Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

Standard assumptions in astrodynamics

Prod'd based on talk page. In retrospect, this is related to the above note.—RJH (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This is now up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standard assumptions in astrodynamics . 70.29.208.247 (talk) 06:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing astronomy topics

I've updated my list of missing astronomy topics - Skysmith (talk) 13:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting list you have there; much larger than Wikipedia:Requested articles/Natural sciences/Astronomy and cosmology, for example. But I'm not sure that all of them would necessarily deserve an article. ("16-inch Telescope" for example.) Others could perhaps be satisfied with a redirect, such as "Laplace's nebular hypothesis", or maybe a glossary entry.—RJH (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Age of solar system? Shouldn't that be Age of the Solar System?

X-ray background radiation - we already have that... X-ray background

Double Cluster in Perseus -- we already have that, see Double Cluster

HLIRG means Hyperluminous infrared galaxy, and it is contained in the article for LIRGs (luminous infrared galaxy) which also contains the ULIRG info. That should just redirect there.

Lyman-break galaxy already exists, just redirect Lyman break galaxy there.

dE galaxy, we have that, dwarf elliptical galaxy, just redirect it there.

Sagittarius dwarf spheroidal galaxy, we have that, Sag dSph, see Sagittarius Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy, just redirect it there

United Theory of Active Galaxies -- the unified model is in the active galaxy article

AO620-OO -- that just looks wrong. Don't you mean A0620-00 or something?

Circinus X-I -- that's just wrong. It's Circinus X-1

Planet pulsar -- do you mean pulsar planet ?

Contact Binary Star Envelopes -- do you mean contact binary or common envelope ?

Pulsating star -- do you mean variable star ?

Ae star -- that just doesn't look like an "individual star"

h and Chi Persei -- do you mean NGC 884 ?

Superterrestrial -- do you mean Super-Earth ?

Muses-A mission -- that's a space probe, and it already has an article, see MUSES-A

Mercury-Atlas 11 & Mercury-Atlas 12 should redirect to Project Mercury - there were cancelled.

65.94.253.16 (talk) 06:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I also think Algenic is supposed to be Algenib. Reyk _YO! 09:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Several things seem to be mispelt. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I would not be surprised. You are welcome to fix the spelling - Skysmith (talk) 07:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Some more articles that probably need not exist, all pulled from the astronomical terminology section after I went through and created redirects where appropriate.

• Day number
• Density classes, density class
• Hubble-bandage variable (your list is the only thing that comes up in a google search using quotes)
• Magnitude at opposition (I think the two terms separately are enough)
• Mean parallax (this is nothing more than the mean of multiple parallax measurements, so far as I know)
• Number count (unnecessary)
• Planuloid (or at least it does not belong on an astronomy list, from what google turned up)
• Position astronomy (unless this is actually something, but I do not think it is)
• Recurrent hove (I am guessing this is a typo?)
• Star trail (unless you want to redirect astrophotography, but that seems unnecessary to me)
• Telescope time (this is self explanatory, and if not, use "time on a telescope")
• Telescopic object
• Wide field (also self explanatory)

James McBride (talk) 08:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - Skysmith (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think Hubble-bandage variable is likely a typo for Hubble-Sandage variable, which probably should have an article. Scog (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Augh. So it is - Skysmith (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Star

Template:Star portal It has been nominated for featured portal status, come and give your comments. --Extra999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 06:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion at Talk:Seki Kōwa

Please come participate in the move discussion at Talk:Seki Kōwa#Move discussion. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Earth citations needed

There are currently five figures in the "Orbital characteristics" part of Earth's infobox that are uncited. This shouldn't be the case on a Featured Article. If anyone could provide citations, that would very helpful. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Done.—RJH (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:Astronomy-nav

FYI, {{Astronomy-nav}} has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Moons of Saturn

I nominated this article for Featured List status. The review page is here. Ruslik_Zero 12:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Cirrus (astronomy)

I was looking at the cirrus disambiguation page, and there doesn't seem to be an article for the interstellar/galactic/local cirrus. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a stubby Infrared cirrus article.—RJH (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Book:Galaxies

I just gave this book an overhaul (previously it was just a list of galaxies, now it's a book on galaxies in general). If someone could double-check that I didn't forget something, that would be nice. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

stub templates

FYI, someone has been messing around with the stub templates in the last few days.

I've reverted most of the changes, as they have not been discussed, and I think the change is for the worse.

The templates affected were

• {{astronomy-stub}}
• {{observatory-stub}}
• {{mars-stub}}
• {{crater-stub}}

• the change for "crater" seems for the better, so I left it, pending further discussion here.
• I replaced the satellite TV dish that was implemented at "observatory" with an observatory dome pic.
• I reverted the change to astronomy that made it look like WP:WikiProject Space's logo.
• I reverted the change to Mars, IMHO it was not for the better.

70.29.208.247 (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all but the Mars image. The transparent icon of Mars seemed fine to me. Is there a rendering issue?—RJH (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, for me, it's fuzzy all along the edge of the globe, while the black backgrounded one is crisp. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The white background image seems nice and crisp to me. Maybe you are using a different font size than I and that is causing the transparent background image to rescale to match? That can make it look ugly.—RJH (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm the one responsible for all this, I didn't realize there was a single project handling these stubs. I believe that images with transparency should be used whenever possible for the reasons I gave at Template talk:Astronomy-stub#New image, transparency allows an image to blend seamlessly with a page regardless of background color. I don't see a problem with the transparent Mars image, it looks crisp for me. Also see Template talk:Observatory-stub#New thumbnail for my recommendation of a monochromatic image for {{Observatory-stub}}
--Gyrobo (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Caldwell catalogue

I just created Book:Caldwell catalogue and {{Caldwell catalogue}}. Any feedback?

Also, I made a bot request so that Calwell objects are tagged with the navbox and the relevant categories. I doubt there will be any objections, but I'm mentioning it here just to be sure (and on WP:ASTRO). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Mars' FPR

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