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
Popular pages
Main / Talk
Members
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.
 
Shortcuts:

Stripe 82[edit]

Stripe 82: this is a new article about a region of sky that has been imaged multiple times by multiple different studies. However, I cannot seem to find exactly where the region is, so that I can categorize and fix it properly. Does anyone know where the region is located? In addition, do people think that a region of the sky itself is worthy of an article? StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be a privileged piece of the Sloan digital survey that astronomers are concentrating as a sort of test case for various observational techniques. There was even a conference at Princeton on the stripe, which is good evidence for notability. From that link it is equatorial, but I don't know more than that. --Mark viking (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I think we need a new category for things like this... Category:Sky regions ? -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 08:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Created and populated. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Stripe 82 is ±2.5° in dec from the celestial equator ref. The image suggests it runs for 120°, from +60° to -60° (degrees of RA), but that's just by eye. This has coordinates, but I can't work out the reference system. The article needs more prose and an explanation of notability, or it runs the risk of being prodded as a non-notable list. Modest Genius talk 00:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Nebula of Orion[edit]

Found a weird page... I think it should redirect to Orion Nebula; what do you think? -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 08:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a disambiguation page. It exists to guide readers from a plausible name for an article to the article they are actually interested in. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
It is a disambiguation page, but it is also claiming that the term "Nebula of Orion" has no primary topic. I should think that Orion Nebula is the primary topic of "Nebula of Orion", and this page doesn't even list the linked to list of nebulae at the Orion Complex article. If it is meant to contend that they are all called "Nebula of Orion", they should be listed on the page. If there is a primary topic the the disambiguation page should carry "(disambiguation)", and the page should redirect to the main article. It also looks like it should be converted to a WP:SETINDEX, not remain a disambiguation page, considering the redlinks from the Orion Complex section it links to. Aside from that, it only appears to list star clusters and not nebulae, per the header for the only section that lists articles on the dab page itself, so is "strange". -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree, this should redirect to Orion Nebula as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I'm not convinced that there is any need for a dab page, as none of those other items is ever called 'Nebula of Orion' or 'Orion Nebula', so there's no need to disambiguate. Modest Genius talk 00:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

ICRS, TIRS, GCRS, ERA[edit]

There don't seem to be any articles, or even section of articles, about these reference systems/frames that link International Terrestrial Reference System to International Celestial Reference System/International Celestial Reference Frame.

I am thinking of creating some material on this, and have two questions?

  1. Did I miss articles or sections of articles about these that I missed?
  2. Would it be better to create articles about these, or would it be better to incorporate them into existing articles. If it's better to put them in existing articles, should we merge the ITRS, ICRS, and ICRF articles into the same articles?

Jc3s5h (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Great, these topics could do with some expansion! We also have Earth-centered inertial, which mentions the GCRF and ICRF and International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service, which mention the reference frames, but in no detail. With regard to merging, I think that ICRS and ICRF could be usefully merged, but ITRS and ITRF should stay separate from ICRS and ICRF--the reason being that ITRF tends to be used in geodesy and GIS, whereas ICRS and ICRF are more relevant for astrometry and celestial mechanics and navigation. --Mark viking (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
The thing is that usually there is a need to transform coordinates among these systems to perform a single task, such as observing a star from an earth-based observatory. The relationships and transformations seem to be just as important as the reference systems/frames. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I can understand that. I recently completely rewrote Geographic coordinate conversion as a start on covering such transforms for terrestrial coordinate systems. I guess the question is whether is it better to merge all these articles or to create an article like Celestial coordinate conversion or Astronomical coordinate conversion. --Mark viking (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 27/03[edit]

I don't know what the policy is on these new planets, but I just read that same article yesterday...talk about coincidence! Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Biden (Dwarf Planet). FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

This AfC needs to be killed, 2012 VP113 (the technical name for the body) already exists as a page. Primefac (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
It would probably be useful to create Biden (Dwarf Planet) & Biden (dwarf planet) as redirects -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 05:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Good idea. Done. Primefac (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for article[edit]

Your newest project member here. I expect I'll be more use to this project as a wordsmither than as a raw content provider. But nosing around today I discovered that there is no article for the Barycentric Celestial Reference System, and no clear resolution (disambiguation) path for "BCRS" into astronomical info, not even for resolving what the acronym stands for. I see that the ICRS article is still a stub, but it might be useful to have a stub for BCRS also, with some cross-referencing, perhaps to Barycentric coordinates (astronomy), time dilation and definition articles, and maybe Astronomical unit. That last article is where I ran into BCRS, in trying to decode a source describing why the au was redefined in 2012. The acronym apparently seems so familiar to experts that they often fail even to define it, but the novice reader on WP could use some help. Evensteven (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I for one have never heard of BCRS, and I've been working in professional astronomy since 2006... There's some discussion of articles on reference systems a few items up on this talk page, you might like to add it to that list. Those articles will inevitable be very technical. Modest Genius talk 21:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
This is part of the IAU 2000 resolutions, see [1]. That paper might make a good secondary source. --Mark viking (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, well now I see why I was having to grope for clues. But for all I knew, it looked foundational. I bumped into something that said the ICRS is a subset of BCRS(or was it a special case?), but I didn't quite follow that, as I could get no clear definitions. I would guess that the body of such an article could get highly technical, but I leave it to others to decide how much detail is useful. I suggested creation of a stub article now just in order to provide some basic lead material for the less expert, and a connection point for related topics. Evensteven (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
That abstract could be used as a thesaurus for 'talked about'. Modest Genius talk 23:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Looking into this question I stumbled into Barycentric coordinate system and guarded it with a hatnote so it won't become a Rancho La Brea tar pit of astronomers. As for our own astronomical barycentic measurements, seems to me we've already got plenty enough articles, maybe even too many, but not enough links connecting them, and too many asumptions of familiarity for, well, moderately ignorant amateurs like me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim.henderson (talk) 15:45, 03 April 2014 (UTC)
The "too many assumptions of familiarity" item is really what I've been getting at here. If a new article isn't the right way to approach it, it's no problem by me; that was just my initial thought. It looks like this topic might converge with the discussion in the #ICRS, TIRS, GCRS, ERA section above? Evensteven (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I think this section and the #ICRS, TIRS, GCRS, ERA both have the position that (1) there are a number of reference systems and reference frames out there used in astrometry, (2) WP coverage of these is inadequate, and (3) in particular, relations among these systems is unclear and information on coordinate conversions is not there. For terrestrial reference frames, we have a number of articles on particular frames, an overall article in Geographic coordinate system, and a comparison/conversions article in Geographic coordinate conversion. We could do something similar here. Or we could, as you suggested, just create a stub for BCRS. --Mark viking (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Commonplace. Wikipedia articles on most topics beyond the most elementary level are full of WP:JARGON inserted by well meaning insiders. They remember the early years when they learned the business, starting with learning insider vocabulary. They work with professional publications that use the same language. Doing precise work with the blunt, slippery tools of ordinary discourse is a business of its own, largely unknown to specialists in any field. So, those of us who have some idea how to do this, and some notion of the topic, must figure how to bridge a gap which we haven't crossed ourselves, to write prefaces and install links to explain clearly something we only roughly understand. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Something that bothers me is that so many official descriptions of technical standards stick to describing what the standard is, without describing the motivation for creating it. Even if the Wikipedia editor thinks (s)he knows the motivation, it's hard to find a reliable source to confirm the editor's impression about the motive is right. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty much agreed on all these points. One of the things I think I can contribute to this project is my very recognition of these problems, and some of just that language to introduce material at novice or intermediate levels. I'm not entirely particular about how the gaps we're recognizing here are filled - there could easily be more than one good way - but we should indeed fill them. From what I've read now, it looks to me like BCRS and GCRS are simply two new reference systems created in 2001, which have distinct advantages over older systems in that they remove from certain observations dependencies on relativistic effects. One provides a heliocentric coordinate system (BCRS), the other a geocentric one (GCRS), and conversions can (with some trouble) be done from one to the other. It's not perfectly clear to me, but I think similar systems could also be constructed in reference to any other significant gravity well (other planets, maybe even large moons), but haven't yet been made because of lack of sufficient need. I'd expect proliferation of systems could be a topic of discussion about standards in time to come, but probably over decades. But these present ones clearly relate to ICRS, which itself seems to relate to other reference frames in astrometry. So I'd say these are things we need to tie together at an introductory level, which is always a good starting place. If we structure the information the right way, it will be easy to expand the set of articles we have to include ever more expert information. What I don't know myself is just how much of that information exists, or how much of that belongs in WP. We need to have some idea of that also in order to know how many articles are necessary for coverage. My guess is still that a new stub for BCRS is a requisite first step, but I defer to anyone who knows better. Btw, a good college textbook might be a place to get some basic reliable coverage of motivations for standards. But my personal history goes too far back for me to have anything current at hand, unless I can find it in my public library. Anyone have a copy of Filippenko's The Cosmos: Astronomy in the New Millenium (4th edition, 2014)? How deep does that go? Evensteven (talk) 05:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
One more thought: Here on WP, I'm not bothered by the prospect of writing something on a topic I only understand vaguely. I can give it a shot (be bold!), and if I get it wrong, I expect someone more expert can correct the trajectory. After all, WP is itself a process of successive approximations. Evensteven (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I went ahead and created a stub for Barycentric celestial reference system and redirected BCRS to the new article. Feel free to jump in and improve. --Mark viking (talk) 08:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks;I'm looking at it. I notice that GCRS is similarly uncovered (somehow I had acquired a false impression earlier that it did exist). Since there couldn't have been lots of demand for coverage in the past, I'd like to suggest that we could simply cover GCRS in the BCRS article, at least for now. (There's some there already.) More redirects would be enough to get readers to the info. Of course, the topics could always be separated later if it proved desirable. Or is someone in favor of a separate stub now? Evensteven (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 08/04[edit]

Draft:Cosmic age problem. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Cosmos Episode List Question[edit]

I've been trying to cut down the number of Unassessed articles in this group, and today I came across "Standing Up in the Milky Way," an episode of Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, which for some reason has been ranked as being in the purview of WP Astronomy. I can understand the main article being included, but does the episode itself (and the subsequent episodes) really need to be added to our project? Primefac (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The series article already has descriptions of individual episodes, and ready-made places for those to come. That seems plenty for this project. As a whole, a series of what could be 15 articles for this subject seems more like promotion in this context. Doesn't it really fall more under the purview of television? Couldn't a little desirable linking be done instead? There's a fine introductory course on Astronomy given by Alex Filippenko on DVD (one of the Great Courses) which seems more pertinent (if less dramatic), yet I don't think we'd want to create 97 articles for it. This could snowball in an undesirable way. Evensteven (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Just classify the individual episodes as bottom-class and be done with it. They are related to astronomy, so would on the face of it, seem to be within the purview. Thus we have the bottom class that can be used. Since the quality rating is the same across projects, any WPTV member should also end up giving all projects a quality rating. (Though this aspect of WPPs never made sense to me, how can quality be the same across all topic areas?) -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Good points (both of you) - however, different projects can give different ratings (I've certainly seen a few of them); it's only Wiki's overall ranking that goes with the "highest bidder" so to speak. Of course, that's not to say a WPTV person couldn't just add rankings for other projects, but that seems a little cheeky. Primefac (talk) 08:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Added images to ~450 asteroid images.[edit]

Hey y'all, Just leaving a note that I've added ~450 asteroid images to some asteroid pages. The images are 3D models based on light-curve inversions, from a database I found from Charles University. The list of articles effected is here. I wrote a script to do the insertion, so I can run it again if/when more models are published.

Tim1357 talk|poke 19:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to Participate in a User Study - Final Reminder[edit]

Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC).

{{Starbox 2}}[edit]

Template:Starbox 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 05:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

European Extremely Large Telescope: ‎Time for an update?[edit]

The European Extremely Large Telescope article seems to be out of date at the moment. As of April 2014, there are reports suggesting that construction of the telescope is now either imminent or already under way: see http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/apr/20/spot-alien-life-european-extremely-large-telescope-chilean . This presumably means that the agreement to build it must now be complete. Can someone who is up to date on this please take a look at the article? Thanks, -- The Anome (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Astronomy people[edit]

Category:Astronomy people (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) has been nominated for renaming -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)