Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GamerPro64 (talk • contribs)

"Official name"

I have a quick question. for the sentence "Comet Hartley 2, officially designated 103P/Hartley", for example, is there a reference available for the "officially designated" portion? I assume that the IAU is the source of authority here, but I can't seem to find anything about comet names on their web site. I'm not terribly familiar with their site though, so perhaps I'm simply missing something?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That is because it is not dealt with on their main public site but at the dedicated IAU Minor Planet Center which houses the database. Specifically the pages you want to see (these kind of sites are always a pain to navigate!) are the Cometary Designation System and the Periodic Comet Numbers, which lists the official designation of periodic comets like Hartley 2. As you can see from the last link 103P/Hartley is in fact the second comet he discovered (100P/Hartley being the first), hence why 103P is often more commonly referred to as Hartley 2 to distinguish them. Hope that helps. ChiZeroOne (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Chi! Terrifically helpful reply there. I appreciate it!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem, happy to help. ChiZeroOne (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about it there is something I forgot to mention, I think the naming system used by the MPC is in fact not technically the same as the IAU's despite being an official IAU unit. As far as I'm aware the MPC's is almost the same as the one used by the Planetary Data System (sans number after the name). Technically the designation specified by the IAU for Hartley 2 is 103P/1986 E2 (year of discovery/half-month letter/comet number in that half-month), as discussed on the Cometary Designation System page I mentioned. Compare with Comet Hale-Bopp / C/1995 O1. This is all discussed at the Planetary Data System's Periodic Comet Names and Designations. So really saying 103P/Hartley is the official designation is incorrect, though it is a very common designation, along with the PDS's 103P/Hartley 2. I notice it is very common on other comet articles to claim the PDS system as the "official" one. Perhaps this is something that needs to be addressed. ChiZeroOne (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As I was reading though the Cometary Designation System page yesterday, I was wondering if something like this might be the case. It's funny, after having been on Wikipedia for a while, whenever I see something like "officially designated..." that isn't followed by a reference, it tends to make me immediately suspicious that we're not getting the full story. That seems to have been born out, here.

Not that 103P/Hartley 2 isn't really official; all of the 245 comets named are using the same designation system rather then some series of colloquial names, so their "official" in that respect. I think that using the word "official" is what is problematic here, though. Could we change it to something like:

Comet Hartley 2, designated 103P/Hartley by the Minor Planet Center, is a small periodic comet with an orbital period of 6.46 years.

Maybe that sounds too... casual, though? I don't know, I'm on the fence here.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, and doesn't come across as too informal to me. Reyk _YO! 23:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that seems a fine solution. I agree over being careful with the use of "official", but that using the MPC designation is best (in the lead at least) for a number of reasons. The Cometary Designation System page specifically points out that retaining the version with discoverers name should be a valid alternative which is what the MPC seem to have done. It would be nice to have the systematic names like "103P/1986 E2" included in the main body of an article/infobox and have it as a redirect like the Halley one is though. ChiZeroOne (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thank you again, folks. I'll implement the changes on the 103P/Hartley 2 article now, and hopefully get to others in a while. Not that I'm at all territorial about this stuff. If anyone else wants to make the edits, please feel free (besides, my time on wiki is extremely limited, now). Regards,
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a lifetime worth of work there if somebody needs a new career. ;-) RJH (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a feeling that a fair proportion of those are from CarloscomB. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 08:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Fearture article review of Herbig-Haro object

I have nominated Herbig-Haro object 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. Tom B (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Why not the WPSpace banner?

Hi, following some discussion here, I started to wonder why the {{WikiProject Astronomy}} banner is preferred over the {{WPSpace}} banner. After looking into it, I see there is some fairly complicated coding that has gone into this Astronomy banner, that I don't fully understand (it took me a while to figure out what a "hook" was). So, it appears the reason WPSpace isn't being used, is because it would be too difficult to implement the features of the Astronomy banner there. Is that correct? Or is there some other reason?

At the moment, some Astronomy pages use the Space banner while others only use the Astronomy banner; this appears to account for the difference between the Astronomy assessment statistics and the Astronomy assessment category statistics. Mlm42 (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Why would we want to use the WPSpace banner? 76.66.203.138 (talk) 08:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

In some cases the WPSpace banner didn't appear to be inter-operating properly with the counts for the WikiProject Astronomy, so I had to put in a separate WPAstronomy template. I care little about the WPSpace template, as long as it isn't in the way.—RJH (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

There seem to be a lot of editors (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Space/Members) who may be interested in Astronomy as well as Spaceflight, or the Solar System. For this reason, I'd think it may be useful to have the WPSpace banner on Astronomy articles (then lists of all Space articles, for example, would include Astronomy articles). RJH, I guess you have partially answered my question, confirming that a reason for not using the WPSpace banner is a technical issue (even though it's one that I don't fully understand..). Mlm42 (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

To me, the Space template should represent spaceflight, because everything else under Space is a subset of Astronomy. Certainly Space seems to be primarily focused on the Solar System, so I have little reason to use it on most the articles I edit. Shrug.—RJH (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm.. I thought "Space" meant pretty much anything related to Outer space. Also, something like Planetary science, might not actually be a subset of Astronomy (and indeed, that article is tagged with {{WPSpace}}). Furthermore, most articles about craters on the moon (articles you seem to edit, RJH) appear to be tagged with {{WPSpace}}. So, my point is that, with several banners out there, maybe there should be some consistency? Mlm42 (talk) 01:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Planetary science is a division of astronomy, one of the other astrosciences, along with astrobiology, etc. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 09:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I created many of the lunar crater articles, but I did not add the templates. The Space template is cumbersome and is not always set up correctly to give useful numbers for WikiProject Astronomy, so I prefer not to use it.—RJH (talk) 15:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I see; I guess my question is, if the banner were better set up, would you be more inclined to use it? Mlm42 (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

My preferences would be to have a template that requires a minimum of typing to set up and insert the Astronomy class and importance and to show that data separately. The latter is because the importance to, say, spaceflight is not necessarily the same as the importance to astronomy. The template would also need to show the correct data in the WP Astronomy articles by quality and importance table, and to include links to the Astronomy importance and quality pages.

Having to micromanage the WPSpace fields is too much of a nuisance at present, and it doesn't work as well as a separate WPAstronomy template. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess at the moment you only need to type something like {{WPSpace | class=start | astronomy=yes | astronomy-importance=high}}. But I agree the two templates do slightly different things regarding assessment categories.. but that wouldn't take much to fix if there was a desire to. Mlm42 (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately that doesn't seem to address any of my concerns. It's more typing, doesn't include a link to the astronomy importance/class ratings page and has consistency problems with the Astronomy class and importance table. Sorry.—RJH (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Conjecturally, it might be possible to use some sort of subst template to simplify the creation of a WPSpace template based upon the WPAstronomy input fields. However, I think the other issues would still need to be addressed if the goal here is to do a merge.—RJH (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess this three year old discussion might be relevant.Mlm42 (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems like there is no consensus to merge into WPSpace banner, and since it's mostly not done anyway, it should be removed from the WPSpace banner, since it just causes confusion. If WPSpace members want to do wikipedia astronomy stuff, they could also join this project. As WPSpace is not a science wikiproject, it seems like it makes little sense to use a joint banner in any case. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 09:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, at the moment, the directory of wikiprojects (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory/Science#Space) lists Astronomy under Space.. and it's not clear to me that there's consensus the WPSpace should be removed. Mlm42 (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

We can always deparent from WPSpace. There is little overlap in content at the moment, no more than any two other wikiprojects in similar fields (like navy ships being both ships and military). WPSpace seems to be the equivalent of regional wikiprojects, except the region is "space" (instead of say Europe, for WPEurope), while this is a science wikiproject. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but such a change should probably be supported by more than one editor (and preferably a non-anonymous one?). Mlm42 (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Uh Mlm42, 76.66 is the founder of WikiProject North America. 76.66 is allowed to support a proposal, he just doesn't want to create a account. He has submitted quite a few Articles for Creation articles, and has been around since 2008. Anyway, I support the deparenting of the two projects, it is sensible. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 16:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Apologies to 76.66.. it wasn't clear to me the history there (I thought the IP might have been used by several different editors, or something). Mlm42 (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

University of Michigan Astronomy 533 grad class edits

Just a quick note to let everyone know. The Astronomy 533 graduate astronomy class at the University of Michigan is updating the following astronomy-related wiki pages:

• Galaxy merger
• Dwarf galaxy
• Oort Constants
• Satellite galaxy
• Lenticular galaxy
• Malmquist bias

The pages will be significantly changed; please feel free to check the pages when they come online in mid-December. EFBell (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

That would be nice with lenticulars and its subtypes... those need expansion. And most of the other articles listed as well. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

See A533jcis (talk · contribs) . 76.66.203.138 (talk) 07:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

EFBell appears to be the professor for the course, UMichigan course listing - Astro 533 - Fall 2010 - Structure and Content of Galaxies . 76.66.203.138 (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

New planet

Just thought this would be of interest.

A planet, HIP 13044 b, which was formed in another galaxy has been discovered in the Helmi Stream. (BBC) Simply south (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Antimatter comets

FYI, I have nominated antimatter comets for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Antimatter_comet). James McBride (talk) 09:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Just merge it into comet so we can all witness the brilliant Wikiexplosion. --JaGa^talk 03:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Future role of WP:Space

There's a discussion going on over at WikiProject Space after concerns have been raised over a number of organisation issues, many of which have been laid out at WikiProject Human spaceflight. Feel free to provide any input as this concerns all projects currently within the scope of WP:Space. ChiZeroOne (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

At WT:WikiProject Space, it has been proposed that WikiProject Astronomy and WikiProject Astronomical objects be abolished; and merged into WPSpace. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 06:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of different proposals, and anyone can suggest a new one, nothing is definite yet bar the need for something to change re organisation. The discussion is a preliminary census of attitudes, and you'll note from the HSF discussion I suggested that WP:Ast members may have a different ones. ChiZeroOne (talk) 12:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

No-one is attempting to force anything on anyone, it's an attempt to gauge opinions; another suggestion, for instance, is to abolish WPSpace and have Astronomy and Spaceflight as top-level projects. If members of this and other astronomy-related projects would like to comment, it would be much appreciated. Colds7ream (talk) 10:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines

FYI, there is an open RfC at Wikipedia talk:Scientific citation guidelines about whether this is an essay or guideline. The scope of the page affects astrophysics, astrochemistry, and math. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 07:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Cephid variable

Anonymous IP 99.192.66.42 has rewritten parts of this article. "Cephid variable" has been changed to "Classical cephids" in the introduction, and throughout the article (see edit history) - along with supporting content. Then this anonymous IP has placed a requested move tag on the talk page. The move is proposed to be from Cepheid variable to Classical Cepheid variables. I have objected to the move because the rationale is misleading. First, they rewrote the article to suit themselves. Then they requested a move in such a manner, as if the content of the article were about Classic Cephid variables all along. This looks like some form of POV pushing. It also appears that some of the references have been changed to support this person's content, but I can't be absolutely sure about that. Someone familiar with this article could probably make that determination better than I. If the anonymous IP wishes to have an article on "Classical cephids", then the anonymous IP is encouraged to write one. I am inclined to undo this person's changes, mainly because of the alterations in the introduction from Cephid variables in general, to only Classical Cephids. The changes, and requested move don't make sense to me other than POV pushing. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with your statement, and think a reversion to previous version would be good, as a basis for splitting the article and a new rewrite, with a new article for classical cepheids created instead. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 06:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment I removed the classical cephid variable over writes of this article by restoring to the last edit by User:Kwamikagami. I then restored the small, non-trivial, edits of other editors that followed. This move request is probably no longer appropriate. In the edit history, and on the talk page, I requested that the anonymous IP please propose changes on talk page before attempting to re-orient an established article to some other topic. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Cepheid variable was rewritten again, this time by 142.177.21.25 (talk · contribs) ; making the article about classical cepheids. 76.66.202.72 (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

FLRC

I have nominated Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• A lot of work has already gone into addressing the concerns, and I do not see any huge remaining problems, but some more eyes and hands would be greatly appreciated. Reyk _YO! 03:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Reorganisation of space WikiProjects

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space/2010 Reorganisation regarding the future of WikiProject Space and its child projects. The discussion is aimed at defining the roles of projects, and improving the activity and coordination of the projects. The input of members of this project is requested as it is one which may be affected by the issue. --GW… 22:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

RfD: Macrocarpum laws of astronomy

Macrocarpum laws of astronomy is up for deletion here as OR.—RJH (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Abolition of WikiProject Space

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) 16:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to Template:Spaceprojnav?—RJH (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it will be outdated and will need to be replaced to represent Astronomy and its daughters, like is being done over at Spaceflight. But not only that, for example the project page currently links to Astronomy templates currently hosted by WikiProject Space and not on Astronomy so it will need to be considered if they are wanted to be transferred here. ChiZeroOne (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I actually have no idea who maintains this WikiProject page.—RJH (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

As "Space" is still an organizational super-category on the main WikiProjects list, it might make sense to use the same layout and just remove the link(s) to the Space WikiProject.—RJH (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Loop in astronomical categories

I noticed that Category:Great Attractor is a subcategory of Category:Norma Cluster which is a subcategory of Category:Great Attractor. One of these relationships should be broken. The category system is supposed to be a hierarchy. So that if you keep selecting a subcategory, you eventually reach a category without subcategories. Another problem is that there seems to be confusion about which supercluster these belong to. Since I am not an astronomer, I brought these matters here rather than fix them myself. JRSpriggs (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed Category:Great Attractor from Category:Norma Cluster. Hopefully that is a suitable arrangement. Thank you for identifying the concern.—RJH (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

To RJHall: Thank you. JRSpriggs (talk) 10:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Eclipses / WikiProject Solar eclipses

At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space/2010 Reorganisation , there was a discovery of a wikiproject eclipses. 64.229.101.17 (talk) 06:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)