Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

MainTalkAstronomical objects
(Talk)Eclipses
(Talk)Article ratingsImage reviewPopular pagesMembersWikidata

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

calc axial tilt

I updated the ecliptic coordinates of the pole of 7 Iris, but don't know how to calc the axial tilt from that. There is some commentary about what the axial tilt means for seasonal temp fluctuations. Could someone fix? — kwami (talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

If you want to calculate the axial tilt, you first need to determine elliptical coordinates of the orbital pole. The angle between the orbital and rotational axes will be the axial tilt. Ruslik_Zero 20:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Mass dimension one fermions AfD

I just nominated Mass dimension one fermions for deletion. I figure some of the editors from the Astronomy project may wish to weigh in, as this is now linked from Dark Matter. - Parejkoj (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Internet archive

Does someone know how to get the WayBack Machine at https://web.archive.org/ to take an archive of the risk-listed asteroid at https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/sentry/details.html#?des=2020%20VV -- Kheider (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Kheider, I tried but couldn't figure out how myself. It seems the wayback machine ignores the stuff past "details.html" when you enter the link. The internet archive captures the entire table though so you should be able to click on that specific object after archiving the main link [1] (see e.g. [2]). Sam-2727 (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for trying. Is there another internet archive site that you recommend? -- Kheider (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Merging WP templates

I initiated a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Solar_System#Merging_WP_templates to propose merging the {{WikiProject Solar System}} template into {{WikiProject Astronomy}}. Please comment if you have an opinion. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Solar System § Merging WP templates

Dispute over the Wow! signal

There seems to be some debate about the Wow! signal, which has spilled from the talk page to a discussion at DRN. Input from this project would be appreciated. Primefac (talk) 12:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

With my non-functionary hat on, it looks like all of the references given (in both locations) are based off the one arxiv source. Wait until other sources verify? Primefac (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

There's now a request for arbitration. Looks to be rapidly heading into WP:LAME territory. Modest Genius ^talk 11:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh my. In my last email reply to them, I said that DR could potentially take a while; I definitely wasn't implying that they should go for the process that would take even longer! Primefac (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Yikes! Seems like that whole trainwreck was unnecessary. Lithopsian (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Early 20th century Mount Wilson Observatory women astronomers

New articles are currently being created under the auspices of the WikiProject Women in Red about women astronomers who had worked over a century ago at the Mount Wilson Observatory that have been previously been ignored by history. It would be very helpful if persons with a background in astronomy can help improve the scientific contribution sections in these new articles since most of us editors have not taken enough astronomy courses to determine what the subject's key contributions to astronomy were really were by just look at the person's publication list. Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Early_20th_century_Mount_Wilson_Observatory_human_computers for more information. Thanks. -- 68.50.32.85 (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Once in 800 years: all hands on deck

An exciting opportunity to run an exciting and topical TFA, but all four articles need updating to be considered: see TFA discussion here about this event. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this push SandyGeorgia, sounds like a great idea. I would like to help, but I have to confess I have trouble understanding the somewhat baroque TFA system. What updating needs to happen for them to be considered? They're all featured articles and I don't see any open discussions on problems with the pages (except this I guess), so what TFA conditions do they not satisfy? I'll be happy to pitch in once I understand what the need is. - Astrophobe (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Once I catch up on some other pages, I will run through each of the four articles and put lists on each article talk page. Generally, though, to start meanwhile, make sure everything is cited, and nothing is outdated. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh I see, it's just a general cleanup issue. Gotcha! Thanks for explaining. - Astrophobe (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I am starting in at Jupiter now ... will leave notes there which will give you an idea of things to look at on the other three. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Talk:Jupiter#FA criteria SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
• Talk:Saturn#FA criteria SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
• Talk:Ganymede (moon)#WP:URFA/2020 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
• Titan (moon) has all of the same-- the images are out of control. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

As an astronomer, I find the prospect of this conjunction rather underwhelming. Planetary conjunctions are common, though the specific combination of Jupiter and Saturn happens every 20 years or so (our article is great conjunction). It's only mildly interesting to look at, and calling this one a 'Christmas star' is just made-up nonsense. If you want to feature Jupiter and Saturn in the closest TFA slot that's fine, though the event lasts weeks and is already visible so don't feel bound to that date. I don't understand why Ganymede and Titan would be included - neither is visible to the naked eye, and they're just two of the numerous moons that are visible in telescopes. Modest Genius ^talk 17:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is actually trying to argue that this is a once per 800 years opportunity for a TFA about a conjunction. - Astrophobe (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Starbox issues

I have edited the sandboxes at {{starbox character}} and {{starbox observe}} for two small issues I ran into. The page layout at {{starbox character}}, not the template output itself, is cobbled together from the template itself which doesn't display except for a small yellow box saying "Characteristics" and a hard-coded demo template inside the documentation which doesn't quite output in the correct layout. I have altered this to display the actual template as for the other starboxes. There should be no changes on pages that use the template. In {{starbox observe}} I found a case where the template would produce trailing whitespace that in some cases produced a blank line at the top of the page where it was used. Luckily, {{starbox character}} is usually used immediately afterwards and it swallows the whitespace. However, I have added a fix so that what is actually a blank table row is not produced, just for the appmag_v field. This may occur in other templates or for other fields, I'm sure I've seen it happen but can't track down cases now. Maybe in {{starbox sources}} or {{starbox short}}? Lithopsian (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

universeguide.com is not a reliable source

Someone added a link to universeguide.com to IC_1101 to the "Discovery" section (I've since removed that entire section: see Talk:IC_1101). Poking around at that page, it does not include citations to where it got the included data, and has a bunch of inaccuracies or questionable statements. The author of the page states "This website was put together by me, John as a learning tool for PHP then ASP.NET and has grown and grown." which is makes this seem like not a good source to use for astronomy facts, especially given the existence of SIMBAD and NED. Given this, I don't think we should use this page as a source for anything in the astronomy sphere (science fiction citations are another question). A quick google for universeguide.com site:en.wikipedia.org turned up a number of uses of the page here; I'm guessing others have a better way of doing such a search. Is there a bot that can remove these links easily, and/or replace them with better links to e.g. NED? - Parejkoj (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Information from the website (from almost any website) should be regarded with some scepticism until it can be verified by an independent source, preferably a more reliable one. Lithopsian (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Big Freeze

Big Freeze is currently up for discussion at RfD. I thought you might be interested.

Also, looking at wikt:en:Big Freeze#English, the definition on Wiktionary needs a rewrite. Anyone want to give it a try?

-- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

List of most massive black holes

I have launched a new discussion at Talk:List of most massive black holes about the entry of SDSS J140821.67+025733.2. I hope you can join so me and hopefully others may get clarified, and hopefully we get a new consensus regarding this object. SkyFlubbler (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

By the way, if you are interested, help me in getting data from this page:

https://iopscience.iop.org/0067-0049/228/1/9/suppdata/apjsaa5504t1_mrt.txt

This is a monstrous data set of black hole masses. I am finding for candidates above 10 billion solar masses. This might take time if I do this alone, so I may as well ask for help. If you have any concerns regarding the reference, please leave your ideas here. It would be greatly appreciated.

Also, this is the same reference where the value of 196 billion solar masses was obtained for SDSS J140821.67+025733.2. I don't think this was raised in the earlier discussion here. SkyFlubbler (talk) 05:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review

I submitted a deletion review here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 December 18#SDSS J140821.67+025733.2

Please place inputs in there. Thanks!

SkyFlubbler (talk) 06:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks like you've gone down the wrong rabbit-hole. Deletion reviews are for overturning deletion decisions, generally on a technical basis (ie. close did not reflect the discussion). You also haven't made it clear what you wish to happen, especially since you have moved the article to draftspace and tagged the cross-namespace redirect for speedy deletion. I'm on the verge of removing the speedy deletion tag, but would be interested to hear what you really think should happen here. Are you planning to improve the draft? Lithopsian (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Jupiter Featured article review

I have nominated Jupiter 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Updated: Pages in Category:Astronomy

See also: Pages in Category:Astronomy (1/2) and Pages in Category:Astronomy (2/2)

See also: Articles in Category:Astronomy (1/2) and Articles in Category:Astronomy (2/2)

See also: Redirects in Category:Astronomy (1/2) and Redirects in Category:Astronomy (2/2)

~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Astrophysics Data System 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. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Guidelines on composited images?

What are our rules on using composite images in astronomy articles? I'm thinking specifically of c:File:TheGreatConjunction2020.png uploaded by KSPFanatic102 and the thread at Talk:Great_conjunction#Stitched_image?. For an image like this, I would think WP:V would require more details about how the composite image was constructed. I'm sure there was no deceptive intent here, so I'm not dumping on KSP, just trying to make sure we're presenting quality content to our readers. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

While I am not sure about the guidelines of composite imagery in astronomy articles, Due to technical limitations I have used post-processing afterward to further enhance the image. Attached below I have taken a screenshot of a side by side comparison of an unedited screenshot of the Conjunction taken without the Barlow lens. The one on the right is the file in question after image stacking, processing, and stitching. I have linked it to an imgur link for the record. https://imgur.com/7nxgh1o I feel like the composite image stitch would provide far more quality content for the reader in comparison to the raw image. Following your note I have clarified further on the software used to process the image in the description, and I'd gladly provide more detail if required. --KSPFanatic102 (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

KSPFanatic102, Thank you for your response, and I should re-emphasize that I'm sure you had no ill intent. I posted here because I'm not an expert on our standards for astronomy images. But, based on my general experience with scientific publishing, I'd say the general rule is, "the more detail, the better". This is especially true in something like wikipedia, where authors are bound by the tyranny of word count limitations. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Want to ask NASA a question?

Hello WikiProject Astronomy! I'm Ed Erhart, part of the Wikimedia Foundation's Communications department. (You might know me better as The ed17.)

Have you ever wanted to ask an astronaut a question about living in space or the science that's done on the International Space Station (ISS)? Or perhaps you're expanding an article on human spaceflight and can't find a citation for an important bit of information? We're looking for community input on questions to ask a NASA astronaut.

For Wikipedia's 20th birthday, coming up on 15 January, and 20 years of continuous occupation of the ISS, we're working with Modest Genius to interview a NASA astronaut. Suitable topics would include Wikipedia's coverage of astronautics, scientific contributions made by crewed spaceflight over the last twenty years, and plans for the next two decades of spaceflight. We'll select the best questions to put to the astronaut.

If you have questions to submit, please respond below or send them to me via email by Sunday, 10 January (UTC). Thank you! Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)