Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Astronomy

(Main / Talk)


(Main / Talk)


(Main / Talk)


(Main / Talk)


(Main / Talk)


(Main / Talk)


(Main / Talk)


(Main / Talk)


(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.


Giuseppe Conzo's observatory In ictu oculi (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Doing a quick search suggests that Giuseppe Conzo is notable, so this coulod become part of a new page (move?) on the astronomer. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
The article is rather promotional, and I don't see any reason why the article should stick around. As for Graeme Bartlett's suggestion - no point in moving, as there really isn't much information on Conzo in there. Might as well just start something fresh. Primefac (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I can't assess whether he's notable. But if he is there might be some merit in preserving the page history all in one place by moving it, then blanking out and changing to a BLP? I leave this to those who know something about astronomy. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Looks like a case for {{db-advert}} to be honest. A quick search suggests the man himself isn't notable either - no publications and no media sources about him, just some postings of images he processed (didn't even take). Modest Genius talk 11:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I have WP:PRODed the article. Modest Genius talk 22:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

"deg" in the names of celestial bodies[edit]

I've started a redirect discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016_December_24#BD +20deg307 about a redirect (BD +20deg307) to BD +20°307. To give some background, this was created by User:Eubot, which in 2008 created around a hundred thousand redirects which were simply substituting non-ASCII characters for ASCII ones, such as "ö" to "oe" (not helpful if the original was not a Germanic umlaut, such as in Turkish or Hungarian) and in this case replacing "°" with "deg". I see from the article that it is sometimes called just "BD 20307" and there are redirects of various kinds with "+" and spaces fore and aft. I am just not familiar with astronomical nomenclature so I am wondering if this (and any other on the same pattern) would be valid or nonsense. I'd appreciate your views over at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016_December_24#BD +20deg307. Si Trew (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

{{Infobox open cluster}} proposed merge with {{Infobox astronomical object}}[edit]

@ Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 December 25#Template:Infobox open cluster.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Vela Supercluster[edit]

I've already created what seems to be an interesting topic, the Vela Supercluster. I found out afterwards that a draft has been created, but it is poorly constructed and I think my version is way better. If you would like to contribute even further, please do. There is a reference already in arXiv along with other news articles. Thanks! SkyFlubbler (talk) 04:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Cool. I've left a note on the draft page so folks know to edit the article. Primefac (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Infobox astronomical survey[edit]

I just noticed {{Infobox astronomical survey}} being placed on a ton of surveys by Mike Peel. It's apparently pulling info from Wikidata to populate it, but on pages like Messier object (permanent link) it just throws in an ugly box. Should we wait until the wikidata is better populated before using this? Is it even necessary (i.e. do we need an IB on survey pages)? Primefac (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so in looking through a few more, pages like The Dark Energy Survey actually have it as a decent infobox. Still, I don't think this should just be wantonly thrown around unless it's actually useful. Primefac (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Yup, I've just added it to the survey articles that I could find. I was surprised that there were so many that didn't already have one! It's easy to expand the content on Wikidata, so I'd prefer it if we did that rather than removing them - plus as Wikidata is multilingual, if we're lucky then someone from another language Wikipedia will come along and add the data for us. ;-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
The infobox at Messier object is now rather more complete. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Merging infoboxes on individual types of objects to Template:Infobox astronomical object?[edit]

Hi all. I've been working on wikidata-ifying astronomical infobox templates (e.g., see the use of Template:Infobox telescope at South Pole Telescope), and am starting to work on the astronomical object templates/articles. We currently have different infoboxes for each type of astronomical object (see Category:Astronomy infobox templates / below), which seems rather excessive given that a lot of the parameters are the same across all of them. It would be a lot simpler if we have fewer templates, and just display the object type in the infobox. As such, I think it would be worth merging the following templates into Template:Infobox astronomical object:

An exception is Template:Infobox star as that's rather more complicated. I suspect this should remain separate for now, but I think the overly-complicated starbox system should be deprecated and merged into this (if possible - I need to investigate this in detail). I haven't looked at the extragalactic templates in detail yet, but if they are more difficult to reconcile with the parameters for the Galactic object infoboxes then we could have Template:Infobox extragalactic object instead. Other templates on moving objects, such as Template:Infobox comet, might be better in a Template:Solar system object template - but I think that's something for further in the future.

BTW, we have Template:Infobox astronomical event (mostly wikidata-enabled), and I've merged Template:Infobox gamma-ray burst and Template:Infobox supernova into this, which seems to be working well, although some of the supernova are actually remnants so should have the 'object' infobox in the future.

Thought/comments? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you risk making use and maintenance of the templates too complicated if you try to combine too many types. We should have one template for large associations (galaxies, clusters, &c.), another for stellar systems, and a third for non-stellar objects (planets, moons, minor planets, &c.) Praemonitus (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether we need to have one for large associations, but that's a possibility; I agree with the other two. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes it is too confusing to combine everything into a super template. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Why would it be any more confusing to have one template than it is to have 8? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Large templates tend to have a lot of parameters, so it takes longer to figure out which ones to use and what combinations are allowed. For a busy editor, this is a disadvantage. Praemonitus (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Then do what {{Infobox ship begin}} does and, in the /doc page, lay out code for specific types of objects so end-users can simply copy/paste. It isn't that hard. Huntster (t @ c) 21:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
The {{citation}} template is nicely documented, but that doesn't make it easy to use. I'm not seeing any benefit for editors with this proposal. Praemonitus (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
It cannot get much easier than laying out specific template usages for different cases. If we're saying that is too complicated for end users, then what have we been doing with any of the infoboxes all these years? Having over-arching templates like the one proposed enables easier maintenance and standardisation of appearance, and is essentially a one-stop shop for which infobox template should be used in a given case. Huntster (t @ c) 22:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, once you merged the mass of templates together into a giant blob of hideous tangled formatting, you probably can't make it any "easier" for editors to use. What it does do though is take extra time for the editor to use, and hopefully once they've wasted enough time doing that they'll be able to use the template. I won't believe that is an improvement, as, for example, I still have issues with the citation template in certain situations. I also don't believe that merging templates together makes them easier to maintain; you've gone from a modular concept to a bloated mass of code, which is considered bad practice in the programming world. At best, your documentation is trying to turn it back into a modular-looking situation, but you could do that more simply through proper documentation of the current templates. But I can see you really want to spend time on these types of meta-activities, so go for it. I'll get out of the way. Praemonitus (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Praemonitus, hey, I'm not trying to dissuade you from discussion! I simply don't understand the argument. I don't understand the "giant blob of hideous tangled formatting"'s just a list of parameters (there needn't be anything tangled there as opposed to any other infobox), and the /doc page lays out which parameters are most appropriate for a given situation. Huntster (t @ c) 01:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── With all due respect, you all made valid points, but don't you guys think this needs a proper analysis (e.g. a quantitative assessment) before any meaningful conclusion can be drawn by folks like me that are not experts on these articles?

Mike Peel, I think initiative should always be supported. Wikipedia needs people like you. However, there are about 1,500 transclusions of these templates. What if people give you a go-ahead for a proposed merger, but then just walk away after voting? Would you be prepared to go all the way, even if unexpected complications require extra work? How many of these nebula/galaxy/quasar articles have you been working on so far? Rfassbind – talk 06:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Rfassbind: That's a lot fewer transclusions than I was expecting! Given that there's around 34,000 astronomical object articles, I was expecting the transclusions here to be around the 10k mark (although a lot of those articles are for solar system objects). The way I'd do the merge would mean that the existing articles wouldn't need to be updated immediately - the existing template calls would be redirected to infobox astronomical object, and all of the existing parameters would be supported. Adding Wikidata support for those parameters would then increase the content in the infoboxes as their Wikidata entries are expanded (working with all other language editions of the articles, rather than duplicating effort adding the information in each language); it would also be easier to add the infobox to more articles by using Wikidata information from the start (as I've been doing with Template:Infobox astronomical survey, mentioned in a section above this).
I don't expect that this will all be done immediately: it's been just over a decade since I started working on astronomical infoboxes (e.g., [1]), so this is quite a long-term project for me. (Sorry for my absence here in the meantime - I got distracted by the organisational side of Wikimedia, but am focusing back on content now.)
I was trying to simplify the infoboxes, e.g. so that the same infobox is used in Messier 1 as in Messier 2, etc., and so that there isn't a mass of wikitext at the top of each article to create the infobox, instead letting us use the form structure at Wikidata. However, if merging them will actually make them more difficult to use (as @Graeme Bartlett and Praemonitus say), then let's leave them where they are and I can enable Wikidata in each of them separately. That will take me a bit more time, as the same change will have to be made in each different infobox, but they'll still be using the same Wikidata properties so it's only a complication on this end. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Mike Peel, I really do appreciate your initiative. However, just because Messier didn't know the difference between a supernova remnant and a globular cluster doesn't mean that all Messier objects should be lumped into a template "fuzzy objects". Don't you think? Comparing {{Infobox nebula}} with {{Infobox galaxy}} (which is not sufficiently documented) I find various differences including used parameters, used values and units, labels, links on labels, and order of parameters. I really start to have doubts about your endeavor after comparing only 2 of 6 proposed template-mergers. Excuse me if I'm wrong, but I think you need to get more familiar with the current status of all astronomical object articles on Wikipedia, before suggesting fundamental changes. For example, you also suggested the creation of a single template for "Solar System objects", which would be the final overkill, after {{Infobox planet}} has already suffered from merging planets, exoplanets and minor planets into one single template. As for the 34,000 objects you mentioned, the majority does not use any (infobox) templates, as they are redirects (mostly of named minor planets), something that is rather obvious, don't you think? Best, Rfassbind – talk 16:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello everyone (I'm kind of late to this conversation, am I?) I agree with Praemonitus and and Rfassbind that this change would make things harder for editors in general. I think the astronomical objects are just too different and varied to be under a single infobox. I like the current system in that it color-codes different objects; putting the objects under one template would make them look all the same. Now, you could try to change the template so that the colors and appearances are different for each type of object, but then that would sort of defeat the purpose of putting them under one template.
P.S. @Mike Peel: I noticed you were quietly changing some of the open cluster templates to {{Infobox astronomical object}} - maybe we should wait till we have a better consensus on this? Loooke (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: Alright my last post was kind of dumb, now I kind of understand what Wikidata is now. I'd prefer it if you enabled Wikidata in them separately, even if it might make more time. I'm not a fan of merging the templates just for the sake of Wikidata-ing the templates. Thanks, Loooke (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, given the feedback I won't merge the templates (or convert any to astronomical object - @Loooke, I only converted a few at the start to test the code, and none since this discussion started), but I will continue to wikidata-ify them individually. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Alpha Centauri → Rigil Kentaurus[edit]

So I just found out that several days ago that the IAU officially recognizes the name "Rigil Kentaurus" for Alpha Centauri. If true, this would be a major move.

Here is one link to a news website:

Along with it is 227 star names, I think, which someone must search of. I would request a move at Talk:Alpha Centauri. SkyFlubbler (talk) 07:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, here is the 227 star names approved as of December November 24:

SkyFlubbler (talk) 07:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be true: IAU announcement, list of names (both were linked to in the article). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

So I think there would be massive moving in here? Because IAU says before it they only approved 14 star names. So 227 - 14 = 212 moves of star articles here? SkyFlubbler (talk) 08:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Rigil Kentaurus and Toliman have been old proper names for it anyway, so nothing has really changed. 99% of occurrences will still be for Alpha Centauri. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm reading the list wrong, but isn't "Rigil Kentaurus" the approved name only or Alpha Centauri A, just as "Proxima Centauri" is for Alpha Centauri C? (As a random aside, I find it interesting that SIMBAD only recognizes "Rigel Kentaurus"...) Huntster (t @ c) 10:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that is covered by WP:COMMONNAME. I'm fairly sure the current most commonly used name is Alpha Centauri. ("Alpha Centauri" gets 502,000 ghits; "Rigel Kentaurus" 19,100.) When that changes, we should move the article. Praemonitus (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Of course, and that was my statement in the !vote. My point above is that, according to my reading, renaming the whole article regardless seems inappropriate since the IAU list only applies to the individual stars, not to the system as a whole, which is what the overall article is about. Huntster (t @ c) 19:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Technically, the IAU-approved proper name applies only to the primary component of the star system involved, even when not explicitly specified in the published list. And even in cases of telescopic or spectroscopic binaries. It isn't clear just how common that usage will become, but it would put a crimp on renaming articles that address multiple components in a single article. Lithopsian (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. COMMONNAME for the system overrides any approved list for names of individual stars within that system. Huntster (t @ c) 19:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Many edits have been made already. The vast majority (all?) of the listed names have been described in the relevant articles and in most lists where the stars occur. No mass renaming, not least for the reasons already discussed. See List of proper names of stars for a starting point if you'd like to make more edits relating to this. There is even an article about the WGSN itself. Lithopsian (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

All this IAU decision does is convey official recognition to already-existing proper names. Existing designations are still valid. Nothing needs to move, unless and until common usage changes per WP:COMMONNAME. It's fine to mention the IAU-approved proper name in the article (the vast majority already do so), and add redirects, but nothing more needs to be done. Modest Genius talk 22:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Odd eclipse page[edit]

I stumbled across Historically significant solar eclipses, which has two main issues. First, the entries are all found on the various Lists of solar eclipses; second, none of the entries say why they're historically significant. For the latter, some of them have "references" (the 585BC listing "stopped a battle" according to the sources), but only a very small number. I guess the other is what constitutes "significant"; the simple act of recording an eclipse doesn't really make it significant, which is what most of the sources are. Is this worth redirecting to the aforementioned lists, or is there the possibility that it could be turned into something useful? Primefac (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Despite the title, it looks like the inclusion criteria are a) occurred before 424 BC and b) observations were recorded. Whilst those are objective criteria, it's unclear why 424 BC is chosen. Merging the entries into the List of solar eclipses in antiquity would seem to be the sensible course of action, although that list itself has only nebulous inclusion criteria. Oddly most of the dates on the two lists don't line up, and User talk:Muhammad Umair Mirza has several complaints about invalid dates being added to articles, so it might be worth checking other sources. Modest Genius talk 13:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
PS. The other lists of BC eclipses by century are just calculations, without any evidence that anyone actually saw them. There's value in having a list of observed eclipses in antiquity, hence List of solar eclipses in antiquity. Modest Genius talk 13:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Merger proposed. Primefac (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Rosetta orbits[edit]

I came across rosetta (orbit) and thought I'd expand it a bit with some references and background information. However, now that I'm starting to flesh out a new version, it seems like a lot of the "how" is covered in other places (here, there, and everywhere).

At the moment, there aren't any wikilinks to the page, making me question its necessity. Before I get too stuck into the rewrite, I thought I'd get opinions on whether this page should stay as it is and be little more than a "this is what this orbit is called" definition-style article, or should it actually go into the theoretical and mathematical reasons why this orbit arises? Primefac (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that stars follow non-closed rosette type orbits within a cluster, and that clusters follow non-closed rosette type orbits through the galaxy. Is that the same thing as a rosetta orbit? Note also that there is a Klemperer rosette article. Praemonitus (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Ditch it. Or at least redirect it. Rosette orbit is already a redirect to Klemperer rosette. Rosetta seems to be a typo or mis-translation that crops up occasionally. Lithopsian (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The topic of non-Keplerian orbits could stand some more coverage on the orbit article. For example, the box orbit and the horseshoe orbit. Or perhaps have a Non-Keplerian orbit article to complement Kepler orbit? Praemonitus (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Seems like the whole thing could use an eyeball on it. Once I get a chance I'll take a look and see what could possibly be done overall. Primefac (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Missing topics list[edit]

My list of missing astronomy topics is updated - Skysmith (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I've added a bunch of redirects, before again running out of steam. Modest Genius talk 16:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, if anybody wants to help with infoboxes/starboxes, I've added a bunch of articles to Category:Astronomy articles needing infoboxes. Loooke (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Top-cited missing journals[edit]

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

Possibly indirectly related

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} 02:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Input requested at Superluminous Supernova[edit]

Hi all. Extra input on the SLSNe talk page would be appreciated, particularly in regards to whether it should be in the same article as Hypernovae, or if they are distinct objects. Sam Walton (talk) 11:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science promotion[edit]

WikiJournal of Science logo.svg

The WikiJournal of Science is a start-up academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's scientific content. It is part of a WikiJournal User Group that includes the flagship WikiJournal of Medicine.[1][2]. Like Wiki.J.Med, it intends to bridge the academia-Wikipedia gap by encouraging contributions by non-Wikipedians, and by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia.

Since it is just starting out, it is looking for contributors in two main areas:


  • See submissions through external academic peer review
  • Format accepted articles
  • Promote the journal


  • Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start
  • Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analagous to GA / FA review)
  • Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram

If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.

  1. ^ Shafee, T; Das, D; Masukume, G; Häggström, M. "WikiJournal of Medicine, the first Wikipedia-integrated academic journal". WikiJournal of Medicine. 4. doi:10.15347/wjm/2017.001. 
  2. ^ "Wikiversity Journal: A new user group". The Signpost. 2016-06-15. 

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 10:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I have a problem with this statement: "by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia". While I'm pro science, I don't want to see this effort become overly aggressive and start removing (or excluding) neutral and well sourced content that goes contrary to the current scientific doctrine. An example might be the Alvarez hypothesis, which was initially labelled "some kind of scam". Praemonitus (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the motivation here. In what sense is it a scientific journal? If it isn't one, then the name is highly inappropriate. What service does it provide that isn't already covered by WP:peer review or WP:GA? Modest Genius talk 11:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
As I understand it, the basic idea is to publish review articles that also make good Wikipedia articles. It is a way to get external peer review of content and academic credit for the hard work the authors put into the review/article. We already do something like this with computational biology articles in collaboration with PLoS. See for instance, PLoS Topic Pages for the general approach and Transcriptomics for an example draft article. --Mark viking (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

NGC 3198[edit]

I've expanded NGC 3198 a little by adding the discovery data, such as there is. It's still only 27 words, though, probably too short to be upgraded from a stub. --Thnidu (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Good stuff. Unfortunately, many astronomical objects will remain permanent stubs; not for lack of trying, but simply because there isn't much detail about them. Primefac (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Whilst that is generally true, this particular galaxy has had several detailed individual studies [3]. Modest Genius talk 16:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Good to know. My comment was meant to be more general (especially since it appears I slightly misread the OP), so it's nice to see that's not the case in this instance. Primefac (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
And a reference too! If just two or three more people added a cited sentence, it would be more than a stub. For example, there have been at least two supernovae found in NGC 3198, studies of extraplanar gas and the dark mass distribution, and a study a Cepheids. Lithopsian (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Point particle talk page discussion[edit]

There is a discussion taking place here: [4]. This is what it is about: An editor removed the infobox on this page [5] saying " removed figure ((Standard model|cTopic=Background)) which is not a good fit for the topic and content of this article". I reverted [6] with an explanation "Restore image and infobox - this exactly fits with this article. Please open a discussion on the talk page if you still disagree before removing this - thanks".

I was unaware the editor opened a discussion on this on January 20th. Had I known I would have posted here sooner, and responded there sooner. Anyway, hopefully project members will chime in over there. It would be very much appreciated. I mean, I might be wrong about this. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a particle physics topic, not astronomy, so you'll likely get a better response at WT:PHYSICS (which I see you also posted this on). Modest Genius talk 15:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Corvus (constellation)[edit] at FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Corvus (constellation)/archive1 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

AfD Pronunciation of Trojan asteroid names[edit]

The following articles has been nominated for deletion:

Best, Rfassbind – talk 13:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement![edit]

Today's Article For Improvement star.svg

Please note that Astronomical object, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by MusikBot talk 00:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Redirect checking[edit]

A user has recently created some redirects of a questionable nature, some of which are in this project's purview. Please join in the conversation here. Primefac (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Changes to Template:Starbox character[edit]

Don't know how many people watch WT:ASTRO, but there's a discussion currently going on about potential changes to {{starbox character}}. Please join in the conversation. Primefac (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Shortcuts,_revisited[edit]

There is currently and RFC on what do do with the shortcuts used for the chemistry-related projects. Please comment. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Artist's impressions[edit]

Is there any guidance on the use of artist's impressions for astronomical bodies? I had a feeling that it was considered a bad idea to use an artist's impression as the lead image, but I could be wrong. SpinningSpark 16:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

See WP:ASTROART. —MartinZ02 (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
That's a useful page, but wasn't mentioned on WP:AST. I've added it to the sidebar. Modest Genius talk 18:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Redirects for deletion[edit]

I've submitted a number of redirects of star designations to be deleted. I should think they would be obvious to any astronomer, but maybe confusing to others. Typically these are things like A1 Capricornialpha1 Capricorni and U BooetisUpsilon Boötis. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 11 and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 14. Many of these things were deleted in the past. There may be more, but I think I got the worst offenders. Lithopsian (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Ganymede Lander/Laplas-P mission[edit]


I've created a new section about naming issues of an upcoming mission about Ganymede. You can answer here. — Foldo (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feldo (talkcontribs)

CfD nomination of Category:SIPS objects[edit]


Category:SIPS objects has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Loooke (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

NASA Press Conference - 22 February[edit]

I don't know what this is, but this ought to be interesting, and cause a flurry of activity on Wikipedia. Figure I'd give the heads up so people can prepare. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)