Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Solar System

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Solar System (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
For more information, see the Solar System importance assessment guideline.


Abolition of WikiProject Space[edit]

The RfC over the fate of WikiProject Space came to the consensus of abolishing the project, removing it as a parent to the projects below it, with not a single comment in favour of its retention. As a result that project will be wound-down allowing Astronomy, Solar System and Spaceflight to become the lead projects in their area as has been pretty much de facto the case for some time on the Astronomy side. As a result it's probably a good idea if we modify some of this project, like the navbox for example, to fit this. ChiZeroOne (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record, there is a proposal that WikiProject Solar System should become a child project of WikiProject Astronomical Objects. Comments on this proposal are requested, it is on the same discussion page that the RFC was on. --GW 17:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Jupiter Proposal[edit]

In keeping with my eventual goal of having a daughter WikiProject for each of the eight major planets, I have proposed a new WikiProject for the planet Jupiter here. Feel free to drop on by and join up...--Novus Orator 09:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel it is not required. This project itself is poorly monitored, having daughter projects is going to be much more difficult. Fir, we need to get more members to this project. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 11:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that more members for the parent project are required before adding daughter projects. I do think that having smaller WikiProjects that support and report to a parent project improves morale and increases the likelihood of work getting done. My one WikiProject per planet proposal is looking far ahead as the main project (hopefully) expands. WikiProject Jupiter will be the present focus..--Novus Orator 06:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

133P/Elst-Pizarro vs 7968 Elst-Pizarro[edit]

I notice that on 12 January 2010, SatyrTN moved 133P/Elst-Pizarro to 7968 Elst-Pizarro stating that the "Minor Planet Center recommends to list objects, both designated as asteroids and comets, as asteroids." The MPC Dual status page states, "astrometric observations of these objects should be reported under the minor planet designation." But Wikipedia:Article titles states, "Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject". Both Hsieh and Jewitt seem to refer to the object more often by the cometary name. So 133P would seem (IMHO) to be the common name. JPL only refers to the asteroid name even when you specify 133P. Google search "7968 Elst-Pizarro" = 16,700 results; "133P/Elst-Pizarro" = 42,200 results. This could come to down to Wikipedia practices vs IAU/JPL practices. Which name should Wikipedia use as primary? -- Kheider (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think 7968 Elst-Pizarro—the official name. Goodle search is not a reliable indicator. Ruslik_Zero 20:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Taskforce Jupiter[edit]

Taskforce Jupiter is curious if anyone would like to propose a collaboration "roadmap" of how the resources of the WikiProject Solar System could be used to improve the efficiency in the daughter WikiProjects and Taskforces. Please post your suggestions here.--Novus Orator 09:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


I have just finished cleaning up the above Portal. Please come check it out and offer comments or questions on the talk page of the Portal.--Novus Orator 11:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Single-apparition comets[edit]

I was wondering if the Category:Single-apparition comets or Category:Unbound comets would be useful for comets not expected to return to the inner solar system such as C/1980 E1, C/2009 R1, C/1956 R1, C/2007 F1 (LONEOS), C/2001 Q4 (NEAT), and C/1970 K1. -- Kheider (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost[edit]

My name is Thomas888b (Say Hi), I am here representing the Wikipedia Signpost. We would like to interview a few of your key members for the April 04 edition of the Signpost. If you are interested, please could you reply on my talkpage?

Thomas888b (Say Hi) 19:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The interview will be published in the April 04 edition of the signpost -- Thomas888b (Say Hi) 20:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Scope of Project[edit]

A question, would planetary scientists be within the scope of the project? Peter Francis, Ralph Baldwin, Graham Ryder and the winners of the Barringer Medal for instance. Dbigwood (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why not: WP:Astronomy seems to take an interest in astronomers. Have a look at these prizewinners to consider. Iridia (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates now support more identifiers[edit]

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=, now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=|jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

  • {{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Space template has been nominated for deletion[edit]

FYI, I have nominated {{WikiProject Space}} for deletion since the abolishment WP:SPACE and the removal the template. The discussion is here. JJ98 (Talk) 21:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 41#Bibcode bot[edit]

I've made a request for a bot to try and guess bibcodes for the most popular astronomy journals / journals with the biggest presence in the ADSABS database. Feedback is welcome. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Asteroid capture[edit]

Asteroid capture is a mess. It needs rewriting by someone who knows the subject a bit better than I do. —Tamfang (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Temporary satellite capture (TSC) also needs to be mentioned in that article. -- Kheider (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

New stub types[edit]

Hi all - just a heads-up that two new stub types relating to your project have just been created:

The first of these should greatly reduce the nmber of stubs loose in the main Category:Astronomy stubs and will be a subcategory of it - the second will be a subcategory of the existing Category:Moon stubs. Any help youn can give in moving articles over to the new stub types will be greatly appreciated, though much of it will be done by WP:WikiProject Stub sorting. If you've got any comments or questions, please drop a note at WT:WSS. Thanks - and I hope the new stub types are useful to you! Grutness...wha? 02:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

A couple more astronomy-related stub types have been proposed at WP:WSS, as well - input from your WikiProject would be very welcome here! Grutness...wha? 11:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

History of Mars[edit]

History of Mars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated for deletion. (talk) 05:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

1999 LE31[edit]

It's my first asteroid article. Could someone please give it a quick look-see? Many thanks if you can. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Mercury's magnetic field[edit]

Hello, this is one of the recent members of WikiProject Solar System, SpaceChimp1992, I'm the creator of the article Terraforming of Europa (moon), and I would like to ask your consent on a Mercury's magnetic field page. I'm sure it will be different than just re-stating what's on the article mainspace on Mercury (planet)#Magnetic field and magnetosphere, there will be magnetic field strength, magnetic field detection and magnetic poles, discovery, etc. Send a response and see if it's okay with you! --SpaceChimp1992 (talk) 11:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't need our permission to create an article; create it, then we'll see if it needs to be redirected back. I'm sure it will be fine. Serendipodous 12:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, thank you! Hey, I've already created my article! Wanna go check it out (and help with it as well)? The article's here: link. SpaceChimp1992 (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Geologic history of Mars[edit]

Hello, there, good Wikipedians! I was wondering if I could create an article about the geologic history of Mars, since I saw a template regarding that the page Geology of Mars should be split into multiple articles. I will make sure that the article is different than just re-stating what's on the artice mainspace on Geology of Mars (I will include Prenoachian, Noachian, etc.). I am asking for your consent. Please respond! Love, SpaceChimp1992 (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Why not ask at Talk:Geology of Mars? (it seems the split banner was posted without discussion)
Also read the new article Noachian, and Schaffman's comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Mars.
Hope that helps.
--InfantGorilla (talk) 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Generic Celestia asteroid texture[edit]

Generic Celestia asteroid texture

Any file with this texture is probably a fake Celestia artist's impression and can (usually) be removed. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello from WP:ECLIPSES and the demise of WikiProject Space[edit]

The Eclipses Wikiproject has been revived, but I have some confusion as to whose child project it should be. I found evidence that I was once a child of space, but then perhaps was moved over to be a child of WP:SOLAR. Since it used to be a child of space, i made it a child of astronomy. What do you folks think? Should Eclipses be a child of Solar? I guess that makes more sense to me since Astronomy is so broad. I'm not having any luck recruiting members. Seems like folks are only interested in eclipses during eclipse seasons. Especially during lunar eclipses. Hopefully not a sign of total lack of interest. Cheers. --TimL (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Nicholson crater on Mars[edit]

The crater completely closed depression is at least 2000 m deeper than the surrounding lowest terrains. This seems to limit the possibilities of water erosion : any free water if not fully flooding the structure would tend at least to make a lake. In the first case erosion possibilities are very limited and in the case of lake nearly only shore wave-erosion possibilities are left, tracing precise horizontal belt levels (nothing similar is visible here). The global morphology of that huge central peak is in fact very similar to that of fluid lavas of hawaîan type. The full form divides in 6 main mounds (one including the main peak - only feature with rocky aspect). The mounds are separated by undulating depressions whith striated surfaces which seem to correspond internally to the most fluid parts of the extrusion. The type of erosion visible here looks very much like auto-erosion by differential flowing even internal flowing similar to lava tubes (some of the channels which produce the "piemont" deposits on the south eastern foot of the structure look a lot like lava tubes as well as the channel features wich decorates the croup of the eastern mound). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

discussion on comet names[edit]

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#comet_names, regarding the usage of hyphens or dashes in comet names. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Near Earth Asteroid Reconnaissance Project[edit]

Does this group really exist? Les Golden has been blocked for sock puppetry. -- 14:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Near Earth Asteroid Reconnaissance Project -- Kheider (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Dwarf planets - what is the standard for Wikipedia labelling an object as a DP?[edit]

I would really appreciate as much input as possible at Talk:Dwarf planet to help resolve a dispute over what objects we are labelling as dwarf planets. Wikipedia has generally used the IAU as the guide, saying that there are five objects (Pluto, Eris, Haumea, Makemake, and Ceres) currently categorized as dwarf planets with numerous others as likely candidates. Kwamikagami has been repeatedly changing this to add four other bodies (Sedna, Quaoar, Orcus, and 2007 OR10) based on astronomer Mike Brown's web posts. There is an active discussion on the DP talk page, but Kwamikagami is continuing to change articles to his version even while the discussion is under way. (I have been reverting back to the existing consensus version repeatedly, but cannot see this as a viable long-term solution and thus would like to get as wide a consensus as possible to resolve this.) Thanks in advance. --Ckatzchatspy 16:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

User is factory creating articles for un-notable objects[edit]

There is a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#User is factory creating articles for un-notable objects regarding the notability of, in particular, minor planet articles. They are debating a notability threshold. If you have an interest, you may want to participate. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

1992 QB1 data mis-match[edit]

Some of the data listed in the article about 1992 QB1 does not correspond to the same items in the TransNeptunian Object interactive table (e.g. i= 9 degrees in article, i = 2 degrees in table). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

1992 QB1 has an inclination of 2. -- Kheider (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Comet/Asteroid missions[edit]

A discussion is open on Category:Comet/Asteroid missions, which is proposed for renaming. Any insights from members of this project are most welcome.- choster (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of the far future[edit]

is currently undergoing FLC here. As this really needs reviewers I was hoping a member of this Wikiproject might be able to offer their opinion. Serendipodous 20:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


Portal:Moon is up for peer review. Please comment here. Thanks. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 21:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Solar eclipse[edit]

I have nominated Solar eclipse for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKiernan (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

NARA on-wiki ExtravaSCANza participation[edit]

Please see User:The ed17/NARA to brainstorm ideas and a structure on how we can help make the National Archives ExtravaSCANza a success, in the hope that such events will continue in the future. Day one is devoted to spaceflight, so this will obliquely affect y'all! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Astroid of August 10 1972[edit]

On August 10, 1972 I was the fire lookout on Dunn Peak mountain lookout on the St. Joe National Forest in northern Idaho. While watching for fire to the south west, a fireball streaked across the sky from the south moving north. I immediately called the lookout on Middle Sister lookout (to the southeast of Dunn Peak and about 15 miles away) he also witnessed the event, his name was Rod Landbloom. We were able to plot the location and it did pass directly between Dunn Peak and Middle Sister mountains. I recorded the information in the official lookout log book, which is the property of and held by the U.S. Forest Service. It is possible the Middle Sister lookout did the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donldhammond (talkcontribs) 17:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That is known as The Great Daylight 1972 Fireball. -- Kheider (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Conflicting info (tallest mountain in the solar system)[edit]

Rheasilvia and Olympus Mons are listed (depending on article) as tallest mountain in the solar system. Both near 14 miles. See also Stratovolcano & Shield Volcano. Guy M (can't login via my portable device)  Guy M | Talk  05:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, Rheasilvia wins, by a nose. It was only really documented this year/end of last year, and took the crown from Mt. Olympus, so it's no great surprise this hasn't sunk in to the wider community yet (I only saw this stuff at a conference in April). Mt. Olympus remains the largest mountain on a planet though (obviously). DanHobley (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The data under Shield volcano is just wrong. I've found previous stuff scattered round WP fairly liberally; I imagine there's an incorrect/out of date source lurking out on the internet somewhere. I'm taking action.DanHobley (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Commons' problems with some astronomical image[edit]

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 09:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

2012 United Kingdom Meteorite event[edit]

I know the current title is incorrect so can an expert please review the 2012 United Kingdom Meteorite event article and move it. --Racklever (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Ecliptic / Earth's orbit[edit]

We currently have at least 3 articles on the subject: Earth's_orbit Ecliptic Plane_of_the_ecliptic. There is astrology content in one or more of them. Any thoughts on consolidating these?

Speaking of astrology, I see considerable astrology content in many planetary/Solar System articles (for instance, ephemeris). What's the consensus on it? I prefer not to mix astronomy and astrology. Tfr000 (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Merged Plane_of_the_ecliptic into Ecliptic and did much re-writing. Earth's_orbit has some merit as a separate article, as there are things about the orbit which have little to do with the ecliptic (for instance, orbital elements). Tfr000 (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Secular variations of the planetary orbits[edit]

Secular_variations_of_the_planetary_orbits The article is not about secular variations. It is about perturbations and the French VSOP. Secular variations are non-periodic changes in the elements that result from an averaging of perturbations as the bodies occupy every possible configuration over very long periods. Does anyone know what the intent of this article was? Tfr000 (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Moved the article to VSOP_(planets). Tfr000 (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Giant impact hypothesis[edit]

The high-importance article Giant impact hypothesis is at a decent level of development, but it could really use some further improvement by an editor with strong knowledge of planetary geology (particularly regarding the compositional issues). Might somebody in this project have an interest in taking a look? This could make a very nice front page article some day.

Thank you! Regards, RJH (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Venus-Earth near resonance?[edit]

Is it possible to talk about near resonance (or commensurability) between Venus and the Earth? See the discussion here, please. Thank you very much. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Use of Color[edit]

O=MC4 21:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

"Happy Face" Crater Greets MGS at the Start of the Mapping

O=MC4Orschstaffer/Principal,This is a school assignment♭,

Presently I am researching/developing a WikiProject for a classroom assignment. Please be patient with my attempt to Improve the several Wikimedia Foundation Projects within the global Wiki interface.
...more Greetings from the desk of: O=MC4Orschstaffer/Principal

Astronomy, Solar System and Astronomical objects member numbers require verifying, other member counts and activity statuses are correct as of 25 March 2011.

WikiProjects - Directory of Space-related WikiProjects
Members - Complete member lists of all Astronomy-related WikiProjects
Portals - List of space-related portals.

Use of Color[edit]

at the bottom of the dark background, considerations should be taken for those with certain color restrictions in the sight. Non-friendly font/background colors.! User:Orschstaffer/Classroom O=MC4 Orschstaffer/Principal, This is a school assignment O=MC4 21:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Mars Photos: Please Return to Genuine[edit]

Mars sky is not blue, so this image: 'File:Mars Viking 21i093.png' is too obviously adulterated. In Wikipedia I expect scientific accuracy - yet instead, the Mars vibe was totally lost by the unnecessary processing of this photograph - making it look like Arizona, or the Gobi, and unlike itself. Genuine science is better served by more genuine photographs like: File:Viking2 frost enhance.jpg , which is excellent.

This 'Viking2 frost enhance.jpg' photo, or 'File:Ice on Mars Utopia Planitia (PIA00571).jpg' , or a photo of like or more genuine accuracy/quality should be used in this comprehensive 'Timeline of discoveries of water on Mars' , as well as in the document-quality Water on Mars article, and in the many other articles where a genuine image belongs, i.e. :

in order to CREDIBLY illustrate "Frost at the landing site" [of Viking 2] on planet Mars, -- instead of the unsubstantiated * 'File:Mars Viking 21i093.png' . (I mean it literally: there is no substance (component/concentration) in the Mars atmosphere - in our day and age - to transmit anything even remotely similar to such a width and evenness of blue to the human eye.)

On the other hand I compliment Roel van der Hoorn for working on the picture the way he did: his artificially colorized version illustrates a dream some people have for Mars' future.

MocuAed (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

(I took the liberty of reformatting your links for greater convenience.) False color does not necessarily imply adulteration, you know. How to map the camera's bits to human-compatible colors can be a vexing problem. I heard someone say, soon after the Viking landing, that we did not know what color the sky was because – if I remember right – there was no reference palette in view of the camera. —Tamfang (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Doing this is a deliberate choice on the part of NASA, and is in no way misleading, as long as the images are tagged "normalized to terrestrial white light illumination", or something equivalent. NASA in fact often releases both images. The problem is that our eyes are evolved to see colors best under Earth illumination conditions, so using "natural" (still not natural really, lots of processing is still needed) red illumination just results in lack of contrast and pictures that are harder to interpret. Adjusting levels to Earthlike light makes colour contrast appear in the rocks and means that something that has the colour of a basalt on Earth is likely to actually be a basalt. I don't see a problem here at all as long as the appropriate figure captions are used. DanHobley (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Jupiter family comet[edit]

Jupiter family comet currently redirects to List of periodic comets, a page that contains no information about the term. You are invited to participate in the discussion about the redirect and where information should be added - see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Jupiter family comet. Thryduulf (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Curiosity rover[edit]

Hey all. The Curiosity rover article was split earlier today (6 Aug 2012), AFTER the successful landing of the rover on Mars, hived off from the more spacecraft-related and spaceflight-mission-related article Mars Science Laboratory. (This is a result of a consensus developed on the MSL Talk page after approx. 24 July, and finished up about a week prior to the landing.) So now the rover article is a robotics article and a planetary science article, and not really a spaceflight article, while the MSL article retains the spaceflight/spacecraft aspects of the complicated mission.

  • It would be very useful to have some Solar System science-oriented eyes on the split to see if the planetary science is handled/summarized well, following the split.
  • Also, an editor has suggested on the Talk:Curiosity rover page that the on-wiki location of the data should be discussed.

Anyone want to help out? Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

De-capitalising Trojan[edit]

Can someone please explain the logic of this? If they were called Londoners instead of Trojans, would there be any debate about keeping them capitalised? Serendipodous 18:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

{{JPL small body}} links[edit]

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

i.e. [1] vs [2]. Please comment at Template talk:JPL small body. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


File:Comet-Halley's-tail-NASA-1986-b&w.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- (talk) 08:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Problem/incoherence on List of minor planets[edit]

Sorry for my english :) I found a problem on page List of minor planets/145101–145200 and on page List of minor planets/145201–145300, on the first page , last planets is 145200 - 2005 JR32 May 4, 2005 Socorro LINEAR, on second page first planets is 145200 - 2004 JA32 May 3, 2004 Monroe, North Carolina Spacewatch: same number but different data can someone check it? --ValterVB (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed the problem --ValterVB (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Northwest Africa 7034[edit]

Northwest Africa 7034 is currently up for review for DYK. Is is also tagged by this project. --Tobias1984 (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


Micrometeorite is up for DYK review. Could somebody add a section about micrometeorites on the Moon and Mars? --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Vulcan fringe theories[edit]

Can some of you briefly add Vulcan (hypothetical planet) to your watchlist for a few weeks? Mseanbrown is trying to add fringe theories / weasel words / original research to the article. -- Kheider (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

4179 Toutatis (Chang'e 2).jpg[edit]

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

S/2011 (134340) 1[edit]

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

List of cloud types[edit]

List of cloud types has a section on "other planets", but it's rather sparse, do we have an article for Clouds outside the Earth ? Particularly, the cloud types article is missing Titan, Triton (cryovolcanic clouds), Io (volcanic clouds); -- (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Mars categories under proposal to merge[edit]

Category:Mars spacecraft has been proposed to be merged to Category:Missions to Mars, see WP:CFDALL -- (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Minor planet new names[edit]

Hi, help me please. I would like the other name some minor planet. References: (14181) Koromházi, or Dictionary of Minor Planets Names - (14181) Koromházi

Thank you, Módis Ágnes Vadszederke (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:NCASTRO#Asteroids. Our naming guide specifies that named objects should be without parentheses, and unnamed objects should have parentheses. So, please don't change the above article names. Huntster (t @ c) 05:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I see, but a case in point the older asteroid article (285264) 1998 QF5, its names since 2011. Módis Ágnes Vadszederke (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean..."1998 QF5" has not been formally named, thus it's numerical designation is in parentheses. From your above list, "Koromházi" *has* been formally named, thus by our guideline it's numerical designation is *not* in parentheses. I'm sorry if I'm not being clear. Huntster (t @ c) 10:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Good, thank you Huntster. Módis Ágnes Vadszederke (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Concerns for an early Mars sample return for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Concerns for an early Mars sample return is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concerns for an early Mars sample return until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Warren Platts (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

New stub article: Amazonian[edit]

Hi guys. Long time no contribute. Sorry. I've just boldly seized the page Amazonian, torn out the redirect to the Amazon DAB page that was all that was there before, and slapped up a stub for the Martian geological period. I just can't believe we didn't have this before!

Please head over and get expanding. I will slowly, but would welcome more enthusiastic/rapid input. Thanks! (Notice duplicated over at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mars) DanHobley (talk) 06:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

An editor has deleted nearly all my contributions from Manned missions to Mars and for the Mars project[edit]

Just want to draw your attention to this. He won an AfD against me for my article on concerns for an early Mars sample return, and declared that it was his intention to remove all my contributions from the Mars project, which he has now done (removed nearly all).

For details of what he has deleted so far (along with one other editor), see User talk:Robertinventor#Other sections deleted by the opposing editor

See also: Contamination Concerns section - how it came about as a response to a request to restore balance to an article perceived by other editors as imbalanced

I believe this amounts to censorship of wikipedia as there is now, as far as I know, no mention in the Mars Project of concerns about forward contamination issues for Mars, hardly any mention of backward contamination concerns (and that biased), and no mention of recent research since Phoenix in 2008 on the possibility for present day habitability of the surface of Mars for micro-organisms. Robert Walker (talk) 10:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Minor planet lists[edit]

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

Missing topics page[edit]

I have updated Missing topics about astronomy and other space-related topics - Skysmith (talk) 08:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Official quadrangle names for Mercury[edit]

If asked a question about official quadrangle names for Mercury at Talk:List of quadrangles on Mercury#Official quadrangle names. Would anyone here be able to answer that question, or suggest where I should ask? Carcharoth (talk) 00:03, 10 September 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, for the case below, I put {{Student7/earth's mass}}:

Earth's mass is 5.97219×1024 kg.

There may be several methods of expressing mass. This would be allowed for in the named "constant." e.g. "earth's mass kg."

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

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

That sounds like the kind of thing that WikiData would be perfect for. See WP:Wikidata#Infoboxes (Phase 2) and an example.
Earth (at wikidata:Q2) doesn't have a mass parameter yet - I'll see if I can work out if the property exists, or where it's meant to be suggested...
Ok, after much searching, and finally giving up and asking on IRC, I've learned that the "Number datatype" hasn't been fully implemented yet, but "mass" is on the waiting list (wikidata:Wikidata:Property_proposal/Pending/2#Mass) for when it is functional. –Quiddity (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Solar eclipse2[edit]

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

Help requested with updating the To-do list[edit]

On the "to-do" list, the first one on the list is Beagle (crater). I have edited this page and have expanded it to the point where I think it would be a start level page, and have changed the class it is in myself, however, it is still marked as a stub on the to-do list. I don't know if this list only shows up on mine, or if it appears on everybody's who goes to this page, but could somebody who knows what they are doing please let me know how to fix it, I am still new here and haven't figured out how to do most of the things yet. 9:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

@Owllord97: Someone said to me years ago, "You're not a real Wikipedian until you've made, and learned from, 50 mistakes". Curiosity and helpfulness are always appreciated!
On-topic: The to-do list component of this WikiProject banner template is actually quite hard to find & access, so don't feel bad about the confusion - you can edit it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Solar System/to do. (I found it via examining the code in the {{WikiProject Solar System}} template).
As for whether the article is now beyond stub-level, I'm not a regular at this WikiProject, so I'll leave it to someone else to advise. HTH. –Quiddity (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Quality Assessment is no longer accurate[edit]

While updating the to-do list, I have run across the article "Ascraeus Mons" in the high importance stubs section, which is no longer a stub but a C-class. It shows the possiblity that many other articles in this section are no longer correct, but I don't know how to change it, so if anyone knows, please review the articles at least in the high and mid importance areas and update their status. Owllord97 (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Theia and Aten asteroids[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, WikiProject Solar System. You have new messages at WT:ASTRO.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI, there's a notice at WT:Astronomical Objects about Theia and Aten asteroid lists.

Moved to WT:ASTRO

-- (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hotspot infoboxen[edit]

FYI, {{Infobox hotspot custom}} and {{Infobox moon hot spot data}} are under discussion, see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_18 -- (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

"Jupiter Trojan"[edit]

The usage of Jupiter Trojan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Jupiter Trojan -- (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update[edit]

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


Am I right to suspect that the upcoming occultation of Regulus by 163 Erigone belongs here rather than in eclipses? Jim.henderson (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

 Yes, eclipse as the name suggest is event related with obscuring of light from one heavenly body by another whereas occultation is an event that occurs when one object is hidden by another object. On 20 March 2014, Asteroid 163 Erigone is expected to occult the Star Regulus. Happy Skywatching! - Ninney (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

the military geography of the solar system[edit]

The solar system is an environment that affects human activities in this medium in many ways. One of these human activities are those that are classified as "military activities." The elements of the solar system that affects human activities, including military operations, will also affect all human activities in the solar system in general. The military geography of the solar system is, therefore, a metaphor for any human activities that will take place in the interplanetary medium and the celestial bodies that inhabit it. This is an analysis of the natural and cultural geographic factors that will affect all manner of human activity in the solar system.

the military geography of the solar system[edit]

The solar system is an environment that affects human activities in this medium in many ways. One of these human activities are those that are classified as "military activities." The elements of the solar system that affects human activities, including military operations, will also affect all human activities in the solar system in general. The military geography of the solar system is, therefore, a metaphor for any human activities that will take place in the interplanetary medium and the celestial bodies that inhabit it. This is an analysis of the natural and cultural geographic factors that will affect all manner of human activity in the solar system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

{{Lunar coords and quad cat}}[edit]

Template:Lunar coords and quad cat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for merger. -- (talk) 06:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

In defense of the Mars Ocean Hypothesis setting the historic record straight and awarding priority on this hypothesis to Brandenburg[edit]

Dear Wikipedia editors,

I commend you for setting the academic record straight and crediting me as the first person to propose the “Mars Paleo-Ocean Hypothesis”    as is the truth.  

No doubt you are being pressured by minions of JPL the Planetary Society and MSSS (Malin Space Science Systems) to change the Wikipedia article to either remove or minimize the importance of my 1986 “The Paleo-Ocean of Mars “ paper. You are facing this pressure because I am Cydonia Investigator.

 However, I  now provide more historic background on the paleo-ocean hypothesis, so you can understand my priority in this, which was established 28 years ago, in 1986. This is a dispute over the Academic  Integrity of Mars science in this country, nothing less. So please be steadfast. 

The Mars Paleo-Ocean hypothesis was presented in July 1986 at the MECA ( Mars: Evolution of its Climate and Atmosphere) Symposium at the Smithsonian Museum in Washington DC. I gave this oral talk, backed up by many view-graphs in July 1986 to an audience of approximately 300 of the nation’s leading Mars scientists. My extended abstract was part of the printed Proceedings handed out at the Conference. I did this at the personal urging of the late Mars scientist Hal Masursky. Title, Mars: Evolution of Its Climate and Atmosphere : Abstracts of a MECA Symposium Held in Washington on July 17-19, 1986. Issue 87, Part 1 of LPI technical ...

The extended abstract was published as part of the on-site symposium handout proceedings.

See page 11 and page 20-22 The Mars community, despite witnessing the talk and asking many questions afterwards, either treats the hypothesis as “ex nilhilito” ( out of the vacuum) or tries to credit Barbel Luchiita , ( a fine scholar and scientist who does not claim this hypothesis ) who spoke only of mud flows on the northern plains at the Lunar and Planetary science conference in March 1986

published nov 30 1986

While she speaks of the possibility of an ocean in the November 1986 JGR publication, this was only after my presentation at the MECA and my extended abstract publication in the on-site MECA conference proceedings.

Some also try to credit T.J. Parker

page 97 Who spoke in passing of “lakes and seas” on Mars at the same MECA Symposium in July 1986 , not an ocean filling the Northern Plains of Mars, just before my presentation.

The fact that the Mars community would participate in this “conspiracy of silence” for 28 years regarding the origin of the Mars Paleo-Ocean Hypothesis  shows the power of Money to corrupt academic integrity ( JPL  , whose management carries a vendetta against me because of my public role in the Cydonia investigations, as I indicated previously)

(JPL largely controls who gets Mars research grants) and also the bitter vehemence of the opponents of Cydonia investigations, such as held by everyone who works for MSSS (Malin Space Science Systems) , who is apparently JPLs favorite subcontractor.

Thus, Wikipedia has been drawn into a nasty little academic dispute over priority on Mars. However, its pettiness aside, this dispute is really about academic integrity and the nature of historic truth.

Therefore, be steadfast, and defend the truth as you can see reflected in the historic record, and do not give in to the forces of a “conspiracy of silence” on Mars. Be steadfast therefore and defend the truth.

Sincerely John Brandenburg PhD (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement![edit]

Today's Article For Improvement star.svg

Please note that Solar activity, 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 Community portal 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 Evad37 [talk] 00:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

"Solar Physics"[edit]

The usage of Solar Physics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Solar Physics (journal) -- (talk) 08:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal[edit]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention[edit]

This is a notice about Category:Solar System articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Moon-related images[edit]

FYI, several images on Commons have come up for discussion at WT:MOON that may be of interest to you. -- (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Earth and the definite article[edit]

There has been a discussion at Talk:Earth about whether or not to use the definite article when talking about planet Earth. That discussion has seen remarkably little input from people listed in this WikiProject. Anyone interested in chiming in? --JorisvS (talk) 12:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)