Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Astronomy
WikiProject Astronomy
Main / Talk
Importance ratings
Main / Talk
Article ratings
Main / Talk
Image review
Main / Talk
Astronomical objects
Main / Talk
Main / Talk
Main / Talk
Popular pages
Main / Talk
Main / Talk
Main / Talk
WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects  (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

Please vote on the new {{Infobox planet}} parameter, physical_ref[edit]

To compliment the other 4 sections that have their own *_ref parameter:

  1. Discovery -> |discovery_ref=,
  2. Orbital Characteristics -> |orbit_ref=,
  3. Proper orbital elements -> |p_orbit_ref=,
  4. Atmosphere -> |atmosphere_ref=,
  5. Physical characteristics -> |physical_ref= (proposed).

Please yea/nay/discuss so that I may submit a (hopefully) consensus edit request.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Support*. It's a fairly straightforward change (and that parameter could use proper refs). Primefac (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. Saves everyone time. Primefac (talk) 01:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

19 UMa[edit]

There is an entry for 19 Ursa Majoris in the {{Stars of Ursa Major}} template. However, it isn't recognized by Simbad, and I can't find anything recent about that star in Google—the last entry was from 1906, prior to the modern constellation boundaries being established. Presumably then it is one of the stars that has been transferred to a neighboring constellation? If so, is there a way that can be verified? There are no references listed on the template page. Praemonitus (talk) 20:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement![edit]

Today's Article For Improvement star.svg

Please note that History of the constellations, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by MusikBot talk 00:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Orbital parameters[edit]

My understanding was that orbital parameters don't need to be kept highly precise because (1) orbits change due to perturbation, and (2) this is an encyclopedia, not a NASA tracking station. I attempted to rectify this by reverting the Mars article edits of W like wiki, but this was reverted without a suitable explanation. It looks like this user has done the same to the other planet wikipages. Praemonitus (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Since the mentioned user has self-reverted his edit on Mars, everything is OK now, isn't it? Yes, I agree, overly exact figures are just embarrassing. This should be everybody's understanding. Another example from the archive is a given period of 1401.6485411 days. This is probably just a sloppy copy-paste artifact. As a rule of thumb, rounding to 5 significant figures (as you did) seems to be a perfectly fine level of precision to me. Although there are exceptions (i.e. when an error-margin is given on the original figure), too much precision is also distracting and makes the article harder to read. Can you post any other edits that need to be checked? Rfassbind – talk 09:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
You can see the list on the user's contributions page. Praemonitus (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately those are multi-edits with an intrinsic diff, sourced as <ref name="nasa solarsystem">Compare the Planets,</ref> inside the infobox, with no epoch, date and access-date at all. I'll revert and ask W like wiki to join the conversation here. Rfassbind – talk
I am not sufficiently an expert to be explicit about the magnitude of expectable perturbations in the given parameters within a certain multiple of a human's lifetime, but my understanding is that an encyclopedia is exactly the place for utmost known, sensible precision, especially if this seems reliably sourced, without changing its raison d'etre to being a NASA tracking station.
Perhaps, one could consider to place numbers with more than, say, 6 digits in a table, outside of running text, to improve readability, if this happens, say, more than 6 times within the text, but to rely on some personal understanding does not justify reverting the, imho valuable, edits in Mercury (planet) within(!) such a table.
I am not sufficiently interested to revert the reversion myself, but would greatly prefer to see such edits brought to desired bureaucratic standards, instead of simply reverted. Purgy (talk) 06:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

It could be useful to have a page of astronomy article guidelines to capture the consensus on such matters: use of units, significant digits, unique notation, et cetera. Praemonitus (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship[edit]

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)