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.

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 [1] 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)
Draft:Extremes on Mars has been started -- (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Can someone tell me what are considered the major geographic divisions on Mars? On Earth, they would be the (12) continents (7) and oceans (5), so if someone could list the various major regions of Mars, that would be nice. -- (talk) 13:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
See category:Albedo features on Mars and template:Mars. Regions are determined by brightness variation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
There is a reason I said continents and oceans, as I didn't want all the large regions of Mars. And classical features don't all match up to real ones, which was why I didn't want to use 19th century Mars atlases. -- (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Someone suggested using the Mars quadrangles instead, as cartographic divisions instead of geographic or geologic ones-- (talk) 04:54, 28 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)

SVOM space observatory[edit]

The planned space observatory Space Variable Objects Monitor (SVOM) will have several small telescopes for a broad spectral detection. I am at loss at how to fill in the Infobox for so many telescopes and their specifications. Your help will be appreciated. Thank you, BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneI had updated them as instruments since SVOM mission will operate a set of four instruments in space that constitute the scientific payload of the satellite.. - Ninney (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


FYI, active astronomy editor Huritisho (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked. Anything we have been relying on him/her for will no longer be forthcoming. -- (talk) 06:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Kepler EPIC[edit]

We currently don't have an article on K2's version of K1's KIC, called EPIC, should this be a new article, or should K1IC be expanded to cover the K2IC? -- (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I think It should be expanded under The original Kepler Input Catalog, as it is just a new version of it for K2. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Alpha Centauri Bb[edit]

There is a merge discussion at Talk:Alpha Centauri Bb#Merge. The article was merged but this has been reverted. Fdfexoex (talk) 11:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Standard gravitational parameter[edit]

As there seemed to be some confusion centered around the use of km3 s−2 vs m3 s−2 in the tabulated data in Standard gravitational parameter, I've standardized everything to m3. But since my math fu is weak, someone might want to double-check that table to make sure I didn't drop an order of magnitude somewhere. Cheers - Elmidae 12:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Elmidae, the conversion looks right to me. Primefac (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)