Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

WikiProject Astronomy was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 14 January 2013.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38

Merged from old talk

Old WikiProject Telescopes talk

Topical archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Shortcuts

Moon discussion

There is a discussion at Talk:Moon#External links that editors might be interested in joining. Otr500 (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Theia (planet) into Giant impact hypothesis

I have proposed merging Theia (planet) into Giant impact hypothesis, see Talk:Giant-impact_hypothesis#Proposal_to_merge_Theia_(planet)_into_this_article. Participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata and Right ascension and Declination properties and Redshift

I noticed that on WikiData, you cannot add sexagesimal hour/degree or decimal hour values to the property fields for right ascension (wikidata:property:P6257) and declination (wikidata:property:P6258).

And for redshift (wikidata:property:P1090), it should be available to specify units of "z=v/c" for unitless z-values, to distinguish it from redshifts given in km/s.

Does anyone know how to modify wikidata to do that?

-- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 20:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try asking at the WikiData community portal? Praemonitus (talk) 04:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Radiation zone -> Radiative zone

Please see Talk:Radiation_zone#Renaming_to_Radiative_zone. and Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests#Uncontroversial_technical_requests. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because "radiation zone" has many hits on Google Scholar (for Van Allen belt), I have to do this instead: Talk:Radiation_zone#Requested_move_19_October_2024. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of HD 185435

The article HD 185435 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not notable per WP:NASTRO

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Loooke (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interacting_galaxy#Notable_examples needs revising

The "Notes" column makes reference to the "first/second/third phase" of galactic collision, but has no additional information or citations as to what exactly defines each "phase". On top of that, the "Notes" section for NGC 2936 just contains a single question mark, and has been that way for over 6 years now. The section would also benefit from more examples of non-merger interactions, such as tidal distortion (e.g. NGC 6872), ram pressure stripping (e.g. Comet Galaxy and NGC 4402). The page in general should probably also make note of Ring galaxy formation via collision.

I'd make the necessary changes myself, but I don't know where or how to find citations, and the revision process itself would also likely be a rather large undertaking for a lone newbie editor like me, and I don't really have the spare time right now to fully dedicate myself to this. NoOneFliesAroundTheSun (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mars Galleries

It appears that the linked articles on the {{Mars quadrangle layout}} template have become dumping grounds for massive quantities of Mars images. However, Wikipedia is not an image repository. I believe these should be trimmed down to a bare minimum, sufficient to satisfy WP:IMAGEPOL. The Commons is a better place for large image galleries. Cf. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mars Praemonitus (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these articles look like they need a broader rewrite as well, especially since organization was done so around these excessive image galleries. It should also be noted that this issue extends to other Mars-related articles, e.g. Chryse Planitia, Volcanism on Mars, and Climate of Mars. Ark Hyena (it/its) 17:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, many of the terra articles are the same. E.g. Promethei Terra. This could be widespread. Praemonitus (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe most of these galleries can be boldly removed without issue, and it'd be a nice opportunity to give them much-needed attention. There isn't much of a reason to justify these galleries against IMAGEPOL. Ark Hyena (it/its) 00:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or at least tag them with {{Too many images}} on top. Cleanup is going to be a chore and my concern is they may invoke edit wars. Praemonitus (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that, rather than deleting/redirecting the articles. Related, many of the images themselves are of marginal quality - some are screen captures from various NASA image viewers and they still have black fields or buttons or even navigation tabs that should be cropped. Some annoyingly have scale bars in the middle of the image. Many pages excessively repeat the source ("HiRise based on HiWish program"). Much of that is a task to be fixed in Commons rather than english wikipedia but all of it would improve the articles about Mars.Jstuby (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I doubt anyone would object to their removal, considering that they're a pretty obvious violation of IMAGEPOL and no proposal has been made to the draft MOS:ASTRO for such exceptions. I'll probably start going around removing these galleries whenever I have the time. Ark Hyena (it/its) 21:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Pages using the JsonConfig extension"

There's a bunch of Mars- and lunar-related articles showing a red-linked category called "Pages using the JsonConfig extension". If you want to get rid of it, a NULL edit is sufficient. (I.e. a page edit that makes no changes.) I've tested it twice and it works. Praemonitus (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that in some star cluster articles before ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 16:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early Infrared Surveys

I am thinking about writing an article about the early infrared sky surveys, CRL, AFGL and RAFGL. I realize there is already an RAFGL article, but it's a stub, and it seems odd to have an article about the revised AFGL but no article about the original AFGL. My plan is to write the new article, then blank the RAFGL article and turn it into a redirect that will point to the new article which will include RAFGL info.

Does anyone have any comments or suggestions about this? Are the CRL and original AFGL catalogs covered somewhere that I just haven't stumbled across? Thanks for any feedback! PopePompus (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White dwarf at FAR

I have nominated White dwarf for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Status: it has two remaining {{cn}} tags and probably needs a read-through for random cruft — claims that were shoved in on account of a news blurb, and stuff like that. XOR'easter (talk) 06:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]