well in Wikipedia (encyclopedia) articles. Additionally, the sections on workpage (proposed modifications) entitled "Critical Density Estimate" and "Extrapolating from the Number of Stars" may need to be simplified. Thanks. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Why change Matter Content and Mass? A. Matter Content has the following issues/inconsistencies: 1. In method 1, the two methods are calculating mass which is the same objective as the Mass section. Thus is redundant and confusing. Once mass is estimated the number of atoms is straightforward. 2. In method 1, the value of the Hubble constant and the values ordinary matter are outdated (WAMP rather than ESA). 3. In method 2, the mass of an average star is wrong, two times too large. 4. In method 2, the reference to number of galaxies is outdated by NASA's current estimates. B. Mass has the following issues/inconsistencies: 1. Introduction is confusing because of mass energy reference and "space time curvatute' which does not belong in section. 2. Critical density section is based on outdated values (WAMP rather than ESA). The reference on the fraction of stars is outdated, the best estimate in the Cosmic Energy Inventory article. Uusing both the visible and observable volumes is confusing and not relevant. The section uses results from method 1 which is duplication. 3. The Stellar density section uses an obscure reference on density rather than the NASA recent references. It does not correct for the Hubble distance (comoving radius). It also uses the wrong mass for an average star and outdated values (WAMP rather than ESA). 4. The Steady-state section uses an outdated value for Hubble constant and does not correct for a comoving radius. The revised version, corrects all these inconsistencies. Appreciate your thoughts. Jim Johnson 23:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is being continued at Talk:Observable universe -- (talk) 06:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

RFC Observable universe

In an effort to get other editors involved I am placing a link to the RFC Observable universe here. Relevant diffs have been posted. Thanks. (I have also posted this over at WP:PHYS) ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:PRODed star articles

Many star articles that have been on wikipedia for some years are getting WP:PRODed. I just saved one of these articles. But realised the guidelines are not clear about what should or should not be kept.

To start the conversation going, I suggested that if someone took the trouble of adding the article, then it is probably interesting enough to keep, and so should not be WP:PRODed, and if it needs to be deleted, an AfD is more appropriate.

Interested to hear what you all think?

I realise, a more appropriate place for this conversation is here on the talk page for the guidelines so have reposted this question here:

Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(astronomical_objects)#WP:PRODed_star_articlesRobert Walker (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Dynamic cluster

This term appears in articles about Jovian moons and other objects. I don't see a definition or general description. Ought it have one? Jim.henderson (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


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 (talkcontribs) 14:37, 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:AST) at objects (WT:ASTRO) or at the template itself (template talk:CelestialRef), but never at WT:NASTRO. -- (talk) 08:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay sorry, I posted there. It was because it arose from a conversation on that page, but see what you mean now you say it. I recommend discussion on the talk page for the template. Robert Walker (talk) 09:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


{{ 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

Robert Walker (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

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) 22:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


Articles being worked on currently....

If anyone is keen, Habitability of red dwarf systems, Phoenix (constellation) and Triangulum are three articles which will probably be nominated for GA at some stage in the short- to mid-term future. I find balancing the prose on these can be tricky, so all input on prose (and comprehensiveness) much appreciated. It might spur me on working on more constellations. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a loot at Triangulum sometime in the next few days. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
At a quick glance, it seems to me that X Trianguli, RW Trianguli, and HD 12545 (XX Trianguli) at least deserve mention in the stars section. X is an interesting Algol binary, RW is an interesting nova-like star with some peculiarities, and HD 12545 is an interesting star due to its starspots. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Aah, good points. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Three Magellanic complexes

In the article entitled "Magellanic Stream" the cleanup tag says "this article appears to contradict the article 'Magellanic Bridge' (February 2013)".

It appears to me that this article The Magellanic System's Interactive Formations (Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia 17 (1) 1 - 5. 2000. PDF download here. ) might clear up this issue, if anyone is interested.

There is also a comment on "Magellanic Stream" Talk page that clarifies the issue:

"This article says the 'Magellanic Stream' connects the two 'Magellanic Clouds'.
The stub on the 'Magellanic Bridge' states that the 'Bridge' and the 'Stream' are not to be confused, and that the 'Bridge' connects the two 'Magellanic Clouds', but the 'Stream' connects the 'Magellanic Clouds' to the 'Milky Way'. Could someone who has outside information, familiar with the difference, please bring both pages into agreement". ----Steve Quinn (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
The description on the Bridge is correct; the description on the Stream article is not. Working on correcting it now. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 19:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Done. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 19:52, 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:

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

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! 16:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Can't be done, at a glance, as the suggested image uses Google Maps, which doesn't have a license suitable for Wikipedia. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 16:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
We can't embed Google maps in Wikipedia pages, for both technical and legal reasons. If someone (e.g. the ticket sender) wants to make a better map than we already have and release it under a suitable licence, great. Otherwise we can't do anything. I certainly wouldn't know the first place to start when it comes to predicting occultation tracks (which requires specialist knowledge and software). Modest Genius talk 20:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
The map should not be too hard to replicate..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
If somebody is willing to take the time and effort to replicate it, then by all means do. Otherwise, we cannot use this image as it is from Google Maps, which means that it cannot be inserted into Wikipedia. StringTheory11 (t • c) 06:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's another message from the same guy:


The following map of the Regulus occultation by 163 Erigone on 2014 March 20 is inaccurate, outdated and needs to be replaced on all of the webpages you have placed this outdated map from the year 2004:

The following map is much better:

The following new updated interactive google map which has the best accuracy should alsobe used:

Enjoy! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Well would you mind pointing them to this discussion then? Because the same issues still apply, and at least they'll get an explanation of why nothing has changed. Without a freely-licensed image and an explanation for why an alternative is better we can't do anything. Modest Genius talk 19:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I've pointed him here. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Edmund Weaver (astronomer)

Could someone in the project assess this one on its Talk please ? Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


Perseid which is part of this project has gotten 48225 views in the last 30 days. Can we do something to improve it? For example introduce some sections? XOttawahitech (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been featured

Today's Article For Improvement star.svg

Please note that Absolute magnitude, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 00:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

That's odd, because TAFI was removed from the Main Page months ago. Modest Genius talk 20:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Tuning Fork, 11.5 Gya

[1][2] - it would be good if we can source this to NASA, so we can upload the nice images -- (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Constellation family

I just moved Constellation Family (with a capital "F") to Constellation family (with a lower-case "f", and accordingly I corrected the links to that page. At several places in the article the word "family" with a lower-case initial "f" occurred, so probably the only reason a capital was used in the title is that someone didn't realize that WP:MOS prescribes lower case in that situation. Along the way, I changed Heavenly Waters from a redirect to an article about a pop music album into a disambiguation page. That page links to Heavenly Waters (astronomy), which redirects to a section in Constellation family. I think the link to the redirect page should be kept intact in case someone expands the Heavenly Waters (astronomy) redirect page into an article in its own right.

But on more pressing matters: Only one page, other than redirects, currently links to Constellation family. Should there be more links than that? Michael Hardy (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I've never even heard of the concept. The citations used in that article are largely offline sources on ancient or Eastern astronomy/astrology, or unreliable websites. Even assuming good faith, it seems like this is not a very widely used concept, and on the verge of being obsolete. Links from constellation and List of constellations are probably all that are necessary. Modest Genius talk 20:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Minor planet lists

FYI, we are having a discussion at WT:WikiProject Astronomical objects about this -- (talk) 06:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing topics page

I have updated Missing topics about astronomy and other space-related topics - Skysmith (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I've created a whole bunch of redirects. I'm sure some are doubles, but bots should pick those up. I ran out of steam about 10% of the way down the list, there's a lot of stuff there! Modest Genius talk 21:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

I believe this is a submission relevant to this Project. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on general relativity, but the content looks reasonable enough to me. However, the odd referencing does make me wonder if it's been copy-pasted from elsewhere. I have no familiarity with the AfC process, so feel free to copy these comments to somewhere more useful. Modest Genius talk 20:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

NASTRO possible failures

I posted a comment on WP:NASTRO and I would be happy to see some input: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(astronomical_objects)#NASTRO_possible_failures. Thanks!--cyclopiaspeak! 09:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi everyone, it would be nice to get some additional project editors involved in the aforementioned discussion. Frankly, it's been going on too long with essentially just 3 editors (including myself) rehashing the same (civil) arguments. I'd be pleased to see the opinions of others. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Vetting needed

Can someone take a look at the contributions of Qxfard (talk · contribs)? I think that person has been posting their own papers on certain articles. No idea if they actually belong, or are a case of undue weight. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you're correct about someone posting their own work. Since the contributions are referencing one paper, I'd say that this material doesn't warrant the special attention Qxfard (talk · contribs) is giving. Probably this material can be merged with the MOND stuff. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Agree with AstroCog, the issue is apparently not notable enough (at least for now) to have it's own article. Probably best to merge it as a section in Modified Newtonian dynamics until (if) it reaches notability. I'll leave a message over at the editor's talk page notifying him of this discussion. Cheers. Gaba (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm having a chat with Qxfard (talk · contribs) about his article and whether it would be better to move it over to MOND. More opinions are welcome over at his talk page. Regards. Gaba (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

AdS/CFT correspondence

Hello! About a month ago, I nominated the article AdS/CFT correspondence for good article status. I was wondering if anyone here would be willing to review it. Eventually, I'd like to bring the article to featured article status, but first I want to see if it meets the good article criteria. Thanks. Polytope24 (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

At first glance, that seems to be a pretty good article. But I don't know anything about the subject, and don't feel qualified to assess it. Unfortunately, I suspect the same will be true of most members of this project. You might have more success asking WP:PHYSICS or WP:WPMATHS. Modest Genius talk 14:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


FYI, there's a discussion on the use of the term "burning" in stellar nucleosynthesis on WT:PHYSICS -- (talk) 10:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


image:Fauth.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedian-in-Residence at the Royal Society

The Royal Society, the UK's science academy, is recruiting a Wikimedian-in-Residence to help them work more closely with Wikipedia. The position is part-time (one day per week) for a fixed term of 6 months. See here for more information and details of how to apply. For additional information please contact me at francis.bacon [AT] Andeggs (talk) 14:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

That's just round the corner from where I work, and would be interesting, but 1 day per week for 6 months? Anyone in employment or education won't have the time, and anyone currently unemployed is unlikely to be interested in so few hours. Good luck finding someone suitable. Modest Genius talk 20:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Global changes to changed links

New user here :) Have noted a change in paths to both Jim Kaler's site and ARICNS. Have edited one star... But to do all such links manually seems to be a bit of over effort since some wiki guru could probably do a global change. Possible? Beyond my amateur capabilities anyway:

ARICNS Global change OLD defunct NEW

Kaler Global change OLD defunct NEW

Please feel free to move or delete as appropriate. Brobof (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Lunar eclipse

{{Infobox Lunar eclipse}} has been nominated for deletion -- (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Solar eclipse2

{{Infobox Solar eclipse2}} has been nominated for deletion -- (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Y Centauri

Y Centauri (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) has been nominated for deletion. Prior to July 2013, this title was about "y Centauri" instead of "Y Centauri". -- (talk) 09:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Astronomical spectroscopy

Hello, I'm a 4th-year physics w/ astrophysics student. For my final-year project I've been tasked with bringing a physics-related article on Wikipedia from stub/start class to at least B if not GA class. I have chosen Astronomical spectroscopy as it is one of my primary interests. As I work on the article I may ask for feedback and/or suggestions on improvements here and on the project's talk page, so if you're also keen on spectroscopy please watch that page. Cheers. Primefac (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for working on it. You may want to post a notice to the talk page of the article itself as well. -- (talk) 08:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Fantastic. Please let us know if you need any help. I'll see if I can take some photos to illustrate. --mikeu talk 21:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

List of minor planets

Chrisrus, is debating that List of minor planets should be deleted and/or combined with List of notable asteroids. See: Talk:List of minor planets#Delete?. -- Kheider (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Should we decide on a default unit to use across WP?

Hi all, I just made a question over at MOS [3] about whether there should be a prescription on which units to enforce as default in all astronomy related articles: lightyears or parsecs. For what I've seen there's no clear guideline with some articles using light years and others using parsecs. Do you think we need to decide on a unit to use as default all across WP? The other unit can of course still appear in parenthesis after the quantity in default units. So if say parsecs is decided as the default unit, a distance would look like this: 3 Kpc (9.78 ly). What do you guys think? Regards. Gaba (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the most recent discussion of these was here. You'll find that thread useful. In short: it's complicated. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the link AstroCog. I see the discussion lasted one day and ended more or less saying use whatever the source uses. I think we should at least try to come up with a consensus to standardize this (using either parsecs or light years as default) and add it to MOS, but if the community doesn't think it's a big deal I guess that's that.
I'll wait to see if other editors would like to give their input on whether we should make a small guideline to add to MOS. Personally I say the default should be parsecs followed by light years since that's the unit used in 99% of the scientific literature. Thoughts? Cheers. Gaba (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that the average Wikipedia reader can not reliably convert light-years to parsecs and you wind-up with bad conversions and/or the sig figs exaggerated. I also doubt the average reader knows what a parsec is without looking it up. I generally use what the reference uses and a convert template. -- Kheider (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the average reader will not know how to convert but he doesn't need to because we can (and should) use the convert template. That way all distances will be expressed as: xx pc (yy ly) (in the case parsecs are accepted as default) and in the case a figure with too many figs is found, we fix it as per MOS. Chances are that the average users won't know what a light year amounts to either, it will just sound more familiar. The issue I see with using whatever the reference uses is that it creates a bit of a mess throughout astronomy articles. Regards. Gaba (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I am still concerned that forcing parsecs on people as the default may lead to confusion, especially if a press release reference mentions only light-years. What happens to editors that are fairly new and are not use to using the convert template? I have just seen too many good faith editors re-edit pre-existing conversions incorrectly. -- Kheider (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I completely understand your concerns Kheider but by promoting a standardized way of using distance units we would just be applying MOS which is no different with what happens in, for example, those articles that use the metric or imperial system. If a source is in light-years only then we simply use the convert template and if a given editor uses ly because he/she is not aware of the convention and/or the convert template, we simply correct it when we find it (I believe there are even some automatized bots that can do this) In any case it wouldn't be worse than what we have right now which is a mess of units across all articles. Regards. Gaba (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I don't think we need to establish a project-wide standard; we don't even have a project-wide standard for English variant. The important thing is to be consistent within an article. There's no sourcing problem with converting units from a source, a concern some have brought up – being consistent within an article is more important than using the same units as each source. (Being an astronomer, I personally prefer parsecs because of their useful relation to an observable (parallax). Though lay readers are certainly more likely to have heard of light years, I'm not sure typical lay readers have a real concept of what a light year is. Even those who know it's a distance probably only know that it's a really big distance and don't intuitively know whether a light year is ~the typical distance between planets, between stars, between galaxies, or the size of the Universe.) —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 23:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, a direct implication of being consistent throughout WP (only english WP of course, other WP manage themselves) is consistence within an article, so a MOS guideline would take care of that issue organically :) Anyway, I've talked enough and made my position quite clear, I promise I'll let other editors chime in without interrupting. Cheers. Gaba (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Sure, but a project-wide guideline isn't necessary for articles to be internally consistent, just like some articles (even on the same general topic) use American English while others use British (or Australian) English. Sometimes (perhaps for more technical articles), parsec seems more appropriate, and sometimes light year seems more appropriate. I don't see a need to be prescriptive. But I don't feel strongly about this. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 02:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think either parsec or lightyear is a very good thing to use across all astronomy articles. For distances; A very large class of these articles use AUs, and won't be very sensible to use ly or pc. Another large class of articles use redshift, and the conversion to ly or pc depends on whatever value of the Hubble constant we chose, and on whether we use comoving distance or light travel distance, so also not a sensible conversion to do. Then there's the articles that use dimensional measurements in redshiftspace... As for which unit is better, I've seen some astronomers argue that the parsec is a bad unit to use, because it is conceptually based on an angle, which is immeasurably small when you get to megaparsecs. Both light year and parsec are based on the terrestrial orbit, as is the AU, so fundamentally, are not very fundamental. While our other choices, miles and kilometers only work within the solar system, but are frequently requested by many readers of astronomy material as they are what the lay person is familiar with. ... so... if an article is using "z" (redshift), keep it that way. Otherwise, I see no reason not to use {{convert}} to leave both light years and parsecs in the article, for things beyond the Solar System, but closer than that where cosmological expansion significantly affects the difference in measurement between comoving distance and light travel distance. -- (talk) 05:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The reasoning stated by is similar to my own. Astronomical distance units are context dependent. On the largest of scales, astronomers themselves interchangeably use parsecs and light-years. The converting template should work just fine for our purposes. I agree with User:Gaba_p that within an article the units should be consistent, but I don't think it's necessary to have a project- or Wiki-wide style guideline. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I take issue with the statement that 'astronomers themselves interchangeably use parsecs and light-years'. Professional astronomers do not. Leaf through any recent astronomy journal, and you'll be hard pressed to find light years used at all, whilst parsecs are almost universal. Modest Genius talk 14:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
  • In general, I prefer parsecs to light years. They're the preferred unit of professionals, and with good reason. The only times where light years should be favoured are when discussing light travel times, causality etc. However, many more members of public will have heard of light years than parsecs, albeit I highly doubt that many of them know what it means. Therefore, I suggest use parsecs first, with light years given second using {{convert}}, and both units linked to their articles on first usage. Having said that, I don't think it should be anything more than a suggestion. There are plenty of contexts in which other units (e.g. AU or redshift) are more appropriate, and any 'rule' would need to be laden with caveats. Also, I think any use of redshift as a distance measure should be accompanied by a link to distance measures in cosmology, as it's very easy to misunderstand this usage. Modest Genius talk 14:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Our readers are familiar with light years, so we need those. But it's important to keep the units of the source due to rounding errors. So if the source uses parsecs, we should have pc (ly), and if they use light years, we should have ly (pc). That's the general approach suggested by the MOS, and is designed to prevent someone taking an estimated figure of 300 ly, converting to 90 pc, and then having that auto-converted back to a spuriously precise 290 ly. Actually, with pc and ly the rounding errors are fairly minimal, but it's a good approach in general . — kwami (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Remember, though, that the Convert template can flip the output of a given conversion, using either {{convert|25.3|ly|pc|disp=flip}} (7.8 parsecs (25.3 ly)) or {{convert/flip|25.3|ly|pc}} (7.8 parsecs (25.3 ly)). Internal consistency is still possibly while staying true to exactly what the source provides. Huntster (t @ c) 20:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks to me like coming to consensus. Outsiders have heard of ly; insiders prefer pc (any reason besides it's a badge of insiderness?). We're writing primarily for outsiders but insiders will also be reading, so it's pc (ly) or ly (pc) depending on source. In most contexts where one of these measures is good, the other also belongs. Naturally there's seldom a need for either when we're inside something as small as a planetary system, and not much need when discussing distant quasars. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me take a stab at coming up with a standardization to use across WP. Remember that, as Huntster points out, converting between one distance measure and another is as easy as using the convert template, so there's no issue with internal consistency. Tell me what you think of something like this:
  • For distances within the limits of the Solar system, use AU.
  • For distances beyond the limits of the Solar system and within the Milky Way, use pc or Kpc followed by ly (ie: 5.3 kiloparsecs (17,000 ly))
  • For distances beyond the Milky Way use Kpc, Mpc or Gpc followed by ly (ie: 5.3 gigaparsecs (1.7×1010 ly))
  • Use redshift units when the source makes use of it.
The Convert template can't convert to/from redshift so I added no other unit there. Feel free to comment/modify/criticise, etc... Regards. Gaba (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I like that idea. Very simple and structured. Huntster (t @ c) 01:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I do not care for that rule. For example when dealing with near-Earth objects it is sometimes useful (perhaps even important) to mention distances in km and/or lunar distances. You guys seem to forgot that articles are suppose to be written in a language for consumption by the the general public. I do not think there needs to be a rule, because then there will be people that go around enforcing said rule without looking at the context of the article. -- Kheider (talk) 10:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree. What is the problem that this proposed policy solves? What's wrong with common sense? Why do we need to be consistent across Wikipedia on this? Just choose the unit that makes the most sense based on context and be consistent within an article. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 10:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I generally agree with Kheider and Alex. I don't feel the need for an "enforceable" guideline on units - which hasn't been formally proposed in this thread, I'll add - and I think good sense and context should dictate what units are appropriate for astronomy-related articles. WP's own Manual of Style suggests using SI units in science articles. Astronomy has some specialized units, and those should be used when the context requires it. The whole thread here started as a question over parsecs versus light years, and we got into a bit of mission creep with the discussion. I'll fall back on the advice of using whatever units most of the accompanying references use, with a convert template when necessary. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 17:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Well I started this thread because I feel units inconsistency throughout WP astronomy articles is an issue that should be fixed by agreeing on a certain prescription on which units to use and how. In any case, if there's no consensus to implement such a thing that's just fine, we keep it as is. Cheers. Gaba (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Most "lay" persons with some scientific background will know that a light year is a distance, probably be able to work out the approximate equivalent in kilometers (300000*3600*24*365.25). As for the idea that people wouldn't know if distance to the sun , nearest star or nearest galaxy is a few light years, I think you underestimate what people learn on youtube. While we're on the subject, you may want to check the second external link in Solar core, there's one "distance related" number that is obviously wrong (by a factor of about 104) ... Ssscienccce (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
And our WP:AUDIENCE mostly lack scientific background. We must not assume a firm understanding of the distinctions between ellipse and eclipse, parsec and parsnip, saros and Sirius, origin of species and stellar evolution, sexual deviancy and standard deviation, etc. Maybe some of our editors hang out with a more sophisticated crowd, but I fairly often meet people who don't know how to find Youtube. So, though we need not explain everything again in every article, articles on more advanced topics should provide paths for readers to find the articles explaining underlying principles, and for them to understand the article without extensive study of our efficient, precise and mystifying insider jargon. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Your reducio ad absurdums above are, frankly, ridiculous. While we do need to explain some things, we also need to assume clue in our readers; if somebody doesn't have "a firm understanding of the distinctions between...origin of species and stellar evolution" (to pick just one of the above), they wouldn't be able to find Wikipedia, in which case we cannot help them. As I say to my mother regarding politics: there's enough Silly that's real, there isn't a need to go creating more as strawmen. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Seyfert galaxy

Hello, I'm a 4th year Physics with Astrophysics student and Honours project is taking a wikipedia article and bringing it to "good article" status. The article I chose is Seyfert galaxy, and I'd really appreciate any tips and comments I can get about the article. In the article's talk page I wrote about how I plan to structure my article and I did some work on it already. Thank you, Careless Torque (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

z8_GND_5296 distance

The z8_GND_5296 article has been reverted back and forth to change the distance from 30 billion light years to 13.1 billion and back. The difference refers of course to the difference between the observed redshift × Hubble constant distance, and the distance referred to the position of the galaxy "now", after moving at nearly the speed of light since it was last observed. I believe that the 30 G lt-yr figure is not the standard way astronomers quote distances to objects near the cosmic horizon, confusing to lay readers, and something which should not be perpetuated in a standard reference work like Wikipedia. It seems to have appeared in a press release from the University of Texas, but does not appear in the refereed journal article, and a more recent UT news article quotes the first author Finkelstein as saying 13.1 G lt-yr. I have argued this in the talk pages, and announced that I plan to revert the 30 to 13.1 in a day or two, which has now passed.

The problem is, this is a matter of what is "standard usage", as, both 13.1 and 30, and others, are possible subtly different numbers, eg. from the IPAC NED calculator (which goes back to Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial at UCLA). I claim that, while the 30 number might be mentioned informally among astronomers, the 13.1 is the standard observed distance that should be quoted, rather than something unobservable beyond the current horizon.

I am sensitized to the issue because two or three years ago I saw that a 7-year-old absurdity in a Wikipedia article (that the Van Allan Belts were caused by volcanoes...) had been referenced verbatim by almost 10,000 external articles and web sites, creating thousands of derived "reliable sources" to the veracity of that "false fact". This is not quite as outrageous as that, but the 30 number has been on the front page now for a week or so, and I am afraid we will have it as the most distant galaxy forever. (Richard Ellis showed several at distances beyond 13.1 in a public lecture at Caltech two weeks ago, but what lay person would notice 13.4, even when it comes out in a refereed journal article, when that's less than half 30?)

Not being prepared to do a usage survey of astronomical literature to back up my claim, I am looking for suggestions, or support on the talk page. I suppose most of the other editors have no professional experience in the field. Thanks Wwheaton (talk) 09:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I've refactored the lead of the article, lets see if others agree. Regards. Gaba (talk) 12:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I think Gaba p's edit makes sense. Mentioning the comoving distance is reasonable later in the article, but using it as the primary distance in the lead is misleading to general readers. I'm sure it's not intentional, but I thought the mixing of "gigalight-years" and "billion light-years" could also be confusing to a general reader. I think it's best to be consistent throughout the article with one usage, though I'll leave it to the editors' to pick one. My opinion is to stick with "billion" over "giga" as that's what a general reader will most likely understand. AstroCog (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Not really, the comoving distance is rather more intuitive. It's how far away the galaxy is 'now'. Just because readers don't immediately remember that the speed of light is finite, doesn't mean we should exclusively use the light travel distance. Having both in the lead is the correct way to go, and immediately explains the two different figures. I do agree that giga- and billion shouldn't be mixed in the same article. Modest Genius talk 23:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh and you're unlikely to find much consensus in the literature, because it always depends on the adopted cosmology so people just stick to the redshift and allow the reader to do their own conversion. That way they don't have to issue hundreds of errata to correct the numbers each time WMAP (or now Planck) update their measurements. Modest Genius talk 23:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll have to disagree with you there Modest Genius. The comoving distance is more intuitive if you have some background in astronomy/physics, otherwise is a rather difficult concept to grasp for the average reader. In any case both distance measures are mentioned in the lede right now, just that the 13 gigalight-year is mentioned first.
Regarding the billion-giga mix: the convert template doesn't recognize "billion"; since it is equivalent to giga it simply uses that. I personally believe using the convert template is the way to go because it allows us to provide more than one unit without the concern of converting, but if editors here believe we should stick to billion and remove the conversion from Gly to parsec, I can live with that. Regards. Gaba (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Re the first point, yes I'm agreeing that using both is the correct way to go. Re the second one, I have no strong opinion. Both are fine, and consistency would definitely be a good thing, but it's not a huge issue. Modest Genius talk 23:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh and on intuition, which of the following is easier to grasp? 'Hamton and Riverbridge are 30 miles apart' vs 'Hamton and Riverbridge are an hour apart, if you drive at 30 mph'. Because that's essentially the difference between comoving and light-travel-time distances. Of course things are confused by giving the former in light-years rather than parsecs. Modest Genius talk 23:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


I'm sure this has been discussed before. Would it be possible to maintain (under lock preferably) a series of various astronomical constants. These would be to some agreed precision. They would need to be used by more than (say) five articles.

For example, earth's mass is 5.97219×1024 kg.

For this case, I put {{Student7/earth's mass}}.

I realize that there may be several methods of expressing mass. This would have to be allowed for in the named "constant." "earth's masskg."

These would have to be listed in an article so that readers and well as editors could see them.

The topic arose when an editor found a small discrepancy between articles about earth's mass, but it could have occurred anyplace. Student7 (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Do we really want quoted values to be automatically updated without the surrounding text or references being changed? And how often do these change anyway? Modest Genius talk 23:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay, couple of issues here. Firstly, if someone wanted to change the number of sig fig or the units used for layout or some other reason, they would instead have to manipulate template fields, which are far less intuitive than plain text. Kind of like using {{convert}}; a clever little idea that works, but trying to remembering all the syntax is a nightmare.
Secondly, there's really no benefit to having templates. If consistency between articles is the aim here, then doing it by template just increases the work needed. I.e., if you were going to create a template for a whole bunch of values and then crawl through all the articles to transclude it, you might as well just skip the template and just check that all the values match, because unless the value/constant was one that updates regularly it's not going to need to be changed. — Reatlas (talk) 02:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Lorenzo Iorio etc

also posted at WT:PHYSICS

I just noticed that Lorenzo Iorio has been recreated again, this time by 45 Wuz (talk · contribs), who has also created Emilio Elizalde and Astrodicticum Simplex. None appear to be notable, and both biographies look like they fail WP:PROF to me. Iorio's article has been deleted twice before (first AfD, second AfD), and it doesn't look like anything has changed since then. Those nominations were plagued by multiple single-person accounts, which I suspect were operated as sockpuppets.

I'm unwilling to open this particular can of worms by starting another deletion request, but could someone else take a look and decide if these articles should go to AfD? Modest Genius talk 20:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Iorio appears to be a legitimate researcher...though his interests seems really close to crank and fringe. In fact, I just went looking for articles about him and not his research. Pretty much all that came up were Bible prophecy and Nibiru/Planet X crank websites. The amusingly overlinked sentence in his article (really, I'm getting a screenshot of that in case this article is deleted) are lots of articles which mention his research, but nothing to build an encyclopedic article about him. His papers get press (or should I say, blogs) because of the fringe-nature of his work. I'd recommend that the editor(s) interested in him try to improve the article, as it's pure puffery. Same with Elizalde. I'd say delete it. As for the Astrodicticum Simplex "group blog" - it fails the notability for web content.
I'm also not going to get into this fight. I don't want to start any more AfDs in the project right now because of the currently active zealots I'd have to argue with. Seriously, not everything is "encyclopedic" folks. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear AstroCog, unfortunately your words show that you are neither impartial nor well informed. How can you affirm that the papers by Iorio "get press (or should I say, blogs) because of the fringe-nature of his work"? A simple search on the Astrophysics Data System would reveal to you that, actually, he published over 170 papers in journal like Classical and Quantum Gravity, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Physical Review D, etc. And he has a h index of 28! Moreover, I do not see why you mention the Nibiru stuff, which is absent from the article I made. What is the point with New Scientist, Scientific American, Physics World, Discovery News etc.? Please, be serious and objective. And about Elizalde, how can one seriously repute him not reputable, with thousands of (non-self) citations and a h index of 35? One cannot stretch the notability criteria just to struck somebody behind the anonymity, while there are lots of other "reputable" scientists with their articles in Wikiedia, while they cannot even rival with those two guys in terms of citation, metrics, etc? And about Astrodicticum Simplex, why should it not be notable, if it is part of a blog which, instead, is reputable for Wikipedia? 45 Wuz (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Might just be worth speedying as G4 if the article is substantially identical to the old one. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't remember exactly what was in the old one. Any admins care to take a look? Modest Genius talk 00:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Having a high h-index (actually that isn't particularly high for a professor in astronomy) or publishing in reputable journals is not enough to satisfy the notability guidelines. Again, see WP:PROF. Modest Genius talk 00:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Now, I imagine that somebody would invoke WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but the reality is that, in practice, it would be just an excuse to leave others who either do not merit or merit much less, and ban somebody else with every sort of means like those I saw here. Elizalde has a h index of 38, not 35, and you want to remove him! I included those media coverage for Iorio because of the notability criteria by Wikipedia. Please, go to the talk pages of the articles and discuss how to improve them, but seriously and not with such flawed arguments. Thank you. 45 Wuz (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Elizalde is also editor-in-chief of Galaxies and he is (or he was) member of the boards of several other journals, as per Wikipedia notability rules. About Iorio, I see that he went to press (not only blogs: Scientific American, Ingeniøren, NRC Handelsblad, New Scientist, are journals. And about the blogs, all of them are listed in Wikipedia itself! What is the point with the MIT Technology Review? And ScienceBlogs? And PhysicsWorld?) not because of his fringe interests, but for frame-dragging, the Pioneer anomaly, dark matter, modified models of gravity. And the search for Planets beyond Neptune is not a fringe topic. 45 Wuz (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Galaxies is a non-notable journal, from a questionable publisher (MDPI), that hasn't even published its first volume yet. Being on an editorial board does not automatically grant notability. See WP:PROF, which lists: 'head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal'. Modest Genius talk 00:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Not taking sides here, but being smart and notable in one area of science does not prevent a person from being fringe in other areas. Notable examples include Maurice Allais and his fringe measurements of gravitational anomalies, Brian Josephson and his interest in parapsychology, Alfred Wallace and his interest in spiritualism and so forth. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, Stigmatella aurantiaca, but the plain and simple evidence, which should not be matter of any "debate", is that there are no fringe or crank topics in the researches by Iorio mentioned in my article (and in all oh his scientific production, it seems to me). The same for Elizalde as well. All of us should know how Internet works: it is enough that a certain word appears in a legit paper, and lots of (real) crackpots abuse of it by using it as a "proof" that also scientists "know the hidden truth", etc. But, of course, it is not the fault of the scientist who published that legit paper if out there swarms of crackpots will abuse of it. Same occurs with creationism, evolution, etc. in biology. And, anyway, I did not use any of that crackpottery in my article on Iorio, since they would have not been considered as reliable sources for a Wikipedia article. About Astrodicticum Simplex, I wrote that article since it is a legit blog in his field, it is part of a larger blog with a Wiki article here, is run by an astronomer who published several papers, and it was finalist in that ranking by an organization which has its article on Wikipedia as well. Cheers. 45 Wuz (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Why would you care about a blog in his field, unless you have a close connection to him? If so, you should refrain from editing his article, per WP:COI. Modest Genius talk 00:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I recognize that Iorio's work gets abused by cranks, and that he probably doesn't perpetrate much of what is written related to his work. His work also seems to indicate results that discredit fringe ideas (MOND, Planet X, etc). I'm not sure what part of "I'd recommend that the editor(s) interested in him try to improve the article" provoked your ire with regards to Iorio. There may be promise there. All of the links and articles that are provided to me are support for the notability of Iorio's research, which is what I said above. I also said I didn't see a lot to build an article about the person Iorio. You can't do that with with his published papers. You need 3rd party discussions of the person. If that's out there, I see no reason to not build the article up. His stuff sounds interesting to me. As for the other items, I don't see anything convincing for inclusion. But as I said, I'm tired of precisely this kind of discussion. Have at it, everyone else. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Two former AfDs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorenzo Iorio (2nd nomination)) deleted. The case is clear. I suggest Salt as well. I note that an article on Lorenzo Iorio does not exist on the Italian Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC).
(to 45 Wuz) You're right. Now that I've had the time to do some of my own research, I see absolutely no evidence of fringiness in Iorio's work. I see that his co-authors have included ML Ruggiero, whom I don't know myself, but who was a student of Angelo Tartaglia, with whom I've corresponded and who is a very respectable researcher (I had cited both in Sagnac effect). So I am only three degrees separated from Iorio. He has also co-authored papers with Stephan Schiller, who has co-authored multiple papers on modern-day repetitions of the Michelson-Morley experiment and who is also a respectable researcher (I had cited him in Michelson–Morley experiment). It seems that Lorenzo Iorio keeps good company. A number of his papers have gotten attention in the conventional media as well as semi-popular physics news sites. Whether this amount of media attention makes him worthy of an article in Wikipedia is not something that I am in a position to judge, but let's dismiss any notion of his being crank or fringe. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 06:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I see that, for example, these researchers in similar or close fields have articles in Wikipedia: Agnes Fienga, Elena V. Pitjeva, Slava Turyshev, Ignazio Ciufolini, Anna Maria Nobili, Francis Everitt. The metrics of all of them are far less than Iorio and Elizalde (check on NASA ADS). None of them has newspaper/media coverage. Nobody has ever proposed to delete any of them. Danguard00 (talk) 11:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Ciufolini is a name that I'm quite familiar with. Iorio has co-authored papers with Ciufolini, and both Iorio and Ciuofoli are independently cited in LARES (satellite). More evidence that Iorio keeps good company. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Again, bibliometrics are not the threshold for notability (see WP:PROF), and the fact that some other people working in the same field have articles does not mean Iorio should do (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). If you think those articles are less notable than Iorio, please propose them for deletion. The article on Iorio does not explain his notability, and has insufficient third-party reliable sources to back it up. Modest Genius talk 20:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  1. Francis Everitt (Principal Investigator of the Gravity Probe B mission), Ignazio Ciufolini (Principal Investigator of the LARES mission), and Slava Turyshev (extremely well known for his investigations of the Pioneer Anomaly) are highly notable individuals. I didn't have to consult any references to immediately recognize their names.
  2. I didn't immediately recognize Anna Maria Nobili, but she is PI of the "Galileo Galilei" GG Project, which is intended to provide a rigorous satellite test of the equivalence principle. I'd guess she is probably notable enough to have her own article.
  3. I don't have any familiarity with Agnes Fienga or Elena V. Pitjeva, so I'm taking no sides either way.
Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I may be wrong about Anna Maria Nobili being notable enough to merit an article, because the "Galileo Galilei" GG Project does not yet appear to be a fully funded project. All of the work thus far has been proof-of-concept. If GG ever does get into orbit, it will be incredibly exciting, because GG is a win-win experiment. Whether or not GG detects equivalence principle violations, the results will have profound impact. Heuristic arguments based on string theory predict probable equivalence principle violations within the range of sensitivity of GG, so it will be just as exciting if violations are not detected as it would be if they were. For the moment, though, I will take a neutral stance on her, taking no sides.
Emilio Elizalde looks pretty notable to me. How many researchers have books published in their honor? He is obviously very highly regarded by his peers, even though I am not personally familiar with his work. Emilio Elizalde should definitely be kept. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see third party, independent sources sufficient to establish notability, though there is a case to be made that they do; improvements to the article replacing the long list of references with useful content could help there. He's had several press articles about his research (which tends to happen with fringe general relativity theorists), but none of the cited sources appear to be about him. It's not for Wikipedia editors to judge his reputability based upon his coauthors: if a reliable source doesn't draw the connection, it's synthesis. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 17:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no specific opinion on the Iorio case, but please note that WP:SYNTH applies to article content, not to editorial decisions. --cyclopiaspeak! 17:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, though synthesising what editors think of coauthors seems like an awful stretch to establish notability. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 17:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
At present, I have no opinion one way or another about Iorio's notability. What I specifically intended in my examination of Iorio's coauthors was to refute Astrocog's claims that Iorio's research interests are "really close to crank and fringe." Yes, I admit that it is synthesis on my part, but I find that Iorio has coauthored far too many papers with mainstream, respected, and in at least one case notable scientists whom I had already been familiar with, to believe that he could be fringe. Astrocog's claims of fringiness are, of course, themselves the result of synthesis.
Let me follow Ashill's suggestion for a bit to see whether there is anything that I can do to improve the article; either that or let normal administrative processes take their course, which twice before have resulted in the article's deletion.
Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Here, and at WP:PHYSICS (for no other reason except to mention me, I guess), you've decided to change the meaning of my original comment above from "his interests seem really close to crank and fringe" to "this man is a crank". I'd like an apology on this, as you've repeated this strawman a few times. I said his interests were close to fringe, not the person. I also commented later that this closeness to fringe was exploited by real cranks, but probably not perpetuated by Iorio himself. Again, please read my comments, rather than attacking a strawman you built yourself. I agree that Iorio's research is probably not fringe itself, but all the red flags were there to make note to look into it. If you don't think that this set of research, legitimate as it may be overall, raises an initial red flag to investigate, then you haven't been around the astronomical block enough times. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, upon re-reading your comments, I see that I misunderstood them. You definitely have my apologies for extrapolating from "his interests seem really close to crank and fringe" to "this man is a crank", but the leap of interpretation was a relatively small one, I think, especially since you followed up that statement with "His papers get press (or should I say, blogs) because of the fringe-nature of his work," which was really hard for me to interpret other than as a direct condemnation of his work. One way or another, peace between us? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

My comments on the physics wikiproject:

"Lorenzo Iorio is a big name in the field he works in. He is notable enough for inclusion. The article summarizes his work in one sentence, a lot more can be written about this. Or does deserving an article about you require you to be a controversial figure like Luboš Motl or a well known Wikipedian like our very own William Connolley? Does Lorenzo Iorio need to take a time out from his physics work, start a blog and make controversial comments about some political topic or does he need to become a Wikipedian and make some friends here and let them write a great biography about him?"

So, I think a problem is that we don't apply the rules consistently, requiring a very high bar for people who are not well known outside of the academic field they work in, while having a very low bar for people who are well known on the blogosphere or who are well known Wikipedians. Count Iblis (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I've made some improvements to Emilio Elizalde. There is not doubt in my mind as to his notability. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of NCASTRO needed

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (astronomical objects)#Problems, relating to the proposed addition of exception clause to NCASTRO. Opinions are needed. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Newton's Comet

orbit diagram drawn by Isaac Newton

Considering that the Great Comet of 1680 (Kirch's Comet) was the first comet discovered by a telescope, and the first comet to have its orbit calculated, shouldn't it rate higher than "low" importance?

-- (talk) 08:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The criteria for 'mid' importance objects include "Objects that have been the subject of scientific study beyond the basic orbital elements or classification". Unfortunately I don't see any evidence that this comet meets that threshold. Yes, its orbit was calculated, and it's classified as a sungrazer, but beyond that there isn't much. It's a historical curiosity for sure, but nothing more. Of course I might be missing something. Modest Genius talk 09:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I have pumped the Solar System rating to "importance=Mid" since the comet is of historical significance to orbital dynamics and physics. Most comets on Wikipedia are just naked eye curiosities with no historical significance. -- Kheider (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Perseus FAC

Just to let people know, Perseus (constellation) is at FAC again (WP:Featured article candidates/Perseus (constellation)/archive2), after undergoing some revisions to the Chinese mythology section and a copyedit that were requested at the last FAC. Any input is appreciated. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Upgrading Seyfert galaxy

Hi folks, after much much work done by Careless Torque I've upgraded the Seyfert galaxy article to B-class so I thought I'd let you know. Please have a look at it and do tell me if you disagree with my judgment. Regards. Gaba (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Er... why are the example galaxies called "Mark xyz" ? Aren't those "Markarian xyz"? I notice the Mark # is the same as the MRK #, and MRK/MKR/MKN/Mark is the abbreviaiton for Markarian. -- (talk) 06:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I guess that it is because that's how they are displayed by the source used. Regards. Gaba (talk) 11:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
The source is using an abbreviation. The article is claiming it is the full name and is different from the other abbreviation for the same thing. That doesn't seem good enough for B-class (it'd be like listing NGC multiple times, by calling it NGC and in the next column calling it Dreyer). If Mark and MRK are in the same entry, it is the same name, just different abbreviations. Further WP:NCASTRO would suggest we should consider the NGC designation as the primary name, to match up with the likely name of articles on these galaxies. -- (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to fix it if you believe the columns Name and Other names should be swapped. Even better, you could provide reliable sources where these galaxies are called by their full name. Regards. Gaba (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
According to the SIMBAD dictionary of nomenclature the preferred abbreviation for Markarian galaxies is Mrk NNN, not Mark or MRK or MKN or anything else. No comment on when that name should be used, beyond WP:NCASTRO. Modest Genius talk 01:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
The reference I'm using gives the name as Mark NNN, and under other names it always gives MRK NNN ( Careless Torque (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
SIMBAD is a more reliable source than some personal website. Astronomers make mistakes all the time. Modest Genius talk 15:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I never use SIMBAD therefore I can't claim it's a more reliable or less reliable source than others. I checked the NASA website as well as Caltech and they agree with you, they give the names as MRK NNN rather than Mark NNN. I can swap those two columns around if you think it would be better. Careless Torque (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I made some comments at Talk:Seyfert_galaxy#LINER_is_not_a_Seyfert_subtype regarding the accuracy of several parts of the article. I don't think it qualifies as B class until these are addressed. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I corrected the article a while ago, and it doesn't say LINERs are Seyferts, it just says they are very similar. It doesn't say they are indistinguishable either, it says they are indistinguishable when seen in visible light, which the reference I'm using supports. I could perhaps add a few more sentences saying other studies suggest otherwise, if I can find any. Section 5 (Evolution) has been rewritten and completed since then. It doesn't claim we know exactly how AGN evolve, it mentions one theory and even mentions problems the theory has. Also, not all journals used can be found in the NASA ADS records, or at least I couldn't find them. Careless Torque (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I have been over the issues raised by Parejkoj and find no issue with the referencing. I myself was unable to find the missing DOIs, but have messaged Careless Torque with alternative options for a couple references. Also, you could list the ones you have qualms with and I will take another look. As for the A&A journals used, prior to 2001 the "Access to earlier years is via the ADS search tool at the CDS", which has been used. From the quality scale guidelines I would say the Seyfert Galaxy article merits its B-Class rating, with regards to the part about not yet being suitable for a serious student or researcher, which I believe would address Parejkoj's issues with the Evolution. Hope that helps. IndianFace (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Upgrading Astronomical spectroscopy

Hi all, I've been editing astronomical spectroscopy for the better part of the last three months as part of my final year physics project. I have already spoken to Modest Genius and he has given me some great feedback on further ways to improve the article to GA-status, but I was wondering if it made sense to upgrade it to a lower level such as B-class in the meantime. Thoughts (and further suggestions for improvement of the article) are always appreciated. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hydrus at FAC

Triangulum recently promoted. Tucana could do with some pre-FAC feedback if anyone has time....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Help request at Hubble's law

Specifically Aabrucadubraa (talk · contribs), an advocate of Ruggero Santilli, is accusing us / a bunch of people from censoring Santilli, yadda yadda yadda. Some help on the Talk:Ruggero Santilli would also be appreciated. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hubble looks OK for now, but I've added to my watchlist in case it goes further. Lithopsian (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
So did I. I'm also watching the Santilli article as of now. Regards. Gaba (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Ditto Primefac (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)