Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects

Astronomical Objects articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Astronomical Objects articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 00:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The Astronomical object article seems to need a lot of development, although I'm not quite sure how it should be expanded. Perhaps it needs a discussion of the hierarchical/fractal nature of the Universe and the role of gravity and other forces in the formation of objects? Perhaps something about entropy, and the history and future of object formation? I think a graph of object size versus mass would be informative as well.—RJH (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Does citing the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia violate WP:BLP?

On Talk:Gliese 581 g, User:Viriditas is claiming that citing the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia note on the Gliese 581 system that the HARPS new data does not detect planet g [1] violates WP:BLP because we cannot absolutely verify that is what exactly was said at the conference. Is this correct? Extra opinions would be useful. Icalanise (talk) 12:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have Ray Jayawardhana on my Facebook, who wrote on his own wall: “‎"We cannot confirm it [Gliese 581g] in our HARPS data" - Francesco Pepe (Geneva team) at IAU 276 in Torino.” I’m afraid, however, that we can not use this as a source… :-/ CielProfond (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

But more to the point. Can EPE be used as a source to claim this? Why isn't anyone else covering this? I don't rely on one source as a rule. Viriditas (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to use it, my suggestion would be to clarify the source of the information within the article body. I.e. "According to the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia, ...". The EPE article itself could use more citations to demonstrate that it is a notable source.—RJH (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

When I'm faced with a solitary source like this, I always check against a quote or transcript from the original. Since I don't have anything, I'm not going to use it. If it is notable, other sources will cover it. Viriditas (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

That works too. Better not to report it than to report potentially unreliable data as fact.—RJH (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Then again... Doubt Cast on Existence of Habitable Alien World.—RJH (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

That's the kind of secondary source we wait for, and when it comes, we use it. This isn't the first article I've waited for sources on, and it won't be the last. Viriditas (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Aye, you're welcome.—RJH (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not related to BLP. (You probably meant WP:V?) Ruslik_Zero 19:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You'd have to ask Viriditas about this. They referred to the addition of the EPE reference as "unverified BLP material". This is all pretty much irrelvant now as Viriditas shifted their argument to brandishing the term "tertiary source" as though it were a synonym for "unreliable source", and I have retired from editing the article space because for now I find the entire process taking up too much of my time and far too tedious. Will probably still be creating planetary system orbit diagrams on Commons though. Icalanise (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Photos of outer irregular moons of Saturn

I'm by no means an expert, but I noticed that a couple articles (Tarvos and Thrymr) have recently had photos added... sourced from Cassini's raw image site. However, when I've browsed that site in the past, I've found that small objects can easily be completely lost among cosmic ray hits and stars, even for the inner small moons. Considering that these moons are much more distant, I doubt that the photos really contain the moons they claim to be photos of at all. Can anyone help confirm or deny this? --Patteroast (talk) 04:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they do contain the moons they reference. We regularly image distant moons in order to measure their phase function (how their brightness changes wrt phase angle) and rotational period (by measuring a lightcurve over 4-24 hours). However, the photos on the raw images site DO NOT identify which of these bright spots is a moon, a star, or a cosmic ray hit, since as you said, they are so distant and faint that there isn't much to distinguish say, Kiviuq, unless you blink multiple images and can tie the images to known stars. --Volcanopele (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting! Do the image crops used on the articles for Tarvos and Thrymr contain the right spots? I have a feeling they were simply zoomed into the brightest spot near the center. --Patteroast (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

"Sun" and "sun" in Earth's shadow

Hello members of Project Astronomical objects. I am helping prepare a new article to be submitted for DYK. The article is about the Earth's shadow as it is visible from Earth at sunset and sunrise. I am checking to see when in this article we should use "Sun" meaning the astronomical body, and when to use "sun" meaning the everyday use of the term. If someone has a moment can they please take a look, please feel free to change the usage or tweak the content as seems appropriate. Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a complication in astronomy topics, "sun" also means the star of a planetary system that is not our Solar System... whereas "Sun" always refers to our star of our Solar System. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, good, thanks for your note. It has been accepted as a DYK. I am more concerned with the fact that in an everyday context people just write: "The sun is up now", or "no sun today". Would you take a look and see if you agree with the wording of the article? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Moons of Neptune

I nominated this article for Featured List status. The review page is here. Ruslik_Zero 18:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

JKCS 041

Can someone clean up JKCS 041? Someone turned it into a {{quotefarm}} back in May 2010. I'd personally delete the entire quote section, but I'd get cited for vandalism, since edit patrollers seem to do that whenever massive amounts of text are removed by IP editors. 76.66.198.128 (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Eek! I’d also remove the whole quote section. Do others agree? CielProfond (talk) 01:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree and  Done. -84user (talk) 02:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Abell 2218

Abell 2218 needs cleanup, it seems to use out of date science to claim that the most distant galaxy occurs in a gravitation lens image created by the cluster. However later galaxy discoveries with lower redshift claims have been acclaimed the most distant galaxy known. 76.66.198.128 (talk) 05:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

SAO 138238

FYI, SAO 138238 has been requested to be renamed. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 06:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Furthest star?

Does anyone know of a star inside of the Milky Way further than UDF 2457 @ ~59,000 ly? -- Kheider (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Some globular clusters are much further away than this star. In addition, some halo streams may be very far from the Sun. Ruslik_Zero 19:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

List of most luminous stars in the local area

FYI List of most luminous stars in the local area was recently created. However it seems highly inaccurate. The local area is undefined in the article, and several stars on the list are thousands of light years away, one not even residing in the Milky Way. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 09:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a list of stars which have greater bolometric luminosity than any other star within the same distance of the Sun. I renamed the list. Spacepotato (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Might be considered borderline WP:INDISCRIMINATE by some. Shrug.—RJH (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Since it's been renamed to List of stars more luminous than any closer star, I'll nominate the redirect for deletion since it's misleading. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

4 Sagittarii

FYI, 4 Sagittarii has been prodded for deletion. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 07:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not prod it for deletion, but it does not seem to be notable, so I would be 'for' its deletion. CielProfond (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone deprodded it. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 08:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

List of brown dwarfs

I've noticed that List of brown dwarfs doesn't actually list the spectral type or apparent magnitude of the brown dwarf, rather it lists the spectral type and apparent magnitude of the primary star of the star system the brown dwarf is part of. This seems misleading, and less useful than having data on the brown dwarf itself being listed (both could be listed, but that is not currently done; though this is supposed to be a list of brown dwarfs)

76.66.203.138 (talk) 11:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, and it lists Upsilon Andromedae c as a brown dwarf, whereas the article about it mentions it as a planet. Lots of research must be done about List of brown dwarfs to clean it up! CielProfond (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Planemo

anyone notice that planemo was renamed to planetary mass object and then disappeared back in April? For some reason the planemo type was merged into its subset, the planet type. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 08:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

A problem caused by this merge is this object: Reuters news wire ... described as a "planetary-mass object" and "white dwarf", but not planet. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 09:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a renewed planetary mass object should include the material on planetary mass moons, and distinctions between planemos, substars, subbrowndwarfs, etc ? 76.66.203.138 (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

list of brightest nebulae

i think there is a big need for a list of brightest nebulae on Wikipedia. i wanted many times such a list for observing and i think that many others did, it would be very useful. but there is problem in references, i tried to search in websites and books for something useful to create this list but i could not find anything. anyone knows a useful links, books or articles? --aad_Dira (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC).

By brightest you undoubtedly mean from the perspective of the Earth. What would the cut-off point be? Would it be a subset of List of Messier objects, or be a more extensive listing?—RJH (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean a list of naked-eye nebulae, or do you wish it to go dimmer than that? 76.66.203.138 (talk) 08:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This raises a few questions: what would the cut-off point be? (as mentioned above). Also, do we talk integrated magnitude or surface brightness? They are far different! Some nebulae with the same magnitude are not equally detectable. Finally, is Wikipedia a place for helping plan a night observing? CielProfond (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I would support having information for night observing, maybe we need a task force for that? WP:WikiProject Astronomy/Workgroups/Amateur_astronomy. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• i prefer the surface brightness, but any way it is not the time to discuss this. yes Wikipeda is not an observation guide, but that is do not matter with making an encyclopedia article, like the list of brightest stars and other lists of stars. most of the nebulae in the sky are faint, so the list will help in recognizing easily the brightest of them and what can be easily seen. do you expect that there is an obvious usages of the brightest stars list other than observing? it do not have actually a real usage, but many people would be interested to know what is the brightest stars in the sky and how bright is them, and the same is with the nebulae --aad_Dira (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC).

1. If you mean to include deep-sky objects which are not nebulae, such as globular clusters, galaxies, etc., the list should be called list of brightest deep-sky objects.
2. Surface brightness is independent of distance. This means that, for example, two galaxies of the same type and in the same orientation relative to us will always have about the same central surface brightness, even if one is the Andromeda Galaxy and the other is completely invisible to the naked eye. So, I think you would have to use total integrated brightness for such a list.
3. The NASA/IPAC extragalactic database [2] can be used to search for galaxies by magnitude. You might also wish to consult the lists of catalogs at [3] and the links therein. For example, you can find a list of known Milky Way globular clusters [4] two hops from this page. Also, an amateur astronomy club, the Saguaro Astronomy Club, has compiled a catalog of bright deep-sky objects [5].

Spacepotato (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't that just be the Caldwell catalogue ? (well... added to the Messier catalogue) 76.66.203.138 (talk) 07:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I am also compiling many astronomical catalogues (mainly for amateur use, but that applies in this case) on my website at [6]. They are not all online yet, and the search engine is not running either yet, but it will come soon. CielProfond (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

That link doesn't seem to work. http://w3.cielprofond.info:78/ works though. Spacepotato (talk) 10:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I am having a few problems with my configuration. I will see to this as soon as I can, but I can not promise any date for the fix. Thanks for reporting it, though! :-) CielProfond (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

New user "contributions"

I just wanted to give a quick heads-up that new user Obiwan42 has been making a number of "contributions" to astronomy articles, at least some of which appear inappropriate. For example, he has been changing the values of some infobox parameters so that they do not match the sources. We might want to keep an eye on the user's activities. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted one recent edit and questioned another, was waiting for a response to either actions before proceeding with challenging the other contributions. Some of this editor's earlier contributions seem superficially genuine but they have gradually become more suspect, I've found it hard to disentangle them, needs sorting out. On a side-note the editor has created two versions of the same article (Ρ Ophiuchi and Rho Ophiuchi), I assume the later is the correct convention for wiki articles but the former is an incorrect uppercase alternative so shouldn't really be a redirect so don't know what to do with it! ChiZeroOne (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I've redirected ρ Ophiuchi to Rho Ophiuchi. As Wikipedia does not support lowercase first letters, I've attached the technical article title template that makes the first letter lowercase ({{lowercase}}) 76.66.203.138 (talk) 08:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I forgot about the lowercase template, thankyou. ChiZeroOne (talk) 11:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems very "dangerous" indeed. Reminds me somehow of Carloscom2 or whatever his name was/is. Better keep an eye on this user indeed, maybe warn him/her to indicate his/her sources for those changes. Should we undo them all?! BTW it's User talk:Obiwan042, not Obiwan42... CielProfond (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It was CarloscomB (talk · contribs) from Brazil (pt:User:CarloscomB) ... God, I hope OW42 is not like CCB... we're still cleaning up his messes. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I worked my way back through his last 30-40 contributions. Most of them seem somewhat reasonable, or at least not awful; the editor's added a bunch of new star articles and fixed a few errors. So probably better than CarloscomB. No sources added to any of the revisions, of course. I guess I was just unhappy about a couple of changes to cited data without providing a new source; in many cases that can appear to be bordering on subtle vandalism, so it's a bit of a hot button for me. %-/ RJH (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd post a note on the talk page about errors found and query sources and see how it pans out from there, but yes I get suspicious of number-tweaks on pages with no sources provided. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the edit on Alpha Cancri and Obiwan042 did not go back to it. Actually, there was no activity on Obiwan042’s part since the 17th. This edit specifically was the change of the luminosity from 1 to 2.1, with the reference saying 1, so I brought it back to 1. Will we have to check/revert all the edits, one by one?! :-( CielProfond (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately he's back at it, and he hasn't been including a source for his data. I reverted several of his contributions on the grounds that they were arbitrary changes with no sources given, and he has a history of overwriting values with incorrect data.—RJH (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Cepheid variable

FYI, Cepheid variable was rewritten yesterday. This is rated as a top importance article for us. Also, Type II Cepheids was created yesterday. Cepheid variable has also been requested to be renamed as Classical Cepheid variables. This was all done by 99.192.66.42 (talk · contribs); We should consider whether it is better to split off an article on classical Cepheids, versus moving the page history to classical, and building a new overview page. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 06:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There is now a rename discussion at Talk:Cepheid variable. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 06:12, 23 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) 03:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

WPSpace wishes to abolish WP Astronomical objects

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) 06:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There wasn't even consensus to merge WP:AST and WP:ASTRO; how on earth do they think they'll get consensus for this? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe by fiat, since it would involve WPSpace members reaching consensus amongst themselves, and them imposing their will onto us, being the "parent" wikiproject. There's a suggestion at WT:AST that Astronomy/astronomical objects be deparented from WPSpace. Perhaps that should be implemented. Then we mostly shouldn't be bothered by anything that WPSpace does. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 07:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Doing it by fiat is impossible; anything affecting all three wikiprojects has to reach consensus among the members of all three wikiprojects. They could unilaterally deparent these projects, I suppose, but even that is a grey area. The whole point of WP:CONS is that no single small group can impose its wishes on a larger group of editors. Even the members of a wikiproject aren't truly in charge of that project; the community as a whole is, and in principle an RFC on a sufficiently contentious part of a wikiproject could overrule the wishes of the members of that project.

Long story short, wider discussion is mandatory, not optional, for anything like this. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 09:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This is part of the wider discussion, the one at WP:Space is a continuation of another held at the sub-project WikiProject Human spaceflight. This is just scaremongering, you can see it wasn't begun by Wikiproject Space but the discussion was taken there from the Spaceflight projects to get more participation. I posted a message about the new one on Space's daughters Astronomy, Solar System and Spaceflight to draw editors to it from all over, and I certainly won't let anything happen before there is consensus among the projects. It simply had become clear that the present organisation of projects is not working, merging of everything into WP:Space was just one of the solutions brought up. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion, including raising any concerns over consultation, and preferably indicate which project you mostly work on so it's clear if there are differences in attitudes between projects. ChiZeroOne (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the proposal to merge everything was made at WPSpace, without informing WPAstronomy or WPAstronomical Objects that such a proposal had been made. Unlike the proposals at Human spaceflight, which informed WPAstronomy. That WPSpace is not very active and is trying to merge away several child projects seems like trying to get WPSpace active by getting rid of active projects because they can't exist otherwise. The comparison is made with WPMILHIST, in attempting to make WPSpace relevant, except that editors seem to be split between spaceflight and astronomy, unlike Milhist, where editors are spread across the spectrum of coverage (in any case MILHIST resulted in a merger between WPBattles and WPWars, which isn't as disparate as spaceflight and astronomy... spaceflight coming out of aviation, astronomy coming out of ancient religious studies and agriculture). 76.66.194.212 (talk) 06:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said I posted a message about the new discussion on Space's daughters Astronomy, Solar System and Spaceflight. The reason I didn't make reference to any proposals was because at this stage nothing is definite and I wanted the discussion to be about proposing different solutions which may not have yet been put forward, not a simple "Option 1 or Option 2" because I don't think we're anywhere near that stage yet. Even the editor who created the discussion at WP:Space notes that and points out that these were ideas put forward so far. Btw, you'll note the reason why a discussion was started at WP:Astronomy was because I pointed out that Astronomy has a different attitude to the Space banner.

The proposal to merge everything into WP:Space was made by one editor (I was the one who suggested the deparenting/abolishion of WP:Space idea) so again claiming that "WP:Space" wants to do anything is hyperbole. I'd prefer it if the discussion is kept constructive, if that means favouring another idea like the one I suggested then so be it, but please don't demonise other editors who just want to find ways to improve the organisation of projects. I don't know how much more explicitly I can put it that yours and all other Ast/Astro members input is very much welcomed. ChiZeroOne (talk) 14:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about not being able to do things by fiat, as I've seen it attempted before, with comments on how to delete other people's wikiproject banners on the talk page of the banner which wishes to displace other ones without discussing it with those wikiprojects, and why their assessment standards should be overridden by the banner wishing to displace those non-related (not heirarchically placed) or shared-child wikiprojects. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 06:09, 23 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) 10:52, 23 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… 22:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Epsilon Eridani

The Epsilon Eridani page has reached GA class status. My understanding is that the next stage is to become an A class article. Might I ask for some input on what needs to be done to reach that level? Thank you.

Regards, RJH (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I know how WPMILHIST, WPAviation and WPShips do it... Ships - MilHist - Aviation*2*1

We should probably model our procedure on these. 76.66.202.72 (talk) 06:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay yes, it looks like a Review sub-page would be useful for centralizing astronomy articles. Perhaps there should be just one for the Astronomy and Astronomical objects WikiProjects? Or maybe we should ask the WPSpace folks if they would do it for all space-related topics, since they seem to be going through some existential discussions at the moment? :-) —RJH (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/A-Class criteria, says "For WikiProjects without a formal A-Class review process, the proposal to promote to A-Class should be made on the article's talk page and supported there by two uninvolved editors, with no significant opposes. The review should also be noted on the discussion page.". I would also point out that the asessment tables for Astronomy and Astronomical objects do not include A-class fields... ChiZeroOne (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure that process would add significant value to the article that I couldn't already get by taking it through FAC, so I guess I'll probably not bother.—RJH (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Categorization of double/multiple stars

Recently, a number of edits have been made regarding our categorization system for small groups of stars. This system has to do with stars that (a) appear to be part of a group of n stars, where n = 2, 3, ..., and where the group is either (b.1) known to be a physical, gravitationally bound system or (b.2) known not to be physical, or not known either to be physical or not physical. The categorization at present is as follows:

Description	Categorization
n = 2 (a), physical (b.1)	Category:Binary stars
n = 2 (a), not known physical (b.2)	Category:Double stars
n = 3 (a), physical (b.1)	Category:Triple star systems
n = 3 (a), not known physical (b.2)	Category:Triple stars
n ≥ 4 (a), physical (b.1)	Category:Multiple star systems
n ≥ 4 (a), not known physical (b.2)	Category:Multiple stars

The question is when to categorize stars into the last category (Category:Multiple stars). You are invited to comment at Category talk:Multiple stars. Spacepotato (talk) 02:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a Category:Single star systems and Category:Single stars as well? (aren't most stars binary or multiple?) 65.93.12.108 (talk) 06:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The idea that most stars are multiple dates back to a time when observations were mostly of brighter, higher-mass stars. Nowadays it appears that most stars are lone red dwarfs. See e.g. [7], Bibcode:2006ApJ...640L..63L. Spacepotato (talk) 07:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Though if many or most star articles on Wikipedia are multiple, it would be useful to categorize single star systems then. 65.94.46.54 (talk) 06:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Distance to Messier 87

I've been doing some updates to the Messier 87 article. One of the items I wanted to pin down is the distance estimate. The current estimate cites Tonry et al. (2001), who gives a distance modulus of 31.03 ± 0.16 in Table 1. I'm assuming this was converted by somebody to the current distance estimate listed in the article (17 ± 0.31) Mpc. In searching further, I came across Bird et al. (2010) who gives a weighted mean distance modulus of 31.08 ± 0.06 based upon multiple measurement techniques, which they then convert to (16.4 ± 0.5) Mpc. It's perhaps a bit odd that the latter references the former, yet gives a weighted mean with a greater variance than the value listed in the Wikipedia article. I'm tempted to just go with the Bird et al. (2010) value since that article is focused on M87 rather than being a general survey.

Do you have a recommendation? Thank you.—RJH (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

NED generically shows a distance range of (16.7 ± 1.8) Mpc. -- Kheider (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Maybe what I need to do is build up some information about the distance estimates and worry about the correct value to use later. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

17 ± 0.31 Mpc is not a correct conversion of a distance modulus of 31.03 ± 0.16. The correct conversion would be 16.1 ± 1.2 Mpc. Spacepotato (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That looks more consistent. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose to merge Vega as an X-ray source with Vega, as I do not see the purpose of having a separate article to mention the X-ray properties of the star. Opinions? Comments? CielProfond (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Vega is a featured article, whereas Vega as an X-ray source is not. For a merge to be successful, the quality of the content in the latter needs to be brought up to snuff. Fortunately, there is also significant redundancy between the two, so many parts can be pruned. Some parts may also be of dubious value.—RJH (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, RJHall. I, however, don’t have the necessary knowledge to bring the current Vega as an X-ray source article up to par. Any volunteer? CielProfond (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)