Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

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.

Popular pages?

I was curious about which Astronomy articles get the most page views. Falsikon's overview lists the top ten (for November at the moment). I also submitted this request here (needs Google account) for Mr.Z-man's article popularity bot to run on this project. I do not know if this has been done before here, or whether it is even wanted, but if the bot runs I guess the results should appear in Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Popular pages (when the redlink turns blue). For an existing example see Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Popular pages. A list of other projects that have had Popular pages added by Mr.Z-bot can be searched for here (search for "popularity"). Would a link to the top ten list be useful at the project page, somewhere need the assessments table maybe? 84user (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be a good idea to set up the same for WP Solar System and WP Astronomical Objects as well... 76.66.198.171 (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I have just made these requests:

• [1] requests Wikipedia:WikiProject Solar System/Popular pages for Wikipedia:WikiProject Solar System;
• [2] requests Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Popular pages for Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects

Meanwhile Zman has responded here to say that Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Popular pages is added to the list and will start with January. I guess that means sometime in February Mr.Z-bot will put January's pageview results in that redlinked page. If I have understood Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects (WP AO) classification correctly, each WP AO article's Talk page should already have Template:WPAstronomy as the banner, and therefore it should get included in the Astronomy Popular pages. But I see some articles in Wikipedia:WikiProject Solar System use {{WPSS}} and others, like Talk:Solar System, use {{WPSpace}}. I have asked Zman whether I have given sufficient information in my requests and whether it matters that some articles have more than one project banner. 84user (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think some of the astronomy and astronomical object pages also use the WPSpace banner. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 07:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Macula (planetary geology)

Macula (planetary geology) has been nominated for deletion at WP:AFD 76.66.196.229 (talk) 07:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal of Nebula and Interstellar cloud

here is a place to discuss whether the two pages should be merged. Seems like a good idea but not an expert in the area. If not a good idea, then a few pointers can quickly discuss and archive it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Asteroid stubs

There's a few thousand of them, in Category:Main Belt asteroid stubs and the related asteroid stub categories. I think most of them (over 95%) should be deleted because of a lack of wp:Notability. Perhaps this has been discussed before. Debresser (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes it's been discussed a few times, but there hasn't been a consensus formed so I think we just set it aside.—RJH (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think any asteroid discovered before the advent of astrophotography should be kept. Anything that has been imaged by radar, anything imaged/studied by a spaceprobe, any used by a a goodly portion of the astrological community (if there is any besides the first few asteroids and Chiron)... 76.66.196.229 (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there's heaps of them and very few have more to them than "12345 Random is a main belt asteroid. It was discovered by Joseph X. Bloggs at the Mt. Somewhere observatory" and then an infobox containing its orbital parameters and whatnot. Most of them, in my opinion, lack notbaility and violate our policy of Wikipedia not being a directory orindiscriminate collection of data. I think these rocks require some source that goes beyond the mere fact of its existence before they should have an article. Otherwise, merge them into a list and have an external link to the JPL asteroid database whose job actually is to list every bit of data on every known asteroid. Reyk _YO! 07:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. All numbered asteroids are generally notable, because they have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There is no reason to delete them. You can see these AFDs:

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_asteroids,

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_asteroids/120901–121000,

where arguments based on WP:NOT were rejected. Or this one

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/(90569)_2004_GY14 (you can find other AFD as well).

The general opinion is that asteroids are natural objects, and as such they are probably inherently notable. They are not songs, people or companies, which can appear or disappear at any time, they have existed for billions years. Ruslik (talk) 08:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that you refer to deletion proposals of lists. That's precisely what was suggested, to put them in a list. The next door guy who ran over the girl from the other next door also got coverage. Still we'll agree that this does not make him notable. If anybody knows where to propose deletion of a few thousand asteroids, I'll lend him my voice. Debresser (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I do not. The last example is for an asteroid. The reason I referred to lists is that the arguments for their deletion were exactly the same as your arguments for the deletion of asteroid's articles. You actually seems not to realize that the wiki notability is very different from the common understanding of this word, and your example is not relevant. Asteroids are notable because they have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (I specifically want to repeat this). Ruslik (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This one got deleted due to zero notability. Reyk _YO! 21:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong example. This article consisted of just one sentence: Named in honor of Mel Bartels for his contributions to amateur astronomy, especially his freely-shared designs for driving alt-az telescopes. No inforbox, no orbital parameters. So I am not surprised that it was deleted. Ruslik (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Not being an admin, I can't see the deleted article. If you are suggesting that an infobox containing the asteroid's physical and orbital parameters from the JPL confers notability, then I disagree in the strongest terms. That's like saying an article on me would get deleted if it only contains my name, but if it also had my address and height & weight it would be kept. Reyk _YO! 10:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This AFD discussed Bartels case and rejected it as precedent because Bartels article lacked content and really looked like an example of A1 (someone even mentioned G1—gibberish). Ruslik (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with your interpretation of either of those AFDs: there were plenty of NN opinions as well as "no content" opinions in the Bartels AfD, and only one person rejected it as a precedent in the GY14 one. I still say asteroids aren't inherently notable just because they exist. Reyk _YO! 11:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

There are thousands more like it. Equally fit for (speedy) deletion. I'd just like to know how to get it done. Debresser (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The key word here is "significant". An announcement in a specialized journal of a list of the next 500 odd asteroids located and catalogued is not significant.

Who can tell me where to raise this question? Debresser (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. There is no consensus to delete these articles. Spacepotato (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's discuss it again. Debresser (talk) 01:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:GNG, the issue with asteroid article notability might come down to the requirement for secondary sources. I'm not sure I regard the JPL Small-Body Database as a secondary source. On the other hand, perhaps the Dictionary of Minor Planet Names might considered such. I know I've experienced great difficulty in trying to expand some of the more obscure asteroid articles, so I'm not clear those can be anything beyond a stub (in the near future at any rate). This comes back to the requirement for significant coverage. Still, I'm not in any hurry to do a mass delete; they should at least get links to the JPL pages (on the lists of minor planets pages) before that happens.—RJH (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The point I am trying to argue is another. That a mention of another asteroid found in any or all of these sources is not considered significant coverage. I would really like to raise this question anew. Please tell me where to do this. Debresser (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This subject has been extensively discussed, without reaching a useful actionable consensus, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#main belt asteroids and in Archive 8 ff. Please take note of that large corpus before reworking the same ground here. I think WikiProject Astronomical objects (or a sub-project of that) is the place the discussion needs to be centralized, in any case. Thanks, Wwheaton (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I propose continuing the discussion at the place you mentioned. Debresser (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Science FAC symposium

I'm letting you guys know about it because a lot of what is said there is also relevant for you guys. Plus your feedback would definitely be both relevant and appreciated. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Galactic Alignment

There is a page that I think needs expert attention from some astronomy buffs. It only has two sources and is possibly influenced by pseudoscience. It would be interesting to know the actual details here. For instance, it mentions that the sun is aligned with the galactic "equator" in 1998, but the article was tagged that it needed expert advice, so I thought I would bring it to all of your attention.

Thanks.

(Hades12686 (talk) 12:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC))

Kepler Mission

Two weeks until launch and this article is in pretty poor shape. As it will most certainly make the main page (In the news) it would be nice to see this article improved before that time. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I know I'm looking forward to seeing the results from both this mission and COROT.—RJH (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to start uploading images from testing to assembly to launch. Can anyone recommend the standard series of images for a mission like this that would work well alongside the text? I can probably figure it out, but since you folks have worked on similar articles before, it would be nice to standardize image selection. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I just read that the focal plane array is the largest camera NASA has ever sent into space, so maybe I should start by uploading that photograph first? Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've decided against uploading the FPA photo, since the copyright is somewhat confusing. NASA owns the photo, but Ball Aerospace also seems to claim it. Viriditas (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Jupiter Trojan

The article is a featured article candidate now. You can comment here. Ruslik (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Abdul Ahad

On several pages related to astronomy, the astronomer and fiction writer Abdul Ahad is being pushed to the foreground. He has written no (or very few) articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Nor do others (substantially) refer to his work in such journals. An article on him has been deleted by AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Ahad. The provided links, used in the accompanying footnotes, are directly or indirectly pointing to a commercial web site promoting also his novels.

Some of the affected articles I know of are:

• Apparent magnitude
• List of astronomers
• Scientific phenomena named after people
• List of Muslim scientists

Input from others is very much appreciated. -- Crowsnest (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

IP edits of Gamow and Lemaître

Gamow diffs

Lemaître diffs

If it's vandalism, it's not obvious vandalism. But these edits changed the meaning and implications of these passage quite a bit. No ref was given by the IP, so I can't establish that these are alright, and no refs are given in the previous version either, so I can't establish they are false either.

Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Help needed with the Planetarium article

Hello. Is the Planetarium article within the scope of this WikiProject? I think it needs some attention - the subject is enough at least for a Good Article, but its current condition is, er, far from stellar. I've cleaned the linkfarm and the gallery, but the rest should be done by someone whose Engilsh is better than mine. Thank you. --Daggerstab (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Maunder's Butterfly Diagram

I just came across an interesting topic, Maunder's "butterfly" diagrams, which doesn't seem to have a Wikipedia article, although butterfly diagrams are mentioned in Solar cycle. See, for example:

• http://www.ucar.edu/communications/newsreleases/2000/maunder.html
• http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/sun/activity/butterfly.html
• http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MmSAI..78..596T
• http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=13&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asiaoceania.org%2Fabstract%2FST%2F58-ST-A0040.pdf&ei=SfqlSdSiN5W6twff_7HMBA&usg=AFQjCNEwWgNMP5z6sW2Y21H8aAkYPXavjw&sig2=oBUuh1jhp_mr-076OpsOdg

It certainly seems encyclopedic, as it apparently revolutionized our understanding of the sun, and has been the subject of numerous articles that could be used as references.

Just thought I'd point it out in case anyone is itching to write an article.

—Steven G. Johnson (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

SI Units Only

I recently made an edit to asteroid belt and I did not realize astronomy had a convention to show only metric units. I'm sorry for making a change against the agreed style. I found the distances hard to visualize without the conversions and WP:MOSNUM has a conversion example using the Earth and the Moon. I will abide by the astronomy consensus to not convert, but should the example on MOSNUM be changed to one in a different field of study? —Ost (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Project banner

I think it would be helpful to have an easy to find bit of code for the Project Banner on the main project page. When I drop by an unfamiliar project, that's often the one thing I'm looking for. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean? Like having {{WPAstronomy|class=|importance=|object=}} on the main page?

Yeah, in the templates section. That's where I went to look for it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

FA cleanup needed

According to Wikipedia:Featured articles/Cleanup listing, the article Mars is in need of cleanup. Hopefully, editors will get on it right away, or the article should be submitted to WP:FAR for review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There is also Extrasolar planet, Solar system, Dwarf planet, Enceladus (moon), Helium and Titan.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I posted a message about some concerns to the Mars talk page, but I have no idea if anybody is watching. Unfortunately, the page definitely needs some work to get back up to FA current status. I'm pretty swamped at the moment so I won't be able to help much.—RJH (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I will try to do smth. Ruslik (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with inconsistent distances (NGC 2440)

I was doing some research to boost the article on NGC 2440 and came upon some confusing figures. An article in Astronomy magazine says that the central star of NGC 2440 lies about 7,100 light years from Earth (I own a copy of the magazine, and I cited it in NGC 2440). Yet a section of HubbleSite says that the nebula lies about 4,000 light years from Earth. Which is which? Micasta (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

[3] 2.19 kpc 76.66.193.90 (talk) 07:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Amazing! Thank you! :) Micasta (talk) 10:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Astronomical historians

Category:Astronomical historians has been nominated for renaming to Category:Historians of astronomy. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I see somebody got here before me -- so I will simply add that your input will be appreciated. Here's the link for the CFD. Cgingold (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Star article creation bot?

I've just noticed that there are a huge number of identified stars that do not have articles, or even lists devoted to them. The Henry Draper Catalogue includes 359,083 different stars. The Tycho-2 Catalogue contains 2,539,913 different stars. We should at least have a list of them, if not an individual article for each one. Obviously, we would need a bot to do most of the work and I have no idea how to go about creating one. If anyone does have the technical know-how, I think this could be a great project. Just an idea.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You could create a script that creates a text file with proper wiki formatting, and then just upload/paste that file as an article. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 05:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Lists are fine. Individual articles, not so much. I believe there was the same problem with list of asteroids. If they are notable, then make an article. If it's simply "Star X is located at these coordinates", then don't create the article. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 06:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, we're also missing a List of IC objects 76.66.193.90 (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery

Did anyone notice Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery and subcategories? Are we going to use this categorization scheme? 76.66.193.90 (talk) 12:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to use this schema, then can someone precreate year categories for every year in the 20th and 21st centuries? 76.66.193.90 (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)