Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eddideigel (talk | contribs) at 00:45, 9 May 2012 (→Table of stellar masses vs substances ejected and remnant core?: thanks and maybe). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

MainTalkAstronomical objects
(Talk)		Eclipses
(Talk)		Article ratingsImage reviewPopular pagesMembersWikidata
WikiProject iconAstronomy Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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)

WikiWomen's History Month follow-up

Hi everyone! I just wanted to follow up with your project and see if any article creations or improvements took place in regards to Wikipedia:WikiWomen's History Month! If so, it'd be great if you could please post your article outcomes on the..you guessed it...WWHM outcome page! Thanks everyone for all your efforts! Sarah (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla Fairfield Bok was fully destubbed and is now probably close to GA-nom. Iridia (talk) 07:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PR for outer space

The outer space article has been submitted for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review#Outer space. Please take a look if you have an interest. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karlis Kaufmanis

I've created a new article titled Karlis Kaufmanis, still pretty stubby. Work on it if you are so inspired. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DOAx

someone found the Directory of Open Access 'x' websites, which have a few astronomy and physics resources

The DOAJ website seems to have a few astronomy and physics journals.

70.49.124.147 (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately of the journals on that list only the IBVS is likely to be useful for Wikipedia articles. More importantly, most astronomy papers are available for free via arXiv or NASA ADS anyway. Modest Genius talk 11:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sun-Earth Day

I need help with a stubborn user who insists on inserting blatantly promotional text into Sun-Earth Day. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice. I added a problem template to the page and put a {{uw-advert1}} warning on the editors talk page (per WP:WARNING). Regards, RJH (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, and thank you guys for taking care of the article. Looks pretty good now. Troy seemed to have acted in good faith; what a pity that he didn't seem to get the difference between an encyclopedia and "awesome, a place where I can raise awareness for my cause". :-/ --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think Troy was just an WP:SPA. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plasma cosmology linking

(Cross-posted from WT:PHYS.)

User Aarghdvaark (talk · contribs) has been adding links to Plasma cosmology to several astronomy-related articles. Vetting of the additions would be handy, as I feel that in most cases this gives undue weight to the model. I'm not prepared to put in the time required myself (on semi-sabbatical).

Be warned that plasma cosmology has come up at arbcom in the past (it was one of the main dispute areas that prompted WP:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, per the "findings of fact" heading on that page). So, there's a nonzero chance of spirited debate occurring. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. We certainly shouldn't be adding fringe theories to the See Also sections of articles like Radio galaxy. I've removed a few, but don't have much time for more. Another pair of eyes would be helpful. Modest Genius talk 09:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More editors weighing in with their thoughts on this topic would be helpful, as Aarghdvaark has been arguing on both my talk page and MG's that it shouldn't be considered "fringe". So far he's resisted attempts to steer him towards this page for centralized discussion, instead preferring to debate with individual editors. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 04:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to chase him around on other people's talk pages, but I can say something on Talk:Plasma cosmology if you like. I agree with your stance. If he wants to provide more modern citations to justify that Plasma Cosmology is not fringe, he is welcome to do so. But it should not be linked from other astronomy articles, unless there has been some actual new work done since the early 90s. I've not seen any evidence of that. - Parejkoj (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Responses here (this thread) are all I was looking for. If there's consensus that this is fringe and doesn't belong in most articles, then I want to be able to point to a discussion (presumably this one) that establishes that consensus. If there's significant disagreement about it, that's important for me to know too. Either way, location of the thread is less important than participation in it. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is reasonable to add links to the article in the body of articles where relevant. From the looks of what already links to plasma cosmology, it seems that that has already been done. The links to plasma cosmology that were added to "See also" sections do not appear to have been relevant, and I support their removal. James McBride (talk) 02:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've now found this page, Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC). I've not been resisting "attempts to steer him [me] towards this page for centralized discussion", as there was no mention that the discussion should be moved here. It is also cross-posted, which doesn't help to keep it in one place. I discussed with the users concerned why they had removed the links, and whilst that discussion is ongoing I have not re-inserted the links. Modest Genius removed links and gave as the reason the links were "not relevant". I think his reason was wrong, as discussed on his talk page, and it appears the actual reason should have been that he believes plasma cosmology is fringe science.[reply]
Christopher Thomas removed a link and started this discussion here (though he didn't notify me that he had started this discussion, which is kind of rude). He gave as his reason "not notable", which is fair enough, the reason being that he too believes plasma cosmology is fringe science. He has thought about what constitutes fringe science and has developed criteria for distinguishing between 'fringe science' and 'non-mainstream but respected science'. I used his criteria to show that, on his criteria, plasma cosmology was not fringe science (see User talk:Christopher Thomas#Plasma cosmology). Which is when he pointed me to this discussion. His argument currently rests, I think, on saying that the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science is not a respectable peer-reviewed journal, an argument which is clearly untenable. So, where I think we are at the moment is that the reason the links were removed is because it was thought that plasma cosmology is fringe science, and that Christopher Thomas has failed to demonstrate that plasma cosmology is fringe science following his own criteria.
I would in particular dispute the removal of the link from Galaxy rotation curve as not being relevant, because plasma cosmology specifically claims to explain flat rotation curves for spiral galaxies, as is observed and is problematic for other theories. Note, all these disputed links were in "See Also" sections rather than in the main body because I accept that plasma cosmology is not mainstream. Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the general policy on wikipedia is to try to integrate "See also" links in to the body. For stubby articles, they can be okay, but as an article is developed, the links should be integrated in to the text of the article. So if plasma cosmology merits a mention in the "Alternatives to dark matter", then the link should be there. If plasma cosmology does not merit mention there, then I do not think it should be linked at all. My own gut feeling is that it should not be mentioned, in large part because there does not appear to have been any work on it in over a decade. Given how much our understanding of cosmology has changed in that time, such as the discovery of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, and the lack of work, it seems that there is no one currently in the field who thinks plasma cosmology is a viable alternative to Big Bang cosmology. So, I guess I see this as 'historical non-mainstream science'. If that is not correct, and there is recent work on plasma cosmology that provides explanations for observations such as the accelerating expansion, I think it would have a better case for inclusion. James McBride (talk) 06:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any recent work suggesting plasma cosmology is an alternative to the big bang. I would like to have put that stronger, but obviously I can't speak for what people think. I don't think nowadays plasma cosmology is about being an alternative to the big bang; you may be thinking of Alfvén-Klein cosmology which is an old plasma cosmology theory? What plasma cosmology claims nowadays is that "Ionized gases, or plasmas, play the central part in plasma cosmology's explanation for the development of the universe, which is thus dominated largely by electrodynamic forces rather than gravitational forces". That's not exactly what I believe, but no matter. So it claims to explain things like the flat rotation curves of spiral galaxies, but does not claim things about the accelerating expansion of the universe (as yet, obviously plasma cosmologists would love to do that). Aarghdvaark (talk) 09:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Plasma cosmology" is pretty vaguely defined, but big chunks of the material and ideas that are often attributed to it are unquestionably fringe science. Certainly that's the case for much of what's in the current wiki article. I'm not aware of a single paper on plasma cosmology published in a respectable astrophysical journal, at least not in the last 20-30 years (not that a single paper would make it notable anyway). It should not be mentioned in any article on mainstream astrophysics or cosmology, as such a mention would clearly violate WP:RSUW. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to the "not in the last 20-30 years", there was e.g. a special edition on Space and Cosmic Plasma in IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Aug 2007, and a previous special issue in 2003. So, no we're not talking about a single paper. Aarghdvaark (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a "respectable astrophysics journal". It's not an astrophysics journal at all, or even a physics journal, it's engineering. Their own description is "Subject: Engineered Materials, Dielectrics & Plasmas ; Power, Energy, & Industry Applications ; Signal Processing & Analysis". As I said, I am not aware of a single paper on this topic published in a respectable astrophysical journal, at least not in the last 20-30 years. Waleswatcher (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does what it says on the tin: plasmas. You need to very careful with comments about IEEE Transactions, they are top peer-reviewed journals. You are almost making the argument: "Theory A is correct and theory B is wrong. Therefore any journal which publishes on theory B must lack credibility. No credible journal publishes on theory B. Therefore theory B is wrong. QED." Ironically of course, this would establish mainstream cosmology as pseudo-science since it could not be falsified. On a similar vein, I came across [this] which might be of interest. It's a peer-reviewed article on "over-competitive research funding" which claims to empirically test how one theory can obtain a monopoly position. It uses as a case study three main theories of cosmology: the Big Bang, Steady State and Plasma Universe! Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I said "I'm not aware of a single paper on plasma cosmology published in a respectable astrophysical journal". You brought up the this journal as if it were an example of such. It is not. It is not even an astrophysics journal, let alone a respectable one.
You are almost making the argument: "Theory A is correct and theory B is wrong. Therefore any journal which publishes on theory B must lack credibility. No credible journal publishes on theory B. Therefore theory B is wrong. QED." I made no such argument. Waleswatcher (talk) 04:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did say almost. But you are trying to disallow a perfectly respectable journal on plasmas from being considered as a journal allowed or qualified to do creditable research into plasma cosmology. I think science should be open to everyone who follows the scientific method and should be open to challenges to orthodoxy. Because otherwise whatever you are doing it is not science.
This discussion started out on whether plasma cosmology is fringe science. I think I've done enough above to show that it isn't fringe science on the criteria developed by Christopher Thomas. Anyway, 'fringe science' is not a good term to use since it means different things to different people. I think the term coined by James McBride above: 'historical non-mainstream science' is appropriate, with the caveat that there are still a few scientists researching in the field. BTW I am not one of them. Aarghdvaark (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a supposed theory of cosmology isn't being published in any journals which specialise in cosmology is a pretty big indication that it's a fringe theory. I agree it's not mainstream and therefore irrelevant, which was the whole point in removing the links in the first place. Plasma cosmology should rightly have it's own article and be discussed in its historical context. But it shouldn't be linked to unrelated topics. Modest Genius talk 11:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fringe seems to be a very problematic word. There is an article on fringe theory and an article on fringe science. Fringe theory doesn't seem to be self-consistent, in that the diagram says fringe means "Treated with scientific method" but the introduction says "Examples include ideas that purport to be scientific theories". Obviously something is either done scientifically or it isn't. Fringe science at least recognizes the different meanings, saying it means either "Fringe science is scientific inquiry ... that departs significantly from mainstream ... and is classified in the "fringes" of a credible mainstream academic discipline", or the term "covers everything from novel hypotheses that can be tested via scientific method to wild ad hoc theories and "New Age mumbo jumbo" with the dominance of the latter resulting in the tendency to dismiss all fringe science as the domain of pseudoscientists, hobbyists, or quacks". That's why I think we should not use the term (unless we define what we are talking about before), and I suggest the choice should be between non-mainstream and pseudoscience.
"not mainstream and therefore irrelevant" - non-mainstream and irrelevant are not synonyms. The articles on fringe keep quoting continental drift as an example of a theory that was for a long time considered a fringe theory. Clearly not irrelevant. Aarghdvaark (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The theory of continental drift was irrelevant to encyclopaedia articles on tangentially-related topics (e.g. palaeontology, biodiversity), up until scientific thinking evolved and it became mainstream. Besides, I'm not sure what you're arguing about now, other than dictionary definitions of what exactly 'fringe theory' and 'fringe science' mean. I don't see how the precise definitions change whether or not plasma cosmology should be linked to from articles to which it is not relevant. Modest Genius talk 09:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Defining fringe science is important, because we might be arguing at cross purposes as fringe science covers a multitude of things and has differing definitions. I think the conclusion of all the above is that whilst plasma cosmology is fringe science, it is fringe science in the narrow sense of the term, i.e. valid but non-mainstream science, rather than fruit-loopery. But you again make non-mainstream synonymous with irrelevant, I'm sorry but I seem to have missed a step there. Aarghdvaark (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. I've mentioned this discussion at Talk:Plasma cosmology#Plasma cosmology linking - and fringe science. Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Redirect

Please review the list history at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Astronomy/Candidates_for_redirection_new. Does everything seem to be in order? I'll post it here:

Did Farmbrough store a list of the 363 asteroids that had a "reference" on the JPL Small-Body Database? -- Kheider (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I asked him that (see the corresponding discussion, below), but he didn't reply. Shall we ask him again? Chrisrus (talk) 05:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see the JPL removed list just so I better understand and follow the overall bot-process. -- Kheider (talk) 06:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to help you but I don't know to much about bots. I did, however, provide the names of each person involved so that you can direct your questions accordingly. Let me know if there's anything more I can/should do. Chrisrus (talk) 06:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rich says:

The JPL references were added to the articles for the minor planets they related to. These are the articles
  1. 10443 van der Pol
  2. 11027 Astaf'ev
  3. 11072 Hiraoka
  4. 11118 Modra
  5. 11496 Grass
  6. 11509 Thersilochos
  7. 11836 Eileen
  8. 11868 Kleinrichert
  9. 11978 Makotomasako
  10. 12016 Green
  11. 12071 Davykim
  12. 12238 Actor
  13. 1233 Kobresia
  14. 1242 Zambesia
  15. 1243 Pamela
  16. 1244 Deira
  17. 1249 Rutherfordia
  18. 1250 Galanthus
  19. 12527 Anneraugh
  20. 1255 Schilowa
  21. 1261 Legia
  22. 1267 Geertruida
  23. 1281 Jeanne
  24. 12845 Crick
  25. 12895 Balbastre
  26. 1291 Phryne
  27. 13014 Hasslacher
  28. 13154 Petermrva
  29. 13260 Sabadell
  30. 1328 Devota
  31. 1337 Gerarda
  32. 1340 Yvette
  33. 1346 Gotha
  34. 1347 Patria
  35. 13482 Igorfedorov
  36. 1349 Bechuana
  37. 13533 Junili
  38. 1354 Botha
  39. 1356 Nyanza
  40. 1364 Safara
  41. 1366 Piccolo
  42. 1368 Numidia
  43. 13732 Woodall
  44. 1378 Leonce
  45. 1379 Lomonosowa
  46. 13806 Darmstrong
  47. 1382 Gerti
  48. 1389 Onnie
  49. 13906 Shunda
  50. 1392 Pierre
  51. 13921 Sgarbini
  52. 1393 Sofala
  53. 1397 Umtata
  54. 13977 Frisch
  55. 1405 Sibelius
  56. 1409 Isko
  57. 14141 Demeautis
  58. 14164 Hennigar
  59. 1419 Danzig
  60. 1425 Tuorla
  61. 1426 Riviera
  62. 1429 Pemba
  63. 1430 Somalia
  64. 1431 Luanda
  65. 14335 Alexosipov
  66. 1434 Margot
  67. 14342 Iglika
  68. 1452 Hunnia
  69. 1460 Haltia
  70. 14643 Morata
  71. 14659 Gregoriana
  72. 1477 Bonsdorffia
  73. 14835 Holdridge
  74. 1496 Turku
  75. 1504 Lappeenranta
  76. 15107 Toepperwein
  77. 1522 Kokkola
  78. 1524 Joensuu
  79. 1532 Inari
  80. 1533 Saimaa
  81. 15350 Naganuma
  82. 15374 Teta
  83. 1540 Kevola
  84. 15415 Rika
  85. 1543 Bourgeois
  86. 1576 Fabiola
  87. 1585 Union
  88. 1609 Brenda
  89. 1611 Beyer
  90. 1628 Strobel
  91. 1644 Rafita
  92. 1646 Rosseland
  93. 1648 Shajna
  94. 1665 Gaby
  95. 1669 Dagmar
  96. 1672 Gezelle
  97. 1682 Karel
  98. 1688 Wilkens
  99. 17035 Velichko
  100. 1707 Chantal
  101. 17079 Lavrovsky
  102. 1709 Ukraina
  103. 1710 Gothard
  104. 1712 Angola
  105. 1718 Namibia
  106. 17198 Gorjup
  107. 1720 Niels
  108. 1722 Goffin
  109. 1731 Smuts
  110. 1735 ITA
  111. 1753 Mieke
  112. 1754 Cunningham
  113. 1757 Porvoo
  114. 1759 Kienle
  115. 17683 Kanagawa
  116. 1789 Dobrovolsky
  117. 1800 Aguilar
  118. 1801 Titicaca
  119. 1803 Zwicky
  120. 1804 Chebotarev
  121. 1805 Dirikis
  122. 1837 Osita
  123. 1842 Hynek
  124. 1873 Agenor
  125. 1877 Marsden
  126. 1879 Broederstroom
  127. 18874 Raoulbehrend
  128. 1897 Hind
  129. 1902 Shaposhnikov
  130. 1907 Rudneva
  131. 1928 Summa
  132. 1933 Tinchen
  133. 19379 Labrecque
  134. 1939 Loretta
  135. 1941 Wild
  136. 1946 Walraven
  137. 1956 Artek
  138. 1957 Angara
  139. 1960 Guisan
  140. 1961 Dufour
  141. 19763 Klimesh
  142. 1995 Hajek
  143. 19982 Barbaradoore
  144. 2003 Harding
  145. 2013 Tucapel
  146. 2017 Wesson
  147. 2049 Grietje
  148. 2054 Gawain
  149. 20571 Tiamorrison
  150. 2080 Jihlava
  151. 2084 Okayama
  152. 20898 Fountainhills
  153. 2091 Sampo
  154. 2109 Dhotel
  155. 2111 Tselina
  156. 2113 Ehrdni
  157. 2139 Makharadze
  158. 2140 Kemerovo
  159. 21436 Chaoyichi
  160. 2156 Kate
  161. 21609 Williamcaleb
  162. 21652 Vasishtha
  163. 21705 Subinmin
  164. 2175 Andrea Doria
  165. 2186 Keldysh
  166. 2187 La Silla
  167. 2197 Shanghai
  168. 22338 Janemojo
  169. 2253 Espinette
  170. 2259 Sofievka
  171. 22603 Davidoconnor
  172. 2274 Ehrsson
  173. 2276 Warck
  174. 22776 Matossian
  175. 2285 Ron Helin
  176. 2292 Seili
  177. 2293 Guernica
  178. 22988 Jimmyhom
  179. 2301 Whitford
  180. 2302 Florya
  181. 2304 Slavia
  182. 2323 Zverev
  183. 2338 Bokhan
  184. 2339 Anacreon
  185. 2364 Seillier
  186. 23712 Willpatrick
  187. 2381 Landi
  188. 2385 Mustel
  189. 2398 Jilin
  190. 24101 Cassini
  191. 2415 Ganesa
  192. 2416 Sharonov
  193. 2422 Perovskaya
  194. 2433 Sootiyo
  195. 2442 Corbett
  196. 2443 Tomeileen
  197. 24643 MacCready
  198. 2474 Ruby
  199. 2477 Biryukov
  200. 2480 Papanov
  201. 2483 Guinevere
  202. 2490 Bussolini
  203. 2523 Ryba
  204. 2524 Budovicium
  205. 2529 Rockwell Kent
  206. 2543 Machado
  207. 2545 Verbiest
  208. 2563 Boyarchuk
  209. 2572 Annschnell
  210. 2591 Dworetsky
  211. 2624 Samitchell
  212. 2637 Bobrovnikoff
  213. 2649 Oongaq
  214. 2669 Shostakovich
  215. 2687 Tortali
  216. 26879 Haines
  217. 2713 Luxembourg
  218. 2714 Matti
  219. 2760 Kacha
  220. 2774 Tenojoki
  221. 2779 Mary
  222. 2783 Chernyshevskij
  223. 2785 Sedov
  224. 2794 Kulik
  225. 2796 Kron
  226. 2832 Lada
  227. 2862 Vavilov
  228. 2880 Nihondaira
  229. 2893 Peiroos
  230. 2895 Memnon
  231. 2896 Preiss
  232. 2937 Gibbs
  233. 2939 Coconino
  234. 2942 Cordie
  235. 2943 Heinrich
  236. 2945 Zanstra
  237. 2960 Ohtaki
  238. 2981 Chagall
  239. 2991 Bilbo
  240. 2993 Wendy
  241. 2995 Taratuta
  242. 3005 Pervictoralex
  243. 3025 Higson
  244. 3052 Herzen
  245. 3068 Khanina
  246. 3076 Garber
  247. 3080 Moisseiev
  248. 3099 Hergenrother
  249. 3101 Goldberger
  250. 3109 Machin
  251. 3111 Misuzu
  252. 3116 Goodricke
  253. 3133 Sendai
  254. 3134 Kostinsky
  255. 3141 Buchar
  256. 3176 Paolicchi
  257. 3178 Yoshitsune
  258. 3186 Manuilova
  259. 31956 Wald
  260. 3212 Agricola
  261. 3247 Di Martino
  262. 3267 Glo
  263. 3268 De Sanctis
  264. 3284 Niebuhr
  265. 3290 Azabu
  266. 3300 McGlasson
  267. 3332 Raksha
  268. 3370 Kohsai
  269. 3402 Wisdom
  270. 3403 Tammy
  271. 3444 Stepanian
  272. 3485 Barucci
  273. 35062 Sakuranosyou
  274. 3514 Hooke
  275. 3525 Paul
  276. 3557 Sokolsky
  277. 3590 Holst
  278. 3597 Kakkuri
  279. 3617 Eicher
  280. 3631 Sigyn
  281. 3637 O'Meara
  282. 3638 Davis
  283. 3651 Friedman
  284. 3657 Ermolova
  285. 3675 Kemstach
  286. 3685 Derdenye
  287. 3724 Annenskij
  288. 3725 Valsecchi
  289. 3729 Yangzhou
  290. 3731 Hancock
  291. 3761 Romanskaya
  292. 3785 Kitami
  293. 3790 Raywilson
  294. 3794 Sthenelos
  295. 3801 Thrasymedes
  296. 3807 Pagels
  297. 3811 Karma
  298. 3843 OISCA
  299. 3855 Pasasymphonia
  300. 3872 Akirafujii
  301. 3880 Kaiserman
  302. 3888 Hoyt
  303. 3906 Chao
  304. 3918 Brel
  305. 3923 Radzievskij
  306. 3924 Birch
  307. 3935 Toatenmongakkai
  308. 3936 Elst
  309. 3953 Perth
  310. 3960 Chaliubieju
  311. 3968 Koptelov
  312. 39741 Komm
  313. 3986 Rozhkovskij
  314. 4007 Euryalos
  315. 4008 Corbin
  316. 4045 Lowengrub
  317. 4057 Demophon
  318. 4085 Weir
  319. 4112 Hrabal
  320. 4162 SAF
  321. 4169 Celsius
  322. 4172 Rochefort
  323. 4174 Pikulia
  324. 4190 Kvasnica
  325. 4196 Shuya
  326. 4201 Orosz
  327. 4204 Barsig
  328. 4214 Veralynn
  329. 4224 Susa
  330. 4226 Damiaan
  331. 4255 Spacewatch
  332. 4263 Abashiri
  333. 4289 Biwako
  334. 4294 Horatius
  335. 4308 Magarach
  336. 4317 Garibaldi
  337. 4323 Hortulus
  338. 4423 Golden
  339. 4457 van Gogh
  340. 4467 Kaidanovskij
  341. 4498 Shinkoyama
  342. 4502 Elizabethann
  343. 4505 Okamura
  344. 4509 Gorbatskij
  345. 4703 Kagoshima
  346. 4712 Iwaizumi
  347. 4722 Agelaos
  348. 4741 Leskov
  349. 4754 Panthoos
  350. 4773 Hayakawa
  351. 4791 Iphidamas
  352. 4792 Lykaon
  353. 4806 Miho
  354. 4816 Connelly
  355. 4827 Dares
  356. 4828 Misenus
  357. 4832 Palinurus
  358. 4833 Meges
  359. 4836 Medon
  360. 4863 Yasutani
  361. 4867 Polites
  362. 4894 Ask
  363. 4946 Askalaphus

Let's not leave them here. Where should we put them? Chrisrus (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How this list was created

Phase I:

Phase II:

Phase III

NOTE:

The actual list contains the above text and the list itself. Here it is again: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Astronomy/Candidates_for_redirection_new Chrisrus (talk) 04:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if you would like, it seems like a good idea. Please be sure to alter the list history accordingly. Chrisrus (talk) 05:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – To my eye it looks a little odd that the list only contains a single entry that begins with a 5–9. That makes me suspect a bug somewhere. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see. Can we pinpoint it? Chrisrus (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe stubmaker was going through list and was stopped before creating articles about minor planets that begins with a 5–9? Bulwersator (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bug in phase I, for example 6715 Sheldonmarks was skipped Bulwersator (talk) 10:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it got past the bot because it had more than one discoverer. The bot wasn't told what exactly what kind of text over and above "(Minor planet) is a (whatever) that was discovered by (person) in (place) on (date)" would constitute enough information to pass WP:NASTRO, so it erred on the side of causion. It didn't know that having two discovers didn't mean an article shouldn't be notablity-tagged. It's ok, we don't have to get them all at once. We're taking baby steps here. So even though the only extra information in that article was a second discoverer, it was set aside as one we could always come back to another day. It's a good thing: we have plenty of articles right here which we know can't possibly pass WP:GNG or Nastro based on the content within them alone. Ok? It's not like later we can't look back at the ones we didn't tag. Chrisrus (talk) 00:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for reassessment of Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact

The article Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact is currently rated as Start-class. However, as this diff shows, the article has been expanded greatly and has become far more comprehensive since the assessment was made. The page has, as part of this, been expanded by 7,568 bytes (a 75.4% increase), and its organization has become much clearer. Additionally, no more than seven new references have been added to the 15 previously there for a total of 22 references, even though this is a field where the amount of scientific literature is low and statements of mere generalities is high. In addition, there are more non-free references on the article's talk page which I have not been able to add yet, but with aid from this WikiProject may be incorporated into the article. On top of these facts, the article has zero [citation needed] tags.

Therefore, I think that it is high time the article is reassessed for quality. I also request the cooperation of this WikiProject in expanding the article so that it can be brought to greater heights.

Regards, Wer900 talkessay on the definition of consensus 16:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be in decent shape, so I bumped it up to a 'B'. Hope that's okay. As I see it, the topic of cultural impact is still only indirectly related to astronomy, so I left the importance as 'bottom'. The lead is still on the short side. You could probably add a section about cultural impact as portrayed in media. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read the article in detail, but one thing that does puzzle me is why it spends an entire paragraph discussing a minor and very speculative article in QJRAS, which was a magazine for members, not a research journal (especially since this wasn't even referenced properly until I fixed it). Modest Genius talk 22:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big Bang RfC (Part II)

The latest RfC (administratively closed on 18 March) confirmed that there should be a presence of a brief "religious and philosophical implications" section in the Big Bang article. Which draft should be selected to appear in the section? Please participate in the RfC if you feel called to do so. With regards, AnupamTalk 00:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to have one astronomy article be featured on the main page each month. However, there are only five left which have not been featured on the main page. Which means that we will run out in about 5 months. Five months is a long time, so there is plenty of time to promote more articles to FA status. If you can make at least one per month, then we can keep pace. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'm taking a long break from pushing astronomy articles through the FA process. Not sure if anybody else is working on bringing articles to FA any more, so you may have to do it yourself. Alternatively you could shoot for a more realistic 'once per quarter'. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why exactly do you want an arbitrary rate of one per month? Modest Genius talk 22:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The TFA rules prefer to have a subject featured on the main page once a month. So there will be one Astronomy article featured for roughly the next five months. If we can make one new FA per month, then we can keep pace. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be misinterpreting the "rules" as such. The WP:TFAR guidelines are intended to prevent a specific theme from dominating the front page. Hence, it applies point penalties if another article on a similar topic appeared within the past month. This means that the rate should be no more than once per month; not that it should be exactly one per month.
In fact, some editors may not want certain articles to appear on the front page, and the FA team respects that. You might want to check with the primary editors to see if they have a problem with this activity. Regards, RJH (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see no preference whatsoever for having a topic appear once a month expressed anywhere in the TFA and TFAR pages. Indeed, TFAR gives higher preference to topics which have NOT recently appeared on the Main Page. The only relevance of the one month period is that's the first point at which articles are not actually penalised. There's nothing wrong with promoting astronomy articles of course, but if the pool is emptying then the flow should be reduced accordingly. Modest Genius talk 11:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Harizotoh9's point is to increase the flow into the pool so that the rate of one per month can be sustained. This seems like a nice idea, be great to see at least moral support for it. He has mine. Rich Farmbrough, 16:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Mmm... yes I think we got that part. As the saying goes, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. Have you noticed the significant decline in the number of technology and hard science articles making their way through the FAC lately? I think there's an underlying problem with the way the current process works because, to me, it primarily appeals to topics in the humanities and entertainment. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the decline's more due to the sheer amount of work necessary to get a sci/tech article up to FAC standard. Unless one does a little-known astronomer or an irregular satellite etc., there's a huge quantity of material to synthesise. And non-specialist reviewers often feel intimidated about commenting on a sci/tech article, which doesn't seem to happen with the humanities. But there's always a steady stream of bio articles on lesser-known species! Iridia (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can be long, tedious process to progress an article from GA to FA, and to me it doesn't seem all that rewarding. There's a lot of little details that need to be corrected and obscure grammatical issues to resolve. Plus the reviews can be brutal and demotivating. It was very enlightening to go through the process, but I've come to feel that bringing articles up to GA quality is the more enjoyable part of the task. regards, RJH (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Table of stellar masses vs substances ejected and remnant core?

While reading articles on stellar evolution, processes of element synthesis, and how stars end up, I've been looking for some kind of overview of the connections between:

  • Initial stellar mass, size, core temperature/pressure and surface temperature
  • Time spent on the main series, and size/mass when leaving the main series
  • Typical requirements (mass/temperature/pressure etc.) for ignition of various fuels, their time of burning, processes involved and substances produced
  • Results in terms of type of explosive event (if any), substances ejected and remnant core, if any (e.g. black hole, white dwarf)
  • Notes on how initial composition (metallicity etc.) or lifetime events (e.g. collisions, accretion) influence evolution

I'm thinking of a table of stellar mass on the left (solar masses), and the other properties in various partly overlapping coloumns. Is there such a table or overview in any existing article, or could it be made? Eddi (Talk) 00:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eddi. We've got an article on main sequence stars that covers some of these topics at a high level. There's also a forked article on stellar mass that I'm planning on expanding. But I don't think it would hurt to include such a table, or perhaps create a list article that the others could link to. It would need to be reliably sourced, of course, which may be a challenge. Unsourced information is subject to removal over time. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the links, those articles are very interesting :) Although I'm tempted to compose some kind of table or list on this subject, if only for my own interest, I think I'd fail in sourcing it reliably since I'm not educated in astronomy. Of course I could make a note on where I found each piece of information, typically some paragraph in some Wikipedia article on some date. Would that be somewhat reliable? Eddi (Talk) 00:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to dark matter could use vetting

Dark matter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has recently received significant edits from Michael9422 (talk · contribs). Vetting would be handy, as significant amounts of material have been "condensed" (per edit summaries) or outright removed. The user appears to be acting in good faith, but eyes on this from people who have kept up with the field would definitely be welcome. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over the edits. He/she removed a couple of paragraphs that were rambling and probably redundant. The result looks a bit better to my eyes. - Parejkoj (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original research by IP user

Please take a look at Conversion between Julian and Gregorian calendars. An IP user is inserting original research and inserting erroneous statements, such as there being no such thing as a year 0, even in a context where years like "-500" are used. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on the talk page is going no where so I have referred this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Betelgeuse redux

Hi all, I was hoping that some folks who were good with astrophysics can look over Betelgeuse and see if they are happy with it. Keilana (talk · contribs) has flagged an interest in getting this over the final hurdle of FAC, and I'm hoping Sadalsuud (talk · contribs) will resume some activity. It's a monster of an article so would be good to have a few opinions. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I may suggest as much, this article should also be taken through WP:PR. Just looking at the lead, I'm finding a number of issues that would be brought up in an FAC:
  • "Betelgeuse is currently thought to lie around...", "It is thought to be a runaway star..." look to be WP:WEASEL.
  • "There is even evidence...", "To complicate matters further", "...which also includes the late...": here, the words 'even', 'further' and 'also' are redundant. See User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a#Eliminating redundancy.
  • "Absolute magnitude (MV) –6.05": To me the footnote explanation for this is insufficient. It needs a reliable source, if only to show the extinction value.
  • "Current estimates of the star's apparent diameter...": WP:DATED
  • "...huge plumes of gas...": huge is WP:VAGUE. It might be okay in the lead, but the core article is equally vague ("...vast plumes of gas..."). Is it huge as in truckloads worth or huge as is in a significant fraction of a solar mass?
Regards, RJH (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think maybe focussing this in one place is good. Ok, once we've sifted through these and Iridia's suggestions, we might place it at Peer Review. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Nebula/Pillars of Creation merger

I've suggested a merger of Eagle Nebula and Pillars of Creation. Join the discussion if you are so inclined. James McBride (talk) 07:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Constellation

Hello all, I know that the Constellations task force is dead, but I was wondering if anyone was interested in collaborating on improving the constellation articles. They're in abysmal shape - the only one of decent quality is Andromeda (constellation), which was only promoted to GA a few days ago. Please do let me know if you're interested! :) Keilana|Parlez ici 16:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a handful of constellation articles that are in semi-decent shape. C.f. Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded/Physical_sciences#Astrometry. I've been trying to get Taurus (constellation) up to snuff, but I ran out of ideas. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's still a lot of start-class articles though. :( Taurus looks good, have you considered submitting it for GAN? Keilana|Parlez ici 17:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, but many of those constellations are pretty minor. It might be more efficient to focus on the top 10–20 best known ones. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is true. Keilana|Parlez ici 20:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy&oldid=491495123"