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
Main / Talk
Popular pages
Main / Talk
Main / Talk
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.

Listification of nearby star navboxes[edit]

@StringTheory11, Dirtlawyer1, Primefac, Tom.Reding, Praemonitus, Cryptic, and Jacob S-589: @Davidbuddy9, PC-XT, Double sharp, and Omega13a: You commented at the "Nearby" star navboxes TFD which closed as "listify". I have started a sandbox and am wondering how you might like it to look; whether the same divisions by distance should be kept for the series of articles; and whether there is other data of interest for such a table. The current columns represent the data that appears to be represented in each of the templates plus a "generic" column. --Izno (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

A list with that much detail is going to be a headache to maintain and cite. I'd try to keep it as simple as possible. Praemonitus (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Praemonitus; I think a list containing just best-fit distance, spectral type(s), and a link only if the system is notable would be sufficient. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I disagree on the point of "no red links". Lists are the best place for them, as those usually provide the best ways to organize a topic from a content generation point of view. For those that don't presently have an article, is there a more "canonical" list to which we might generate redirects of certain star systems? --Izno (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
@Izno:, I never said "no red links". I said that only objects that meet WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG should be linked. Certainly there's objects without articles that are notable, and those should be linked, but those with no articles and that aren't notable should not be linked. I can provide a list of the notable objects in the range, if you want. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
The easier way is probably for me to link all the blue links in the templates presently, then you can link any remaining desired. --Izno (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Cool. Any comment on the distance divisions? --Izno (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
With equal divisions of distance, the number of stars in each block will increase by the distance cubed. The last block will be much larger than the first. (The only work-around for this is to somehow reduce the membership with increasing distance. Say by eliminating red dwarfs beyond distance X; K-type stars beyond distance Y, &c.) Praemonitus (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
If by "increases with the distance cubed" you mean N_s = \frac{4}{3} \pi (r_o^3 - r_i^3) \times \rho_s, sure. At the density provided in the TFD, that's ~1350 star systems in the 70-75 ly shell (which is the highest value). Probably too many for one page. In the 45-50 ly shell, that's ~570 star systems, which is acceptable to me. Maybe take the larger shells to TFD again and keep the smaller? --Izno (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Although, List of PlayStation Portable games contains nearly a thousand entries, so maybe an even 1k star systems is about right for the "final" shell. That's the 60-65 ly shell at 982 star systems. --Izno (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Another possibility is to do a split by RA coordinates. But that's probably far too much work. Praemonitus (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
@JorisvS: I saw the edit; I deliberately represented the distances in that fashion because a user might have an interest in sorting by closest/furthest possible location. Some star systems when I took a look at the template had vastly different tolerances on their location. Comment? --Izno (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
It's so weird to do it that way that I at first didn't realize these were the minimum and maximum in the uncertainty range, but something like a historically minimum distance. Of course, when I looked closer I saw that that was not possible. Aside from this, separately it is also more difficult to maintain those values. --JorisvS (talk) 08:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Agreed on the second point. I have no objection to leaving your edits; certainly easier to copy-paste the values now. --Izno (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
My question at the tfd was exactly that - a question to folks less ignorant of the subject than I. I hadn't been aware of List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs, only that I'd run into a long series of unopposed prods of vaguely-nearby stars, a few of which transcluded a navbox currently up for deletion. So far as I'm concerned, the navboxes were already listified to the extent practical when the TFD began. —Cryptic 21:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
It looks like that that article only goes up to 5 parsecs; there's plainly a desire to retain a list of stars and others which are outside that distance. Storing that list on Wikidata might make more sense than here I suppose, but Wikipedia is the real UI for a whole lot of people. --Izno (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
NOTE there's also a discussion section about this at WT:ASTRO -- (talk) 07:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about my late reply, So far the sandbox list looks good but I feel that a few key rows such as how many planets and just a simple yes and no for potentially habitable ones should be added just for aesthetics and sorting purposes. Also @Izno: I would like to know if I could help you with listifying some stars because if more people work on this it will get done faster. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I have no objection--that was part of the point of posting here. I can probably work through a navbox or two over the next couple days. As for stars etc I wouldn't have a problem if someone extended the tables but I think implementing the consensus from TFD makes more sense to start with (and is something that I a mere non-SME can do ;)). --Izno (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
@Izno:Thanks for your reply, I have already made some changes. Changed some of the titles and added a column dedicated to the number of planets in the system and the colour is red/green depending if there is a habitable planet or not. I have also added some popular stars in the Gliese catalog that fit this range. :) Davidbuddy9 (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I removed the enumeration of planets (and corresponding column) since that doesn't seem sensible. But maybe it is? If we include planets/habitable planets, you need to provide WP:Accessibility: colors alone are not sufficient to indicate the data for habitable planets. --Izno (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Adding the number of planets to this list is a terrible idea! Considering the number of stars on the list with planets is incredibly small, this adds an extra column that displays nothing for the vast majority of systems, and causes large amounts of clutter in the list in most cases with no benefit. For smaller screens like mine, this is a real problem. Also, for a list of nearby stars, planets are not a defining characteristic, and this obsession with exoplanets on WP needs to stop. It's like including the radial velocity of the system! Sure, for a list of stars with exoplanets, it's a good idea, but this isn't such a list. Maybe include it in a "notes" column, along with more important characteristics such as variability, but no more. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I've also done a little improvement myself, reordering the columns to a more logical order, adding the full spectral types, and adding some notes. Revert if you disagree Izno. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
That was not my intended use of parallax -- the current templates only list whether the system in question has one or doesn't (through the use of italics). I have no objection to numerical values. I do not think it's a good idea (even though it may be more important to an astronomer) to have those in the second column since the reason the lists exists is distance of star rather than parallax.

I would recommend real words for the spectral types since that is more parseable for the ordinary human. I at least have a vague understanding when the term "supergiant M-type" is invoked; the letters and numbers presently in the column I do not implicitly understand. --Izno (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the 'real words' proposition, but I think that technical spectral designation should also be included (perhaps in parenthesis) to differentiate properties. Although this is a beneficially simplistic list, from just the term "M6V", properties like radius, mass, temperature, and luminosity can be differentiated from another star of "M4V"; this would also maintain the list's thorough integrity for those stars without articles. Additionally (but very off-topic), could we condense the V-band apparent magnitude values for multiple star systems, like was done with EQ Pegasi? As with the spectral type column, the separate values could be kept in parenthesis. I'll put up the condensed values (based off of formulas at Apparent Magnitude and Absolute Magnitude) tomorrow. Jacob S-589 (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
That should be V1054 Ophiuchi at magnitude 8.9356, Xi Boötis at magnitude 3.8398, and Gliese 105 at magnitude 5.8150. Jacob S-589 (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:Be bold, so long as WP:RS has some idea of those magnitudes (and we're not just creating them out of thin air). As regards designations, maybe two columns; one with the "supergiant"/"white dwarf" etc. piece and another with the technical designation (i.e., keep the current column and add a second)? --Izno (talk) 03:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep parallaxes?[edit]

I think the User:Izno/Sandbox/List of star systems within 20–25 light years now contains every star! (There's a few in the template that I excluded because their parallaxes would suggest that they are actually in the next or previous block). However, I'm thinking the parallax column is unnecessary as it just repeats the distance column, and the fact that a star has had its parallax measured isn't a noteworthy property by any means. Thoughts? StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

StringTheory left this on my talk page. My opinion is this:
  1. My goal in this was only to listify the templates.
  2. To fully listify the templates, whether a system has a parallax should be included.
So from this point of view, I think we should have an explicit consensus of more-than-one-or-two-bodies on whether to continue to include a parallax value in the list. We can vary the way we present that information if we desire (a column for "has one/doesn't have one"/a column for an actual value/italics on the name of the system as in the templates presently) if we want, or if consensus decides otherwise, then we choose not to continue including it.
On that point, there is some discussion above that seems to indicate parallax is more important (if perhaps less "noteworthy"), so there doesn't seem to be a consensus on disincluding it. I personally have no informed opinion; as an astro-layman with a chunk of science and engineering background, with only our article on stellar parallax to go by, the notion of a parallax is an interesting one but doesn't mean as much to me in the context of the table as the distances and their precisions.... --Izno (talk) 03:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
@Izno:, there's been no response here for several days, unfortunately. One thing that I think we could do is remove the parallax column, but add something similar to what is already in the template and italicize any systems that do not have known parallax (with an explanatory note, of course). That way, we keep the info on whether or not the system has a parallax, while reducing the clutter of an unnecessary table column. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
No objection. We should re-add the uncertainties to the distances then. --Izno (talk) 04:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I just took a quick look at the sandbox for the first time. Certainly a step forward from all those lists that become out of date the day after they are created! I'm not a layman by any means, but I feel parallax is important. It may or may not be exactly equivalent to a distance, but in the case of this table it does not seem to be an exact equivalence. The distance column is headed "Median distance" (although I don't know if that is really what it is) while the parallax column appears to be a single (Hipparcos, I guess at this point) value with an error range. In this condition, I'd want to keep the parallax. If the distance was really just a direct derivation from the parallax, then perhaps it could be dropped. Lithopsian (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
@Izno: Ok, since there's been no comments here now in nearly a month, what do you think about mainspacing the article? As there's no consensus on whether or not to remove parallax, we should probably keep it for now. We can add the stars (accompanied by a page move) down to the end of list of nearest stars after it's been mainspaced (although my free time is about to dramatically decrease, so I most likely won't be able to until no earlier than November). StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The only thing left for this list is to add references, after which I fully support moving it to mainspace. Primefac (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I would leave parallax out of the template, even though parallax is very important and the most precise way to measure distances in astronomy. But ultimately distance is the interesting property of the astronomical object, and parallax is just an intermediate result on the way to determining distance. Distances determined by parallax are more precise that those measured otherwise, and for that reason one could be inclined to list parallax in the template, but on the other hand the error estimate in the distances already reflects this precision. I could imagine that it would be worth mentioning in the template that the distance has been determined from parallax without actually mentioning the parallax value itself. Gap9551 (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Distance chunks[edit]

Presently our List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs includes objects up to 5 parsecs away, while User:Izno/Sandbox/List of star systems within 20–25 light years is obviously from ~6.132-~7.665 parsecs. There's a gap between the two lists. A couple of mutually exclusive options to take care of this:

  1. Expand list of nearest stars to 20 ly.
  2. Expand list of stars in the 20-25 ly down to 5 parsecs.
  3. Divide the buckets by parsecs rather than light years.

Thoughts? And should that necessarily constrain how we deal with the larger volumes of space, or just play that piece by ear? --Izno (talk) 03:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what is happening here. Is this simply a one-off list with a specific range, or one of a number of ranges? Do you specifically not want it to overlap with the other article? Lithopsian (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The sandbox is a sandbox to do a series of articles to replace the the "nearby" star navboxes. So a number of ranges, and I do not want it to overlap. I also want to ensure a full distance coverage i.e. make sure an article is taking care of the space between 5 parsecs radius from our system and 20 ly. --Izno (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Is this really worth it?[edit]

As StringTheory11 mentioned above, the further away from the Earth one gets, the larger-by-volume the sphere of stars becomes. The List of star systems within 20–25 light years is now live, but I'm wondering if it's worth converting the remaining templates into lists. If it's still decided to go ahead with the listification, I'll do what I can to help, but I thought I would bring up the rather daunting task set before us. Primefac (talk) 01:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Draft guideline: Wikipedia:Artist's impressions of exoplanets[edit]

I have drafted a guideline about when artist's impressions of exoplanets are appropriate for inclusion: Wikipedia:Artist's impressions of exoplanets. The guideline is based on the discussion in the recent RfC on this subject and on Wikipedia policy, in particular WP:OR. Before formally requesting an RfC on the guideline, I want to give people here an opportunity give their input.

Any feedback, suggestions, and improvements would be much appreciated. Feel free to make wording and organization improvements, but please discuss any substantive changes on the talk page before making them. I will formally put the guideline up for an RfC if/when it appears that people here are generally satisfied with it. Thanks! A2soup (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I think this proposal is good. I do fear that this guideline, particularly since it is limited to exoplanets, is an example of instruction creep, though I think it's probably helpful enough to be worthwhile. But the ideas in the guideline aren't really specific to exoplanet artist's impressions.
The guideline uses "reliable source" in a different way than Wikipedia; "non-scientific print or online media" is certainly a reliable source by Wikipedia's definition, so the guideline should either be changed to allow images from non-scientific media (though in practice such images will rarely be free anyway) or to be more restrictive about the kind of source but not use the word "reliable source" or specifically discriminate amongst reliable sources. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 12:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I reworded that part about reliable sources so that non-scientific print or online media count as reliable sources but are to be "treated with caution". I'm not too concerned because, as you say, images from such sources are almost never free anyways. Regarding your first point, the page has been moved to Wikipedia:Artist's impressions of astronomical objects following discussion on the talk page and your comments here. Thanks for taking to time looking it over and comment! A2soup (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I think the guideline for an artist's impression of an astronomical object or phenomenon should just be "don't use images that contradict established scientific data about the object". Tagging the image with "artist's impression" should cover the rest. Praemonitus (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
We already had a consensus about this and I think we're going to stick with what was concluded in the consensus. (AKA Reliable sources, no Celestia/Astronomy program screenshots and "artist's impression" caption). Thank you for your feedback both here and in the consensus. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I saw no such consensus during the prior discussion; just a lot of disagreement. It appears to constitute a consensus of two editors. Praemonitus (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose for now as being too restrictive. Artists's illustrations are not the same as scientific publications and should not be restricted based on the same criteria. I'd prefer to see an order of preference for illustration sources, then only prohibit images based upon contradiction with established scientific data, copyright violations, clearly amateurish technique/poor taste, or consensus. Praemonitus (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The draft guideline is overly verbose and includes lots of extraneous material, but I agree with points 1 and 3. Point 2 I think is over the top, and the text partially contradicts it by explaining that it's not a requirement after all. Editors would want to include suitable real data anyway if they are available. Praemonitus is correct that there was no clear consensus in the earlier discussion, but that doesn't mean we should dismiss constructive proposals such as this one. I could support a guideline that only included the current points 1 and 3, plus the definition of an artists' impression. Modest Genius talk 15:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
@Modest Genius: Thanks for the feedback. I see what you mean about point 2 being partially contradicted by the text. What do you think about removing it but leaving the text about making a more evidence-based image the lead image if available intact?
Re extraneous material, I feel that the first para is valuable because it explains to people why their image was removed, rather than the bitey "this is just how it is" impression that many guidelines have. The last para is there to encourage discussion and common sense application of the guideline, given the very real (if rare) possibility of an excellent, evidence-based amateur artist's impression. I was inspired to include it by the amateur impressions on Life on Mars. I suppose the para about strict interpretation of reliable source kind of extraneous, but I feel that calling out Celestia specifically is important, since some might regard it as reliable, and I think the part about encouraging caution with non-scientific media is important to have. Thoughts?
Re verbosity, feel free to fix it if you can do so while preserving clarity. A2soup (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Could you disambiguate the meaning of 'no more' in item 2? Some readers may be confused. Praemonitus (talk) 02:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Item 2 has been removed because it was redundant with the text below, so the phrase "no more" no longer appears. Does this clear up the confusion? A2soup (talk) 02:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Re the intro to the inclusion guideline, which currently reads "In general, an artist’s impression of an astronomical object is acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia only if:". This intro rather conflicts with the last paragraph, which makes it clear that guidelines are not absolute. I would suggest that the last two words be replaced with "when".
I also sympathize somewhat with Praemonitus' comment above about being too restrictive, although I don't go so far as liking the idea of an "order of preference". I think if point #1, that images from RSes are generally acceptable, is taken as a kind of standard, then we should be able to argue readily for inclusion of other images that meet the commonly-found quality that comes from RSes. The only workable way to achieve a consensus here is, I think, to remain somewhat loose in term of hard-and-fast rules, but to set a measuring stick in place against which we can do some comparing in making decisions on specific cases. Evensteven (talk) 04:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I worry that by replacing "only if" with "when", it turns into inclusion criteria without any potential for exclusion. The point of the guideline is very much to exclude speculative non-RS images. The caveat at the end allows, as an exception, non-RS images that are informative, minimal speculation, primarily depicting known features (this is intentionally a bit vague to encourage discussion). If File:Gliese_667_Cc_sunset.jpg were from a non-RS, it would be excluded under the guideline. I feel that this double standard is warranted because good speculation requires considerable judgment and familiarity with the subject, something we can expect only from reliable sources and should not pretend to have as non-experts per WP:OR. With this explanation, is it loose enough as it stands, or do you want more wiggle room? A2soup (talk) 08:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, my comment above was just a thought, and after some hours, I'm not as sure of it. Let it remain here in case anyone likes it enough to defend it, but I take your point as well and wouldn't want to object. Evensteven (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

An update: after more than a week without new feedback, an RfC has been started for promotion of the draft to guideline status. Weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Artist's impressions of astronomical objects#rfc 7F08024. A2soup (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

GJ, Gl, or Gliese (Star Catalog)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus to use Gliese. The majority opinion cites consistency in naming as the main reason to do so. AlbinoFerret 15:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm re-requesting a consensus about changing GJ and Gl short forms into Gliese for consistency, and policy wise reasons.

  • 1st According to WP:NC article names should be consistent with similar articles 'GJ' and 'Gl' is short for 'Gliese' and most articles on Wikipedia use the word 'Gliese' over 'GJ' and you can clearly see this on the Gliese Exoplanet Catagory or on the Gliese Catalogue of Nearby Stars If you remember from the inital consensus here objects with 4 digits should be called GJ and objects with 3 digits should bear the title 'Gliese'. This is not the case, there articles such as GJ 180 that are triple digit entries and use the GJ acronym rather than the Gliese and vise versa for quadruple digit numbers. Even if this was all perfect all entries in the Gliese catalog would not have a consistent name.
  • 2nd According to MoS "An acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page". I'm only asking for the article title to bear the name Gliese rather than GJ just for consistency in category lists however it should be mentioned in the beginning of an article as well. I understand the concern with using this point is that we will have to change all HD entries to Henry Draper entries however this is not a discussion about the HD Catalog. But MoS also states that an acronym can be used if the object is best known by it or if it is a ship. Ever since the discoveries (and disputes) of Gliese 581 c, Gliese 581 d, Gliese 581 g, Gliese 667 Cc the word Gliese is more known to everyday people than GJ which was not the case when the previous consensus took place. We also know that all Gliese entries are not ships so that one can be ruled out as well.

Other reasons I heard is that other websites and catalogs use GJ instead of Gliese. I will tell everyone what I was told when I used the other sources excuse "Wikipedia has different goals, policies, and standards than other sources." The changed name would fit better with other Exoplanets and stellar objects that are in the Gliese Catalog. Agian this is all about consistency, being consistent with everything else in the same catalog should really not be something disputable. Also note were not abbreviating anything in the Kepler Catalog either. -Davidbuddy9 (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Use "Gliese" then we don't have to mess with which are considered "Gl" which are considered "GJ" -- (talk) 05:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments:
    • The differing prefixes reflect that the stars were included in different editions of the catalogues, published by different authors. GJ is thus distinct from Gliese because it also includes Jahreiss.
    • The cutoff point is not the number of digits, but which version it was first included in. Confusingly later editions used decimals to insert extra stars into the sorted list, rather than continuing the numbering.
    • The SIMBAD Dictionary of Nomenclature has GJ, GI, Gls and Gliese all considered equivalents. Individual entries list GJ as the primary form (example).
    • The Gliese catalogue itself states

      Note on Name: the following acronyms are used:
      Gl Gliese: CNS2,=1969VeARI..22....1G
      GJ Gliese & Jahreiss, A&AS, 38, 423 (1979)
      Wo Woolley et al., Roy. Obs. Ann. No. 5 (1970)
      NN newly added stars (number added at CDS)
      See the Nomemclature Note above !

      which when read with the surrounding material and source paper means splitting the names based on which catalogue they first appeared in.
    • The nearby stars catalogue distinguishes between Gl and GJ stars.
    • We already use differing prefixes for HD and HDE stars, which is a similar example of a catalogue that was later extended.
All of which just shows that the waters are muddy. We could either follow the Gliese/GJ split by catalogue version, as consistent with most scientific usage and the example of the HD catalogue, or we could standardise everything to GJ which is consistent with SIMBAD and simpler. What I don't think we can do is standardise everything to Gliese, as a) no-one else does this and b) it's inaccurate as Jahreiss' GJ stars weren't in Gliese's catalogue. Modest Genius talk 11:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree, the Gleise designation should just be used to refer to entries in the 1969 catalog.[1] Praemonitus (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
    Personally, I don't care which way this proposal goes, and will abide by whatever consensus is found here. However, according to the document you linked, it seems we should not use any GJ numbers in the 3000s and 4000s here as article titles since their use is discouraged, and that such articles should be moved to an alternate title. Thoughts? StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Use "Gliese", It appears to me that GJ is just an expansion of the Gliese (Gl/GL) catalog and we should use the base catalogs name. It seems so complicated that this set of numbers would have to be named GJ because they are in the Gliese+Jahreiss expansion and others called NSC because they are used in that expansion. I think we should call all of them by the base catalog name (Gliese) and none of the extension, expansion, or addition names that could be very complicated and confusing especially for newbies. And Gl is short for Gliese too which means that they should be renamed to Gliese to better comply with MoS. That is my two cents. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Even the 3rd edition Gliese Catalogue doesn't take that approach. Praemonitus (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
      • What do you mean by not taking that approach? Davidbuddy9 (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment - I was contacted by the feedback request service and invited to participate in this discussion as a non-involved science editor. I can see that the discussion is going in the right direction and that all involved are acting in good faith and are notably civil and courteous with each other. I can only offer my opinion and please feel free to consider it or not...

All involved appear to be quite knowledgeable on this topic and its associated articles. I am not. I edit primarily on topics related to pathogenic bacteria. But I see the same problem in my own editing that I see here. We get caught up in the lingo associated with our field of 'expertise' and sometimes forget that our articles need to be intelligible to eighth graders.
You, the experts (sincerely) are quite delighted to be able to discuss the finer points of astronomy along with the nomenclature and definitions. Frankly, I can barely follow the points being made. I did read as many articles that I could and finally discovered that we are talking about the nomenclature of stars/star systems.
I believe that this article, this topic and associated articles can both satisfy the expert and the eighth grader. Leave or make the article title something that the eighth grader can find with a simple search and handle the alternate names of the star systems with redirects. Introduce the article's topic with the simplest lede possible and then create the detail for the experts and define acronyms. That is about as simple as my opinion can get. I hope you are comfortable with reading this and I do hope that I was able to help. I look forward to more discussion on this. Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  00:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I have added "Star Catalog" to the title to avoid further confusion. I apologize for not doing that initially. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 03:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Use "Gliese", SIMBAD clearly states: GJ (Gliese+Jahreiss)= Gl = Gls = Gliese = (NN) = (NSC). As for why Gliese? Because MoS clear states that we should not use acronyms in articles and this doesn't count for any of the exceptions. QuentinQuade (talk) 03:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
    • That SIMBAD entry means that it recognises them as being valid search terms for entries in the catalogue. It does not mean that they are completely equivalent. Indeed it lists GJ first and all of the later entries on that page say 'equivalent to GJ' or 'prefer GJ'. Clearly GJ is its preferred format. That MOS page simply says that the acronym should be explained at first use, and also article titles should follow primary usage. We're discussing that that primary usage is. Modest Genius talk 16:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah ok thanks for the info. Speaking if "Primary usage", MoS does have rules with using acronyms in page titles. "In general, if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognize the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title." -MoS. So do you think someone who knows a thing or two about the Gliese catalog (or even just know some exoplanets particularly the possibly habitable ones) will only be able to recognize it only by GJ or Gl? I personally don't, especially with the discovery of many potentially habitable exoplanets in the catalog that are listed as "Gliese" (ex. Gliese 581 d Gliese 667 Cc Gliese 832 c etc). There is only a few that are listed as GJ and it is likely that Gliese is more widely accepted because of these new planets. Just look at the new potentially habitable exoplanets discovered are the Gliese's are GJ's QuentinQuade (talk) 03:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Top-cited missing journals[edit]

WP:JCW, a compilation of 'journal' citation on Wikipedia has recently been updated (see old thread). The top-cited missing journals/works of astronomy are

Top-cited missing journals:

If members of this project could help writing those articles, that would be much appreciated. See our journal-writing guide at WP:JWG for help on writing these articles. Note that some of these might be better as sections of another article (usually publisher, or affiliated society), similar to Australia_ICOMOS#Historic_Environment. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Well there is a Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India, so it's ambiguous in that regards. A dab page would probably be better, even if it stands to reason that Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society is most likely the intended publication. Plus fixing the citations using |journal=Bulletin of the Astronomical Society. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Good point about the DAB. I'll go through the ambiguous ones, see if I can determine exactly which Bulletin it is, and create a disambig for the BAS. Primefac (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society should only be a reliable source in very limited circumstances (such as to support a statement that "So and so presented result XYZ at a AAS meeting in 19XX"). It's just publishing un-reviewed abstracts of talks or posters given at American Astronomical Society meetings, which do not have written proceedings. Such material will be published in a peer-reviewed journal if it has been completed to the point of being usable as a source, in which case the journal article should be the source, not the AAS abstract. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Every Bulletin of the Astronomical Society I looked at was really Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society. There are many others in various countries, but I've never seen this name used baldly for any of them. Lithopsian (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
So far in my changes I'm finding that you're correct. To add weight to that, most of the adsabs I'm finding actually do list it as just the "Bulletin of the Astronomical Society." I'm holding off changing the rest until I can find one that isn't BAAS. Primefac (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I've been through 3/4 of the publications and no indication it's anything other than BAAS. Creatind redirect. Primefac (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The Catalogue of Eggen's UBV data. SIMBAD is a bit of a quirk. It isn't really a journal at all, never even officially published. ADS just put that in the journal name because there is nothing else. It is a one-off data source, probably only common in Wikipedia because numerous articles quote UBV data from it (although it has been superceded). I don't know what you link it to, probably nothing as all the citations most likely are already linked directly to the bibcode for it. Lithopsian (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
If it's a SIMBAB thing, then a redirect to SIMBAD is probably the best course of action. Possibly with a new section on the Catalogue of Eggen's UBV data. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
It isn't really a SIMBAD thing, although the catalogue is available on SIMBAD. It is just a single star catalogue with no actual journal. On ADS, the publication is actually listed as Catalogue of Eggen's UBV data., 0 (1986). The origin field is SIMBAD though, which is kind of a publisher field. Lithopsian (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
CDS/ADC Collection of Electronic Catalogues is another one with origin SIMBAD. Lithopsian (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
A "catalogues hosted by SIMBAD" section then? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Springer says it's published by Pleiades Publishing which seems to be an imprint of Maik NAUKA which means it's likely Russian-based for the most part. And given that it's been around since 1967, I would be really, really surprised that it doesn't pass WP:NJOURNALS...
After some search, it's got an impact of 0.647 [2], so that's a clear pass of WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
See also the journal's main website for the half gazillion databases it's indexed in. A clear pass. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
The site wasn't loading properly for me when I last looked, and I thought that a less-than-one score wasn't good, but clearly I am mistaken (which is why I posted here). Will do some more digging. Primefac (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I've moved the list to a separate page, linked above, so that it will persist when this page is archived, and can be more easily linked-to. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Stub's been created. I'm finding a great lack of information, though I'll try searching Russian sites next. Primefac (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

What is going on with the Kepler q17_DR24 Report?[edit]

The new q1_q17_dr24_koi report published yesterday updated many KOI planets parameters. Most noticeably KOI-7599.01 now has a radius of 6140 Earth Radii / 558.18 Jupiter Radii / 56.2 Solar radii. For comparison the parent star has a radius of 97.68 Earth Radii / 8.88 Jupiter Radii / 0.893 Solar Radii. Something is clearly not correct with the data. Also note that before DR 24 the planet had a radius of 3.42 Earth Radii. Anybody knows what is going on with the new Kepler Data? I dont think its possible for planets to be larger than their parent stars.

EDIT: Here is the link if you want to see what Im talking about (Look under planet radius and then look at stellar properties) Davidbuddy9 (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried asking NASA's Twitter account? -- (talk) 07:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
@ No I have not. But the PDF's for the report still list the old 3.42 radius (Here is the pdf. Go to page 2 and look for Rp (Rp=Radius Planet)). However the archive here still lists the radius as 6140.44+2544
. I know the PDF is correct in this case because the values from the PDF match exactly with both what was here on Wikipedia and the previous report (here). However KOI-7296.01 on the other hand has either both the wrong values use and the PDF is wrong or the Values in the archive is correct and the new PDF is very wrong. I know the PDF (here) is very wrong becuase it gives us information for a planet in the system that doesn't even exist nevermind KOI-7296.01. (Page 1 on the report even says that It's not a KOI). You can also tell that it's giving info for the wrong planet because the KOI-7296.01 is not even highlighted. Only If I can get my hands on the PDF report (From q17_DR24) for KOI-7296.01 that has KOI-7296.01 highlited I could confirm if the Archive is correct or not but until then the values from the last report of KOI-7296.01 will continue to be used as we cannot just trust the Archive because of other cases I already explained. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
PS I found a report that looks good here for KOI-7296.01 And I can confirm agian that the paramiters of the Archive are incorrect once agian. However I still cannot understand the other planet in the system, that has a shorter orbital period than KOI-7296.01 (The orbital Period is very similar to Earth but because this is a larger star It would be too hot). Davidbuddy9 (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's possible for the least massive red dwarfs (R ~ 0.087 solar radii) to have a lower radius than Jupiter (R ~ 0.10 solar radii). Perhaps the planet is a hot jupiter with an expanded atmosphere? Praemonitus (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
@Praemonitus: But the planet has a radius 558.18 times that of Jupiter! The star its an F-type star with a radius 8.88 times that of Jupiter! That would not be possible in any terms. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I was merely addressing your assertion that, "I dont think its possible for planets to be larger than their parent stars". Presumably it's either an error or the event has some other explanation. Perhaps they've discovered two similar planets orbiting closely around each other? Praemonitus (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Conversion between units of angle[edit]

I've asked for {{convert}} to support angle conversions (radians, gradians, degrees of arc, arcminutes, arcseconds, DMS, hms); since some astronomical sources use arcminutes and others milliarcseconds (mas); and our sky coordinate system uses hms±DMS, while some sources provide decimal degrees instead; it would be useful to have convert output something acceptable. (ofcourse, that wouldn't help with measurements expressed as the size of the full moon) For the discussion, see template talk:convert -- (talk) 06:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, parallax, angular separation, right ascension and declination measurements have infinite accuracy, thus need perfect conversion to infinite precision, so cannot be added to CONVERT? -- (talk) 05:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
There is a recent re-definition of parsec as an exact number of meters, rather than the angle arctangent. Would that satisfy the conversion concerns? The actual difference in measure is quite miniscule. Evensteven (talk) 05:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
That would need to be an additional request, to add astronomical parallax to/from distance conversion. The current request is simply to support units of angle and conversion between them (such as between arcseconds and arcminutes; or between mas and arcseconds) I figured it would be a good first step if we could change measured angles to consistent units, but apparently it does not make sense to the people at CONVERT. -- (talk) 03:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


Chermundy (talk · contribs) appears to be making astronomy articles unmaintainable. S/he has a whole set of private templates that are completely undocumented, used for referencing articles, rolled out over a large number of astronomy articles.

And related undocumented templates that do some sort of processing; making it even more incomprehensible how we're supposed to maintain things

  • {{Plxtod}} -- parallax to distance?
  • {{Discon}} -- some sort of distance conversion (but we have {{convert}} ...)
  • {{Pmcon}} -- does something with angles, I think, so may be a parallax template for something
  • {{Mwe}} -- does something with {{Pmcon}}
  • {{Stretch-}} -- ?
  • {{Rer}} -- does something with {{Stretch-}}

-- (talk) 08:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what can be done about that. The editor doesn't appear to respond to h{er|is} talk page any more. Praemonitus (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Somebody could make a report to ANI, detailing this and other issues. I would, but I don't have the time to write a good report. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Bloody hell. I don't even know where to start... I'll try, though I don't have much free time either. Primefac (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Different choice of epithet, but revulsion shared. No time for this here either, but might I suggest obtaining a list of at least some of the articles where these templates are currently placed, and some edits that placed them there? I assume Chermundy's signature will be on at least some of them, which would help to document this activity for editorial behavior examination. In addition, it would provide raw material from which active editors could go make revisions to the affected articles, effectively undoing the unmaintainable artifacts. If any of those edits get something wrong, due to lack of understanding of these templates, then at least the wrong info can then be corrected by normal means. Evensteven (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
See also several topics starting at Duplicate star maps, for more Chermundy (talk · contribs) mayhem. The ones I see most are the tables with π and plxref, and the new celmap images, but there may be selection bias due to my choice of topics to edit. Lithopsian (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm more interested in their unilateral decision to replace the "stars within X ly" templates with gaudy monstrosities such as {{Cobd6}}. At least those will be easy to find and revert. Primefac (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


There is a discussion on whether the parallax-table-template {{Πt}} and its related templates should be deleted. Primefac (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

There is also a TfD for {{Μt}} and related templates, which are motion-table-templates. Primefac (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

  • As an update, the two TfDs have closed, both with the conclusion that the templates should be deleted after being converted either into a table or sucked into the {{starbox begin}} set of templates. However, I think that these tables are more-or-less worthless listcruft. The pi- templates are pretty wide-spread, but the mu- templates (usage can be found here) are in my opinion easy to delete and not particularly useful, especially since they do a bit of OR in calculating the values. I thought I would get AST's thoughts before wantonly deleting the tables altogether. As a note, these templates are stupidly convoluted, so keeping the tables means that (most likely) I will have to convert them all by hand. Primefac (talk) 01:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion about Template:Cite doi[edit]

Template:Cite doi allows editors to generate a citation from a digital object identifier. There is a discussion to deprecate this template. Since doi's are used the sciences and this is a science WikiProject, I am inviting anyone here to comment. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The depreciation was agreed to in 2014; this discussion is about whether to uphold that decision. Primefac (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
The {{cite doi}} system turns Wikipedia into a DOI database, since the bot that maintains the DOI citation template generates a new subtemplate for each time a new DOI is used, as {{cite doi/doinumberhere}} containing citation information, instead of replacing the {{cite doi}} with a {{cite journal}} transclusion on the page it is used on. Since many items have DOIs as well as other UIDs such as PubMed IDs, we have multiple different sets of the same information in the various databases that the various bots generate for each of these template systems, depending on which bot created what subtemplate into which database entry on whichever template system the bot maintains. -- (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
{{cite journal|doi=...}} does the same job but better, and avoids creating huge numbers of subtemplates. I'm glad {{cite doi}} is being killed off. Nothing has changed since the previous discussion. Modest Genius talk 10:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Questions on Radial velocity[edit]

Hi, there are two questions at Talk:Radial velocity (about the definition and the intro paragraph) which could use an eye of an expert. Thanks, AxelBoldt (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

AxelBoldt, you sure about that? Neither page has been edited for weeks (the Talk or Article). Primefac (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Oops, I'm sorry, the page I had in mind was Talk:Velocity dispersion. Cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I tried to shed some light on the issue on the talk page. Gap9551 (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Infobox colors[edit]

All articles about minor planets use the template {{Infobox planet}} which has an optional "background" (or bgcolour) parameter to set a bgcolor for the subheadings or section titles within the infobx. In most cases, this       is the standard color, while       2 Pallas and       4 Vesta have different ones. I also encountered some articles with another or no background color at all. (PS: comets using the {{Infobox Comet}} template use a hardcoded, yellow background (e.g. 81P/Wild), while several others, such as Tempel 1 and 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko use the {{Infobox planet}} template instead and without any defined color for the subheadings).

Question: Is there a concept behind the choice for these colors (and the different templates used for comets)? If not, wouldn't it be a good idea to define a consistent color scheme that corresponds to a given classification? For example: main-belt asteroids, dwarf planets (and candidates) KBOs, comets, centaurs, trojans, NEOs. For such a color-classification scheme, a few simple rules would suffice to resolve any ambiguity. -- Cheers, Rfassbind – talk 14:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything consistent. Good idea to set up such a scheme. --JorisvS (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Thx for the reply. Here's a draft. What do you think? -- Rfassbind – talk 00:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Let's make "Asteroids" explicitly the belt asteroids, the trojans also include the other groups of trojans, and explicitly have the dwarf planets include the possibles. Why should we separate NEAs and PHAs? And could we separate the (possibly) round moons from the non-round ones? And how should we handle the trojan moons?
I was thinking, to increase consistency, we could hard-code the colors from a category entered into the template, maybe generate an error or something when a non-valid category is entered. --JorisvS (talk) 09:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm having difficulty seeing a benefit for readers from this fine-grained color coding. Could you clarify what goal you're trying to achieve? Why not one color for all minor planets? What the articles would seem to need more of are solid references, not old school color coding. Praemonitus (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Praemonitus, color-coding seems to me a useful thing (as explained in my first post) and one thing is not mutually exclusive to the other, I presume. Also, comets are not minor planets, despite having currently the same color. Besides not seeing a benefit, do you see anything potentially detrimental? Otherwise I prefer to decide for myself how to spend my time on wikipedia. -- Rfassbind – talk 16:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hi JorisvS, thx for the feed-back.

Classification system

I agree with your feed-back regarding the classification and divisions I proposed (i.e no NEA/PHA distinction, trojans are not just Jupiter-Trojans, DPs include a certain group of candidates, and asteroids are in fact those from the main-belt as I can't think of any other group not mentioned in the list above). There are just four fall-backs or default categories: asteroids, comets, TNOs and moons. They will absorb everything that is otherwise not clearly classified (an example would be binary asteroids). As to your question about trojan moons, I'd say they are first and foremost satellites, their category is therefore       Moons (the grey-scale allows different types of moons to be distinguished in a more refined way, if that should ever be desired one day). Last, does your "round vs non-round distinction" only consider "moons"? If so, the grey-scale would allow for several subdivision for the moon-category.


However, concerning your suggestion for a more sophisticated implementation, I do not agree. I've studied the templates, their history and documentation, as well as a hundred articles that use them. For a number of reasons I think the simpler the better: the proposed color-scheme is completely unaffected by the template. I'd really like to keep it that way. The color-scheme is optional, and, if consensus can be reached, only recommended in the documentation of the template. Articles like those of the Galilean moons (e.g. see Europa (moon)) can keep their "group"-color, that's not a problem.

It seems like the template {{Infobox planet}} is about 3,300 times transcluded. In addition, there are also articles about comets using the {{Infobox comet}} template. As most of the articles will be belt-asteroids, I guess the color-scheme will require 1,000 to 1,500 articles to be edited. That's actually not a lot and I could do that myself (exoplanets use a different template and the color in {{Infobox comet}} is hardcoded). I plan to take a closer look at the exact number of articles involved and find out whether a bot-request would be any good. If you have any further suggestions, please let me know. Thx. -- Rfassbind – talk 16:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

You said you wanted a consistent color scheme, but all one color is a consistent color scheme. I'd like to understand why you think it's a good idea to have all these different colors? Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
There is an option to color the background for the headings, which currently has no consistent usage. All one color is better than the current situation, but standardizing it with different colors can make it a visual aid to an object's classification. --JorisvS (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
A visual aid to whom? If you don't already know the color code scheme, then it has no apparent benefit. Anyway, the classification should be mentioned in the first sentence. Can't we standardize that? Praemonitus (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Since I'm not the sharpest pencil in the box, I have great difficulties to imagine how such a thing could possibly be feasible. Maybe you want to post a specific proposal for the standardization of WP:LEADSENTENCE for these articles? -- Rfassbind – talk 21:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, well that's not what I'm saying. Suppose an article says, "Object X is an asteroid". Now you want to add a color code to make sure the reader isn't confused by that? The object type should be sufficiently explained by the lead, and that is all you need. By standardizing that, I'm saying the lead should provide sufficient information to explain what the astronomical object is. Praemonitus (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
The colors are not meant to compensate for insufficiently explained lead-sentences (on the contrary) here are some real world examples such as 4179 Toutatis and (208996) 2003 AZ84. While you consider the color-scheme "fine-grained", I can assure you that they are quite the opposite. You may have a point about the lead-sentences in general, but that's hardly relevant for my proposal. I'm not very good at explaining, so I have to accept your rejection of the color-scheme-idea in principal. Noted. Thx for your interest in the topic. -- Cheers, Rfassbind – talk 23:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Why do we have a distinct {{Infobox comet}} anyway? What purpose does it serve that cannot be subsumed under {{Infobox planet}}? --JorisvS (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I had the same question. My first thought was that it's a legacy thing, but I could be wrong of course. It is currently 241 times transcluded and almost as old as the infobox planet template. -- Rfassbind – talk 21:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I can't see any harm from a colour scheme -- I have wondered about it previously -- but I think the one you show above is too fine-grained. The effect is distributed across pages, with no to-hand legend for readers and editors (on each page using it -- there should be one, somewhere, maybe Solar system, at least so editors can find it), so I think it should be kept to a small number of distinct colours. The scheme as presented also invites contention: is 19521 Chaos a DP? There are also competing schemes for the organisation of TNOs. Maybe planet/moon/comet/minor-planet, possibly splitting the last into cis-jupiter/trans-jupiter/trojan, for 4-6 colours. I.e., something simple that has a reasonable chance for a reader to deduce even without a legend. Even with something that simple you have to make a decision on Chiron and the like. Tbayboy (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Maybe we could add question mark with a link to the legend? I would have Chiron as a centaur rather than a comet, seems more sensible. Chaos is very possibly a DP, so it would use the (possible)-dwarf-planet color. Anything that is listed by a reliable source as a possibility should get that color. --JorisvS (talk) 07:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
A legend link is fine (if not too obtrusive), but the category information should be in the lead or infobox, anyway (as Praemonitus says, above).
Re Chiron and Chaos, you're then adding more categories, which (in that context) I was proposing to restrict. And also hoping to reduce the arguments over whether a particular body should be in this category or that; DP is just the most obvious.
All that said, I don't really object to Rfassbind's proposed scheme. From the reader viewpoint, if it's too complicated, it can be ignored with no consequence. The only (slight) downsides seem to be on the editing side, for maintenance and category determination. Tbayboy (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
What more categories? I mean simply give Chiron the color all centaurs get and Chaos the color that is given to dwarf planets and possible dwarf planets alike. Giving them the same color avoids that. --JorisvS (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thx for all the brain-storming guys. Very much appreciated.

Here's what I came up with:

  • It's a 9-color-scheme. Take a look at the examples without referring to the legend and tell me if it makes sense to you or not.
  • I don't see a maintenance issue (since I'm prepared to do these changes until each and every article is covered) and the categories hardly change except for dwarf planets.
  • By the way I have no clear idea about an appropriate limit (diameter) for dwarf planets. It certainly won't be IAU's official classification. What do you propose?
  • I'm also against any additional features that may or may not complicate the implementation. There are easily 1,000 edits and follow-up fixes to be done. My focus is to do a simple task well (not the other way around).
  • I think the color-scheme should be displayed on the template's documentation page. That has to be enough. It's a visual short-link for regular visitors of these kind of articles, not an introduction about the classification of the bodies in the Solar System.
  • I have also formulated the rules to specify the color assignment: there are comets, moons and dwarf planets; everything else is either a TNO or a CNO. In addition, there are a few (hopefully) obvious subdivisions for these two groups.

All sums up, as already said, to a total of nine colors. I'm still assessing the number of involved articles for each category. Any feedback is appreciated -- Cheers Rfassbind – talk 19:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Look goods, the nine colors and the rules. I'd say that because the dwarf-planet color is meant to include candidates, we should make this actually include all reasonable candidates. This means everything estimated above 200 km in diameter, the delimiter for the 'possible' category in Brown's list. Although we can expect some not to be dwarf planets, anything above this size could be round, which is, after all, what it means be a candidate. It also means that we can base it on (a) source(s) instead of Wikipedians' preferences. --JorisvS (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
So 200 km? You're an optimist, I like that! Based on Tbayboy's mentioned maintenance argument, I'd presume the threshold should be where the least number of future edits are required. Well, nobody knows that of course. For the color-scheme it's a minor issue: about 100 articles would be labelled dwarf planet for a threshold at 200 km; about 50 articles, if we opt for the likely ones at 500 km; and only 10 articles for a limit above 900 km. The differences (and therefore potential changes) are small compared to 3,000+ of articles. -- As always, thx Rfassbind – talk 22:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Since the legend isn't likely to be seen by readers, I don't think it really matters where the cut-off is, it's not an assertion of any sort. I would prefer something more in the 400-500 range just because: 1) I suspect there aren't many TNO articles for objects smaller than that (do you know how many there might be?), and 2) it seems weird that a 200 km TNO gets coloured with Pluto but Vesta gets coloured with Itokawa. But don't take that as an objection to 200 if you prefer that -- any rational scheme is better than what we have now. It will be interesting to see how long it takes until somebody changes Pluto's colour to "planet". :-) Tbayboy (talk) 05:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Thx. Agreed, a higher limit is more likely to find consensus. Are those 9 color still too many? Are they sufficiently distinct (links above)? Your question: no, I don't know yet the exact number of articles. The estimate above is based on the list of possible dwarf planets. Also, I think people who have an issue with the DP-status of Pluto are generally too "superficial" to notice the implicit discrepancy of size you mentioned. If you find article that don't fit or contradict the color-scheme, please let me know. -- Thx, Rfassbind – talk 11:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
But what should the cut-off be then and the rationale for excluding some that really are candidates? --JorisvS (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
If 200 can be a candidate, why not 199? (There is one at that size in Brown's list, and a few at 197.) Any cutoff size either potentially excludes some DPs or potentially includes some non-DPs. That's why my proposed colour-scheme (above) didn't have a DP category: it's easier to stick to dynamics, which are reasonably well known. Tbayboy (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Tbayboy, your proposed divisions "planet/moon/comet/minor-planet" is hardly a division at all, since a guesstimated 90% of all articles would fall into the category "minor-planet". So your additional "cis-jupiter/trans-jupiter/trojan" subdivisions are de-facto mandatory. Although cis-Jupiter (or cis-Jovians) is a completely unfamiliar term on wikipedia (at least according to wikipedia's internal search engine) it's similar to the cis/trans-Neptunian division and subdivisions I proposed (however the "Jovian-division" does not allow for trojans to be a subdivision, due to the Neptune-trojans). Cis-Jovians would correspond to the main-belt and NEAs, and trans-Jovians to the centaurs, KBOs and scattered disc objects. In addition I chose to use a category "dwarf planets and candidates" which you rather prefer to ignore because it's hard to find a consensus on the limit. So my classification has four categories more than your proposal. Am I too complicated? I don't think so. Here's my rationale:

  • based on my preliminary guesses at least 60%–75% fall into the main-belt and NEO category. What good is it to have a giant cis-Jovian category?
  • Counting planets as a category is only a formality, increases the number of categories, while those 8 articles are completely irrelevant compared to the total of 3,000+ articles we're talking about.
  • ignoring DP because "it's hard" is not the way I approach things on wikipedia; this is true for all of us, otherwise we wouldn't be here in the first place. I have no problem to accept Brown's 500 km-"likely"-limit as clear delimiter of our color-scheme (500nbsp;km is an example only). It's only a convention we choose, and is indeed very helpful as a color to tell DP-candidates apart from all other TNO's.
  • Scattered disc. Looking into the future, this is probably a very helpful category as many more will be discovered and orbits will become less ambiguous. Currently it's the least useful category.
  • No color-scheme will ever be consistent and complete. Today, I came across this body: 2015 ER61 which seems to be a very difficult case.
  • To me, a consistent implementation of any color-scheme is as important as the scheme itself. The current system is inconsistent (see Custom colors used in articles)

Hope that wasn't too long, -- Rfassbind – talk 17:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The small number of categories was because Praemonitus asked why not just one, so a small number was intended as a compromise. Also, too many becomes too hard for general readers to deduce. I'm not sure where that line is, but 12 seems too many to me. Six seems easy enough, and maybe 10 is okay. I drew the line at Jupiter, rather than Neptune, because 1) roughly where the frost line is, so it generally separates rocky from icy (but not always!), and 2) centaurs are sometimes considered part of the scattered disc, scattered inward versus outward (see the MPC lists, amongst others). I was considering the Jupiter trojans as trans-, but there are also Earth and Mars trojans, so on reconsideration I would just drop the category (from the scheme I outlined, not suggesting you do it to yours) and treat them as any other resonant MP.
ER61 is extreme, but there are other scattered bodies that blur the centaur/SDO division, dipping inside Uranus but with semi-major outside Neptune (37 non-comets from my grab of the MPC list, but I don't know how many have pages, if any). Looking at the MPC tables, there are also a bunch (looks like scores) that blur the centaur/main-belt division.
All that just for your amusement. Nobody else is chiming in, JorisvS likes your scheme, and I'm good with it, so go for it. Even in the worst-case, it's better than the status quo. Tbayboy (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Just to clarify things: the color-scheme contains 9 colors, not 10 or 12. I wrote an entire page with a section displaying 9 examples to get that point across. Also, when you drop the "trojans" in a cis/trans-Jovian-division there is no "resonant" attribute for minor planets and even more than 90% of all articles will be simply cis-Jovians (as previously estimated). Last, I would be out of my mind to attempt editing 1,000 articles with follow-ups when only 1 single fellow editor really supports me. I obviously need to rally for support differently.-- Rfassbind – talk 23:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Was the Gliese consensus not closed properly?[edit]

I noticed that Legobot Removed the RFC tag for GJ, Gl, or Gliese (Star Catalog) and didn't seem to archive it or post what the resolution is. I can't undo it due to other edits taken place so can someone look into this?? -Davidbuddy9 (talk) 22:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure there was a complete consensus, but then I'm not sure it matters all that much anyway. If a star article is currently named using its GJ designation then it seems like there's not much benefit in renaming it to Gliese-Jahreiss, any more than changing HD to Henry Draper or HIP to Hipparcos. We've got bigger fish to fry. Praemonitus (talk) 02:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
It clearly was not about renaming GJ to Gliese-Jahreiss. You should read over it again to get the full picture. Also this is a pretty big fish as some are possible habitable and have high ESI's and are not to far away. Anyhow the issue is apparently fixed. Actually now that I think about the bigger fish could be that a bot closed it incorrectly??? Davidbuddy9 (talk) 05:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Right. I did read the discussion and I presented my perspective. I'll add that renaming a GJ article to use Gliese when the star was never in the original Gliese catalogue is deceptive and wrong, at least to me. Nor does it need to be renamed to Gliese-Jahreiss. If it was in the original catalogue, then either form is valid. I'm not intending to be offensive here, but to me the entire topic is marginal to the point where it is almost indistinguishable from irrelevance. We've got bigger fish to fry, like much more critical articles that are in marginal shape. Praemonitus (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Notable or cruft?[edit]

Someone is on a not-obviously-notable article creation spree: Special:Contributions/Willhsmit Lithopsian (talk) 11:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Probably worth pointing them at WP:NASTRO before they create an army of non-notable stubs. Modest Genius talk 14:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
That's some weird edit history... after 10 years of mostly politics and military, it's like they suddenly got religion (astronomy), and started star articles... -- (talk) 06:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
The absolute magnitude values are probably being computed based on parallax, and so are likely wrong in most cases. Praemonitus (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I would tell them to at least keep it to stars brighter than vmag 6.0. I assume Wikipedia still has many missing articles for stars brighter than 5.0. -- Kheider (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I already did that, and Willhsmit responded with magnitude 6.5 on my talk page. So there is probably a limit for them that is a bit dimmer than what we would choose. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Given my experience with main-belt asteroids this year, I would not expect every vmag 6.2 star to pass an AfD since the limit of the naked eye is highly depend on the site conditions and the observers experience/eyes. Stars brighter than 6.0 should be safe. -- Kheider (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps NASTRO should explicitly state the 6.0 mag cutoff. Otherwise we're open to claims of stars having been spotted down to 7 or more (by naturally talented and experienced observers at extremely dark sites...). Our article on naked eye even claims some visual observations at mag 8, which I simply don't believe. Modest Genius talk 11:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I see no reason that a young person with exceptionally sharp eyes and large pupils could not see mag 8, so I do not think you can just "make-up" a NASTRO mag 6 cutoff without a vote. Besides you can AfD any article. -- Kheider (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
This is a point to consider. Mag 6 is average. But when I was young, I looked at the Pleiades on a clear night in a medium-sized town at low elevation (good, but not optimum conditions) and with the naked eye counted 24 stars. No one else with me, young or old, could do the same, but my eyes were very good then. It was well beyond the 7 or so stars I was told was pretty average. I'm not sure what the faintest mag was, but 6 is supposedly an average only. I don't know where a cutoff should be, but it's worth considering going beyond just average. Evensteven (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Are we seriously suggesting that there should be a hard cutoff? Whatever it is set to will just be a red flag for people to create stubs for every star they find down to that limit. That already happens with the current passing reference to magnitude 6.5. Moving it doesn't really solve the problem. Not that I think there is a real problem with the notability criteria, but further emphasizing a magnitude limit is the wrong approach. Magnitude 6.6 is hardly more or less notable than magnitude 6.4, and without anything else interesting to say about the star probably neither are notable. Lithopsian (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh, my, no, not on my part. I'm truly sorry I used that word "cutoff", and wasn't thinking in those terms at all. I was only thinking that somewhere there is a boundary between "visible to the naked eye" and "not visible", and even that that is a region with no clear boundaries. No policy implications whatever. Evensteven (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm a little late to this discussion, but I've gone ahead and demoted these stubs to list redirects based on the negative feedback (without regard to magnitude, but excepting several binaries and exoplanet hosts that look fixable). I will chime in that the explicit reference to the HR catalogue in NASTCRIT is misleading since it's such an exact criterion, but I don't have a suggestion for what you might replace it with (or remove and not replace?). Willhsmit (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
On a semi-related topic, it would be useful to have a template similar to {{NRIS-only}} for astronomy articles that rely entirely on SIMBAD. There is {{One source}}, but it is too non-specific. Praemonitus (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Here's a test case: HD 155951, magnitude 6.49; nothing shows up on Google scholar and SIMBAD shows only catalogue entries. It looks to me like it would not satisfy WP:GNG, and hence should fail AfD. To me that's enough to suggest that dropping the magnitude to 6.5 may be going too far in terms of "assuming" notability. We don't need to be particularly lenient on the magnitude range—it's incumbent upon the article editors to demonstrate notability. Praemonitus (talk) 03:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, yes, notability. Let me support that comment. And given my comments about visibility above, let me say that I don't think notability depends on visibility at all, except to the individual stargazer some fine night. Looking back, I did seem to imply something else in that visibility discussion above, but was actually just off the track. Sorry for the noise. Evensteven (talk) 05:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
You're correct about that, and it says as much in WP:NASTCRIT. To me at least, the main benefit of the criteria is in avoiding unnecessary notability checks, because that makes it easier to narrow down the set of articles that need checking and hence lower the editor's workload.
However I think the criteria needs to be conservative, in that 99.9% of the articles meeting that criteria should be intrinsically notable (in the Wikipedia sense). To be thus, the magnitude range needs to be kept reasonable, rather than dropping it to the absolute lowest visible naked eye magnitude under ideal conditions. I'd say no lower than 6.0, and preferably 5.5. Based on the Bortle scale, that means stars visible from suburban (or bright suburban) skies. Praemonitus (talk) 16:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galaxy cloud[edit]

The AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galaxy cloud looks like it needs some subject matter experts. Would anyone mind taking a look? shoy (reactions) 20:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Historically relevant, or listcruft?[edit]

A recently closed TfD has called for the substitution and/or deletion of the distance tables (which are made by templates) in a number of stellar articles. Some, such as Alpha Centauri or Arcturus, are fairly large, but others such as at GJ 1002 have only two or three entries. The templates are ugly and are nearly impossible to directly subst. Are these tables particularly encyclopaedic? There does not seem to be any particular "historical" significance to them, since it's really just a case of people getting more accurate with measurements. Plus, the distance value is already in the {{starboxes}} templates.

TL,DR: These templates will be a royal pain to substitute, but do we really need to keep the tables? Primefac (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

My perspective is that the tables are at best the equivalent of an appendix, as they don't belong in the main body of the article. For that reason I've been moving them to the end when I happen upon them. If it were up to me, I would yank them all out with ruthless dispatch. But, judging by the TfD discussion, at least some people seem to find them interesting, even though they're a nuisance to maintain and nearly off topic. Wikipedians seem to love collecting minutiae. Praemonitus (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I think in most articles they are contraventions of WP:NOT not being a datadump, not covering everything. If the parallax measurements are important, they can be sustained in a paragraph to explain why the measurement is important. Alpha Centauri (and a few others) is a special case, as one of the first stars to have its parallax measured, indeed very few were measured before 1900. But modern measurements are not of such importance as to be in that table at Alpha Centauari. The important measurements at AlphaCen are all 19th century ones, the other ones are WP:TRIVIA -- (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Listcruft in almost all cases. If it's important, we can always bring it back, but I can't see it worth the hassle to keep those in 99%+ of cases. Alpha centauri might be an exception, and maybe in the case of the Pleiades where the distance is a bit controversial (is it parallax based however?). But other than that, I can't see this stuff belonging here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment on draft[edit]

Your comments on Draft:SDSS J102325.31+514251.0 are welcomed. Use Preferences → Gadgets → Yet Another AFC Helper Script, or use {{afc comment|your comment here}} directly in the draft. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 15:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, here are a few suggestions:
  1. you could mention that J102325.31+514251.0 is the identifier for the quasar that is associated with the SMBH you discuss
  2. Simon and Hamann (2010) suggest that the metallicity measurements are consistent with a host galaxy that already has passed its main episode of star formation
  3. the first sentence is missing a period at the end
  4. solar masses and red shift are technical terms that should be wikilinked (WP:UNDERLINK)
  5. in the last sentence, punctuation should go before the citation (WP:CITEFOOT)
  6. please use a template such as {{citation}} or {{cite journal}} to format your references (WP:CITESTYLE)
I hope these help a little. Good luck with your article. Praemonitus (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Technically, Praemonitus, it's not Sam's draft; he is one of the AFC reviewers and deferred to this project for thoughts on its notability. Your comments are appreciated, though, and I'll see about integrating them into the draft. Primefac (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

List of all stars in the Hipparcos catalog[edit]

So I enjoy making lists and and organizing catalogs. Right now I have wikified the complete list of all 100,000+ stars in the Hipparcos catalog. Here is a small sample of the list with a reduced number of columns:

Star Other designation RAhms DEdms Vmag Stellar type
HIP 1 HD 224700 00 00 00.22 +01 05 20.4 9.1 F5
HIP 2 HD 224690 00 00 00.91 -19 29 55.8 9.27 K3V
HIP 3 HD 224699 00 00 01.20 +38 51 33.4 6.61 B9
HIP 4 HD 224707 00 00 02.01 -51 53 36.8 8.06 F0V
HIP 5 HD 224705 00 00 02.39 -40 35 28.4 8.55 G8III
HIP 6 LP 524-8 00 00 04.35 +03 56 47.4 12.31 M0V:

I intended to create the list article, however, I'm afraid there are way too many redlinks. There are bigger lists, like List of minor planets, but most links there are clickable. What do you think? Any idea on what I should do with my list? Thanks. Huritisho (talk) 02:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The various entries in Category:Lists of stars by constellation already list the Hipparcos catalog entries that are of any significance, and they do it in a useful fashion. Praemonitus (talk) 02:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, any idea on some other astronomy-related thing else I could list? Huritisho (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I concur with Praemonitus on this one. On a related subject, I am concerned about List of exoplanets and List of historic comet close approaches. The former is unmaintainable (and simply cruft in my opinion) and the latter is a direct copy (with no attribution) of this NASA page. I know NASA websites are not copyrighted, but the fact that it's a perfect match is slightly unsettling. Primefac (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh god I completely forgot about that list I made. I intend to wikify it now. I can make it look less of a perfect match if you wish, by the way. Huritisho (talk) 03:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Some of the variable star types could do with lists - we've been doing some as we go. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "wikify" since it's a properly formatted wikitable at the moment... I'm also not sure how (or why) you would change the table to obfuscate its origins. Primefac (talk) 03:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I mean add wikilinks, mainly. The "origins" are NASA. The same origin of most of the astronomy-related lists. Let's stop getting off topic now? Thank you Huritisho (talk) 03:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Fine, I'll bring it below. Primefac (talk) 03:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Huritisho: I had at some point meant to make a table of the brightest stars (say down to mag 1.5) with their article rating (FA, GA, start, stub etc.) and stick it at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Astronomy/Popular_pages. If you could do one there that'd be great. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Casliber: That's an interesting idea. However, I was thinking of making a list from raw data. I mean, from catalogs like SIMBAD. I can find a database of the brightest stars down to mag 1.5, but I'm not sure if I have the time to check whether the stars have their own article and if so, if they are FA, Ga, etc. Huritisho (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
They all have articles, and you'd have to check on the talk pages about status. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
There is a List_of_brightest_stars up to mag 2.5. So I guess it can easily be expanded. Huritisho (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You can follow up on #Listification of nearby star navboxes, specifically the stars in the range 25-30 ly, since the 20-25 ly range looks A-OK. --Izno (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Izno: Ok. So far I've found this [3] catalog of stars within 25 pc (81 light years). I can sort and select those within that range you mentioned. I'll see what I can do. Huritisho (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The (minimum) intent is to turn the templates in the mentioned TFD into lists, but if you want to add to that, be my guest! --Izno (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
@Izno: Oh, I know what you mean. Well, I've created a list of stars within 81 ly. However, there is no column about the distance. I think we can know the distance in light years by converting the paralax of the star, right? After we do that, we sort and split the list into the desired distance (25-30 ly, i.e) Huritisho (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that listification needs separate articles for each distance regime of every 5ly, instead of a single list for all 0-30ly; it would still be listification, just combining the various templates together. -- (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:SIZE is relevant. Tables are big from an HTML point-of-view. --Izno (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

What I would like to see is a list of the 20 brightest red dwarfs. That would be a list a backyard astronomer could use. But it would still be similar to List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs sorted by apmag. -- Kheider (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Sol's Solar System lists[edit]

@Huritisho: are you interested in the Solar System? There's DRAFT:Extremes of the Solar System which you could bring to articlespace (and update with data from Messenger, New Horizons and Dawn) ; IMO it's currently in a state that is already acceptable for articlespace. -- (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Wow, that's a good draft and is very well referenced. It is definitely worth publishing when it's done. Huritisho (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTFINISHED allows us to publish with empty boxes still on the page. Indeed, most stub articles have empty or missing sections, so it is a common occurrence in article space. -- (talk) 03:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I've taken the draft to article mainspace. I believe the draft is good enough. Check it out. List of solar system extremes. If anyone can think of a better name, just rename the page Huritisho (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I suppose equivalent/similar lists of Extremes on Earth for the Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster, Laniakea would also be in order -- (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Or extremes on other planets Extremes on Mars for instance, since we have good data for that planet. -- (talk) 04:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Another set of lists[edit]

In the interest of not interfering too much with the above discussion, I'd like to bring light to List of exoplanets and List of historic comet close approaches. The former is a list dump and the latter is a direct copy (with no attribution) of this NASA page. I know NASA websites are not copyrighted, but the fact that it's a perfect match is slightly unsettling. What should be done with these two pages? Primefac (talk) 03:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

NGC galaxy images at commons with no Wikipedia article[edit]

I compared what we have at Commons with what articles we have here:

If you'd like a copy of it for the Wikiproject, please feel free to copy paste it. (Please don't do a page move.)

Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

That's quite interesting... Huritisho (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I boldly created Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Images needing articles and added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Sidebar. I hope that's okay. It appears as a redlink in the sidebar for some reason, but the link works. Odd. Anyhow, please say if you want it gone. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Anna. That looks like it could be useful. Praemonitus (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I intended to create a few NGC articles but I got lazy and I'm hungover. I'll create a few later Huritisho (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
You are most welcome. Feel free to start a few if and when you feel like it. Best, :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Content discussion at Rosetta (spacecraft)[edit]

There is a discussion currently taking place upon the inclusion or removal of a section of content regarding this spacecraft. Your input is requested. Primefac (talk) 21:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)