Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

Module:WikiProject banner/doc
This page is a soft redirect.

Astronomy in New Chronology (Fomenko)

We have an article on an eccentric historical theory New Chronology (Fomenko) which includes a section on relevant astronomical considerations. This section would benefit from knowledgeable attention -- criticism of claims and linking of astronomical terms. (It might possibly even be justified to apply the WikiProject Astronomy template to this article???) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 12:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The theory seems to exhibit racism, and euro-centrist supremacist bent... (only Europe from the Middle Ages onwards is "real" everything else is "fake") 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Should Cosmic infrared background be redirected?

Hey. This topic is totally out of my league, so that's why I'm asking here. Yesterday, an article called Cosmic infrared background was created. I redirected it to Cosmic microwave background radiation since that seemed to be the same topic, but the author reverted my edits and added more information. The infrared page is totally OR and unsourced, and I'm wondering if I was right in doing the redirect, or if it really is a separate topic. Can someone take a glance at that page and figure out where it has to go? Thanks! — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

They appear to be different topics, so I'd keep them separate. It's not surprising to me that a new page would be unsourced, but it looks like some have been added.—RJH (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for input - three articles

I'd like to request input for three articles: Natural satellite, Sub-brown dwarf, and Dwarf planet. The editor Yisraelasper has added some text regarding sub-brown dwarf objects, but I'm not convinced that the references support the assertions. Could someone please take a look at these pages and offer some expert input? Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like more than expert input. I want detail. I can't be too wrong here. I want a response by tomorrow.Yisraelasper —Preceding comment was added at 21:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Do they know you deleted what I put in?.[[User:Yisraelasper|Yisraelasper] —Preceding comment was added at 23:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If I don't get a response tomorrow I want exact details from you then.[[User:Yisraelasper|Yisraelasper] —Preceding comment was added at 23:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to compromise. I deserve to be told in detail what I supposedly haven't demonstrated. I deserve alternate suggestions for compromise. Maybe these aren't Wikipedia rules but they should help reduce deletions and edit wars and encourage people to contribute rather than scare them off.Yisraelasper —Preceding comment was added at 01:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I put all the rest of my stuff in but commented them out pending discussion.Yisraelasper

Forget the whole thing.Yisraelasper —Preceding comment was added at 19:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Limb

Hello. I put some comments under Talk:Limb darkening - the dab page Limb mentions astronomy but didn't link to a page. I tried to make it informative, but I couldn't find information to help me. Thanks! 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 18:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

systemic bias

I recently came across this, which is from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias#The_bias

Similarly, articles frequently take the perspective of a resident of the Northern Hemisphere and ignore the Southern Hemisphere perspective. Some articles on astronomy discuss the night sky as seen from the Northern Hemisphere without covering the Southern Hemisphere to a similar extent, and sometimes "not visible from the Northern Hemisphere" is used as a synonym of "not visible at all". Generally, Northern Hemisphere astronomical topics are covered in greater depth than Southern Hemisphere astronomy. Obscure constellations in the Northern sky such as Scutum and Camelopardalis are covered in more depth than prominent Southern constellations such as Grus and Carina.

Something to keep in mind while editing. --mikeu (talk) 03:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahaaaa...one for Sirius then.....which I am working up to FAC cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Blue blobs

Can someone take a look at the newly-created Blue blobs article? I know enough to know that the concept doesn't quite fit into the Star cluster article - or any of the other cluster articles comfortably, so if y'all can take a look? FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You know, they appear brilliantly blue in ultraviolet light doesn't make sense. Blue is not a UV colour. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Though both red and blue are often conveniently used in a relative sense, independent of any absolute frequency or wavelength; as a particular example, red-shift & blue-shift apply across the whole EM spectrum. Wwheaton (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It still doesn't make sense. And you wouldn't call them "blue blobs" if they're in the high freq end of UV spectrum, they'd be UV-blobs, EUV-blobs, or soft X-ray blobs. This isn't a relative color, it's an absolute color, since it's "blue blobs" 70.51.9.216 (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear why this material can't be included on the star cluster page, down in the "Astronomical significance" section.—RJH (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

We need to be more carefull about articles that are created with titles using slang or nicknames given by astronomers. Very often these names are not intended to be any kind of official name, and are just used to spice up the language in press releases or even in peer review papers. It is very confusing to someone unfamiliar with the topic as to the status of these names. This same term has also been used for a completely different type of object: "Recent Hubble Space Telescope (HST) images revealed that the 'fuzzy blue blobs' are low luminosity, often disturbed, spiral galaxies..." [1] A quick search on "blue blobs" and "galaxy" in google scholar gives 19 hits and many of these uses of the term are for different kinds of objects. There is another set of uses of this term seen by searching for "blub blobs" and "star cluster" with inconsistent usage. Do we really need new articles for every astronomical Thingamabob? --mikeu (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review for Sirius

Hi all, I am working up the Dog Star for FAC sometime soon and feel reasonably happy with content. Don't mind too much about modern pop cult refs at bottom, what I can't ref will go. The rest of the article I'd be happy to see what folks thought of it. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Roche limit

Anyone here know what the Roche limit is? Roche limit has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Reminder of the Philip Greenspun Illustration project

Hi. You may be familiar with the Philip Greenspun Illustration Project. $20,000 has been donated to pay for the creation of high quality diagrams for Wikipedia and its sister projects.

Requests are currently being taken at m:Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests and input from members of this project would be very welcome. If you can think of any diagrams (not photos or maps) that would be useful then I encourage you to suggest them at this page. If there is any free content material that would assist in drawing the diagram then it would be great if you could list that, too.

If there are any related (or unrelated) WikiProjects you think might have some suggestions then please pass this request over. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 16:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

VLT Survey Telescope

Anyone keen to cleanup and impove this article? I know littel about it. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Astronomy versus Astrophysics

This issue original discussed here has been raised again on on the Astrophysics talk page here. Presently, the astrophysics article is back again and not a redirect anymore to Astronomy. I think we should have an engaged discussion to bring this to a consensus one way or another. As I understand it, there are two positions:

• That today, Astronomy and Astrophysics are used interchangeably and thus should be one article. Support for this includes the fact that there are overlaps between the two articles and back in June 2007, Dr. Submillimeter moved "most of the useful non-duplicative material" into Astronomy.
• That historically, it is only a recent development that the two became interchangeable with Astronomy being a much older term. Therefore, a short separate article historically specific to astrophysics and distinguished from astronomy as a whole would be better than a redirect.

WilliamKF (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I know quite a few physicists (myself included) who have published on dark matter, cosmic rays, cosmic background, gravitational waves etc. who would barely pass or even fail most first year astronomy exams. Surely you can't call someone who studies the detection of gravitational waves using the future LISA detector but who doesn't know (anymore) what exactly a Hertzsprung Russell diagram is an "astronomer"?  :) Count Iblis (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I support the second position, as astronomy should be a generalized article, while astrophysics should cover the development of astrophysics. Afterall, astronomy is a wide field, and not all of it is in astrophysics, nor is all of it professional, and some of it is astrology related. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Coverage of early astronomy looks badly out of place in the current astrophysics article. As a naive reader, I would expect that article to cover the history of astrophysics, starting perhaps with Newton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdsds (talk • contribs) 16:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I must admit I was shocked when I first discovered that Astrophysics was a redirect to Astronomy. I realise that from the perspective of professional astronomers, astrophysics and astronomy may be synonymous, but that is not at all the impression that one has from outside the field. To an outsider it feels a bit like making Theoretical physics a redirect to Experimental physics. Astronomy, to my mind, is strongly associated with observation and inference from observation, whereas astrophysics is associated with theoretical models (how do stars work? and so on). I realise this is an oversimplification, and probably historically inaccurate, but I think the distinction is enough to justify having two separate articles, not one redirecting to the other. Geometry guy 23:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Wow. I just read what you guys are talking about and it doesn't seem right at all that Astrophysics should redirct. I am not an expert but within the next few days I am going to gather some sources and begin the face-lift on Astrophysics. Ziros (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Thanks for the Astrophysics article revival. I was quite irritated about the relink, though Astronomie and Astrophysics are often used as synonyms, some cleary separation can be made. While Astronmie covers optical observations, planetary motions and so on, the main topics of Astrophysics are obeservation beyond the optical band, starting from the discovering of the CMB, Infrared, Radio and X-Ray observation and more earlier the theoretical works of Chandraskhar. So please let Astrophysics alive ! (Sheliak (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

• Comment—Is the difference intended to be theoretical (Astrophysics) versus observational (Astronomy)? It is comparable to theoretical versus experimental physics. If that is not the case, then what exactly is the difference? My experience was that astronomy and physics are so intertwined as to be virtually inseparable, from an astronomy perspective. I definitely disagree that Astrophysics is Astronomy outside the optical band. Astronomy covers the entire EM band, as well as neutrinos, cosmic rays and direct samples. How can it not? I thought astrophysics was the theoretical underpinnings that explained physics behind the observations.—RJH (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment—To put in my two cents, in the modern, professional sense, there really isn't any significant difference between Astronomy and Astrophysics. There are those who tend towards one end or the other, in particular there are probably many astrophysicists who have never really used a telescope directly. Of course, it's possible the same thing could be said of some people who might go under the category of astronomers. But no modern professional astronomer can not know a good deal of physics, and astrophysicists can't remove themselves that far from observation (if they ever want to test their models, at least :) ). That being said, there are amateur astronomers who are not also amateur astrophysicists (not leastwise because it's hard to be an "amateur" physicist of any kind... :) ). And, moreover, historically the difference was important, when astronomers were observers who were not really physicists of any kind (Brahe comes to mind) and astrophysicists were pretty much physicists or mathematicians who never really touched the observational side (Kepler, who used Brahe's data). So probably there should be two articles, reflecting these differences yet stressing that in the modern, professional sense the difference is more or less moot. DAG (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment—The two fields have distinct histories and one hundred years ago the distinction between the two fields was much clearer. The work of classifying stellar spectra around one hundred years ago, even though using visible light, was clearly recognized at the time as part of the new field of astrophysics and not traditional astronomy as it was regarded at that time. Even today, it's reasonable to expect that an astrophysicist is even more likely than an astronomer to work with computer simulations, and somewhat less likely to be familiar with the maintenance and manipulation of expensive telescopes and other data-collection devices. As someone else pointed out, it's rather like the (traditionally very strong) distinction between theoretical physics and experimental physics. Even though nearly all contemporary astronomers are also astrophysicists and vice versa, I was relieved to see the restoration of an independent astrophysics article. --arkuat (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: My view, as stated at Talk:Astrophysics (where I think this debate should be), is that since 50 other languages still having separate articles for Astrophysics, and over 500 articles linking there, it looks as if there is not really a consensus for the redirect and that a large number of people see a distinction. Moreover, the merge has contaminated the Astronomy article, which now contains a POV description of why they could (implying should) be considered equivalent, even though there is plenty of Astronomy which not usually called Astrophysics. The loss of a separate article on Astrophysics is a little like deciding to redirect Physics to Science as all science is really physics (chemistry is really about electrons, which is physics, and biology is about interactions of physical entities). Astronomy should be a general accessible article, and Astrophysics should be more detailed and specific.--Rumping (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment there is such a thing as archeoastronomy, which is not astrophysics. Astronomy is larger than astrophysics, isn't cosmology a subfield of astronomy? Yet it has a separate article. What about off-Earth geology & geography? (selenology & selenography, areology & areography, etc) 70.55.84.253 (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Going boldly forth, I just put in a try at this issue on the List of basic astronomy topics page under the leading, "Essence of astronomy" section, that attempts to make a rough division on an axis that is sort of on the "uninterpreted observation" vs "unobserved interpretation" scale. Feel free to shoot holes in it. Something early on in the Astrophysics article along similar lines might be useful. I feel that the two are so intertwined that neither is a proper subfield of the other, since the fraction of papers nowadays that could be called "pure astronomy" is small, and the fraction that are "pure astrophysics" (ie irrelevant to observation) is probably even smaller. The current Astrophysics article does start out saying that astrophysics is a subfield of astronomy, which is strictly hard to gainsay; yet the distinction still seems helpful for a naive reader who might be puzzled. I do think there have to be two separate articles, as there are; but coordinated thoughtfully to avoid useless duplication. I have also noted this on the Talk:Astrophysics talk page. Wwheaton (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Partial lunar eclipses

People here may be interested i the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/16 August 2008 lunar eclipse. I've said there what i think needs saying. DGG (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ganymede's FA

The article is now FA candidate. Please, participate. Ruslik (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Stub, Start, and B articles

What is the process for reviewing articles of these lower ratings?

In particular, I've been looking into 2007 WD5, a former DYK topic. The article is still rated stub. It might not be ready for GA, but I think it has outgrowth its stub rating. Dspark76 (talk) 11:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

For going from stub to start, be bold, make the change if it needs to be fixed. I've updated 2007 WD5 to now be start assessment. As for a B articles, I think there is a more formal process. WilliamKF (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Astronomy category renames

user:Sardanaphalus has suggested at WP:CFD to rename Category:Astronomical templates to Category:Astronomy templates, Category:Astronomical infobox templates to Category:Astronomy infobox templates, Category:Astronomical navigation templates to Category:Astronomy infobox templates. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 20:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject Microscopy

I know there used to be a WikiProject Telescopes that was merged into this one, so I figure this might be of interest to a few folks here – I've recently proposed the creation of a WikiProject on Microscopy. If interested, add your name here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Microscopy. Peter G Werner (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

List of space telescopes

I should probably have mentioned a few days ago that List of space telescopes is a Featured List Candidate. Comments are welcome. Mike Peel (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Need some help on Clyde Tombaugh

Can someone come up with a definitive list of the asteroids discovered by Tombaugh, and a citation to boot? They've been changed recently and I have no idea which version to believe. Mangoe (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a definitive list, but there are a couple of sources you can use to confirm the current list. The JPL Small-Body Database Browser includes the discoverer of each of the bodies. If that doesn't work, you might check your local libraries to see if they have a copy of "Dictionary of Minor Planet Names".—RJH (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Celestial coordinates

Geographical articles have long had geodata tags which generate links to a variety of geographic data sources. Would it be possible to do something similar for astronomical objects, using the existing data in templates to provide links into sky browsers and other astronomical data resources? -- The Anome (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

We have a couple of sets of templates to do something like this already, but they're pretty basic. If there's the interest, it might be worth reworking them so that they do the job properly. We currently have {{RA}} and {{DEC}}, as well as {{EqCoor}} (along with {{EqCoor-RA}} and {{EqCoor-Dec}}. Mike Peel (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Presumably {{RA}} and {{DEC}} do the same job as {{EqCoor-RA}} and {{EqCoor-Dec}}, so we could change all the infoboxes using these to use {{EqCoor}}? At that point, the internal implementation of {{EqCoor}} could then be changed to add the linking mechanism to all of these articles at once.

On review: I see that someone has already tried to create a system for doing this at {{EqCoor}}. I can also see why the conversion to a single template has not yet been made: the templates currently embedding the RA/DEC templates include other elements such as references, so untangling them would be non-trivial, requiring a fair bit of careful coding and testing by the bot operator to do so safely. Without a better landing page for {{EqCoor}}, there's also little incentive for doing so. The creation of a better landing page for {{EqCoor}} would thus seem to be the easiest path for making it attractive for someone to go and convert the rest of the astronomy infoboxes. -- The Anome (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that we create a fork of {{Coord}}, and modify it to suite astronomy - i.e. convert it to RA, Dec and epoch, and possibly set up an "astrohack" page, similar to geohack (I'm a bit wary about linking to the WikiSky page, as that's outside our control...). It may be worth getting the people who created the Coord template involved with this, as they'll know the existing setup best. {{AstroCoord}} would be a fairly logical name, methinks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'd prefer to keep the RA and Dec. on separate lines, as the entries can get pretty lengthy. But perhaps a combined template could be used to link both lines? (I.e. use a flag to spit out the RA or Dec., as appropriate.) The solution wuld also need to work with multi-star systems that can have different RA/Dec. for each star.—RJH (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

FAR for Hubble Space Telescope

Hubble Space Telescope has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Kaypoh (talk) 05:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Archaeoastronomy

Hi all, this is a request for comments on the Archaeoastronomy article which is listed under this and a few other WikiProjects. It used to be a good article, then it was reassessed. It's been re-written. Suggestions for improvements to regain GA status and move on further are extremely welcome.

In particular you may want to examine the article for POV. There is an argument put forward that current article is biased in a way that the previous version was not. You may want to see the Talk Page for more on that. Sometimes an outsider's view can bring a fresh perspective on such arguments.

Thanks, Alunsalt (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC at Archaeoastronomy

The discussion mentioned above has developed into a formal Rfc. Further comments are welcome.

Thanks, SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It's now at NOR/N

The discussion has now moved further to the No original research noticeboard. Any light that could be shed on this problem would be appreciated.

SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Help needed in discussion at WP:WSS/P

Hi all - ClueBotII's been making thousands of stub articles on Asteroids, and Category:Asteroid stubs is now enormous. I've made a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals as to splitting it, but it would be good to get some input from this project as to what is the best way to split them up. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems that thousands of asteroids ought to go into a table, not an article each. I assume we have only orbital elements, photometry, spectral classification, family membership, maybe a rotation period, and some references for most of these, with some derived information like estimated size? That would not keep us from having articles for hundreds of more notable ones. And really, the table might well be a link or links to the Minor Planet Center or JPL, where they make a living handling massive numbers of objects whose data are constantly updated. I don't think Wiki editors ought to compete with those guys. Wwheaton (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

As a further thought I might add is that (as for supernovae) this problem is only going to get worse  with time and technology's advance. Of course the information technology that allows a huge encyclopedia will advance too, but the human effort available (and needed generate an article, as opposed to a table entry) will surely not increase so fast. Wwheaton (talk) 06:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

We do have List of minor planets, which currently goes up to 182000. Perhaps it would make sense to just change many of the stub asteroid articles into redirects to the appropriate sub-list page, then include an external link to the appropriate JPL Small-Body Database Browser entry? The only asteroid pages we would then need to maintain are the articles that expand on the database entry.—RJH (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:WPAstronomy update

Please verify that my (bugfix) updates are ok to be implemented. See Template talk:WPAstronomy. -- Sverdrup (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Nebular hypothesis

The article has been nominated for peer review. Please, participate. Ruslik (talk) 09:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Galactic core

Hi, galactic core currently redirects to active galactic nucleus. Maybe Galactic Center would be a better target... What do you think? I'm asking because in the Known Space stories of Larry Niven, the Galactic Center is often referred to as the galactic core. --Kjoonlee 15:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The "Galactic Center" seems to be used for the Milky Way's core, whereas I usually see "galactic core" in the more general context of an organized galaxy's midsection. AGN should be a subsection of the more general "galactic core" topic. It seems like "galactic core" should have it's own article.—RJH (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Religion and astronomy

I've mentioned this on the religion project, and thought I would do so here too. It seems to me like a good topic for an article, though I don't know enough about either to even attempt to write one. What do you think? Richard001 (talk) 05:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes it may be. The two are interlinked, historically. I know there are a number of faiths with traditions that are drawn from astronomical observation and even meteorites. You might take a look at the History of astronomy page and see if a separate, parallel article could be developed.—RJH (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Mercury Featured Article Review

Mercury (planet) has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Kaldari (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Nebular hypothesis

I have nominated this article to featured article. Ruslik (talk) 10:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Lilith (hypothetical moon) needs your help

I think that the article Lilith (hypothetical moon) would benefit from attention by astronomy buffs.

"Lilith is a hypothetical natural satellite of Earth whose existence is not supported by scientific evidence."

-- Writtenonsand (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

M-100

At Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rocketry, there is discussion on moving M-100 (rocket) on top of M-100 at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rocketry/Titles. 70.55.84.13 (talk) 05:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

WMAP 5-year CMB image nominated for Featured Picture

I should probably have mentioned earlier that I've nominated the WMAP 5-year image of the Cosmic Microwave Background, Image:WMAP 2008.png, for Featured Picture status at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:WMAP 2008.png. To date it's received a mixture of support and oppose votes. Mike Peel (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

First supernova seen exploding

News alert: SN 2008D is the first supernova seen while its explosion began. -- SEWilco (talk) 02:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That's great news! Was it visible to the naked eye, or was it only up in space? Cheers, Razorflame 02:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

At ~88 million light years (in NGC2770) according to the NY Times article, it cannot have been visible to the naked eye, though 100 billion times the luminosity of the Sun (at what time, or in what wavelength band, is not stated). And the initial X-ray flash was on Jan 9 last, so it must be well past optical maximum now. Wwheaton (talk) 05:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Too bad! This is still an amazing feat! Cheers, Razorflame 19:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject project page rebuild required.

After visiting the project page, I realised that the page is very outdated (e.g. the list of featured articles). I would like to update this, but also would like to update the general format to a format that would be easier to maintain. (See Wikipedia:ANIME for an example what I have in mind). Would there be any objections to this? (Please indicate with support or oppose) G.A.S 06:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I created the current style of the project page. While it does need a refresh / update, I'd prefer to keep the overall visual style, as I think that it is easier to browse than that used at the Anime project. I would have no objections to the section content being moved onto a single page of wikicode, though. Mike Peel (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I went ahead and revamped the project page in the same style as before, but tidying/condensing it a little. I'd welcome opinions and suggestions (and/or direct modifications) that anyone might have for improving the page. Mike Peel (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems much better now:) Thanks you. G.A.S 12:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Please can you claim these pages!

Hi, a few days ago, User:Keeper76 kindly began helping me with a small project to hopefully improve content - starting to offload the list of pages on Wikipedia that are not being watched by anybody. This means not only are they prime targets for vandalism, but they are also unlikely to improve. In the course of the first couple of dozens articles, I found these, which are tagged as being within your scope:

10004 Igormakarov 10007 Malytheatre 10009 Hirosetanso 10021 Henja 10024 Marthahazen 10029 Hiramperkins 10034 Birlan

Could some people from this wikiproject please watchlist these, as I am currently the only person watching them! Also,I hope to be able to continue this work in a few weeks, and I expect that the early stuff will include a lot of asteroids, etc. Can I ask if I am able to continue trying to offload these onto you? Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

On the theory that none of these asteriods are of passionate interest to anyone, and therefore changes will be few and far between, I have added them all to my watch list. I don't know anything about them, of course, but I could perhaps detect arrant vandalism. If it gets too labor intensive, I will have to drop them, but I'll let you know if so. I suppose the sensible thing to do would be to keep track of the users who make substantive changes to each, as potentially interested future watchers to solicit as caretakers.

We have lately had discussions here about whether these high-numbered asteroids are notable enough to merit individual articles at all, rather than just a line in a table somewhere (preferably at Harvard MPC or JPL, where people get paid to keep track of them). Notice that the problem is going to get a lot worse now that there is a funded program to find all the objects bigger than some small size (few hundred meters?) that might be collision threats. Twenty years ago there were only a few thousand numbered asteroids, but I think now it is getting up towards 100,000 or more. Wwheaton (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have been wondering how such articles would be expanded, especially given the rumblings I've been hearing in the academic community about getting more and more of them classified. I guess it'll be something to think about. In the meantime, I'll (eventually) try gathering more of them up and handing them over on the basis that at least then you know what you have to work with! Many thanks for watchlisting these Fritzpoll (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, quite frankly, I don't think they can be expanded given what information there is available. What is worse, the JPL Small Bodies Database Browser is actually the better choice for looking up these asteroids.—RJH (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yikes

I just looked in on the Granat article, which is a fine thing, but with the best will in the world, I noticed and fixed several errors in there. I have the good fortune[? a mixed blessing, to be sure] to have worked in gamma-ray astronomy for a number of years. It is not reasonable to expect a non-expert editor to be able to catch all of these (one was propagated from a GSFC web page document). Details of experimental technology are kind of an arcane subject, and I am grateful that there is a GRANAT article of such quality. (NASA's HEAO Program satellites need a lot of work still....) So I congratulate those responsible. Still, I hope we can get other experienced folks to help out with proofreading etc, as I have only given it a cursory once-over, and suppose there must be other cases out there waiting to be discovered. Wwheaton (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Cosmic distance ladder vs Extragalactic Distance Scale vs Standard candle

On May 1, the Extragalactic Distance Scale article was created and it significantly overlaps the 2002 created Cosmic distance ladder article. To make things worse, we also have overlaps with 2003 created standard candle. Please help discuss and possibly merge or cleanup these articles at the discussion here. WilliamKF (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

International Year of Astronomy 2009

All,

For those of you that don't know, 2009 has been proclaimed to be the International Year of Astronomy, celebrating the 400th anniversary of the telescope. A whole load of astronomy-related events around the world are currently being planned for that year. It would be good if we could tie into this on the various wikimedia websites (wikipedia, wikinews, commons, etc.), both to help with the aims of the international year, and to spur extra improvements to Wikipedia's coverage of astronomy.

There are a variety of things that we could do, most of which we do already to some extent:

• Get more people involved with editing astronomy articles (and hence learning astronomy as they go along). By "people", I mean the "general public" as well as amateur and professional astronomers.
• Improve astronomy-related articles, getting them to FA- and GA-status
• Organize groups of articles and get them to featured topic status
• Get more astronomy pictures recognized as featured pictures both here and on the Commons (this one should be easy)
• Make astronomy more visible on the home page, including FA's, DYK's, news events, anniversaries and featured pictures.
• Get Portal:Astronomy (and other astronomy-related portals) to featured portal status, and keep it (them) as fresh and up-to-date as possible throughout 2009 and beyond.
• Improve astronomy event coverage on Wikinews (Astronomy is currently lumped under "Space", and apparently the recent supernova was a North American event: see [2])
• React swiftly to any coverage of (or high-profile links to) any astronomy articles, improving them if needed.

This wikiproject is the obvious place to coordinate all of this from. There are a couple of things that we could do to spur things on that we don't currently do:

• Set some project aims (e.g. some combination of the general ones above in the long term, and more specific ones in the short term)
• Have a newsletter to keep everyone informed about what's going on (and help motivate them)
• Have an astronomy collaboration of the week
• Reach out into the Real World, e.g. posters at conferences (both scientific and technological, for example outreach conferences, general astronomy conferences, Wikimania, ...), encouraging news articles about astronomy on wikipedia, ...
• <insert your ideas here>

What does everyone think about this? We have 7 months before 2009, which should be more than enough to set things up and have them ticking over. Mike Peel (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It think this is a very good idea, although it does seem like a lot of work. A template on the talk pages of astronomy related articles pointing to the International Year of Astronomy or specifically the wikiproject activities may be a good thing to create also? It could say for example, 2009 is the international year of astronomy, to get involved see ... Jdrewitt (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. As this occasion is marking the 500th anniversary of Galileo Galilei's use of the telescope for astronomy, would it not make sense to bring his article up to FA status? In particular, he first demonstrated the telescope on August 25, 1609, so that would be a good day for front page coverage.—RJH (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be marvellous! Jdrewitt (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Galileo has been nominated at Wikipedia:WikiProject_History_of_Science/Collaboration_of_the_Month#Galileo_Galilei.—RJH (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Photometric system

Added a lot of filters and filter letters to this page. Asking for a review for the accuracy. Majority of the items are sited. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 00:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Is Olin J. Eggen the same person who did the Eggen filter, I_e & R_e. I cannot verify this. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Asteroid articles

This should also on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects, so I have taken the liberty of copying it over there. Wwheaton (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

And I've taken the liberty of deleting the thread here, so we don't have a fork going. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#Asteroid articles. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Terminology: "strong", etc

Folks,

I just put the following notice on the Wikipedia discussion page for the disambiguation of "strong", and I hope others in astronomy and the sciences might want to join in:

There is a common usage in the sciences and otherwise which I think needs some reference in this disambiguation page. It came up when I described an X-ray source as "one of the strongest in the sky", with reference to Cygnus X-1 (up for FA status), and it was pointed out that this would likely be accused of vagueness.

The term is used in astronomy instead of "bright", which really only applies to optical sources, visible with the human eye, like stars and planets. Outside the visible range (eg, radio, microwave, infrared, ultraviolet, X-ray, gamma-ray, neutrino, gravitational wave, etc), "strong" is so firmly established that I think it would take and act of the IAU and of Congress as well to change it. In astronomy "strong", like "bright", always refers to the apparent signal from the point of view of the observer, not the absolute strength regardless of distance effects, etc (which is called "luminosity" in astronomy). I think among naive non-astronomers this bit of jargon might not be immediately clear, but it is completely clear in context even to amateur star gazers. I think it would be clear also to anyone in the context of description from another planet or another star, as describing observation from a particular site,and perhaps even under particular conditions.

But more generally, in many of the sciences, signals are ranked by visibility (or more generally, observability) from "strong" to "weak". This would apply, for example, to sounds, to spectral lines (observed either in emission or absorption), to statistical effects like correlations, and surely many others -- even emotions. I believe this usage, for perceptions of many kinds, is clear far beyond the sciences.

Therefore, I would propose adding a class, with many sub-classes, relating to perception or signal detection, in which the critical axis is detectability relative to other observable effects of similar kind. I hope that this categorization might trickle through to editorial criteria, so as to allow the term (and also "weak", its opposite) to be used in such contexts without criticism for vagueness when no more precise description is really called for. (One could for example describe a cosmic X-ray source precisely in terms of its flux in SI units of Janskys [watts per square meter per second per Hertz], at a certain time (since most vary), at certain defined energy, but I really think this would be more opaque, not more clear, for most readers than just saying "one of the strongest sources in the sky".)

I have checked Mirriam Webster on-line, and see some examples that would be described under this "relative detectability" criterion, but no generalization that covers many cases, other than (perhaps) "not weak".

Best, Wwheaton (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering if there are references somewhere for the material on the Strong (source) page? I think it could use a couple. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it could indeed. I do not know any off the top of my head, but it is my experience that this usage is universally used and understood in the broad scientific community, not just among astronomers, both verbally and in the literature. And I did not see it in Wiktionary either, though I did check there. I was hoping to turn up some instances by posting the note here and on the "strong" disambig page. Probably the best place to look would be in some texts of signal detection, electronics, experimental physics, etc. If anyone has a copy of the OED that would help.

A Google search on {"strong signal"} gets 979K hits, on {"strong source"} only gets 115K, {"strong source" astronomy} gets 29,200, {"strong source" physics} gets 14,300, {"strong source" electronics} gets 11,300. {"strong signal" electronics} gets 128K. BUT -- is this WP:OR?!? Here is where I have trouble with the OR policy. I know I can find many examples of the usage I claim is common -- but I would not know where to begin to find an article (? in philology ??) that explicitly articulates and documents my claim that it is widespread. Bollixed, Wwheaton (talk) 00:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately opinions can sometimes be the most frustrating information to cite. But sometimes Google Books can be a good source, or else there's the "By way of example..." approach.—RJH (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Minimum mass has been prodded

Minimum mass has been placed at WP:PROD. This article is about exoplanet minimum estimated detected mass. 70.51.11.156 (talk) 04:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This article appears to be linked in a number of articles. I'm not sure that deletion would be the best course of action. Perhaps it could be merged somewhere?—RJH (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Article assessment

• Black hole is currently listed as an A class article.
• This was assessment was given after the FAR (diff), and later reconfirmed on 2007-01-10 (diff).
• On 2007-04-27 the article was listed as a candidate for "Wikipedia 1.0", confirming its status as A class. (diff).
• On 2006-12-27 the article was submitted as a good article nominee, but failed. (Mainly due to problems with citations - it is unclear to me why it was submitted to GA nomination, as A class is technically higher than GA class (WP:ASSESS—"Good articles that may succeed in FAC should be considered A-Class articles, but having completed the Good article designation process is not a requirement for A-Class.").)
• What should the assessment for the article be then? There was no formal review to classify it as A class, and it failed GA class.
• It does seem though that most of the issues might have been addressed (changes since GA failed).
• Should the article be resubmitted for GA nomination?
• G.A.S 05:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I take the approach that if an article is/should be good enough to put it through the Good Article process, then it should be nominated as there's no harm in doing so. It is often very useful to get an additional perspective on how well structured, formatted, etc. that the article is. While "A" class is technically higher, it is not a formally reviewed classification as GA is.

We could institute some sort of formal process for rating an article A-class, e.g. that it has to be approved by members here before it can be rated as such. We'd have to be careful about how we interact with other wikiprojects that have "claimed" the article, though. Mike Peel (talk) 09:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Large chunks of this article are not even cited. I also see conflicts with the MoS. There are too many brief sections that should be merged and multiple bulleted lists that should be in prose. Black hole should be a B-class article.—RJH (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Reassessed as B class. Note that there are discussions re a possible C class rating at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. G.A.S 10:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Rings of Uranus

I submitted this article for a peer review. You can comment here. Ruslik (talk) 08:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

New image of Galaxy

Old artist's conception of the Milky Way's structure, with too many spiral arms. (Now replaced with new image.)

The widely-used artist's conception of the Milky Way Galaxy (based on the GLIMPSE project of NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope) has gotten an update, announced at this press conference. Any objection if I replace the old image with the new one, or is there a good reason to keep the old one around as well?

The old image was designed to showcase the bar of the Milky Way when its presence was firmly established by the GLIMPSE team in 2005 (press release), but was deficient in that little care was taken in the placement of the spiral arms. Therefore, the old image has far more, better-defined spiral arms than we think are there in reality. ASHill (talk | contribs) 13:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That image is the new one, not the old one. Serendi^podous 07:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and made the replacement. ASHill (talk | contribs) 04:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Why replace the image at "Milky Way 2005" with one from 2008? Why not call the new image "Milky Way 2008", or ssc2008-10, which is what NASA calls it? If it is the intention that this reference should always point to the most current conception, then its name should not include a time reference! I vote that the previous image be restored, and that the new image be uploaded under a different name. --Nike (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the filename is awkward. However, the old (2005) image is inaccurate and misleading (for the reasons I mentioned above), and I know of no case in which simply replacing it with the 2008 one is not an improvement—the images were both produced by the same team with the same essential purpose. The image is widely used, so it's easier to make that replacement by keeping the same name. Perhaps moving the image file and redirecting Image:Milky Way 2005.jpg to the new filename is a better option? ASHill (talk | contribs) 16:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Super Galaxy

Super Galaxy has been nominated for deletion. 74.15.104.182 (talk) 06:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)