Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

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

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)

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)

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.

Discuss In studying the documentation on weasel words, I decided to keep "Betelgeuse is currently thought to lie around..." as this statement is a concise yet accurate characterization of the ongoing dynamic surrounding the star's distance estimates in addition to being explained at length in the Parallax section. The second reference of "It is thought to be a runaway star..." has been modified. Any thoughts?--Sadalsuud (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• "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.

Done Took a crack at it. Tying the two sentences under one theme pulls it together better. In addition, the phrase "huge plumes of gas" was deleted, as it made the sentence unwieldy and the concept is better explained below. Any thoughts?--Sadalsuud (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Absolute magnitude (M_V) –6.05": To me the footnote explanation for this is insufficient. It needs a reliable source, if only to show the extinction value.

Need to research This is a tricky one, which will require more research. I'll see what I can come up with.--Sadalsuud (talk) 08:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Discuss Did a quick search at ADS with the strings "Betelgeuse magnitude" and "Alpha Ori magnitude". Result? The most recent article I could find relating to "absolute magnitude" was published in 1997 yielding a result of -5.24. But the Harper article from which we have the now current distance estimate of 197 ± 45 pc (hence AbsMag value) was published in 2008. I perused the article for any mention of absolute magnitude, but found none, although there is a discussion of "extinction". The only other article I could find that might answer this question was from Sigismondi 2011. Being so recent, I don't have access to the article, and frankly, because I'm no astrophysicist, it's all beyond my ability to decipher anyway. Any suggestions here? We could add the Harper article] as an additional footnote, if you think that makes sense.--Sadalsuud (talk) 09:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The Harper 2008 paper gives the bolometric flux and luminosity in section 3.2. That could easily be converted into a bolometric absolute magnitude. Getting a visual or V band one would be more difficult - you could calculate it from the apparent V=0.5 from the Bright Star Catalogue, the distance of 197pc from Harper, and the upper limit of A_V < 0.22 also from Harper. Modest Genius ^talk 12:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply to this question. Unfortunately, never having studied astronomy, I must rely on information in the Luminosity article to help me understand what you are pointing to. If I understand you correctly, the Absolute Magnitude for Betelgeuse would be -7.99, based on the following formula:

$M_{bol_{\rm {star}}}-M_{bol_{\rm {sun}}}=-2.5\log _{10}{\frac {L_{\rm {star}}}{L_{\odot }}}$

If this is the right formula, then it's a question of inserting the right variables. So, turning to 1) Harper Section 5.2,Stellar Properties, for info on Betelgeuse and 2) Basic Astronomical Data for the Sun, it appears that:

$\log _{10}{\frac {L_{\rm {star}}}{L_{\odot }}}=5.10$

If this is correct, then:

$M_{bol_{\rm {star}}}=-2.5\log _{10}{\frac {L_{\rm {star}}}{L_{\odot }}}+M_{bol_{\rm {sun}}}$

$M_{bol_{\rm {star}}}=(-2.5)(5.10)+4.7554=-7.99$

Is this correct or do I have the math all wrong? Thanks again for your help on this.--Sadalsuud (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks reasonable to me, assuming your input numbers are correct. I also should have thought of this before: Wolfram Alpha lists visual absolute magnitudes, which gives $M_{\rm {visual}}=-6.02$. Remember though that this is a variable star whose with variations > one magnitude, so I wouldn't list any of these to more than 2 significant figures. Modest Genius ^talk 11:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Done OK. I think we're done here, unless RJH has some final thoughts on the matter. Thanks for the Wolfram Alpha ref. I have now added it as a reference to the Starbox Absmag value. I'm still somewhat puzzled however. The above calculation which yields an AbsMag = -7.99 is vastly different than the published -6.02. The larger number suggests that Betelgeuse is roughly 15 times brighter (i.e 2.5^3) than what we are reporting in the article. So I suppose my math is off or there is something about these computational methods that can yield wildly different results. Any insights here would be much appreciated. Thanks again.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Your calculation is the bolometric magnitude, i.e. over all wavelengths. Wolfram Alpha gave the visual magnitude, which is just over the relatively narrow range of wavelengths which are detectable by the human eye. As a relatively cool star, Betelgeuse emits most of its light at infrared wavelengths which are invisible to the human eye. The numerical difference is about what I would expect for this kind of star. Modest Genius ^talk 12:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting, and thanks again for your quick reply. Two observations: 1) In the final paragraph of the Visibility section, a statement is made that only 13% of the star's radiant energy is emitted in the visible, a reference from Burnham (1978). If the above calculation is indeed more accurate, it appears that only 6% of the star's energy is emitted in the visible (1/(2.512^3). If this roughly correct, should we update the Visibility section? 2) I'm a little mystified I didn't catch the distinction between absolute and bolometric magnitudes. Looking to the Luminosity article, I notice it's been flagged as needing a better lead section. I'll be taking a crack at that soon, so this distinction jumps off the page for average readers like myself. Thanks again for your help in getting this article through FAC.--Sadalsuud (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Stick with the cited source, which is a) verifiable and b) probably has a better treatment of reddening. Modest Genius ^talk 12:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Current estimates of the star's apparent diameter...": WP:DATED

Done Altered this section to read: "Studies since 1990 have produced an apparent diameter that ranges from 0.043 to 0.056 arcseconds, an incongruity largely caused by the star's tendency to change shape periodically." The original language I had employed, (i.e. "a moving target"}, seemed a little too folksy, so I changed that too. The word "incongruity" I think works well, in light of the Cambridge definition as it suggests "out of step with the norm" which is a dominant theme for Betelgeuse. Any thoughts?--Sadalsuud (talk) 07:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• "...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?

Done As noted below, the word "huge" now appears only once in the article. I did a global search of the word "plume" and tried to vary the adjectives that are used to avoid redundancy. In terms of vagueness, the second occurrence of the word "plume" occurs in Recent studies, and is indeed accompanied by the word "vast" but is then defined as 30AU. I think this is what Kervella means by the term "vast". Similarly, other usages of the word plume are later defined as "six stellar radii" and "the orbit of Neptune (photo). So are we OK here, or are we still walking on thin ice?--Sadalsuud (talk) 08:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

On a related note, my global search for the word "plume" shows that it is employed 10 times in the article. I've contemplated various synonyms for the word (i.e. "feather"), but that's risky, as the word "plume" has taken on a specific meaning as defined by Kervella. Any suggestions?--Sadalsuud (talk) 08:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Ultimately, "plume" has a specific meaning it is very hard to find synonyms for - "jet" is about the only one I can think of. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

In an astrophysical context, 'jet' and 'plume' are NOT synonyms. Don't mix them up. Modest Genius ^talk 12:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Regards, RJH (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

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)

Overall though, the editors have done an excellent job of turning this article around. I remember when it seemed like a meandering unsourced mess. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your insightful remarks. I did a global search for the words "huge", "vast", "enormous" etc. Results? Huge (4), Vast (6), Enormous (1). Where these words come from typically is source material, i.e. ESO subtitle, but given its redundancy and vagueness, we'll do what we can to make appropriate changes. I'll post changes here for final consideration.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Done OK. Results: huge (1), vast (1) in keeping with ESO's description of the gas plume, enormous (1), immense (1), gigantic (2), one of which occurs in an ESO pic, mirroring ESO's usage of the word. So unless you think otherwise, the redundancy issue I believe is behind us with respect to these particular words. I will keep a lookout for other redundancies in the article and give thought to instances of vagueness in the article. Any other insights will be promptly acted upon.--Sadalsuud (talk) 06:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Mmm, well my concern had more to do with WP:VAGUE than redundancy. For example, I remember I got an enormous blister on the back of my heel once from mountain hiking, so I had to apply a huge bandaid. It was at least a three centimeters across. I know one could deduce something about vague descriptions based upon the context, but it's usually better to provide values or ranges. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't this whole conversation be moved to Talk:Betelgeuse? Modest Genius ^talk 12:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. There's a discussion underway there already. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Link = Review for FAC readiness--Sadalsuud (talk) 10:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Infobox questions

Hello all, I was wondering what the "Bayer/Flamsteed stars" and "main stars" parameters mean in the constellation infobox. I sort of assumed the latter referred to stars that were a part of the "figure", but I'm not sure. (This was asked at the FAC for Andromeda). Thanks for your help! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

My impression was that "Bayer/Flamsteed stars" is supposed to be the number of stars in the constellation that have a Bayer or Flamsteed designation, given as e.g. "14/26". I've no idea what "main stars" is for. There's some previous discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_constellation#Numberstars parameter. Actual usage appears to be inconsistent. Modest Genius ^talk 22:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, ok. Are there any reliable sources for that, or are we supposed to bust out an atlas and count them ourselves? I'm tempted to remove "main stars" as no one seems to know or use it the same way. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I think "main stars" is the number of stars that make up the asterism (star pattern)? Or that's the impression it gives me. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

If that is the case, we could (semi-arbitrarily) define them as the minimum number of stars connected by lines on the IAU constellation charts. Regards, RJH (talk) 04:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Works for me. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm good with that. I'll make sure that's the case for whatever I'm working on. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 05:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

So... should I update the template documentation with our consensus that main stars means the stars that make up the star pattern? 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 06:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I added a comment to Template:Infobox_constellation/doc. Hope that's okay. Several of the other fields could do with definitions. Regards, RJH (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Article Request: List of astronomical phenomena visible from Earth

Today's transit of Venus got me wondering what other astronomical phenomenon are coming up in the next few years. I looked to see if we had such an article, but apparently we don't. I'm therefore requesting a List of astronomical phenomena visible from Earth article. I realize that such a list might be unwieldy, but not if we get the inclusion criteria right. Off the top of my head, I suggest the following as a starting point:

1. Must be visible from Earth with the naked eye.
2. Must be notable on its own.

My hope is to have an article that would be of interest to the average person who would find such information helpful. Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

So we're talking eclipses, transits (are Mercury transits visible with the naked eye?), occultations of naked-eye stars, maybe some comets? I like it, and I'll attempt to help. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The word phenomenon is singular. The word phenomena is plural. Please see wikt:phenomenon and wikt:phenomena.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I have fixed the error above. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Would this include theoretically visible events? Or those that have actual recorded evidence that they were seen at the time? (several astronomic explosions come to mind that were theoretically visible...) 70.24.251.208 (talk) 06:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd think they would have to be recorded as being visible, to confirm it being visible to the naked eye. But this is a great idea! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 15:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

We should have a heirarchy of lists, like for astronomical objects (ie. List of astronomical objects leads to other lists), so a list of astronomical phenomena or list of astronomical events would lead to the list of visible ones. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

it.wiki

While fixing Mu Canis Majoris, Kheider noticed that the Italian article was dealing with the wrong star (MU Canis Majoris instead of μ Canis Majoris) , can someone ask Italian Wikipedia to fix that? 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It probably didn't help that a SIMBAD query for Mu Canis Majoris returns the results for MU Canis Majoris. Regards, RJH (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Using lower case avoids this problem (which makes sense, since it's a lower case μ not the upper case Μ). Anyway, my Italian isn't good enough. Modest Genius ^talk 12:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have to keep that in mind. (Maybe SIMBAD needs to have disambiguation pages? ) Regards, RJH (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Renaming the Italian article to MU will atleast place that article at the correct name for its star. Creating a stub for mu should be simple enough :

{{Nota disambigua|MU Canis Majoris|MU Canis Majoris}}

mu Canis Majoris è una stella situata nella costellazione del Cane Maggiore.

{{S}}

-- 70.24.251.208 (talk) 06:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone has renamed the Italian article. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll rename the article to "μ Canis Majoris" to avoid the naming ambiguity. The redirect will remain but the MU vs. μ conflict will be resolved. I can't do that. Silly me. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 21:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Maps of astronomical bodies

Category:Maps of astronomical bodies has been nominated for deletion. Do we have any articles on various maps? (The only notable ones I can think of are for Mars, or 17th century ones of the Moon... but I don't know if we have articles on them) -- 70.24.251.208 (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Selenography is the only one I'm aware of. It looks like the Areography link just points to the Geography of Mars article. There's a good potential to write a stand-alone article on Mars mapping, although it is somewhat covered by History of Mars observation. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Images in categories

There are three random images in Category:Sun. Is that acceptable to the members of this WikiProject. I have instigated a RfC at about image in categories at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Categories#Image_categorisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem. That category should contain only fair-use images; all free-use images belong on Commons. All three of those are PD-gov and I'm moving them to Commons now. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Moved. I believe the issue is no longer very relevant to this Wikiproject. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that content categories should categorize images. There have been several attempts through the years to categorize images in a separate image tree, and as subcategories of content categories, but at CFD some of these have been deleted as being small and then upmerged into content categories, so it's just a mess. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Aries (constellation) passed GA....impromptu Peer Review helpful

Okay, I passed Aries (constellation) as GA - more input on buffing for FAC I am sure Keilana would appreciate. (comments there not here...) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs)

The article is presently undergoing FAC review. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Very Long Baseline Array

One of the principal contributors to Very Long Baseline Array is also a science editor, and author of materials about the subject. These writings are subject to copyright, and efforts to obtain a free license are tied up in bureaucracy. Because of similarities of writing style, it happens that the content of the article sometimes looks similar to materials which are subject to copyright. If other editors, such as members of this project, were to pitch in and help expand the article, it is likely that the writing styles would be different and thus avoid the perception that materials under copyright are being used. I offered to make this plea to this Wikiproject; is this the best place to do it, or is there a better page?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You're in the right place, but you should also mention this on the talk page. And who is this principal contributor? Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 21:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

NRAOEPO--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Strange Venus Transit image.

Quick question for solar photographers here: the image File:2012 Transit of Venus from Shelby Township.jpg was recently added to Transit of Venus, 2012, but the composition seems very odd to me. The solar disc itself is warped with dark edges, but there's a very prominent corona also visible. None of the other transit pics have anything like this. Is this two images merged, something photoshopped, or completely normal? — Huntster (t @ c) 06:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, it looks photoshopped, the corona must be a separate image, since it can't be that bright with the disc of the Sun visible. The Sun even looks like it's shadowed, which is impossible, since the entire surface is a light source, and that limb of the Sun is darker than sunspots. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 06:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Photoshop. -- Kheider (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

And badly at that. Good call on the removal. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• The image is currently up for deletion discussion on Commons. The uploader states the photo is "100% real", no photoshopping, and has mentioned some details of equipment used. Informed feedback is welcome at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:2012 Transit of Venus from Shelby Township.jpg -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for that, Infrogmation, it completely slipped my mind. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• The sun is a nearly-perfect sphere. The image... really, really isn't. It's not even elliptical (as you might get from phone photos of some projection scheme). They're going to need a better cut-and-paste job before any "100% real" or "it's a new filter!" claim is plausible. They claim that their image is approved by everyone and their kid brother and has an award and yadda yadda, but there is a suspicious lack of verifiability in those claims. --Christopher Thomas (talk)

• Yadda Yadda Yadda! Excuse Me! This is real! I say that some of you are either jealous or just a bunch of trolls. This is a new customized filter that my astronomy club were working with and this is from an iPod, not a professional camera. This is the first you've seen something like this. Trust me, you'll see more in the upcoming years or maybe even months. I did absolutely nothing to edit this picture. I CAN'T AFFORD PHOTOSHOP. I don't have money to just spend like that. Im not a professional photographer. I wouldn't even call my self amateur. Wikipedia is a free site that anyone can edit. Like I said, I don't have tons of knowledge on the sun or photography. I just don't appreciate that you are intimidating an noob like me. — Bugattijoe (@) 04:10 June 18, 2012 (UTC)--Bugattijoe (talk) 04:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Please use simple and direct text (about the issue), without commentary. You are saying the picture is unretouched and its unique appearance is due to some new technology—wouldn't that be sufficient to explain why other editors do not find the image helpful as it is unique (an outlier). If the other editors are wrong it is because the image is unique, not because they are trolls. I accept what you are saying but the explanation suggests the image is not suitable for Wikipedia because there is no way to verify how it was taken or why it shows significantly different features when compared with other images. Johnuniq (talk) 04:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• "photoshopped" does not mean you used Adobe Photoshop, it means the images was modified using photomanipulation techniques popularized with Photoshop. You could easily have used GIMP or some other software package, or did it in a photolab the old fashion way with film printers and celluloid overlays. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• If it is real, you are going to have to prove it (as required by WP:V), as several editors have expressed serious doubts about it. If the Warren Astronomy Society gave it some form of recognition, as you claim, then link to the appropriate public forum describing that (at present your image is nowhere to be found on their site). Right now, you've been making many claims, but have not given any means of confirming those claims. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Update, for others' benefit: I've found the image, but can't provide a link due to WP:OUTING (they left a fair bit of direct identity information with it). Revealing the link is left to User:Bugattijoe's discretion. My concerns with the image stand, to put it mildly. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Metadata indicates the image has been photoshopped. See the deletion page for my analysis. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• I don't even know what all this gimp-shop stuff is. I already told you, I know the bare minimum about photography. All I know is that I put my iPod to the eyepiece and snapped the picture. You are taking this too seriously. Do some sort of FBI test on it or whatever. I did nothing to this picture. — Bugattijoe (@) 04:10 June 18, 2012 (UTC)--Bugattijoe (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Good catch, Pi; that gives a pretty strong indication that this user has been editing in bad faith. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Christopher Thomas emailed the Warren Astronomical Society to ask for "official" comment on the image, so here it is. (Semi-official, since I am just a member and the webmaster of the club.) I can confirm that the photographer was at our transit observing event at Stony Creek Metropark and that he did in fact take a photo with his iPod touch through a Televue 85 telescope with a 60mm Coronado SolarMax Hα filter. The metadata shows that the photo was taken with an iPod touch - though it also, troublingly, shows that it was edited in Photoshop CS6. Joe, it might help everyone understand why it says that if you described how you moved the photo onto your computer and uploaded it around the web.

In any case, it is clearly not an actual photograph of the sun's corona, but Joe has not claimed that it is. It seems unlikely that a lens flare or internal reflection would look so similar to the corona, but who knows. I saw some pretty amazing internal reflections with my cell phone and h-alpha scope. We don't have any formal "photo of the year" award, and we do not normally do photoshop forensics, so I assume that was just the personal opinion of somebody else in the club.--Jonathan.kade (talk) 07:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I see that Joe did mention the corona, but only after another user did. --Jonathan.kade (talk) 07:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, but this matter has been discussed enough and unless someone has something new and pertinent to add it is reasonable to conclude that there is no support for an addition of the picture. Whether the image was manipulated (as more or less proven by the metadata) is not relevant since there is no encyclopedic benefit from adding an outlier with no verifiable explanation. Wikipedia is not the place to publish such unique material. Johnuniq (talk) 07:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it does matter, as it affects the degree of scrutiny applied to future contributions from User:Bugattijoe, and whether their actions (and edit-warring) at the Venus transit article are treated as being unintentionally or intentionally disruptive (makes a big difference for the response to any future perceived disruption).

If they can do a sufficiently good job of pleading ignorance, that'll help them, so I'm willing to listen to the explanation Jonathan.kade asked for. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• It turns out that the image was edited. I was puzzled when the metadata said it was edited on Photoshop because I don't even own Photoshop. So I did my own little investigation to figure out why this is. I found out that when I went to my grandparents house, my cousin was playing with my iPod. (which had my pictures of the transit) He liked them, so he put some of them on his laptop without telling me. He's like amateur photographer and has Photoshop CS6. It's one of the pictures I took with my iPod and he merged it with one of the pictures from a solar eclipse to get the corona. Then played with the colors to get the yellowish look. He then put the picture back on my iPod with all my other pictures. I didn't know any better and I thought I took that picture. I should have noticed that it looked different than all the rest. So I thought it looked good and I thought people would like it, so I wanted to put it on Wikipedia. So I would like to say I'm sorry because I honestly didn't know. So I would like to conclude this discussion and put this all behind everybody. — Bugattijoe (@) 17:40 June 18, 2012 (UTC)--Bugattijoe (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Image has been deleted on Commons. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

New transit image

Bugattijoe has uploaded a new version, without the aberrant corona File:2012 transit of venus from shelby twp.JPG. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

That looks exactly like what I'd expect from an iTouch through a 4" scope with a visible light filter (not H-alpha). The limb darkening is pretty awful, but I'm fairly certain that's a result of the mediocre camera. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I noticed it several days ago, and checked the group's gallery for comparisons. It resembles, but isn't identical to, several of the photos others took, consistent with it being taken through the same telescope at about the same time. Some of the images in the society's gallery have been flipped horizontally (possibly due to display or projection methods), but B's upload seems to match the other ones in the wiki article's gallery. Long story short, it looks fine as far as I can tell. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The edge darkening could also be from spherical aberration with the Sun being slightly off center in the instrument. But yes it seems fine. Regards, RJH (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Question on new articles

Hi, I've recently created the Thin disk and Thick disk articles and I'd like to add to both of them the Astronomy banner. What I don't know is how the importance and class parameters are assigned? Should I request some kind of review before putting the banner up? Regards, Gaba p (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you can use the code below on the talk page. As of now, you can add in the class and importance parameters yourself, under good faith. A formal review is only needed for assigning a class of "GA" or above. Cheers, SPat ^talk 17:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

{{WikiProject Astronomy
|class=XXX
|importance=YYY
|object=
|attention=
|infobox=
|needs-image=
}}

Thanks SPat. Could you explain a bit what should/could I put in the class, importance, object, attention, infobox & needs-image parameters? Where do I find such information? Thanks. Gaba p (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Documentation is available on the {{WikiProject Astronomy}} page. Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Importance ratings is linked from the above template. It provides a model for assigning importance ratings to astronomy articles. Ymmv, of course. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Done, thank you both! Gaba p (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not agree that these two articles meet "B"-class quality, they both look like "Start"-class articles. Indeed, I'm inclined to think that "thin disk" is stub-class. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

GraemeBartlett agrees with my opinion that these are start-class. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 10:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Templates RA and dec

The templates and {{{1}}}° aren't producing proper output. For instance 1^h 2^m 3.4^s is supposed to be rendered 1^h 02^m 03^s.4 in standard astronomical practice, although with the ^s above the decimal point. I left some comments on their talk pages. Tfr000 (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Convenience links: Template talk:RA, Template talk:DEC. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Well... if we handle Tfr000's issues (leading zero, decimals) and the other issue about putting minus signs into the output instead of whatever people input, this will make both templates {{intricate}}, and expand both templates a great deal. (see the talk pages) -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 08:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it needs to be implemented by a dedicated bot then, rather than via a change to the templates? Regards, 17:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a bot will be needed to roll it out. The intricate coding I came up with should be compatible with currently implemented proper uses. (If the template is being used improperly, it'll dump some error message, once the intricate code is implemented). But with intricate coding, we can expand error checking as well. Do we want to do range checking, to check if the values in the parameters are in range? If a parameter is wrong, we can make it implement a cleanup category, say Category:RADEC transclusions with improper parameters ; We can also make it optionally display "Declination", "dec", "Right Ascension", "RA" and link it as well (say |abbr=yes |abbr=no |display=yes |capitalize=yes |display=no |link=yes |link=no ) such as how {{convert}} can do that. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Some articles with many template run in to a limit, and after the limit is reached, the remaining templates are displayed as-is. I don't know if the intricate features under discussion will trigger the limit, but there is a potential for an article to have many right ascensions and declinations. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we may run into that problem with articles such as List of nearest stars or List of nearest bright stars. In that case, something we might be able to do with the RA and DEC templates is add a fourth data field and use that for the decimal part of the seconds/arcseconds. The leading zeroes we can fix manually. Regards, RJH (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Per RJH, here's a sample of the 4th param version:

Administrative

related

• template:DEC
• {{Need Sky}}

Discussion

minutes optional

I am making minutes optional, since looking at Bibcode:1988ApJ...327..544D, I see that some people don't characterize that far, using only hours... 76.66.196.139 (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Template output is non-standard

1^h 2^m 3.4^s is supposed to be rendered 1^h 02^m 03^s.4 in standard astronomical practice, although with the ^s above the decimal point. Obviously, common fonts won't do that, so this approximation is usually used. Tfr000 (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that the angle can't be easily copy and pasted. At the time this convention was established astronomical publications were on paper. It would be nice if there was a mechanism that allowed one to click on the angle and choose to copy it as decimal number; that is, see 1^h 02^m 03^s.4 with the "s" over the decimal point, but copy it as 1.03428. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

A possibility is to use some of the operators on Help:Calculation to modify the seconds field; ex. apply a 'trunc' for the integer part, then use subtraction to get the decimal. Inserting a zero could be done with a branch instruction. I.e. print a leading zero when the parameter is less than 10. You might also take a look at the source for {{Su}} to see if there is anything that can be used. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Leading zeroes can be implemented through the use of parser functions. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, it looks like padleft would do it, per WP:PF. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Though, I have seen in reputable publications where that is exactly the format that is printed, without the leading zeros. Admittedly, when I've seen it, it tends to be older sources. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It's probably an artifact of the modern digital age. Section 5.14 of the IAU Style Manual appears to recommend leading zeroes. Regards, RJH (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears that MW:StringFunctions do not work on en.wiki... 70.49.127.65 (talk) 07:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Too bad MW:Extension:Variables isn't installed either. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

This is getting quite complex... I think it'll have a detrimental effect on performance

{{Template talk:RA/workpage}}
{{Template talk:RA/workpage|A=-13.26}}
{{Template talk:RA/workpage|A=+3.26}}
{{Template talk:RA/workpage|A=0.26}}

70.49.127.65 (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Some further discussion is also occurring at Template talk:DEC and WT:WikiProject_Astronomy -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

At WT:AST it has been mentioned that loading this template with intricate features may make several pages run into the transclusion limit, and that instead leading zeros should be solved by manual editing. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Addressing those concerns brought up at WT:AST, a sample version is now in the sandbox. Template:RA/sandbox ; manually enter leading zeroes,manually enter the decimal point, decimal portion (with decimal point) now entered as the fourth parameter -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Please present a working example of a call to your sandbox version. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

That's always been available, in the test cases page. Template:RA/testcases ; it's also already shown in use at the discussion at WT:AST ; {{Template:RA/sandbox|11|||.36}} 11^h -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

A couple more test cases:

{{Template:RA/sandbox|22|47|42|7684}} –> 22^h 47^m 42^s

{{Template:DEC/sandbox|–14|03|23|142}} –> –14° 03′ 23″.142

I think it would be good if the fourth field automatically inserted the decimal. At a later date we might have the means to display it correctly, so not including the decimal among the data may aid in that effort. Would that require much overhead? Regards, RJH (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It just adds a single if statement, so doesn't greatly increase complexity. I'll update the sandbox momentarily. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Updated -- {{Template:RA/sandbox|11|||36}} 11^h -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I tried a scaling test with a copy of an existing page – Template:RA/testpage. There doesn't seem to be a problem with using multiple copies of this template. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Does Tfr000 have any comments at this point? Shall we go with this revision? Regards, RJH (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The two test cases above look good. What about backward compatibility? I believe the current template accepts inputs like 22|47|42.7684 rather than 22|47|42|7684... will this be a big problem for existing articles? "What links here" shows a lot of links. Tfr000 (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no problem with backward compatibility, since the result of the sandboxed template is the same as the current one, for uses using the current format. There's only the need to section off the decimal portion to address your original concern about decimals, and that can be done with a bot request, so that {{Template:RA/sandbox|22|47|42.7684}} 22^h 47^m 42.7684^s will become {{Template:RA/sandbox|22|47|42|7684}} 22^h 47^m 42^s ; similarly, leading zeroes can also be handled with a mass bot correction, and the minus sign issue at Template:DEC -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 04:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Are we going to adopt this now? Regards, RJH (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

When will this be adopted? Seven years have passed – I don't think the performance/memory issues are still relevant. --46.242.12.78 (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

hours optional

I made hours optional, for e.g. uncertainties measured in minutes, as in Saturn's rotational period. — kwami (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 August 2022

If a value for the third field (seconds) is not provided, the template output ends with a 'space' character. This is visible, for example, with the last sentence of the first paragraph of Virgo III Groups. My request is to move the hard-coded spaces to the '#if' output. I think something like this will work:

Before:

{{nowrap|{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}^h|}} {{#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}^m|}} {{#if:{{{3|}}}|{{{3|}}}^s|}}}}

After:

{{nowrap|{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}^h|}}{{#if:{{{2|}}}| {{{2}}}^m|}}{{#if:{{{3|}}}| {{{3|}}}}}^s|}}

Praemonitus (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. A test for the issue you're describing has been added at Template:RA/testcases#With surrounding text. The code in the suggestion above seems to break tests. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC) ;

Administrative

related

• template:DEC
• {{Need Sky}}

Discussion

minutes optional

I am making minutes optional, since looking at Bibcode:1988ApJ...327..544D, I see that some people don't characterize that far, using only hours... 76.66.196.139 (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Template output is non-standard

1^h 2^m 3.4^s is supposed to be rendered 1^h 02^m 03^s.4 in standard astronomical practice, although with the ^s above the decimal point. Obviously, common fonts won't do that, so this approximation is usually used. Tfr000 (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that the angle can't be easily copy and pasted. At the time this convention was established astronomical publications were on paper. It would be nice if there was a mechanism that allowed one to click on the angle and choose to copy it as decimal number; that is, see 1^h 02^m 03^s.4 with the "s" over the decimal point, but copy it as 1.03428. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

A possibility is to use some of the operators on Help:Calculation to modify the seconds field; ex. apply a 'trunc' for the integer part, then use subtraction to get the decimal. Inserting a zero could be done with a branch instruction. I.e. print a leading zero when the parameter is less than 10. You might also take a look at the source for {{Su}} to see if there is anything that can be used. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Leading zeroes can be implemented through the use of parser functions. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, it looks like padleft would do it, per WP:PF. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Though, I have seen in reputable publications where that is exactly the format that is printed, without the leading zeros. Admittedly, when I've seen it, it tends to be older sources. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It's probably an artifact of the modern digital age. Section 5.14 of the IAU Style Manual appears to recommend leading zeroes. Regards, RJH (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears that MW:StringFunctions do not work on en.wiki... 70.49.127.65 (talk) 07:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Too bad MW:Extension:Variables isn't installed either. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

This is getting quite complex... I think it'll have a detrimental effect on performance

{{Template talk:RA/workpage}}
{{Template talk:RA/workpage|A=-13.26}}
{{Template talk:RA/workpage|A=+3.26}}
{{Template talk:RA/workpage|A=0.26}}

70.49.127.65 (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Some further discussion is also occurring at Template talk:DEC and WT:WikiProject_Astronomy -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

At WT:AST it has been mentioned that loading this template with intricate features may make several pages run into the transclusion limit, and that instead leading zeros should be solved by manual editing. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Addressing those concerns brought up at WT:AST, a sample version is now in the sandbox. Template:RA/sandbox ; manually enter leading zeroes,manually enter the decimal point, decimal portion (with decimal point) now entered as the fourth parameter -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Please present a working example of a call to your sandbox version. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

That's always been available, in the test cases page. Template:RA/testcases ; it's also already shown in use at the discussion at WT:AST ; {{Template:RA/sandbox|11|||.36}} 11^h -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

A couple more test cases:

{{Template:RA/sandbox|22|47|42|7684}} –> 22^h 47^m 42^s

{{Template:DEC/sandbox|–14|03|23|142}} –> –14° 03′ 23″.142

I think it would be good if the fourth field automatically inserted the decimal. At a later date we might have the means to display it correctly, so not including the decimal among the data may aid in that effort. Would that require much overhead? Regards, RJH (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It just adds a single if statement, so doesn't greatly increase complexity. I'll update the sandbox momentarily. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Updated -- {{Template:RA/sandbox|11|||36}} 11^h -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I tried a scaling test with a copy of an existing page – Template:RA/testpage. There doesn't seem to be a problem with using multiple copies of this template. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Does Tfr000 have any comments at this point? Shall we go with this revision? Regards, RJH (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The two test cases above look good. What about backward compatibility? I believe the current template accepts inputs like 22|47|42.7684 rather than 22|47|42|7684... will this be a big problem for existing articles? "What links here" shows a lot of links. Tfr000 (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no problem with backward compatibility, since the result of the sandboxed template is the same as the current one, for uses using the current format. There's only the need to section off the decimal portion to address your original concern about decimals, and that can be done with a bot request, so that {{Template:RA/sandbox|22|47|42.7684}} 22^h 47^m 42.7684^s will become {{Template:RA/sandbox|22|47|42|7684}} 22^h 47^m 42^s ; similarly, leading zeroes can also be handled with a mass bot correction, and the minus sign issue at Template:DEC -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 04:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Are we going to adopt this now? Regards, RJH (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

When will this be adopted? Seven years have passed – I don't think the performance/memory issues are still relevant. --46.242.12.78 (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

hours optional

I made hours optional, for e.g. uncertainties measured in minutes, as in Saturn's rotational period. — kwami (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 August 2022

If a value for the third field (seconds) is not provided, the template output ends with a 'space' character. This is visible, for example, with the last sentence of the first paragraph of Virgo III Groups. My request is to move the hard-coded spaces to the '#if' output. I think something like this will work:

Before:

{{nowrap|{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}^h|}} {{#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}^m|}} {{#if:{{{3|}}}|{{{3|}}}^s|}}}}

After:

{{nowrap|{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}^h|}}{{#if:{{{2|}}}| {{{2}}}^m|}}{{#if:{{{3|}}}| {{{3|}}}}}^s|}}

Praemonitus (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. A test for the issue you're describing has been added at Template:RA/testcases#With surrounding text. The code in the suggestion above seems to break tests. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC) ;

spaces

I'm going to put more spaces in the artical so that look even on an artical — HurricaneDevon @ 00:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it looks badly misaligned with the extra space in. There's no real reason to have it. 86.141.60.87 00:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops forgot to log in. Preceding comment was mine. Chaos syndrome 00:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Compare the rendering:

with extra space	+28°  19′ 51″
without extra space	+28° 19′ 51″

To me at least, in the first rendering the minutes and seconds values seem a long way spaced apart from the degrees value. This may be an issue related to the system configuration being used. I would avoid forcing extra spacing in this way. Chaos syndrome 01:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Minutes

I am making minutes optional 70.51.8.196 (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Violation of WP:MOSMATH

This template produces hideous-looking results that violate WP:MOSMATH. Look:

Dec −18° 52′ 10″

Instead of a proper minus sign it has a stubby little hyphen. It should look like this:

Dec −18° 52′ 10″

Can this be fixed? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

PS: In the Antennae Galaxies article I replaced the two occurrences of this template. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

That is NOT a problem with this template. And you should not have removed the template. You should have just replaced the term in the template parameter. The problem is entirely in the parameter used as an input. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The fix is easy, edit the input parameter, and replace the hyphen with a minus. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

At WT:AST it has been mentioned that loading this template with intricate features may make several pages run into the transclusion limit, and that instead minus signs should be solved by manual editing. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Template output is non-standard

1° 2′ 3.4″ is supposed to be rendered 1° 02' 03".4 in standard astronomical practice, although with the " above the decimal point. Obviously, common fonts won't do that, so this approximation is usually used. Tfr000 (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Leading zeroes can be implemented through the use of parser functions. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Though, I've seen it printed in exactly that manner, without leading zeroes, in reputable publications. Though admittedly, they were older sources. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Too bad MW:Extension:Variables and MW:StringFunctions aren't installed. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

There is also a convention of 1° 02'.3, i.e. decimal minutes, although I have seen that more in surveying than in astronomy. Tfr000 (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

This is getting quite complex... I think it'll have a detrimental effect on performance

{{DEC/workpage|A=}}
{{DEC/workpage|A=-13.26}}
{{DEC/workpage|A=+3.26}}
{{DEC/workpage|A=0.26}}

{{{1}}}° {{{1}}}° {{{1}}}° {{{1}}}°

70.49.127.65 (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Some further discussion is also occurring at Template talk:RA and WT:WikiProject_Astronomy -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

At WT:AST it has been mentioned that loading this template with intricate features may make several pages run into the transclusion limit, and that instead leading zeros and minus signs should be solved by manual editing. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Addressing those concerns brought up at WT:AST, a sample version is now in the sandbox. Template talk:DEC/sandbox ; manually enter leading zeroes, manually enter the minus sign, manually enter the decimal point, decimal portion (with decimal point) now entered as the fourth parameter -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

For those want to take a look at examples, the test cases page has been available for a while. Template talk:DEC/testcases ; it also appears at WT:AST ; {{DEC/sandbox|-15|22|07|.31}} -15° 22′ 07″..31 -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Sandbox updated to autogenerate the decimal point -- {{DEC/sandbox|-15|22|07|31}} -15° 22′ 07″.31 -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 02:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I tried a scaling test with a copy of an existing page – Template talk:RA/testpage. There doesn't seem to be a problem with using multiple copies of this template. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Does Tfr000 have any comments at this point? Shall we go with this revision? Regards, RJH (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

-0° 1′ 2″.3 / +0° 1′ 2″.3 / 0° 1′ 2″.3 / -0° 1′ 2″ / +0° 1′ 2″ / 0° 1′ 2″ / -0° 1′ / +0° 1′ / 0° 1′ / -0° / +0° / 0° / -00° 01′ 02″.03 / +00° 01′ 02″.03 / 00° 01′ 02″.03 / -00° 01′ 02″ / +00° 01′ 02″ / 00° 01′ 02″ / -00° 01′ / +00° 01′ / 00° 01′ / -00° / +00° / 00° / -000° 001′ 002″.003 / -00° 01′ 02.03″ Well, one can get some "interesting" outputs, since it can't check everything. But it seems to work as noted above. Tfr000 (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Could we automatically replace minus-hyphen with a proper minus sign?

While we could in theory fix every use, fixing the template seems easier. (Convert already does this, for example.) You just need to replace the literal {{{1}}} with {{Str rep|{{{1}}}|-|−}}, which operates as follows (if 1=-123): −123. Thank you! 71.41.210.146 (talk) 05:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

sorting

I notice that when you try to sort dec values in a table, it goes from +0 to +90 then -0 to -90. Can this be fixed? --Lasunncty (talk) 03:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it can be fixed. For example, {{val}} template generates special hidden elements to ensure proper sorting of values expressed in different units. A similar system can be implemented for {{RA}} / {{DEC}} templates. --46.242.12.78 (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC) ; minus signs and leading zeroes and decimal points are manually entered. (I can make decimal points generated automatically, like the degree sign or minute) -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems like that would do the job, at least in terms of formatting. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The sandboxes have been updated to autogenerate decimal points.

Administrative

related

• template:DEC
• {{Need Sky}}

Discussion

minutes optional

I am making minutes optional, since looking at Bibcode:1988ApJ...327..544D, I see that some people don't characterize that far, using only hours... 76.66.196.139 (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Template output is non-standard

1^h 2^m 3.4^s is supposed to be rendered 1^h 02^m 03^s.4 in standard astronomical practice, although with the ^s above the decimal point. Obviously, common fonts won't do that, so this approximation is usually used. Tfr000 (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that the angle can't be easily copy and pasted. At the time this convention was established astronomical publications were on paper. It would be nice if there was a mechanism that allowed one to click on the angle and choose to copy it as decimal number; that is, see 1^h 02^m 03^s.4 with the "s" over the decimal point, but copy it as 1.03428. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

A possibility is to use some of the operators on Help:Calculation to modify the seconds field; ex. apply a 'trunc' for the integer part, then use subtraction to get the decimal. Inserting a zero could be done with a branch instruction. I.e. print a leading zero when the parameter is less than 10. You might also take a look at the source for {{Su}} to see if there is anything that can be used. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Leading zeroes can be implemented through the use of parser functions. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, it looks like padleft would do it, per WP:PF. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Though, I have seen in reputable publications where that is exactly the format that is printed, without the leading zeros. Admittedly, when I've seen it, it tends to be older sources. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It's probably an artifact of the modern digital age. Section 5.14 of the IAU Style Manual appears to recommend leading zeroes. Regards, RJH (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears that MW:StringFunctions do not work on en.wiki... 70.49.127.65 (talk) 07:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Too bad MW:Extension:Variables isn't installed either. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

This is getting quite complex... I think it'll have a detrimental effect on performance

{{Template talk:RA/workpage}}
{{Template talk:RA/workpage|A=-13.26}}
{{Template talk:RA/workpage|A=+3.26}}
{{Template talk:RA/workpage|A=0.26}}

70.49.127.65 (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Some further discussion is also occurring at Template talk:DEC and WT:WikiProject_Astronomy -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

At WT:AST it has been mentioned that loading this template with intricate features may make several pages run into the transclusion limit, and that instead leading zeros should be solved by manual editing. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Addressing those concerns brought up at WT:AST, a sample version is now in the sandbox. Template:RA/sandbox ; manually enter leading zeroes,manually enter the decimal point, decimal portion (with decimal point) now entered as the fourth parameter -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Please present a working example of a call to your sandbox version. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

That's always been available, in the test cases page. Template:RA/testcases ; it's also already shown in use at the discussion at WT:AST ; {{Template:RA/sandbox|11|||.36}} 11^h -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

A couple more test cases:

{{Template:RA/sandbox|22|47|42|7684}} –> 22^h 47^m 42^s

{{Template:DEC/sandbox|–14|03|23|142}} –> –14° 03′ 23″.142

I think it would be good if the fourth field automatically inserted the decimal. At a later date we might have the means to display it correctly, so not including the decimal among the data may aid in that effort. Would that require much overhead? Regards, RJH (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It just adds a single if statement, so doesn't greatly increase complexity. I'll update the sandbox momentarily. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Updated -- {{Template:RA/sandbox|11|||36}} 11^h -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I tried a scaling test with a copy of an existing page – Template:RA/testpage. There doesn't seem to be a problem with using multiple copies of this template. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Does Tfr000 have any comments at this point? Shall we go with this revision? Regards, RJH (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The two test cases above look good. What about backward compatibility? I believe the current template accepts inputs like 22|47|42.7684 rather than 22|47|42|7684... will this be a big problem for existing articles? "What links here" shows a lot of links. Tfr000 (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no problem with backward compatibility, since the result of the sandboxed template is the same as the current one, for uses using the current format. There's only the need to section off the decimal portion to address your original concern about decimals, and that can be done with a bot request, so that {{Template:RA/sandbox|22|47|42.7684}} 22^h 47^m 42.7684^s will become {{Template:RA/sandbox|22|47|42|7684}} 22^h 47^m 42^s ; similarly, leading zeroes can also be handled with a mass bot correction, and the minus sign issue at Template:DEC -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 04:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Are we going to adopt this now? Regards, RJH (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

When will this be adopted? Seven years have passed – I don't think the performance/memory issues are still relevant. --46.242.12.78 (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

hours optional

I made hours optional, for e.g. uncertainties measured in minutes, as in Saturn's rotational period. — kwami (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 August 2022

If a value for the third field (seconds) is not provided, the template output ends with a 'space' character. This is visible, for example, with the last sentence of the first paragraph of Virgo III Groups. My request is to move the hard-coded spaces to the '#if' output. I think something like this will work:

Before:

{{nowrap|{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}^h|}} {{#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}^m|}} {{#if:{{{3|}}}|{{{3|}}}^s|}}}}

After:

{{nowrap|{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}^h|}}{{#if:{{{2|}}}| {{{2}}}^m|}}{{#if:{{{3|}}}| {{{3|}}}}}^s|}}

Praemonitus (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. A test for the issue you're describing has been added at Template:RA/testcases#With surrounding text. The code in the suggestion above seems to break tests. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC) ;

Administrative

related

• template:DEC
• {{Need Sky}}

Discussion

minutes optional

I am making minutes optional, since looking at Bibcode:1988ApJ...327..544D, I see that some people don't characterize that far, using only hours... 76.66.196.139 (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Template output is non-standard

1^h 2^m 3.4^s is supposed to be rendered 1^h 02^m 03^s.4 in standard astronomical practice, although with the ^s above the decimal point. Obviously, common fonts won't do that, so this approximation is usually used. Tfr000 (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that the angle can't be easily copy and pasted. At the time this convention was established astronomical publications were on paper. It would be nice if there was a mechanism that allowed one to click on the angle and choose to copy it as decimal number; that is, see 1^h 02^m 03^s.4 with the "s" over the decimal point, but copy it as 1.03428. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

A possibility is to use some of the operators on Help:Calculation to modify the seconds field; ex. apply a 'trunc' for the integer part, then use subtraction to get the decimal. Inserting a zero could be done with a branch instruction. I.e. print a leading zero when the parameter is less than 10. You might also take a look at the source for {{Su}} to see if there is anything that can be used. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Leading zeroes can be implemented through the use of parser functions. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, it looks like padleft would do it, per WP:PF. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Though, I have seen in reputable publications where that is exactly the format that is printed, without the leading zeros. Admittedly, when I've seen it, it tends to be older sources. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It's probably an artifact of the modern digital age. Section 5.14 of the IAU Style Manual appears to recommend leading zeroes. Regards, RJH (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears that MW:StringFunctions do not work on en.wiki... 70.49.127.65 (talk) 07:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Too bad MW:Extension:Variables isn't installed either. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

This is getting quite complex... I think it'll have a detrimental effect on performance

{{Template talk:RA/workpage}}
{{Template talk:RA/workpage|A=-13.26}}
{{Template talk:RA/workpage|A=+3.26}}
{{Template talk:RA/workpage|A=0.26}}

70.49.127.65 (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Some further discussion is also occurring at Template talk:DEC and WT:WikiProject_Astronomy -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

At WT:AST it has been mentioned that loading this template with intricate features may make several pages run into the transclusion limit, and that instead leading zeros should be solved by manual editing. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Addressing those concerns brought up at WT:AST, a sample version is now in the sandbox. Template:RA/sandbox ; manually enter leading zeroes,manually enter the decimal point, decimal portion (with decimal point) now entered as the fourth parameter -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Please present a working example of a call to your sandbox version. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

That's always been available, in the test cases page. Template:RA/testcases ; it's also already shown in use at the discussion at WT:AST ; {{Template:RA/sandbox|11|||.36}} 11^h -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

A couple more test cases:

{{Template:RA/sandbox|22|47|42|7684}} –> 22^h 47^m 42^s

{{Template:DEC/sandbox|–14|03|23|142}} –> –14° 03′ 23″.142

I think it would be good if the fourth field automatically inserted the decimal. At a later date we might have the means to display it correctly, so not including the decimal among the data may aid in that effort. Would that require much overhead? Regards, RJH (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It just adds a single if statement, so doesn't greatly increase complexity. I'll update the sandbox momentarily. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Updated -- {{Template:RA/sandbox|11|||36}} 11^h -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I tried a scaling test with a copy of an existing page – Template:RA/testpage. There doesn't seem to be a problem with using multiple copies of this template. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Does Tfr000 have any comments at this point? Shall we go with this revision? Regards, RJH (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The two test cases above look good. What about backward compatibility? I believe the current template accepts inputs like 22|47|42.7684 rather than 22|47|42|7684... will this be a big problem for existing articles? "What links here" shows a lot of links. Tfr000 (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no problem with backward compatibility, since the result of the sandboxed template is the same as the current one, for uses using the current format. There's only the need to section off the decimal portion to address your original concern about decimals, and that can be done with a bot request, so that {{Template:RA/sandbox|22|47|42.7684}} 22^h 47^m 42.7684^s will become {{Template:RA/sandbox|22|47|42|7684}} 22^h 47^m 42^s ; similarly, leading zeroes can also be handled with a mass bot correction, and the minus sign issue at Template:DEC -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 04:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Are we going to adopt this now? Regards, RJH (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

When will this be adopted? Seven years have passed – I don't think the performance/memory issues are still relevant. --46.242.12.78 (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

hours optional

I made hours optional, for e.g. uncertainties measured in minutes, as in Saturn's rotational period. — kwami (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 August 2022

If a value for the third field (seconds) is not provided, the template output ends with a 'space' character. This is visible, for example, with the last sentence of the first paragraph of Virgo III Groups. My request is to move the hard-coded spaces to the '#if' output. I think something like this will work:

Before:

{{nowrap|{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}^h|}} {{#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}^m|}} {{#if:{{{3|}}}|{{{3|}}}^s|}}}}

After:

{{nowrap|{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}^h|}}{{#if:{{{2|}}}| {{{2}}}^m|}}{{#if:{{{3|}}}| {{{3|}}}}}^s|}}

Praemonitus (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. A test for the issue you're describing has been added at Template:RA/testcases#With surrounding text. The code in the suggestion above seems to break tests. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC) ;

spaces

I'm going to put more spaces in the artical so that look even on an artical — HurricaneDevon @ 00:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it looks badly misaligned with the extra space in. There's no real reason to have it. 86.141.60.87 00:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops forgot to log in. Preceding comment was mine. Chaos syndrome 00:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Compare the rendering:

with extra space	+28°  19′ 51″
without extra space	+28° 19′ 51″

To me at least, in the first rendering the minutes and seconds values seem a long way spaced apart from the degrees value. This may be an issue related to the system configuration being used. I would avoid forcing extra spacing in this way. Chaos syndrome 01:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Minutes

I am making minutes optional 70.51.8.196 (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Violation of WP:MOSMATH

This template produces hideous-looking results that violate WP:MOSMATH. Look:

Dec −18° 52′ 10″

Instead of a proper minus sign it has a stubby little hyphen. It should look like this:

Dec −18° 52′ 10″

Can this be fixed? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

PS: In the Antennae Galaxies article I replaced the two occurrences of this template. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

That is NOT a problem with this template. And you should not have removed the template. You should have just replaced the term in the template parameter. The problem is entirely in the parameter used as an input. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The fix is easy, edit the input parameter, and replace the hyphen with a minus. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

At WT:AST it has been mentioned that loading this template with intricate features may make several pages run into the transclusion limit, and that instead minus signs should be solved by manual editing. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Template output is non-standard

1° 2′ 3.4″ is supposed to be rendered 1° 02' 03".4 in standard astronomical practice, although with the " above the decimal point. Obviously, common fonts won't do that, so this approximation is usually used. Tfr000 (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Leading zeroes can be implemented through the use of parser functions. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Though, I've seen it printed in exactly that manner, without leading zeroes, in reputable publications. Though admittedly, they were older sources. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Too bad MW:Extension:Variables and MW:StringFunctions aren't installed. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

There is also a convention of 1° 02'.3, i.e. decimal minutes, although I have seen that more in surveying than in astronomy. Tfr000 (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

This is getting quite complex... I think it'll have a detrimental effect on performance

{{DEC/workpage|A=}}
{{DEC/workpage|A=-13.26}}
{{DEC/workpage|A=+3.26}}
{{DEC/workpage|A=0.26}}

{{{1}}}° {{{1}}}° {{{1}}}° {{{1}}}°

70.49.127.65 (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Some further discussion is also occurring at Template talk:RA and WT:WikiProject_Astronomy -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

At WT:AST it has been mentioned that loading this template with intricate features may make several pages run into the transclusion limit, and that instead leading zeros and minus signs should be solved by manual editing. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Addressing those concerns brought up at WT:AST, a sample version is now in the sandbox. Template talk:DEC/sandbox ; manually enter leading zeroes, manually enter the minus sign, manually enter the decimal point, decimal portion (with decimal point) now entered as the fourth parameter -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

For those want to take a look at examples, the test cases page has been available for a while. Template talk:DEC/testcases ; it also appears at WT:AST ; {{DEC/sandbox|-15|22|07|.31}} -15° 22′ 07″..31 -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Sandbox updated to autogenerate the decimal point -- {{DEC/sandbox|-15|22|07|31}} -15° 22′ 07″.31 -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 02:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I tried a scaling test with a copy of an existing page – Template talk:RA/testpage. There doesn't seem to be a problem with using multiple copies of this template. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Does Tfr000 have any comments at this point? Shall we go with this revision? Regards, RJH (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

-0° 1′ 2″.3 / +0° 1′ 2″.3 / 0° 1′ 2″.3 / -0° 1′ 2″ / +0° 1′ 2″ / 0° 1′ 2″ / -0° 1′ / +0° 1′ / 0° 1′ / -0° / +0° / 0° / -00° 01′ 02″.03 / +00° 01′ 02″.03 / 00° 01′ 02″.03 / -00° 01′ 02″ / +00° 01′ 02″ / 00° 01′ 02″ / -00° 01′ / +00° 01′ / 00° 01′ / -00° / +00° / 00° / -000° 001′ 002″.003 / -00° 01′ 02.03″ Well, one can get some "interesting" outputs, since it can't check everything. But it seems to work as noted above. Tfr000 (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Could we automatically replace minus-hyphen with a proper minus sign?

While we could in theory fix every use, fixing the template seems easier. (Convert already does this, for example.) You just need to replace the literal {{{1}}} with {{Str rep|{{{1}}}|-|−}}, which operates as follows (if 1=-123): −123. Thank you! 71.41.210.146 (talk) 05:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

sorting

I notice that when you try to sort dec values in a table, it goes from +0 to +90 then -0 to -90. Can this be fixed? --Lasunncty (talk) 03:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it can be fixed. For example, {{val}} template generates special hidden elements to ensure proper sorting of values expressed in different units. A similar system can be implemented for {{RA}} / {{DEC}} templates. --46.242.12.78 (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC) -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 02:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

History of Mars observation

History of Mars observation is up for FAC here. Not much feedback thus far; it probably won't have a big audience. Regards, RJH (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Luminosity of Deneb

Sadalsuud (talk · contribs) found this paper which gives some interesting values on the luminosity of Deneb. It'd be good if some more experienced folks could look at the discussion and comment on the paper and state of knowledge about Deneb at Talk:Deneb#Absolute_magnitude_estimate Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Oort and dark matter

There's a discussion at Talk:Dark matter#Jan Oort's "discovery" of dark matter regarding who should be credited with observations that implied missing mass in the Milky Way galaxy. Additional eyes on this would be helpful (I seem to recall it coming up at least once before). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Recognized content

The "Recognized content" section of this project's main page is getting rather large. It is fairly static information, while the more frequently updated information is way down toward the bottom. I think the page should focus more on current activities than what has happened in the past. Alternatively, a project with a pretty nice layout is Wikipedia:WikiProject Film; they use a navigation menu to get to the various pages. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

We could always move it to a subpage, and link to it from the tabbar/menubar -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Or a collapsible box? The tab bar is already rather busy. Modest Genius ^talk 11:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that tab bar is inelegant. I think I'd rather see a sidebar like they use on some of the other projects. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I inserted a draft sidebar on the main page. If everybody is happy with it, I can start de-cluttering the page. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. James McBride (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Transition-region.jpg

File:Transition-region.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Universe Today at AfD

Universe Today is at AfD. Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Helmi stream

Category:Helmi stream has been nominated for deletion -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 02:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)