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
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.

Template:Star systems within 25–30 light-years[edit]

The following template has seemingly become an attractor for non-notable (and often trivial) articles about red dwarf stars: {{Star systems within 25–30 light-years}}. It would be better if most of those links were redirected to the corresponding constellation star lists. Praemonitus (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Chermundy (talk · contribs) recently created a huge number of obviously-non-notable stubs. I've been working recently to redirect all the non-notable brown dwarfs to the list of brown dwarfs, but I'm afraid there's nothing we can do for the red dwarfs except to PROD them one by one and hope no disruptive editors come along and remove the PRODs. And I actually think that all these templates above 20 ly should be deleted, since past the value the distance from the sun isn't really a notability property; it's navbox overuse at its finest. Praemonitus, if you want to help it the PRODing process of the non-notable articles, it would be greatly appreciated. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes a TfD request would be appropriate. Praemonitus (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes, I think a speedy deletion criteria for non-notable astronomical objects is needed, with all the garbage we get. I know it wouldn't gain consensus though... StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
There's also the problem so non-astronomy editors will consider that almost all things should be deleted, and we'll inevitably loose significant topics to articles speedily deleted, were such a criterion established, since evaluating specialist notability is problematic on Wikipedia -- (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've just sent those templates to TfD. 65, you're probably right on the speedy criteria now that I think about it more, since editors do get overzealous sometimes. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
On the basis of a desire to 'Listify' the set, the templates have been getting enough 'Keep' comments that they will probably be retained. An illogical outcome. (Discussion link for posterity.) Praemonitus (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Chermundy has been making these things for years. -- (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
There's plenty more to get at the soon-to-be-deleted {{Star systems within 20–25 light-years}}. Unfortunately, I'm about to fall off to my February activity levels again (i.e. maybe an edit a week), so if somebody else can lead the charge, I would be willing to provide a copy of the deleted template, provided it gets deleted again after they are gone. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
You could just subst copies of the various templates into the discussion right here (and then clean it up to remove categories, etc). -- (talk) 04:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The outcome of the discussion was to "reformat as list articles", which is the least useful result they could possibly have produced. Correction: the templates are labelled as being deleted, so perhaps they are in the process of being "list-ified"? Praemonitus (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

It is now two months later: the templates have not been deleted and the contents have not been "listified". The templates remain linked on a large number of articles. Praemonitus (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Apparently it is now in the "holding cell" (WP:TFD/H) where it appears it may sit idle for several years. Praemonitus (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

A large number of asteroids up for deletion[edit]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1692 Subbotina were a large list of asteroid articles have been nominated for deletion -- (talk) 06:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1769 Carlostorres -- (talk) 08:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
And also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1579 Herrick -- (talk) 08:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
As well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4058 Cecilgreen -- (talk) 06:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The deletion nominations are continuing, including quite a few low-numbered asteroids. I find it concerning that a large amount of infobox content is being lost. -- (talk) 09:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference question[edit]

Not sure if anybody here knows the answer to this: is arXiv:1109.2497 considered a reliable reference? I find at least three planets listed in that article that don't seem to be widely published (although they are listed in the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopedia) and the article doesn't appear to have been printed in a peer-reviewed journal. However, the authors do have numerous other articles published in peer-reviewed journals. (For the particular planets, see the self-referenced entries in Table 3.) Praemonitus (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

There are [1] 236 citations to this article. Many of them are in published journals [2] -- (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I wonder then why it wasn't published in a journal? Praemonitus (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Ask Michel Mayor. The paper's number in the series was re-used for a completely different paper. A similar thing seems to have happened with papers 31 and 32. Maybe they just don't persist with resubmissions if they get an adverse referee's report, or had a falling out with the journal editor. Modest Genius talk 19:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I had no idea. I suppose people will be people, even if they're rational scientists. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

"Age of Celestial bodies"[edit]

I found a weird draft article DRAFT:Age of Celestial bodies ; the rejection notice has a interesting comment about having an article on how astronomers derive the age of objects -- (talk) 07:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

List of most massive black holes[edit]

List of most massive black holes has been requested to be renamed to List of black holes by mass; for the disucssion, see talk:List of most massive black holes -- (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to WP:NASTRO[edit]

Currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (astronomical objects)#Proposed Changes. WikiProject Astronomical objects' input is requested.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  18:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Starbox astronometry -> parallax link[edit]

Currently the template links to Parallax, but we have a main article Stellar parallax. I suggest to change the link. If the box is included in articles that are not stars, the name is misleading. --mfb (talk) 12:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, better link. Plus the article does cover parallaxes for non-stellar astronomical objects. Lithopsian (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
agreed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Changed. Also in Template:Starbox multi. --mfb (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Article titles for unnamed objects[edit]

What article titles do we choose for objects that do not have a common name? For instance, we have an article on a pyramid-shaped mountain on Ceres that hasn't really gotten a common nickname yet, so where should the article be located? What precedents do we have? Input is welcome at the related debate for this mountain. --Njardarlogar (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I suggest to use a description until we get some sort of common name (at least in media): Large Mountain on Ceres. --mfb (talk) 11:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, I think such a sensational title as "Great Pyramid of Ceres" isn't a good idea if it's not the official name. "Large Mountain on Ceres" is ambiguous, considering there are other mountains there. I think a good title here would be something like "Pyramid-shaped mountain on Ceres"; it solely describes the single mountain, while the phrase "pyramid-shaped" has been used to describe it. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Is it really pyramid-shaped? Sure, take the best fitting description that makes it unique (hopefully). --mfb (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Is it really the only one that could be described as pyramid-shaped? --JorisvS (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
To me it appears cone-shaped, much like every other mountain. Praemonitus (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
To me, too. And the side view in the article suggests some sort of volcano to me. I'm curious to hear what it turns out to actually be. --JorisvS (talk) 09:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hottest Known White Dwarf?[edit]

Apparent there are two stars vying for the title of the "hottest known white dwarf":

  • KPD0005+5106 (200,000 K)[3]
  • H1504+65 (200,000 K)[4]

Should we call it a tie? Praemonitus (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. I guess we should look at whose claim's been most readily accepted, a contest..and I have never seen that page before.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I would just list both. Their references show the same, so would approximately be the same. -- (talk) 05:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I would agree with; since it's a tie, we should list both. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
H1504+65 is given as 200 +- 20 kK here, the other one as 200 kK without uncertainty, and with reference to a previous estimate of 120 kK. The article also mentions H1504+65. --mfb (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Stick 'em all in. Life is full of uncertainty and we need to embrace it. I've mainspaced the article as easily viable. white dwarf is too big to have a list in it anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

HD 35984[edit]

SIMBAD has HD 35984 listed as a T Tauri star. This apparently originated with Li and Hu (1998), who have HR 1822 categorized as F7V (entry #200 on p. 176). Li (2004) table 1 #200 has it listed as a PMS star. However, Luck and Heitner (2007) have this listed as a giant, F6III, as does De Medeiros et al (2000). I wouldn't think it could be both, but perhaps I'm mistaken? Praemonitus (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

In general, I've found SIMBAD's o-types to be untrustworthy, and don't think it's a reliable source for such info; for example, it lists 3C 273 as a Seyfert 1 when we all know it's a quasar. I generally check other sites such as AAVSO or NED for this such info, and source it to what is stated in papers. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Agree with StringTheory11, also some stars I've come across as technically III or IV but must be due to another factor (not age) - some of the contact binaries end up with funny spectra and I think some pre main sequence stars can too.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Well... there seems to be a disconnect between Eastern and Western sources here that I can't resolve. Ita et al (2010) list it as a PMS. The Geneva-Copenhagen Survey gives an age estimate of 1.3 billion years. I guess then it's a very old pre-main sequence star. Praemonitus (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Beware of self-confirming studies. If you assume that a slightly large cool star is a giant then you will derive a large age for it. A T Tauri star looks like a slightly expanded and over-luminous star for its mass and it takes closer study first to decide whether it is a pre-main sequence star or an older evolved star. The original classification as a T Tauri star was specifically looking for weak-lined T Tauri stars (those with only weak emission from the surrounding disk, in some cases completely absent), in other words those that look superficially like a giant or sub-giant. They did an x-ray search because T Tau stars are over-luminous at x-ray wavelengths, and used Li absorption and weak H-alpha as confirmations of young stars. There is still the possibility that a wide-ranging survey gets some false positives but it was at least examining features that could discriminate between young and old stars. Lithopsian (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I tried to modify the article to suggest both possibilities. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 00:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Embracing and describing uncertainty is a Good Thing. I hope that young readers get an idea of scientific thinking by reading some of these pages. I hate incomplete science being presented as undisputed fact. And I am happy that one of these cleanup articles can be expanded! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
As a rather young person myself, I would strongly agree with this sentiment. The scientific method is something which is severely lacking from our education system (at least in the US), so Wikipedia must attempt to teach in its place. That's why we need to make sure we don't say something is true when it's not proven. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project[edit]

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present).--Lucas559 (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)