Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

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
Constellations
Main / Talk
Eclipses
Main / Talk
Popular pages
Main / Talk
Members
Main / Talk
WikiData
Main / Talk
WikiProject Astronomy (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy 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.
 

Is the use of the ESI Score Unencyclopedic?[edit]

This RfC is about a general proposition regarding ESI Score. That proposition could be expressed as 'ESI Score is insufficiently established within the scientific community, that a default position should be to not include it in articles'. A clear majority of comments accept that proposition, or have serious doubts about ESI at this stage. Therefore, as a general rule, ESI information should not be included ie it has not yet established a 'right' to be included, simply because it exists. Editors should decide on a case-by-case basis whether, normal inclusion criteria are met. Editors are then judging specific content and sourcing, rather than general propositions. Non-admin close Pincrete (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some editors feel that the use of the ESI score is unencyclopedic because it has no peer reviewed papers and is which has never been cited in any serious WP:MAINSTREAM literature. Relisted by Davidbuddy9 Talk  21:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC); opened by Davidbuddy9 Talk  06:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, the question here is no whether the ESI should be mentioned at all in the encyclopedia, but rather whether it should be mentioned on articles other than Earth Similarity Index. See WP:ONEWAY for my rationale for why it shouldn't be used on articles on exoplanets or lists of such. jps (talk) 09:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
The assertions that ESI isn't used in peer-reviewed, nor in mainstream journals are incorrect. See Astrobiology 2011 (paywall), and MNRAS 2016, both referencing Schulze-Makuch et al. 2011. Therefore, it can, and should, be mentioned in any articles which warrant its reference.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the ESI is used in those instances. However the way in which it is being used in many articles at Wikipedia (especially the ones based on Méndez's website) is essentially a reproduction of unpublished calculations and claims that, as far as I can tell, are unique to the webpage operated by Méndez. I have no objection to having an article about Earth Similarity Index. I don't even object to referring to Earth Similarity Indices when such have been mentioned by third-party independent sources. I have a big problem using a singular self-published website as the main citation for so many different exoplanet articles and lists. jps (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I just took a look at the multiple AfDs that were recently opened by jps and went here to drop a note to notify the project in case the subject was not mentioned already.
May I respectfully suggest that the RfC be amended? "Unencyclopedic" is not extremely clear; it seems to me that the core issue is rather "Is the ESI a reliable source for astronomic information?" If that was the question, I would answer "no". Being cited in the peer-reviewed literature is not as good as being part of it (unless there are zillions of cites). Tigraan (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Agree it should be amended, no idea to what. Asking "Is the ESI a RS" isn't even well formed. It's like asking "Is the refractive index a RS?" - it doesn't even make sense. It also doesn't make much sense to ask "Is the refractive index encyclopedic?". I think what's really going on is that someone doesn't think there is sufficient scientific support for the usefulness of ESI as a valid index for anything, and thus should not be reported anywhere other than it's own article. On that matter, I have no opinion at present, but rewording the RfC will be a good start. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I meant obviously something like "is this (and associated pages) considered RS", which at least makes sense, but even then it is not well-formed. I guess the precise sources to take into consideration could be defined precisely, but the scope (all science? astronomy? exoplanets?) is unclear (reliability depends on the context). Tigraan (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
The refractive index of a material is a well defined measurable quantity that is not arbitrarily determined. ESI is not that. jps (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
The ESI page has a precise formula, so it is just as "well-defined" as the refractive index. I agree that the definition though was chosen arbitrarily. Not that any of this matters anyways, anyone can invent any index for anything and publish the formula, it does not make it relevant. Tigraan (talk) 08:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the page has a precise formula, but it is different from the one that was originally proposed and others have been proposed as well. Which one should Wikipedia choose and why? Refractive index is a standard measurement. ESI is made up depending on what particular weights the person who is promoting the ESI wants to include. jps (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
What are the differences between the published equation and the one on the website? (I can't get through the paywall at the moment)
The relation to refraction index is an ok one (I like the Drake equation comparison better). We are at the point in our understanding of exoplanets where we do not yet precisely know all the parameters which comprise their "refraction indices", nor how they are all mathematically related to each other. It's common to use a weighting fudge-factor somewhere at that point.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
The differences are enough so that, as a function of planet radius, only Earth shares the same ESI between the two different weightings. To compare ESI to refraction indices is highly misleading. A refraction index is a physical property of a material. ESI is essentially not much better than WP:MADEUP. It's an embarrassment that Wikipedia promulgates this arbitrary calculation. jps (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Different weights ≠ different equations. The general form 1⋅x=y doesn't change for different x.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────So what? Since the weights are made up out of thin air, it's very relevant that they keep getting adjusted. jps (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

That is a different, much less damning argument. In fact, it shows the scientific foresight of its inventors and gives them more credence than you let on.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
No it doesn't. Science requires reproducibility. If you keep changing the weights, this is not possible. jps (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
You're going to have to start citing something rather than repeating the same criticisms over and over. We talk about all kinds of indices on WP. Consider diversity index as a rough analog. All of them have some merit, some promoters and some detractors. All of them have different methods od taking many inputs and formulating a single output. The fact that none of them is perfect or unanimously agreed to be best doesn't mean we can't talk about them on WP, and your insistence that this is just "made up" indicates you don't know much about how science works.
The ESI was considered worthy of publishing here [1] in Astrobiology, which is a completely respectable peer-reviewed journal, not some vanity press rag full of "made up" methods. It is also used and discussed in many other peer-reviewed articles, as well as tons arXiv preprints. Even if you are some expert in exoplanet research, that doesn't hold water here. Plenty of experts in the field do consider it worthwhile, and therefore so can we. Please to be constructive, and support your claims with references. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
The publication being referred to is not very good. Astrobiology is a journal of varying standards and the paper you are referencing is pretty poor and can only be considered a primary source per Wikipedia standards. If the ESI was actually used by third parties, that'd be another thing. But where it is used by those who aren't affiliated with Méndez, it is criticized. jps (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  • It looks like WP:UNDUE WEIGHT (bordering on promotionalism) to start putting ESI in general exoplanet articles. From what I've seen it looks like ESI is an arbitrary calculated value with apparently negligible significance(?) within the scientific community, much less for a general-public reader. We can revisit inclusion of ESI if and when it becomes a more prominently used statistic. Alsee (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Your claims are not supported. I see plenty of usage and discussion in the scientific community. Just search google scholar for many examples in both pee-reviewed journals as well as the arXiv preprint sever. Also consider reading our article on "arbitrary". Nobody is arguing this ESI is a fundamental physical concept, some universal law, or anything like that. Of course there is some subjectivity to its design. Again, compare index_(economics) and diversity index. But calling ESI "arbitrary" is just wrong, dismissive, and borderline rude/inflammatory. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
No, it's not rude to identify the ESI with the definition provided by arbitrary. It follows exactly. In fact, the ESI is essentially WP:MADEUP. It does not enjoy wide use and the attempt to claim otherwise is pretty much not informed as to what best practices in this field are. jps (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
You just keep repeating the same thing, and that doesn't make it any truer. Your repeated insistence and argument by repetition are eroding any value your original arguments and objections may have had. Have fun with that. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
It's a pretty simple concept. The index is being promoted by essentially one person and has not been used in the astronomy for serious scientific research. It's hard to make this point any clearer. If you would like to try to understand why it is arbitrary, compare the references that use diversity index to those which use this one. There is no comparison. ESI is simply not a WP:MAINSTREAM concept. The problems are many. No validation of the index has been attempted (unlike the diversity index which is closely related to the Shannon entropy), no utility has been demonstrated (quite the opposite, the one MNRAS paper which references the claim explicitly identifies the ESI as being not useful), and it has not been adopted by experts in the field. Exoplanets as a subfield has dozens of papers every day coming out. There are literally tens of thousands of papers. This concept has about 11 citations after 5 years in the hopper, most of which are to second- and third-rate journals that are questionable at best and predatory at worst. The index is simply not used by the people who are experts. jps (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I would say WP:ONEWAY does not apply as it is not "fringe." However, the authors in the paper where it was published described it as a "proposal" and in the 5 years since it was published it has not been cited many times. Google Scholar returns 39 results and several of those are the authors of the original paper citing it again. Also, many of the cites are from astrobiology papers, not astronomy papers. It seems like referring to ESI regularly for articles about exoplanets and similar subjects would be WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. It would leave readers with the false impression that ESI was something regularly used in the study of exoplanets and the dearth of articles citing it proves that is not true. Klaun (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Only here for RFC; I am out of my field here and lack the time to get up to speed. As far as I can see the essence of the problem is NOT whether the ESI is substantially established as a sound measure, but whether it is true that "... any articles ... warrant its reference." That is not a matter that depends on RS etc, but on its use in each case. Arguing about it as a generalisation is pointless. FAIK, the statement that "However the way in which it is being used in many articles at Wikipedia (especially the ones based on Méndez's website) is essentially a reproduction of unpublished calculations and claims that, as far as I can tell, are unique to the webpage operated by Méndez" might be quite correct, but if so,it is relevant to those particular articles in their particular contexts, and no more. The very fact that an objecting editor has "... no objection to having an article about Earth Similarity Index ... even ... to referring to Earth Similarity Indices when such have been mentioned by third-party independent sources..." implies that it IS possible for the parameter to appear in suitable contexts. The fact that the data upon which the concept is based still are tenuous and subject to change OTOH means that the contexts and texts need to be critically evaluated in each case. That sort of thing is no novelty and should present little difficulty, because the usage in each context can be evaluated according to routine criteria. Justifying blanket prohibition however, is not easy if it is to be done in good faith. My instinct is to stick to case-by-case evaluation and avoid generalisation till further notice or developments. JonRichfield (talk) 07:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I commented before about undue weight for a metric with little acceptance, but on further examination the situation is even worse. ESI requires accurate values for surface temperature, mass, and radius. EVERY use thus far, outside the local solar system, has been based on purely speculative values. I'm not sure if there are any exoplanets where temperature is actually known. The source being cite is calculating temperature based on wild guesses for albedo and atmosphere - with substantial error margin. For most exoplanets either mass or radius is unknown, and the source is filling in estimates for the other value - with a substantial error margin. The usage of ESI at all is dubious because it doesn't have much mainstream usage, but it should absolutely not be included here when a single un-peer-reviewed primary source is filling guesstimates. Alsee (talk) 06:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Also note that this is just three random papers I clicked on there are much much more. Davidbuddy9 Talk  21:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Davidbuddy9 cease deceptively disrupting RFC's and AFD's on ESI unless you're looking for re-block or a topic ban. You've researched ESI enough to know dang well that your list of "46 hits" is completely bogus. Your claim to have shown "three random papers I clicked" is not remotely credible. Given that exactly 3 of the 46 search results were on ESI, and you provided links to the only 3 such papers, there is only a 1 in 15180 chance of randomly clicking those three. Thank you for providing more evidence on why ESI shouldn't be used in other articles - because there were only 3 papers mentioning it on all of arxiv. Alsee (talk) 11:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
And of those three, one has not been peer-reviewed, one has but uses ESI as a rough scoping measure rather than any sort of precise value, and the third is from a journal that may not even exist. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comments. I have already expressed my concerns on the article's talk page, here and here. The ESI article does not explain the values from which the index is calculated (though it could). More seriously, the index is designed in a way which does not warrant its being taken seriously – though what should matter to Wikipedia is whether it is taken seriously by real astronomers. Do we have any evidence that it is? Maproom (talk) 07:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: It seems to me that the ESI has not ben embraced by the scientific community, but the mass media likes the catchy and misleading "Earth-like" wording. The term is so unscientific and misleading that NASA had to make a public statement to that regard: Statement from the Kepler Science Council (NASA). I have no problem with the ESI article, but I do not favor using this "proposed index" (because that is what it was) in every exoplanet article in Wikipedia, as if it was a very simple and universally accepted mathematical calculation. It is not. And I am not convinced at all that this misleading "index" serves Wikipedia's objectives. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I see several issues here. One is that, while the ESI may have been used in some small way in the peer-reviewed literature, it does not seem to be in broad use by reliable secondary sources. This urges caution in light of giving appropriate WP:WEIGHT. Secondly, it seems like we are not relying on reliable secondary sources when employing the index on Wikipedia, but instead are chiefly using a primary source where the ESI is tabulated. Therefore, as a general rule, I do not think the ESI should be used in encyclopedia articles, except in those articles where the ESI is discussed in secondary sources. Some of these sources may be among the list of ArXiV papers mentioned above, although they should be referenced only if they are also published in peer-reviewed journals. In those probably substantially fewer cases, I do not see a problem in citing the primary source, along with the secondary source, to corroborate the ESI score. A third issue is that we have entire articles like list of potentially habitable exoplanets whose very existence seems to be based on making a synthetic claim out of the ESI primary source, in effect using the ESI as an index for "potential habitability" (which is patently ridiculous when you look at the articles of even the most supposedly "habitable" worlds on the list). Finally, media reports are not generally reliable for scientific information. That seems to be especially true here, and I do not think it is unreasonable to expect sources used in astronomy articles to be based on reliable scientific secondary sources such as peer-reviewed scientific literature and official press releases of scientific bodies such as NASA. Sławomir
    Biały
    10:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please continue the discussion below this notice. Davidbuddy9 Talk  21:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC))
  • I'm inclined to think the ESI shouldn't be included in articles on individual planets, since the "Earth Similarity Index" is not a single index, but a family of related indices, based on which specific factors you choose to include and which weightings you apply to them. There is no universal consensus in the field of astronomy as to how precisely to define the ESI, i.e. which set of weights to use. (If, for example, the IAU were to officially adopt a specific definition of the ESI, it would be a different story; but that hasn't happened as yet, and who knows if it ever will.) SJK (talk) 07:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't spam uncorroborated values, but lists are ok. Agree with SJK, and myself (above, towards the bottom of #Is Citing PHL/HEC in violation of WP:SELFPUB?).   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  12:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  • ESI is not widely used in scholarly literature, and therefore should not be widely used on WP. The relevant question is whether ESI is in widespread use in reliable secondary sources. I have searched the scholarly literature, and my findings strongly suggest that ESI is rarely mentioned.
Using NASA's ADS database, I did a full-text search for the exact phrase "Earth Similarity Index" and found just ten results. For anyone wishing to double-check this, my exact search query was full:("Earth Similarity Index"). Moreover, the original Schulze-Makuch et al. paper which proposed ESI has been cited just 11 times (see http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AsBio..11.1041S). I also did a full-text search for "Earth Similarity Index" on arxiv.org, but it yielded just 7 hits (see http://search.arxiv.org:8081/?query=%22Earth%20Similarity%20Index%22&in=). Note that whenever I searched for ESI, I searched for the exact phase "Earth Similarity Index" under the assumption that any paper which mentions ESI will at some point say what ESI stands for. I think that this is a reasonable assumption, but I am open to the possibility that my search terms were flawed in some way.
To place these numbers into some context, I did a full-text search on ADS for articles mentioning "habitable zone," as I think that the HZ is a widely agreed-upon example of a mainstream concept in exoplanet research. I limited my search to articles published since 2011, the year in which the Schulze-Makuch paper was published, and found 2,569 hits (exact query was full:("habitable zone") AND year:2011-2016). To get a very rough idea of the total number of exoplanet papers in that same time period, I performed a full-text search for articles containing the word "exoplanet," and the ADS returned 12,288 results (exact query was full:("exoplanet") AND year:2011-2016).
These results persuade me that ESI is not commonly used in mainstream exoplanet research. The ADS is the dominant research database in astronomy (see some of the sourced claims in NASA ADS), and if a concept isn't in widespread usage in the scholarly literature indexed in the ADS, then there should be a strong presumption that that concept isn't in widespread usage in the astronomical community, either. Obviously, I'm presuming that my search queries were sound; I invite others to scrutinize them and to try to improve upon them.
I certainly don't object to one article about the ESI itself, or to an exoplanet article mentioning the exoplanet's ESI if a refereed paper has done so. However, the widespread inclusion of ESI in multiple WP articles would place undue weight on a statistic which has not yet received significant acceptance in reliable, secondary sources.
Best Regards, Astro4686 (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • No (as in yes it is encyclopedic) ESI has been subject to peer review and has been covered in multiple secondary sources. I am not saying ESI is correct or uncontroversial, but it is controversial and very possibly incorrect as a measurement, however a concept does not need to be widely accepted to be encyclopedic, and things can certainly be wrong, but still encyclopedic. Valoem talk contrib 12:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Don't include on articles of individual planets unless there is coverage of the ESI in a peer-reviewed paper. This hasn't been sufficiently adopted by mainstream scientific sources to warrant inclusion. WP:UNDUE applies. ~ RobTalk 22:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Rob you may want to clarify what your position is for articles other than just "articles of individual planets". There is also List of Kepler exoplanet candidates by ESI under deletion review and which may be restored, the articles List of nearest terrestrial exoplanet candidates and List of potentially habitable exoplanets used to be built around ESI (currently edited out), and I think there are or were other articles. Alsee (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Mentions of the ESI of individual planets should only be made when covered in a peer-reviewed paper. An obvious exception is an article that primarily discusses ESI, such as the first list you linked to, which requires ESI to be intelligible. In other words, ESI's of specific planets should be included in articles primarily dealing with ESI, but nowhere else without a peer-reviewed reference. ~ RobTalk 14:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
@Alsee: List of nearest terrestrial exoplanet candidates does not use the ESI in any way. Davidbuddy9 Talk  21:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Davidbuddy9, right. You must have overlooked where I wrote used to be built around ESI (currently edited out). Alsee (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"12 Planets"[edit]

Should the redirect "12 planets" redirect to IAU definition of a planet First draft proposal or Twelfth planet (disambiguation)? Input needed from other editors about this here. Davidbuddy9 Talk  05:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

External links to DSO Browser[edit]

I've recently added external links in many popular Deep-sky object pages such as Orion Nebula or Andromeda Galaxy, pointing to their matching [DSO Browser] page. For example, the [Orion Nebula page] in that website.

Since I'm the main contributor to the site, my edits were reverted saying that I was lacking WP:NPOV and I was accused of WP:PROMOTION.

I honestly believe the external links I added provide useful information otherwise not available in Wikipedia - such as being able to identify the altitude of DSOs for any location on Earth at any time of year, finding the best time of year to see them, find nearby objects, see amateur astrophotography of those objects, etc. - in short, useful information for anyone researching on those objects.

I understand I am not to re-add those links because of my WP:COI so I was directed here to seek consensus on whether my changes are welcome on Wikipedia or not. You can see 3 examples of my changes here, here and here. Sebagr (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest taking a look at WP:EXT and see if your site passes the recommendations, as well as WP:ELNO. Praemonitus (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Having read those, I believe the links are ok to be added as external links. However, other editors explained to me that given the existing WP:COI, I should look for consensus here on whether those links add value to Wikipedia or not, to conform to WP:NPOV.
What do you think? Here you have an example of an external link I added to the Orion Nebula article, showing altitude charts, nearby objects, amateur astrophotography, etc.: Orion Nebula data sheet, altitude charts, sky map and related objects Sebagr (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, this website is well put together I will admit, and I think that it would be useful to include as an external link to appropriate articles (that are directly related etc). However (as pointed out by other editors) I have concerns about WP:PROMOTION. Davidbuddy9Talk 00:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
No offense, but it's just more clutter on already over-cluttered External Links sections. On both pages, you mention, Orion Nebula and Andromeda Galaxy, that section is severely over-crowded and needs to be severely trimmed. External Links sections should only include the most significant and critical links, and for example the Andromeda page contains random APOD links, news articles, links to videos and images, etc. We don't need more, we need less. Huntster (t @ c) 02:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. Firstly, a lengthy discussion on this issue appears User talk:Sebagr, which the User should have linked here. Saying "I was accused of WP:PROMOTION." is wrong, as this actually was proven, as these edits clearly violate by "attracting notice" just to one solitary website. Also saying "I honestly believe the external links I added provide useful information.." sounds like WP:PEA, and is no justification for allowing this.
This site in neither unique nor meets the criteria of WP:Notability the linked site does not adds to the deep-sky object articles in question. I.e. The first edit M10. How about these websites? [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] If I need to find culmination times or best time to observe you download the free Stellarium 14.3 [11] - here you get an image and hitting the 'Observability button' get rise, set, culmination; including the best time of the year set for your location. If you want to find images of M10, just do a Google search, and look under images.
As I also wrote on the COIN noticeboard, there was a link on Deep-sky object [12], which was embedded in the page by a anonymous unregistered user five year ago. This was likely placed to lure people to this site, likely for WP:PROMOTION. Things like this have been done before, and are explained in articles like "The Art Of SEO For Wikipedia & 16 Tips To Gain Respect"[13], and many more like it [14][15], adequately explain. I feel that agreeing to these multiple links just promotes this site, targeting all the brightest deep-sky objects in the sky. There is also still a suspicion that this site is likely a commercial enterprise. Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Arianewiki1, I believe your points were properly discussed in my talk page not only by us two but other editors which showed me far more respect than you and guided me politely to solve the problem. I've been instructed to disclose my WP:COI on my talk page (which I did), discuss this in this Astronomy page (that's what this section is for) and to refrain from adding those links again myself (which I did). You are not adding any astronomy insight with your words and personal matters have already been discussed on my talk page. Now, kindly let other editors decide if these links are useful or not. Whatever the result, I won't add those links myself again, as per WP:COI rules. Sebagr (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support It is definitely a service to the reader to have some kind of link to the best time & date for observation (I'm used to using JSkyCalc, but it's not for the average reader, and it certainly doesn't conveniently email you once/year like DSOB says it doescool, as long as my email doesn't get sold to anyone). I'm not sure what the other options are that we are (or aren't) using, so, in the absence of any alternatives, I support it.
It would be a good idea for WT:AST to decide on an "official" one we could put into the external links, OR have 2 or 3 we can put into a template somewhere (like in a portal template, if they can be made compact, similar to how we have doi, bibcode, pmid, and arXiv links in a ref, or maybe somewhere in the various infoboxes?).   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  03:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Check bibcodes[edit]

Category:CS1 errors: bibcode now exists to keep track of bad bibcode ids. If you could help clean up the (relatively small) mess, that would be grand. Most errors are because bibcodes are missing the final character ('.' in the case of unknown authors, or the 1st author's last name's first letter [E.g. Smith, HJ would be have a final S]), but other types of error exists as well. The trick is to check the ADSABS database (the links will often work), and copy-paste the correct bibcode. If the links don't work, searching by DOI usually works, but if you don't have it searching by last name + Year will often usually give small list of results which makes it easy to find the citation in question.

A minority of these errors are false-positives and are being resolved, so if everything checks out, assume it's a false positive. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who helped. The category is now empty (as of writing) of bad bibcodes. The ones currently present (~47 pages) are false positives. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Astronomic units and quantities[edit]

It looks like IAU did not organise the units and quantities issue well. See Template_talk:Convert#Astrophysical_conversions (esp this sub). -DePiep (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Is today "Write a biography stub day?"[edit]

See User:AlexNewArtBot/AstroSearchResult. Loads of biographies about astronomers and physicists (and maybe others) written by new editors. They appear for the most part to be legitimate. Did I miss the memo? Is there some special event going on? Lithopsian (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

It looks like most new articles are about female astronomers and physicists, Perhaps there is a diversity drive. If so, good for them. --Mark viking (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I totally agree. It is a great idea. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
This is my fault! :) Wiki Edu and I ran a super successful edit-a-thon at the AAS annual meeting (something like 50 astronomers showed up!!) and we wrote a ton of new articles. Keilana (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Someone should go an tag them with relevant Wikiproject banners, lest they get deleted without anyone noticing. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
They're probably safe. The first one I looked at was a bit of a slab of text about someone I hadn't heard of, but turned out to be quite well-published. Several others were more structured and about people I knew. They're mostly short, but more than stubs and appropriately cited and categorised. I approved a few, but they could do with being assessed. The biography banners are a bit intimidating for me :) Lithopsian (talk) 10:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
'lest' probably being the wrong word. I meant if someone PRODs them or something, we'd want to be notified of it. If they aren't tagged, they'd could slip by. Not 'if they aren't tagged, someone will PROD them'. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
All bios on that page up to now tagged with {{WikiProject Astronomy}}, {{WikiProject Biography}}, and, if applicable, {{WikiProject Women scientists}}.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that! --Mark viking (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Going a step farther, I found that ~1/2 of the astronomers listed at List of astronomers were missing the WP:AST tag, and a few missing WP:BIO, so I placed them too.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  00:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Quality improvement....[edit]

FWIW, Lynx (constellation) is at FAC (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lynx (constellation)/archive1)....cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of nonsense at Blueshift[edit]

An IP editor keeps inserting unrelated blockquotes and word salad nonsense at Blueshift. I've reverted three times now. The whole article needs work, but it doesn't need added pseudo-scientific babble. - Parejkoj (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it, and if necessary request page protection. Primefac (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Looks like you could delete any random sentence and improve the article :) I non-randomly removed some stuff that should probably have been reverted when it was first put in. Lithopsian (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Nice job. Thanks. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

MP #R cleanup[edit]

There are some improvements to implement and inconsistencies to iron out in the sea of MP #Rs that Rfassbind and I have been talking about that have built up enough for another run. I'll summarize them here from my talk page for further discussion/FYI:

  1. Remove uses of {{Redr}}: Only affects a small % of MP #Rs; convert to list of {{R from ...}} templates, which are easier to search for, add, and remove than their {{Redr}} counterparts.
  2. {{NASTRO comment}}: Replace the original, hard-coded <!--Before reverting this redirect into an article, [...]--> comment with the much nicer, much more obvious, much easier to change {{NASTRO comment}}, per WP:NASTRO#Dealing with minor planets. (applicable to ~98–99% of MP #Rs)
  3. Cat-Renaming Asteroid→Minor planet: Not in this run; much broader scope than intended here.
  4. Add an empty line after #REDIRECT [[...]]: Per all examples on WP:Redirect, WP:REDCAT, {{Redr}}, {{R to list entry}}, {{R to anchor}}, etc., etc. Not sure why, but it is a standard. (for readability) (unknown % of MP #Rs, but guessing >= 50%)
  5. Finer anchors (increment by #10 or by #1?): Incrementing anchors by #100 MPs is a bit too coarse, and is a relic from when 100-entry subpages existed. Now that each page has 1000 entries, anchors incremented by #10 seems like a good compromise between what exists and adding more text to the List of minor planets pages.
    I'd like to hear what more people think about #1 vs. #10, both in terms of page size increase, and in terms of which is more natural/easy to see/aesthetically pleasing/etc.
    As for page size increases:
    1. #1 anchors (id=001, id=002, id=003, etc.) add:
      990 new anchors × 6 bytes/anchor = 5,940 b = 5.801 kB,
      or 0.86% of the current list-page size of ~675 kB.
      Also easier/more straight-forward to implement/check/etc.
       Will start this today.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
      Yes check.svg Prep done.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  21:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    2. #10 anchors (id=001, id=011, id=021, etc.) add:
      80 new anchors × 6 bytes/anchor = 480 b = 0.469 kB,
      or 0.07% of the current list-page size of ~675 kB.
      X mark.svg Not done.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  6. Add #R templates/replace redundant #R templates:
    1. {{R to anchor}} auto-populates {{R unprintworthy}}; ensure the former exists but not the latter, via fix #2.
    2. Now would be a good time to add any others. 'Default' templates can be added at any time to {{NASTRO comment}} (fix #2).

  ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

For point 4, it is just a recommended style. From WP:REDCAT, For clarity, all category links should be added at the end of the page, after the redirect statement and rcat(s). Use of blank lines between these promotes readability of the code. --Mark viking (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Thx Tom for the introduction/summary:

  1. no Redr-templates. Agreed. However, I'll make an alternative proposal below.
  2. new NASTRO-comment template: the recently revised template has now a clickable link to WP:NASTRO. Maybe there are some more improvements to make? E.g for those ~2,000 newly created #R, the text passage "before reverting this redirect" does not make a lot of sense.
  3. category-rename: this is a big one. There are many categories with an unfortunate naming. E.g "Discoverers of asteroids" and "Discoverers of minor planets" (not used in MP#Rs) both make sense but bite each other: what about an astronomer that discovered both main-belt asteroids and trans-Neptunian objects? What about an astronomer that discovered 327 minor planets; who's going to verify each and every item to make sure that all are asteroids?
  4. Anchors in LOMP (list of minor planets). I'm fine with 1-step rather than 10-step anchors. I've come to the conclusion, that my initial 10-er proposal is unpractical for several reasons... I was simply wrong. Maybe there is an elegant way to set staggered anchors in the LOMP-table, so that the referred table row is not at the uppermost edge of the screen... ? As to the empty 2nd line, the Redr template states "please leave this line blank for emphasis and ease of reading by editors", which makes sense to me.

Proposal, yesterday I was thinking about an integrated NASTRO-comment template (see not so serious example in the sandbox). I feel like we should only have one single template for all MP#Rs, with some additional parameters, so future changes would be much simpler. Of course this somehow might complicate an easy search.. but it would make things so much easier, wouldn't it?! Rfassbind – talk 17:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

For #2, I changed {{NASTRO comment}}'s Before reverting this redirect to Before turning this redirect (it feels so good having templates around).
As for an all-inclusive NASTRO/MP#R template, that's an interesting idea worth considering. I'm not familiar enough with template recursion to know what the problems may be. Hopefully others can chime in.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  19:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
For the {{NASTRO comment}}, instead of a hardcoded Before turning this redirect, we could use a dynamically displayed Before turning '''{{bigger|{{PAGENAME}}}} ''' (see example for recent MP#R 6018 Pierssac). As for the proposed all-in-one NASTRO-template, I don't know if it's feasible, either ("recursion"), but since you're an template-editor, I'm confident you'll figure it out soon. Rfassbind – talk 09:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
No problems found recursing.
An all-in-one template would have the 2 'default' R templates ({{R to list entry}} & {{R to anchor}}). While first going through the MP#Rs there was an incredible amount of inconsistency, and one of those inconsistencies was a missing anchor. We and others have cleaned that up, but I'm worried (albeit a small worry) that pages including the all-in-one template may omit the anchor (i.e. by an editor not familiar with the template or simply careless) leading to miscategorized pages. This can apply to any of the templates we deem 'default'. In other words, having the individual R templates visible makes it easier to see & check the page, but harder to manage (editing many, many pages instead of just 1). If this isn't a concern for you or anyone else, or the pros outweight the cons, then I'll incorporate it into the run.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't say an incredible amount of inconsistencies, since we both have invested so much time and energy in the last, say 8 months, to considerably improve minor planet redirects (MP#Rs) and related things (categories and #R-target pages). There are indeed some changes we both have made in the process (such as the usage of the unprintworthy, the anchor, and now the NASTRO-comment template). This is exactly why such an all-in-one template (AIO-tpl) would be of great help, since every time we make up our mind for a better solution we wouldn't need to update 20 thousand redirects.
However an AIO-tpl should also include about 2000+ avoided double redirects (moved from provisional, title without diacritical marks, incorrect name, alternative spelling) with the corresponding <!-- Do not categorize this page, to avoid duplication. --> and an additional name-parameter for the correct name. I think it is not that difficult to create such an AIO-tpl, but we need to agree on that first. Rfassbind – talk 20:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree for adding a parameter for the 'avoid double redirect' comment, perhaps |do-not-cat=yes or |dont-cat=yes? This would then replace the usual NASTRO comment with the "don't cat" one (I like the one you made in the sandbox).
I don't agree on having another parameter which accepts the correct name, for 2 reasons:
  1. The correct name should already exist in the appropriate R template (avoided double redirect, incorrect name, etc.), so including it somewhere else is another, and unnecessary, source of error.
  2. I wouldn't want to include those secondary R templates (avoided double redirect, incorrect name, etc.) in the AIO-tpl (which might otherwise be seen as the next appropriate thing to do), since those are in the minority, and doing so doesn't make managing any easier (i.e. each page still needs to be edited/checked individually for either the R template or for the correct R-template-parameter).
  ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── OK, let's forget about an all-in-one template, that's fine with me. I see you already implemented all missing anchors, well done. If you want me to file a bot-request or adjust the example at WP:DWMP, just let me know. Thx Rfassbind – talk 12:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm starting this today so no need.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done 21,484 MP #Rs updated, 2924 MP articles skipped.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

UGC 10 proposed for deletion.[edit]

Just realised that the deletion proposal for UGC 10 may not have been seen by astro-folks since the article is unassessed. Lithopsian (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Solar radii vs radiuses[edit]

There's a discussion at the {{convert}} talk page regarding the plural of radius. Currently (and in my humble opinion somewhat absurdly), the template is giving us radiuses rather than the etymologically correct radii. Apparently, Webster lists radiuses as an acceptable alternative. Be that as it may, I'm pretty sure that radii is the more common plural especially amongst educated people (the more likely audience of articles on astronomy). Perhaps it's an ENVAR issue, though, maybe radiuses is used in American English. So, the viable options are the following (in order of my preference).

  1. Change the pluralisation from radiuses to radii.
  2. Make the default pluralisation radii with radiuses as an option.
  3. Leave the pluralisation as radiuses.

What thoughts have ye? Jimp 03:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm the one who originally raised the question, so probably no surprise that I'd like a change. Out of the choices, I'd go for the first one, but I have no objection to giving people the option to have the alternate plural form. There might be contexts where solar radiuses is the normal usage and I wouldn't want to impose a blanket ban on that form. Lithopsian (talk) 12:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
To me, 'radiuses' sounds like a colloquialism, but apparently it's a valid usage. I've always seen 'radii' used in the scientific context, and generally prefer it. Praemonitus (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
+1 for radii. I never heard radiuses used in any half-decent written piece, and especially not in scientific writing (at all levels). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Although technically using anglicized plural forms of words of latin origin is acceptable, in this case google ngram is quit unambiguous about what the most common usage in English is. PS. if you ever see somebody use "casi" as the plural of "casus" please make fun of them.TR 19:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
... or bi for buses ... Jimp 23:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Mostly from what I've seen on Wikipedia is radii and not 'radiuses'. I think all uses of 'radiuses' should be changed to radii for consistency purposes as it appears to be more commonly used both in Wikipedia and scientific literature. Davidbuddy9Talk 21:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree with TR, while both uses are valid, Google Ngrams shows that one is heavily favored and thus should be our standard here. A2soup (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. The issue has been settled and convert now uses "solar radii" for the plural name. Johnuniq (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Exoplanet[edit]

I have nominated Exoplanet for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKay (talk) 08:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm done with my leg of this race. Anyone else want to pick up the batton? Most of DrKay's original concerns still need addressing (except the bit about citations).   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  00:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on a tool on Visual Editor to add open license text from other sources[edit]

Hi all

I'm designing a tool for Visual Editor to make it easy for people to add open license text from other sources, there are a huge number of open license sources compatible with Wikipedia including around 9000 journals. I can see a very large opportunity to easily create a high volume of good quality articles quickly. I have done a small project with open license text from UNESCO as a proof of concept, any thoughts, feedback or endorsements (on the Meta page) would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

UGC 10 notability[edit]

Is an actual galaxy automatically notable? I am thinking that it is - however I am not sure how this project views such matters. UGC 10 is currently at AfD, [16]. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Not automatically, and not even if it has a name. Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects) has the answers. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett: Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Astronomy Newsletter Q2 2016[edit]

Artists impression of the TRAPPIST-1 system, a major exoplanet discovery in Q2 2016.
Next →

Welcome to the first WikiProject Astronomy Newsletter!

The project at a glance[edit]

At the end of Q2 2016 the project has reached:

  • Increase 113 Featured articles
  • Increase 14 Featured lists
  • Steady 6 Featured miscellaneous
  • Increase 174 Good Articles
  • Increase 45,161 total articles
  • Negative increase 3,274 (or 8%) are marked for cleanup
  • Negative increase 4,767 issues in total.

News by month[edit]

April 2016[edit]

April 2016 featured the discovery of 2MASS J1119–1137 a rogue planet discovered by the Carnegie Institution for Science and Western University of Ontario, Canada on April 6th. Also in April, the Crater 2 dwarf galaxy had been discovered from imaging data from the VST ATLAS survey making it the now fourth largest satellite of the Milky Way.

May 2016[edit]

May 2016 was a big month for Exoplanetology, starting on May 2nd 2016 with the discovery of the TRAPPIST-1 system (Pictured) featuring TRAPPIST-1b, 1c and 1d which lead to these new articles being created, as well as Ultra-cool dwarf which was translated from French Wikipedia. On May 10th, 2016 NASA announced 1,284 new exoplanets which lead to the creation of articles for Kepler-1229b and Kepler-1638b, both of which are located in their system's circumstellar habitable zone.

Other created articles in May includes Astro microbiology, TYC 9486-927-1, DENIS J082303.1-491201 (translated from French Wikipedia), NGC 5343, NGC 6452, NGC 137, NGC 138, NGC 139, NGC 140, NGC 141, IC 4499, Locomotion in Space, NGC 4388, 171 Puppis, Elisa Quintana, Halil Kayikci, HELIOS Lab, and Utpala (astronomer).

June 2016[edit]

An artist's impression of the extremely young exoplanet V830 Tau b.

On June 4th 2016 Circinus was the daily featured article (See blurb), and on June 21st, 2016 Sidney Hall - Urania's Mirror - Draco and Ursa Minor was the featured image on the English Wikipedia.

In June 2016, NASA announced the discovery of the exoplanet Kepler-1647b orbiting around in a circumbinary orbit around an F-type star; the typing of the other star in the system is unknown. V830 Tau b was also discovered in June 2016 orbing around a very young T Tauri star with an incredibly young age of approximately 2 million years.

Other articles created in June include; Jean-François du Soleil, Shawn Domagal-Goldman, Tidal downsizing, ESO Supernova Planetarium & Visitor Centre, AGC 198691, Abell 2597, MACHO 176.18833.411, NGC 152, Astronomy Photographer of the Year, Karan Jani, CVSO 30, Adriaan Wesselink, Laura A. Lopez, Heather A. Knutson, Jiong Qiu, Tracy Slatyer, Rachel Mandelbaum, Sarah T. Stewart-Mukhopadhyay, Jenny Greene, Sara Ellison, Emily Levesque, Smadar Naoz, Yūko Kakazu, Kristen Sellgren, Kimmo Innanen, Ruth Murray-Clay, Henry "Trae" Winter, 2016 HO3, Sentinel-4, GW151226, WR 93b, WR 30a, Prairie Observatory, Mineralogy of Mars, Edith Alice Müller, Athena Coustenis, Global catastrophic risk, Christina Richey, Ann Hornschemeier, Katherine Reeves, W Aquilae, TV Geminorum, HV 11423, BC Cygni, International Center for Relativistic Astrophysics, RW Cygni, Nadia Zakamska, Vassiliki Kalogera, UGC 10, 22899 Alconrad, Galileo's telescopes, Aomawa Shields, Tommaso Perelli, Antonio Santucci, François de Baillou, List of minor planets: 469001–470000, List of star systems within 25–30 light-years, NGC 6120, V419 Cephei, BI Cygni, List of Gotland-related asteroids, Extrasolar atmosphere, List of gravitational wave observations, NGC 142.
This is a trial run of the WP:AST Newsletter. To start or stop receiving these messages on your talk page please add or remove your username from the subscription page.
Davidbuddy9Talk 01:10, 1 July 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 considerations 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 maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Opinions needed about the list of exoplanets[edit]

I have started a discussion about information contained in the List of exoplanets and its necessity in the article. Your input on the subject is appreciated. Primefac (talk) 01:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Extrasolar atmosphere vs Extraterrestrial atmospheres RfC[edit]

You are invited to discuss this issue in the relevant RfC located here. Davidbuddy9Talk 05:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Crater start/stub classifications[edit]

When removing stub tags from start-or-higher-class articles, I noticed a lot of very short articles classified as start. All of these are < 100 words, but most/all are very well referenced. I just want to make sure their start-class is deserving. If not, I'll put back the stub tags. Here they are:

  ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  00:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Since they have a stack of external links, text, infobox and a picture, they would be beyond a stub. However note that the external links for these articles looks to be all the same, and I suspect that there are just passing mentions in these linked stuff. There is a lack of referencing to say where the information came from. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Some caution here. They have a stack of references because they used to have an infobox that included a stack of generic references about the moon. After that template was revised, each article now has those references directly (not cited inline) whether they are relevant or not. Looks impressive, but is almost completely useless. The infoboxes are basic catalogue entries, possibly mass-produced, although most of the articles do have an image of the actual crater. I would base the classification largely on the body of the article, which varies from stub to start in the articles I looked at. The first one (Abetti) is one of the shorter ones - I would rate it stub, but it contains more than a definition and you can make a case that it should be start (after all, how much can you say about a ghost crater on the moon?). Consistency might be more important than having an absolutist argument about shades of grey. See crater stubs. Lithopsian (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Defining inner and outer main-belt asteroids on wikipedia[edit]

Definition MCA
by a, q and Q
Semi-major axis (a) in AU Refs
inner MBA middle MBA outer MBA
Asteroid belt § Kirkwood gaps (i) undefined 2.06 ≤ a ≥ 2.5 2.5 ≤ a ≥ 2.82 2.82 ≤ a ≥ 3.28 by Kirkwood gaps, boundaries at 3:1 resonance (2.5 AU) and 5:2 resonance (2.82 AU)
Asteroid belt § Kirkwood gaps (ii) undefined < 2.5 none undefined alternative definition mentioned
Asteroid belt § Kirkwood gaps (iii) undefined < 3.3 none > 3.3 alternative definition mentioned
CALL – LCDB 1.3 < q < 1.668
Q < 5.0
a < 2.6 2.6 < a < 2.7 a > 2.7 LCDB readme – 2. Taxonomic Class, orbital class, and albedo
JPL SBDB 1.3 < q < 1.666
a < 3.2
a < 2.0
q > 1.666 AU
3.2 < a < 4.6 MCAs and inner-MBAs are mutually exclusive due to limit on q

I plan to colorize the List of minor planets (example). As far as I know, we do not clearly define the terms "inner" and "outer" main-belt asteroid (MBA) on wikipedia. There are several alternatives mentioned in Asteroid belt § Kirkwood gaps, which all differ from the given definitions at LCDB and JPL (see an incomplete summary above). Also, the definition of a Mars-crosser (MCA) varies (while on JPL, for example, MCAs and MBAs are mutually exclusive, here on wikipedia, an asteroid can be a near-Earth object, a Mars-crosser and a main-belt asteroid all at once).

I suggest to thoroughly discuss, whether or not we should define the usage of these orbital classifications on wikipedia. Otherwise there will be no guideline and this post will serve as justification to classify an asteroid whichever way seems to fit best. Rfassbind – talk 13:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Why not use asteroid zones?[17] Praemonitus (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I like the idea of using color to add extra dimensions to the list. I can't see the difference between the MBA color (#f9f9f9) & the iMBA color (#fff) though.
As for Mars-crossers, I've seen some of JPL's MCAs identified by the MPC as main-belt (one more inconsistency to add to the list). I'm reluctant to support large-scale changes based on a potentially unstable/non-standard taxonomy, but I don't know how pervasive this discrepancy is. If it only affects a small minority, say, < 10% of what either JPL or MPC call MCAs, that's fine, since there are hardly any outlier-free orbit classifications. If it's a significant fraction, though, that's too ambiguous for an encyclopedia imo.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
You do realize that minor planets can change their orbital category over time as a result of perturbations by the rest of the solar system? Urhixidur (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Asteroids by source of name migration to Category:Minor planets by source of name[edit]

In an attempt to reconcile Category:Minor planets named for rivers with the Category:Asteroids by source of name tree (which contains asteroids named: from literature, for people, for places, of unknown origin), and to generalize Category:Asteroids by source of name, I'm thinking about migrating this category and its subcats to the Category:Minor planets by source of name tree, and leaving category redirects to the new corresponding MP cats. Does anyone see a problem with this? Pinging the relevant cats' creators Rfassbind & Jnestorius.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  19:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I have not an objection but a caution. Do you realise there are 10,563 pages in Category:Asteroids named for people that will need to be edited? Is there a bot for this? jnestorius(talk) 08:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I will perform the migration properly, as I have done in the past.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  11:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes Tom, plz do the changes. Unfortunately, some years ago when many articles, lists and categories were changed from "asteroid" to the broader "minor planet" classification term, nobody seems to have raised a word of caution how much work this would actually cause. Now, we (still) struggle with this "often-but-not-always" redundant double term. So thanks for tackling these challenging issues! In addition:
Again, thx Tom, Rfassbind – talk 19:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Responses:
  1. Absolutely; I will include it in the migration.
  2. Category:Minor planets named for organizations seems fine.
  3. Category:Minor planets named for things (?) (supercomputers, OSs, etc.) +
    Category:Minor planets named for observatories (90022 Apache Point) +
    Category:Minor planets named for miscellany as the catch-all
  4. I originally wanted this too, but there was no support for it 6 months ago (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Category maintenance 1#Category:Numbered asteroids Maintenance). There was support against this actually. You're of course welcome to argue again for it.
  5. Sounds good to me!   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  00:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Will start this today probably.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Bulk completed 12 hrs ago and finishing touches recently.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  03:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well done. There must have been thousands of edits. Let's talk about the potential new categories (above) somewhere else, since this does not seem to be of any concern to other editors at the moment. Rfassbind – talk 18:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

UAO-DLR or Uppsala-DLR?[edit]

I left messages at Talk:UAO-DLR Asteroid Survey & Talk:Uppsala–DLR Trojan Survey 11 days ago but no bites.

The discrepancy is that UAO-DLR Asteroid Survey & Uppsala–DLR Trojan Survey (and their corresponding named-categories) should be either:

  1. UAO-DLR Asteroid Survey & UAO–DLR Trojan Survey, or
  2. Uppsala-DLR Asteroid Survey (currently a #REDIRECT) & Uppsala–DLR Trojan Survey,

since they both use the Uppsala Astronomical Observatory (UAO). What does everyone else think?   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  21:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

My !vote would be for option 2, since it gives the name of the observatory and isn't just one big acronym. Primefac (talk) 02:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I like option 2 too.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I agree, the MPC also uses "Uppsala-DLR Asteroid Survey" and "Uppsala-DLR Trojan Survey" (MPC and MPC). I suggest to move UAO-DLR Asteroid Survey to Uppsala–DLR Asteroid Survey (dashed version, currently a redlink, so no swapping needed) and adjust things correspondingly. Rfassbind – talk 18:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Just be sure to mention 'UAO–DLR' in the lead paragraph of Uppsala-DLR Asteroid Survey. Urhixidur (talk) 13:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

MinorPlanetNameMeaningsDisclaimer tweak[edit]

There's additional text after {{MinorPlanetNameMeaningsDisclaimer}} that I see in all but 22 21 of the 459 Meanings of minor planet names pages, "Minor planets not yet given a name have not been included in this list.". All of the 22 21 are in the <=10,000-range, with the exception of 43001–44000:

Since this sentence seems like a good one to include in the disclaimer template, my questions are:

  1. Is/was someone using this sentence for tracking purposes, removing it from pages when they have been checked for name-completeness? (I have not doubled-checked)
    1. If so, would using {{incomplete list}}, or similar, be a better alternative?
      1. If so, I can add the sentence to {{MinorPlanetNameMeaningsDisclaimer}} and replace it on existing pages with {{incomplete list}} (at the top of the page).
      2. If not, do nothing.
    2. If not, I can add the sentence to {{MinorPlanetNameMeaningsDisclaimer}} and remove it from existing pages (all of which have the disclaimer template).

I was originally going to post this at the disclaimer template's talk page, but its traffic history is quite barren (aside from yesterday).

Pinging Ilvon, Urhixidur, Frietjes, W.carter, Kwamikagami, Jodosma, & exoplanetaryscience, whom I've seen contribute a great deal to these pages. Apologies if I missed anyone else as prolific.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  17:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Do what you think is best Tom, I have no dog in this fight. ;) w.carter-Talk 18:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Checking is easy: just count the lines in the Meanings table. As minor planet states, "As of June 2016, the lowest-numbered unnamed minor planet is (3708) 1974 FV1", which explains 9 of the 22 cases you've found. The pages in the 6001 to 10,000 range do not have any unnumberedunnamed minor planets, which explains another number of cases. The remaining lower-numbered cases occur because the unnamed minor planets are included in the lists (with entries consisting of just an em-dash). Starting with 10 000, the unnamed minor planets became too frequent, so they were excluded from the lists altogether, hence the additional disclaimer. 43001–44000 is a mistake on your part: the text does appear on it. Urhixidur (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't see it on 43001–44000 due to the added emphasis (that I've now standardized).
Also, the unnamed ones have entries with an en dash instead of an em dash.
So, in short, option 1.1.2 (do nothing) sounds like the right choice.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  19:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I only made minor changes to the table formatting and the addition of a nav box. Please feel free to continue as you see fit. Jodosma (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Good team work, everybody! Is this issue closed now? Urhixidur (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Resolved: Do nothing.
  ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Citing papers as references to spectral types - is it in violation of WP:OR?[edit]

Some editors feel as though listing spectral types based on a paper is in violation of WP:NOR (for example, see this edit on Kepler-1229). Frankly, I don't really see a problem with this as it would only be in violation if it was unsourced, or taken from an unreliable source. In these cases, this reference, this one (at bottom of paper), are considered reliable. This one could also be in the batch as it seems more reliable (and more recent, as proven when I put that url into the Wayback Machine - it was created sometime in 2008). I would like to hear from some of the editors here to see how they feel about this. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

  • There's a difference between citing a paper that says "Kepler 12345 is a K0V star" and finding one that lists its temperature, running to another source that matches temperatures with spectral types, and connecting the dots. Reyk YO! 19:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pretty much as Reyk said. WP:CALC allows routine calculation, which is what allows the infobox to convert parallax to distance. But interpreting spectra should be left to the experts. Praemonitus (talk) 02:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    • BTW, the 'b-v' color value lies between what one could expect for an M2 to M3 class star.[18] Praemonitus (talk)
  • "Citing papers" is fine, but if you were Looking up a spectral type based on a temperaure as the other editor claims, that does fall under WP:OR and WP:SYN. Once it is challenged you need source that directly supports the claim without interpretation. That can suck when adding good information, but consider the flip side. We need that rule to be strong to firmly terminate any argument when someone tries to add bad info. We do not open the quagmire of arguing who's right. Alsee (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Minor planet occultation records[edit]

In terms of satisfying WP:GNG for a minor planet, the Worldwide Asteroidal Occultation Observations and Resources site could be a useful resource for certain cases. Presumably though we'd want to limit it to entries where there are multiple successful observations during an event with at least a couple of intersecting chords and a published asteroid profile. What do you think? Perhaps an editor wants to put together a table template for listing useful details about an asteroid occultation? (Date, time, total observers, # insersecting chords, image link, &c) Praemonitus (talk) 00:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Lynx (constellation)[edit]

Lynx (constellation) is going very slowly at FAC (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lynx (constellation)/archive1) anyone with an interest in astronomy is urged to come vet it.....sigh Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)