Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 35

Planetary nebula
Planetary nebula
	NGC 1535
Characteristics
Type	Emission nebula
Mass range	0.1M☉-1M☉
Size range	~1 ly
Density	100 to 10,000 particles per cm3
External links
	Media category
	Q6251
Additional Information
Discovered	1764, Charles Messier

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

←

Tab bar

The following proposed tab bar uses a more recent style employed by a number of WikiProjects. It drops the entries to inactive WikiProjects that we are still carrying.

What do you think? Praemonitus (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to see talk page links where relevant, for example the tabs for WPAFC; folks are more likely to want to go to WT:ECLIPSES than WP:ECLIPSES. Primefac (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see that on any of the other WP pages where tabs are used; just the main WP talk page. The {{Start tab}} template isn't designed to handle that. What we could do is make it a double tab row and add the extraneous WP in the second row, including the talk pages. For example: Praemonitus (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

But that's a lot of clutter at the top just to save a few people an extra click. Praemonitus (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Um... you can put multiple rows in tabs? I linked an example above, but here is what it might look like here:

Main

Talk

Astronomical objects
(Talk)

It also (in my opinion) does a better job of indicating what's a WikiProject and what's an internal link. Primefac (talk) 09:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, except that the links should not be black, so the users can properly identify the links. I'd recommend using colorless links and background #CCCCFF or #CCE5FF , which at the relatively large size is AA-compliant for both the legacy and Vector 2022 link colors. This would look like:

Main

Talk

Astronomical objects
(Talk)

Astronomical objects
(Talk)

The former, especially, preserves the aesthetic of the original proposal.–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I was just copy/pasting the original example, definitely agree the links should be normally-coloured. Primefac (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, that would work. A concern is that the non-black text doesn't stand out against the darker blue background. I'm not sure how well that would work for editors who may have accessibility issues. A light blue background may be preferable. Praemonitus (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

It would appear that the lighter blue is AA-compliant. Primefac (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The first light blue (#eeeeff) passes WCAG AAA.[1] Praemonitus (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Unless there is an objection, I'm going to proceed with implementing the last example above. It will at least give the main page a more slick, modern look. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I made a minor change to the tab bar, removing the underscores from the links so they match the page address. This should allow the background color on the active tab to be set to white when the page is displayed. Praemonitus (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Grubb Parsons

I've performed a major rewrite of the article Grubb Parsons, about the historic telescope manufacturer. That page doesn't seem to have many watchers, so I would appreciate some more eyes on it. Modest Genius ^talk 13:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

It looks pretty good to me. The one minor issue I noticed is that the citations don't always follow the same format, which would be a consistency issue if you were taking it for WP:FAC (per WP:FACR). To get an independent set of eyes on it, I'd suggest requesting a WP:GAN once you have it in a ready state. There may be a bit of a wait, but it's generally worthwhile. Praemonitus (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't have access to the detailed histories written by Glass and Sissons, so FA isn't a possibility. GA might be worthwhile at some point though, thanks for the encouragement. I'll look into the citation format. Modest Genius ^talk 14:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I've experienced some success using WP:REREQ for accessing some paywall-locked resources. They can be very helpful. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

TOI designations

Some articles on stars with TOI designations use a hyphen (TOI-178), while others use a space (TOI 700). This should be standardized. The form with a hyphen seems to be more common, and is used by databases such as SIMBAD and the NASA Exoplanet Archive. SevenSpheres (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@SevenSpheres: I suggest notifying the users who participated in the discussion for the non-hyphenated name. Talk:TOI 700#Requested_move 11 January 2020 Nrco0e (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: @Drbogdan: @Huntster: notifying per above SevenSpheres (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

No Preference whatsoever - whichever form (with or without a hyphen) is finally accepted is *entirely* ok with me - hope this helps in some way - in any caae - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

This is an interesting one. NASA tends to be unhyphenated (but not always), while NOIRLab uses hyphens, Keck seems to use hyphens, the vast majority of articles at The Astrophysical Journal use hyphens (from a very brief search), most MNRAS articles use hyphens. I look forward to seeing other opinions, but common usage seems to have shifted to using hyphenation. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The Dictionary of Nomenclature of Celestial Objects lists "TOI-NNNN", and similar.[2] Praemonitus (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I regard the Dictionary of Nomenclature as the definitive source for the correct formatting of designations. It's certainly far more reliable than a NASA press release. Peer-reviewed papers are also more reliable than popular media reports. Hyphens seem the way to go. Modest Genius ^talk 14:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Just for reference, Special:PrefixIndex/TOI for the eventual list of pages that might need to be moved (which is only about a dozen, most of which are redirects). Primefac (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus to use hyphens, so I'll go ahead and move the pages that are currently using spaces. The articles are TOI-1338, TOI-677 b, TOI-700, and TOI-700 d. SevenSpheres (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Standards for img in infobox?

Do we have any explicit conventions for what kind of image to use in the infobox? The consensus seems to be that we should use natural-color photos, at least of planetary objects in the SS, but is that stated anywhere to help decide between competing imgs, or is it an informal consensus? — kwami (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Many guidelines point to using a natural looking images: WP:EXPLAINLEAD - anything above the TOC "should not assume that the reader is well acquainted with the subject of the article", MOS:PERTINENCE - "images should look like what they are meant to illustrate", MOS:LEADELEMENTS - "It is also common for the lead image to be representative because it provides a visual association for the topic, and allow readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:ASTROART has some guidelines specific to this project. Lithopsian (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! — kwami (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Astronomy article importance ratings

Per the Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Importance ratings, there are only three people in the top level importance ratings: Albert Einstein, Galileo Galilei, and Henrietta Swan Leavitt. I'd like to suggest that the criteria should be modified to move more high rated astronomers up to the top category. For example: Edwin Hubble, Nicolaus Copernicus, William Herschel, Hipparchus, and Johannes Kepler. I think this may be possible by bumping up the statements about making important contributions by one category. Praemonitus (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of which, in the Prizes category I don't think the Nobel prize should trump all of the other prizes. I'd like to suggest that all prize categories be bumped up one level. I.e. the description for the High category essentially includes the Nobel prize. Praemonitus (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree on prizes. The Nobel Prize is only occasionally given for astronomy, but when it is it's definitely the most important prize. If we bumped everything else up we would have too many prizes in the 'high' and 'mid' categories. Remember we're not just rating them against each other, but also to astronomy articles more generally. Modest Genius ^talk 13:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, well I think these apply just to the prize articles themselves, not to those who have won them. It's only a few articles. Praemonitus (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Category:Top-importance_Astronomy_articles currently also includes Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar and Isaac Newton, which means it is out of sync with Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Importance ratings, which gives Chandrasekhar as an example of a "high" importance person.

I think the other names you mention also make sense as "top" importance. Kepler should be on par with Galileo, for example. XOR'easter (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I missed those. Thanks. Yes, Newton and Chandrasekhar probably should belong in the top category, however it is defined. Praemonitus (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy with rating most of those people as 'top', though I don't think any of the text on Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Importance ratings needs to change (just the examples). Maybe just cut the 'multiple fields' phrase. Leavitt seems more like 'high' than 'top' to me. Modest Genius ^talk 13:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I took the liberty of loosening up the top criteria a little. Praemonitus (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Works for me. I've replaced the 'high' examples, as all those people were just upgraded to 'top'. Modest Genius ^talk 16:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The 'Specific' categories don't accurately reflect how objects are being rated for importance. I see a number of objects of 'High' importance to WP:ASTRO that have a 'Top' rating. For example: Pluto, Ceres, Eris, Haumea, Acrux, Deneb, and Ganymede (moon), are all rated 'Top'. Praemonitus (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I think those are over-rated and should be dropped down to the correct tier. They are not of 'fundamental importance to astronomy', and the list specifically says that dwarf planets and major moons should be 'high' not 'top'. Modest Genius ^talk 15:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

There's a similar issue with constellation articles, with Andromeda (constellation), Perseus (constellation), Serpens, and Ursa Minor all being rated 'Top' importance. The 'Miscellaneous' group has them rated 'Mid' at most. Some of this may stem from the WP:VA lists (e.g. Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/4/Physical sciences#Astronomy (195 articles)). Praemonitus (talk) 05:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Where do we draw the line on "high impact" (Mid-rated) Category:Astronomy journals, so we can rate lower impact journals as 'Low'? For example, what about Acta Astronomica, Advances in Space Research, or Astronomische Nachrichten? Do we say 'Mid' rating if, say, it has been published for at least 50 years? That would include Icarus (journal) and Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada. Praemonitus (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't set quantitative criteria, it's more about the impact they've had on the field, both in quality and quantity. To me, Icarus is definitely in the same tier as ApJ or MNRAS, so mid importance. AcA and AdSR are a clear step down in influence, so I would rate them low. AN is debatable - it's a minor journal now, but was more important historically, so you could make a case for either low or mid. JRASC is mostly a magazine for society members, with only very limited peer-reviewed research (looks like two papers last year), so low importance. Modest Genius ^talk 22:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, that journals category tree makes no sense. There's no point trying to distinguish astronomy journals from astrophysics journals, planetary science is not a subset of astronomy etc. Modest Genius ^talk 22:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

It all seems very subjective, other than going by what journals we use most frequently as sources. I wonder how useful this SJR ranking would be? Perhaps all the green ratings are Mid, unless it has historical interest? That does appear to include the big names. Praemonitus (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Of course it's subjective - so are all our importance ratings. I don't think adopting the Q1 journals on that SJR page is a good idea, because: a) It includes very obscure journals such as Astrodynamics and Journal of High Energy Astrophysics (we don't even have articles on them), while excluding some influential ones like JCAP and Solar Physics. b) The ranking changes every year. c) It would include a quarter of all astronomy journals, even the tiny ones. d) SCImago Journal Rank is not widely used or accepted in the field. Modest Genius ^talk 15:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay. What I am finding is that we have quite a few articles under the Astronomy category that don't have WP templates. I wonder if there is a bot that could scrape together a list of those? Praemonitus (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

HIP or HD

I have tried to search for the reason why the HIP catalogue designations are preferred to HD catalogue designations for article names of stars without official IAU names, Bayer, Flamsteed designations or designations for variable stars?

When you look up a star using the HIP catalogue designation in the Simbad database you will see it uses the HD catalogue designation as the title.

As I have noticed HD is more used in the scientific area where HIP is more used in the amateur area - the starmap program Stellarium uses HIP but its online counterpart Stellarium-Web uses HD.

Is there a Wikipedia guideline for this?

If I decide which to use it would be HD - because there are more stars in the HD catalogue which as to my knowledge contains all the stars in the HIP catalogue and it is more scientific than amateurish.

If I have asked in the wrong place then please direct me to where I should have asked this quiestion. Thanks in advance. Agerskov (talk) 10:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

It should be covered by WP:STARNAMES. Praemonitus (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Why do you think HIP designations are preferred? If I look in Category:Hipparcos objects, I see a lot of HD designations, very few HIP designations. Are there specific cases you are concerned about, because it doesn't seem to be the case generally. Lithopsian (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:NCASTRO explicitly prefers HD over HIP, which makes sense to me. The HD catalogue is far more historically significant, widely used, and has a brighter magnitude cut than HIP numbers. I don't understand where you got the impression it was the other way around. Modest Genius ^talk 14:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikisky and Sky Safari seem to prefer HD. -- Kheider (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Something weird going on at Negative mass

Strange edits by a new editor. They remind me of another account, so this is possibly a sock, but I don't have time to look into it right now. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

New infobox proposal

Hello,

I have prototyped a new infobox (see example, right) for types of astronomical objects (e.g. comet, star, reflection nebula), not individuals of those objects. The infobox (prototype & documentation located at User:Edward-Woodrow/Infobox astronomical formation) has fields for typical physical characteristics of the object, as well as links to a Wikimedia Commons category and the relevant Wikidata items. It would be useful for providing basic data on broad types of objects, as other templates such as {{Infobox comet}} aren't really applicable, as they supply only individual-specific parameters. There are more examples of this template in my sandbox. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

They will be subject to the same citation requirements as the articles in which they will appear. For example, what is the source for the mass range? Praemonitus (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Praemonitus: I have added citations to the example to support the data (one of them is taken directly from the Planetary nebula article, the other I found myself) Edward-Woodrow (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

References

^ ^a ^b ^c Osterbrock, Donald E.; Ferland, G. J. (2005), Ferland, G. J. (ed.), Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei, University Science Books, ISBN 978-1-891389-34-4
^ "Messier 27 (The Dumbbell Nebula)". nasa.gov. 19 Oct 2017.

That should work. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

PetScan

I just wanted to point out a tool I was informed about on the Village Pump. The PetScan tool can be used to search a category for specific traits. I used this tool as follows:

Categories: Depth: 1; Categories: Astronomy
Page Properties: Redirect: No; Soft Redirects: No; Disambiguation: No
Templates&links: Has none of these templates: WikiProject Astronomy WPAstronomy Astronomy (one template per line); Checked the 'Use talk pages instead' box

It gave me a list of 398 articles missing a project template (although a minority don't appear to be astronomy topics – they're just in related categories like astrology or outer space). The tool can run very slowly for greater depths, so it's probably more efficient to run it with shallow depths for individual categories. Praemonitus (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The list has been reduced to 60 off-topic articles with subjects such as modern astrology, near earth spaceflight, or military space applications. I was expecting most of them to be of low or bottom rating, but quite a few met the criteria for a mid rating or higher, so the experiment had a positive outcome. Praemonitus (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

What is SC 1325.1-311 G1?

While researching on Abell 1413's monstrously large cD galaxy, I found out about a galaxy named SC 1325.1-311 G1 in [3]. It appears to be inside a cluster named SC 1325.1-311 according to [4]. This galaxy was listed as having a larger logR compared to Abell 1413's BCG, but does not appear to have been mentioned outside of Sir J.M. Schombert's 3 papers on supergiant elliptical galaxies. I did a basic NED search, assuming that it had something on it, but I cannot find it. Just what is this galaxy? I would love to have an answer on this.--The Space Enthusiast (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

In both of those papers, Schombert does not provide coordinates, just describes it as the cD galaxy in SC 1325.1-3111, and numbers it G1. The number isn't a valid designation for the SC catalogue recognised by SIMBAD & the CDS Dictionary of Nomenclature. However it appears to be a simple corruption of SC 1325-31.1, a galaxy cluster that is better known as Abell 3558 or the Shapley 8 Cluster (part of the Shapley Supercluster). The (only) cD galaxy in that cluster is ESO 444-46, also known as 'SGC 132508-3114.2'. So I think Shombert was just using an unrecognised or incorrect designation for ESO 444-46, perhaps by confusing the SC and SCG catalogues. Modest Genius ^talk 12:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Need to do something with Sun chart

This page has some problems; I've started a discussion at Talk:Sun chart § Merge discussion to try and sort them out. Thoughts and opinions appreciated. Primefac (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Sun path article is also in poor shape. It has really bad structure, and two Visualization sections. But I agree that Sun chart can be merged there, though it need some sources. Artem.G (talk) 08:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Unreviewed Featured articles year-end summary

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:
year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

**Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles**
Solar System 2007 FA J. K. Rowling 2007 FA June 26, 2022 TFA Antarctica 2006 FA Joan of Arc 2006 FA Speed of light 2010 FA
All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

Biology
Physics and astronomy
Warfare
Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

Literature and theatre
Engineering and technology
Religion, mysticism and mythology
Media
Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O)
Topic area	Delisted	Kept	Total Reviewed	Ratio Kept to Delisted (overall 0.62)	Remaining to review for 2004–7 promotions
Art, architecture and archaeology	10	6	16	0.60	19
Biology	13	41	54	3.15	67
Business, economics and finance	6	1	7	0.17	2
Chemistry and mineralogy	2	1	3	0.50	7
Computing	4	1	5	0.25	0
Culture and society	9	1	10	0.11	8
Education	22	1	23	0.05	3
Engineering and technology	3	3	6	1.00	5
Food and drink	2	0	2	0.00	3
Geography and places	40	6	46	0.15	22
Geology and geophysics	3	2	5	0.67	1
Health and medicine	8	3	11	0.38	5
Heraldry, honors, and vexillology	11	1	12	0.09	6
History	27	14	41	0.52	38
Language and linguistics	3	0	3	0.00	3
Law	11	1	12	0.09	3
Literature and theatre	13	14	27	1.08	24
Mathematics	1	2	3	2.00	3
Media	14	10	24	0.71	40
Meteorology	15	6	21	0.40	31
Music	27	8	35	0.30	55
Philosophy and psychology	0	1	1	–	2
Physics and astronomy	3	7	10	2.33	24
Politics and government	19	4	23	0.21	9
Religion, mysticism and mythology	14	14	28	1.00	8
Royalty and nobility	10	6	16	0.60	44
Sport and recreation	32	12	44	0.38	39
Transport	8	2	10	0.25	11
Video gaming	3	5	8	1.67	23
Warfare	26	49	75	1.88	31
Total	359 ^{Note A}	222 ^{Note B}	581	0.62	536

Noting some minor differences in tallies:

A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for.
B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Asteroid belt
~~I did some upkeep, but there is some unsourced material and I'm not sure the article is fully up to date with respect to, say, DeMeo et al (2015).~~ Praemonitus (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Barnard's Star
Callisto (moon)
There is a really long, dense paragraph in the "Atmosphere and ionosphere" that badly needs parsing. Praemonitus (talk)
Tried to summarize it better, but need some comments on it, see Talk:Callisto_(moon)#Atmosphere_and_ionosphere_paragraph. Artem.G (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Comet Hyakutake
~~Numerous 'citation needed' tags.~~ Praemonitus (talk)
Definition of planet
Eris (dwarf planet)
Galaxy
The lead needs work; there are multiple stubby sections and bulleted lists. Praemonitus (talk)
IK Pegasi
Io (moon)
Numerous 'citation needed' tags; some bloated paragraphs. Praemonitus (talk)
Resolved cn and primary source problems in naming section. Artem.G (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Johannes Kepler
I worked on this some last year and just went back for a little more citation-cruft cleanup. It looks to be in OK shape. XOR'easter (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Kuiper belt
Trimmed it a bit. I think that "Mass and size distribution" should be better summarized, everything that's below power law formula is hard to read, and probably shouldn't be in an overview articles (besides, that's mostly a theoretical calculations, not observations. Maybe it can be summarized in a small table?) Artem.G (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Pluto
Looks fine for me, but 'IAU classification' section is too long. I know that the reclassification of Pluto was a major theme in the media, but is it so important that it should be covered with so many details? Artem.G (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
I agree, it could be better summarized. Perhaps you could post a comment on the article talk page in case this gets wiped? Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
I trimmed it a bit. Artem.G (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Rings of Jupiter
Saturn
Star
Supernova
This is already in WP:FAR. Praemonitus (talk)
Can we bring it to a conclusion yet? It's been there for bloody ages. XOR'easter (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Still going.... XOR'easter (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Tau Ceti
Titan (moon)
The lead has five paragraphs; there are a few 'citation needed' tags; some bloated paragraphs. Praemonitus (talk)
Uranus
Vega
White dwarf

Missing from this list is: Redshift. Praemonitus (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I cleaned up the references a bit, but the article needs more work per Talk:Redshift#Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/2004–2009. Praemonitus (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Astrophysics Data System

This article requires excessive cleanup and rewriting, because reading it feels like I am reading a promotional website.

Lines like these do not sit well for me:

"ADS is a powerful research tool and has had a significant impact on the efficiency of astronomical research since it was launched in 1992"

"The capability to search for papers on specific astronomical objects is one of ADS's most powerful tools."

"Since its inception, the ADS has developed a highly complex search engine to query the abstract and object databases."

I don't think this is what we want for a B-class article. SkyFlubbler (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Most of the text seems to date from 2005 (as does the screenshot), which is closer to the foundation date of ADS (1992) than it is to today. There have been major changes to the interface and capabilities since then. I agree the article needs updating and cleanup, though it's mostly a matter of style rather than a fundamental problem. Modest Genius ^talk 16:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Brown dwarf categories for renaming

Category:L-type stars has been nominated for discussion

Category:L-type stars has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.

Category:T-type stars has been nominated for discussion

Category:T-type stars has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.

Category:Y-type stars has been nominated for discussion

Category:Y-type stars has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Nrco0e (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I've lowered these notices by 1 level to condense them into the empty header added at the same time. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Old citogenesis about a South American god?

I remember reading how an asteroid was named after a South American god (possibly Ecuador?), the problem was that they got the name from a vandalised Wikipedia article and that the god was a hoax.

And no, it wasn't Jar'Edo Wens.

Does anyone remember this? Was this fixed?. Yilku1 (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Astronomy

Astronomy has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

This was put on hold but will be reopened tomorrow. XOR'easter (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I trimmed a line, but the whole section it came from needs attention. It's weirdly hard to source broad generalizations about how the field is divided up. XOR'easter (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

It's gotten a dose of "citation needed" tags. Some of them can probably be filled rather easily (e.g., types of galaxies), while others might be attached to sentences that should be rewritten or just cut. XOR'easter (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, it looks now like everything still tagged as uncited is big-picture stuff about the nature of the scientific process and things like that. Quite possibly, if that kind of thing can't be sourced, we should just cut it and replace it with writing that is less vague. XOR'easter (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Three {{citation needed}} tags are still unaddressed. Maybe we should just cut the text that they're attached to? Does the article really need generalities about scientific method? XOR'easter (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it can be trimmed, though I think some general statements can go without citations (though general sources are not very usable, so maybe your suggestion is better). Artem.G (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Euclid

FYI File:Euclid Structural and thermal model.jpg has been nominated for deletion This is a photo of an engineering model of the space telescope. It is to be deleted as it can be replaced as representation by an artist's rendering of the telescope -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project decides to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects § Project-independent quality assessments

I'm not familiar with the templates, but we use the standard quality assessment (Template:Grading scheme). Hopefully no action is required. The only concern I have is whether 'redirect', 'disambig' and 'portal' classes will be handled correctly - we have a lot of articles in those classes, but Wikipedia:Content assessment describes them as 'non-standard'. Will they continue to work? Modest Genius ^talk 11:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Interesting draft

There is an interesting draft currently on AfC, Draft:Dust astronomy. I skimmed it and it looks good (not GA good, just good), but I have no time and will now to review that large draft. Sources used look reliable, the only concern I have is with possible overlaps with Cosmic dust and Space dust measurement (created by the same editor). Pinging the author to participate in discussion: Dusteg.

If no concerns would be raised here, I'll probably accept the submission later this week, after spotchecking few random sources. Copyvio detector shows high scores for several sources, but it looks so just because long titles of the articles and long names are used both here and there. Artem.G (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page Cosmic Dust is a random collection of aspects that have been discussed in the context of Cosmic Dust:

Study and importance

Detection methods

Radiative properties

Stardust

Some bulk properties

Dust grain formation

From the solar nebula to Earth

Some "dusty" clouds in the universe

Dust sample return

The page Space dust measurement is a structured list (following the history of dust measurements) of methods to detect and analyze cosmic dust:

Overview

Dust accelerators

Reliable dust detections

Microcrater analyses

Optical and infrared zodiacal dust observations

Penetration detectors

Modern microphone detectors

Chance dust detectors

Impact ionization detectors

Dust composition analyzers

Dust Telescopes

Collected dust analyses

The page Dust astronomy views cosmic dust as samples of bigger astronomical objects (dust sources):

Stars

Interstellar medium and star forming regions

Local interstellar medium

Trans-Neptunian objects and comets

Asteroids

Volcanoes and Geysers

Small Solar System bodies and dust

These objects can be studied by studying its dust once its transport and the processes that modify the dust are understood. Dusteg (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

As I said, I didn't have time (and still don't) to read the article thoroughly, I only skimmed it and find it to be good at a first glance. If nobody would be interested, I'll spotcheck it later this week. And I agree with your assessment of cosmic dust article, it really is a random collection of aspects, and poorly sourced one. Artem.G (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Wow that's long and very well developed for an AfC submission. However it seems very poorly named - it is discussing the study of physical samples in the form of pre-solar grains and dust collectors on spacecraft. That isn't astronomy at all, it's a subfield of cosmochemistry. There's also an excessively long digression into potential sources, which belongs on cosmic dust.
While I commend the effort that's gone into developing this, I don't think it justifies a new article. The content should be merged into cosmic dust, presolar grain and space dust measurement. Those articles are certainly far from perfect - but it would be better to improve them, than to create a confusingly overlapping new article.
I'm also worried that Dusteg has a WP:COI, particularly with many of the references they have cited. I see that user has heavily edited Eberhard Grün, who is cited 47 times in the new draft, which is excessive. They also wrote Helios Dust Instrumentation, Cosmic Dust Analyzer and Galileo and Ulysses Dust Detectors, which all describe instruments developed by Grün, and heavily cited him there too. Is the user Grün himself? If so, they have a major (undeclared?) conflict of interest. Modest Genius ^talk 20:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The overlap was my main concern, though Dusteg have a point on this. I don't know how frequently the proposed term, "dust astronomy", is used in literature, but the article looks well-developed and distinct from the cosmic dust or the the measurement one. Regarding COI, that's another big concern, but Grün is a known expert in the field and so it doesn't look (very) suspicious for me that these articles rely heavily on his works. (But I admit that I'm not an expert, and maybe there are dozens of equally important publications by other authors.) Artem.G (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Progress in cosmic dust research is slow: it is made by new instrumentation or new samples returned to terrestrial labs. It is about 20 to 30 years too early to combine Cosmic Dust with Space dust measurement and Draft:Dust astronomy. Only now the first dust telescopes are prepared for launch. Dusteg (talk) 10:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Abell 1413

Abell 1413 has the following strange wikitext:

{{cvt|000|+/-|637.45|44.69|Mpc|e9ly|0|abbr=on|lk=on}}
000 ± 637.45 44.69^{[convert: unknown unit]}

I suppose 000 is just 0. The +/- is the correct way to tell {{convert}} to use ±. |abbr=on should be omitted because {{cvt}} is convert with abbr=on. The problem which I am hoping someone will fix is the |44.69 which makes no sense to convert. What is intended here? Johnuniq (talk) 09:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The 44.69 looks like an attempt to have a margin of error. I can't be 100% because I don't see that distance at the link, but the margins of error on distances to this galaxy are around that value. Overall, a bit of a mess and a whole bunch of code to produce no output. Lithopsian (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I might as well use this as an opportunity to discuss about this galaxy cluster's BCG. You all might have noticed that I edited pages relating to Abell 1413 in order to mention its gigantic central galaxy. The central galaxy, MCG+4-28-97 is known 5o be among the most extreme galaxies even of its type. The ICL of the cluster was traced out to 2-3.5 megaparsecs from the cluster center by Oemler https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ApJ...209..693O/abstract (1976) but do note that the Hubble constant of 50 km/s is used. Uson and Boughn (2003) trace the ICL out to 1 megaparsec from the cluster center. Even with D25 R-band diameters, it is over 800,000 light years across, almost double than that of the D25 B-band diameters of IC 1101 and ESO 383-76.--The Space Enthusiast (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Regarding {{Infobox galaxy}}, the parameter dist_pc was added on 2 June 2015 and removed on 21 January 2023 by Danbloch with no discussion that I can see. That is why it is not working at Abell 1413#Abell 1413 BCG. I maintain {{convert}} and so have fixed it to use correct syntax in the article although it does not display. What happens with dist_pc and that parameter is something for this wikiproject to decide. If the convert I tweaked is displayed, the result will not be satisfactory, for example, is 0±637.45 a useful result? Johnuniq (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

draft:AT2021lwx

A draft for AT2021lwx has recently been created. Thriley (talk) 07:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Gliese/GJ designations

There are some long-standing inconsistencies in article titles from the Gliese Catalogue of Nearby Stars (Dictionary of Nomenclature). These designations can have two different prefixes:

The first editions of the catalogue used the prefix Gliese (abbreviated to Gl). This is still often used for these designations (numbers below 1000), and is sometimes also used for later designations.
Later editions of the catalogue, compiled by Gliese & Jahreiß, used the prefix GJ. This is still used for these designations (numbers above 1000), and is often used for all designations from these catalogues for consistency; for example, by SIMBAD.
Some other prefixes were used in the past, but they've been deprecated and are no longer used, so are irrelevant here.

There's a clear consensus on Wikipedia to use Gliese for numbers below 1000, but it's unclear whether to use Gliese or GJ for numbers above 1000. Gliese seems to be used more often on Wikipedia, and I've sometimes worked from the assumption that this is the convention (e.g. here), but WP:STARNAMES actually says that the convention is to use GJ for these stars.

I've found some old discussions on this topic with no clear consensus - this discussion from 2012 seems to favor using GJ for stars numbered above 1000, while this one from 2015 was closed in favor of Gliese but didn't really have a consensus. Some of the arguments in favor of Gliese in the latter discussion were weak, such as incorrectly claiming that GJ is an abbreviation of Gliese, and the fact that Gliese is commonly used for some specific objects numbered below 1000, which isn't particularly relevant to what should be used for designations from the later catalogues.

Thoughts? SevenSpheres (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:NCASTRO is clear on this: Gliese for entries up to 1000, and GJ for those above 1000. Usage in the astronomical literature is mixed - see my comments in the 2015 thread. Re-reading that discussion, I think everything I said there is still valid and I don't have much to add now, except that the message from the closing editor is confusing. We should follow the existing rule on NCASTRO. Modest Genius ^talk 11:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree. In that case there are a lot of pages that should be moved, but I'll wait for additional comments. SevenSpheres (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Since there have been no further replies, and given the number of pages that would be moved, I've opened a requested move. SevenSpheres (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Gliese 1214 b#Requested move 6 May 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gliese 1214 b#Requested move 6 May 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – Material Works 14:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Small-Body Database Lookup

I'm finding that many of the reference lookup links to the JPL small-body database are now broken. For example, 713 Luscinia has the following link in the second reference:

https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=713;cad=1

A working link is now:

https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/tools/sbdb_lookup.html#/?sstr=20000713

It could make sense to turn this reference into a template for future upkeep. Praemonitus (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/tools/sbdb_lookup.html#/?sstr=20000713&view=OPC would be a better replacement as it would include the close approach data (Orbit Parameters + Physical Parameters + Close Approach Data). -- Kheider (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

DO Dra or YY Dra?

While investigating the cataclysmic variable YY Dra, I found that there has been some debate over whether this is the same system as DO Dra. There have been papers published over which identity to use, and both seem to have a number of scholarly articles published. The most recent, Hill et al (2022),[5] lists the subject as "YY Dra (DO Dra)". Which name should the Wikipedia article use? I'm leaning toward ""YY Draconis". However, SIMBAD lists it as a lost eclipsing binary, based on the opinion of the GCVS team. Praemonitus (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

In absence of consensus on this issue, I'd suggest creating the page at YY Draconis and DO Draconis. I can't come up with a better title which is neutral and complies with MOS:/. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 09:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that would probably make the most sense, Wikipedia-wise. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Despite our apparent consensus and lack of other contributors to this discussion, @Lithopsian: chose to unilaterally rename the article anyway. I find this to be a tad WP:UNCIVIL. Praemonitus (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

need help

hello guys I'm new member of Wikipedia: wikiProject/astronomy i need to know how can I contribute in wikiproject and how can I post my opinion in afd I need help to know all of these because I want to help Wikipedia please help me MICHAEL 942006 (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Ptolemy RM

There is currently an on-going requested move discussion pertaining to Ptolemy at Talk:Ptolemy#Requested move 25 May 2023 that might be of interest to this WikiProject. Walrasiad (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

NGC objects

I have noticed that all of the NGC objects from 1-500 either have pages or are redirected to the lists of NGC objects, which makes all of the links to these objects blue. Unfortunately, beyond those objects, most of the links to these objects are red. I have decided to create some articles for them, starting with NGC 979, a lenticular galaxy in the constellation of Eridanus. It is possible that its page might get deleted due to its lack of notability, but I just have a feeling that some of these objects deserve articles. If possible, help me on this endeavour. Thanks.--The Space Enthusiast (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

If any NGC objects meet the requirements of WP:NASTRO, feel free to start articles on them. There need to be multiple reliable sources with detailed discussion of that specific object (not just a brief mention as part of a wider study). Any NGC objects that do not meet that threshold should instead be redirected to the relevant List of NGC objects. Modest Genius ^talk 11:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

It would be shameful to delete (re-direct) any NGC object brighter than magnitude ~13. Such objects are very prominent in photos by a 4" telescope. -- Kheider (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Visibility to 4-inch telescope users isn't one of the Wikipedia notability criteria, so irrelevant to whether we should have an article or not. Modest Genius ^talk 13:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Experience has shown that many NGC objects don't satisfy WP:GNG. I built a list of NGC objects that may have enough sources available: Wikipedia:Requested articles/Natural sciences#NGC Objects. (YMMV.) That might be a useful place to start, if you want to write articles on the topic. Praemonitus (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I wish NASTRO and its somewhat authoritarian authors would focus on sites such as EarthSky, AstroBob, Sky & Telescope, etc. as much as on scientific journals when deciding notability. -- Kheider (talk) 14:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

How so? NASTRO only ever mentions scientific journals once, and it states that publication in a single scientific paper is not sufficient grounds for notability. Praemonitus (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

As far as rather obscure NGC objects are conserned, these news publications provide actually less coverage than scientific journals, as they usually have an article with significant coverage about them if Hubble or James Webb release a photo of those objects. However, such targets have usually being the subject of some scientific paper already that pointed to the need of a Hubble or James Webb observation. C messier (talk) 11:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Astronomy

This is the style guide for editing astronomy articles. The general rules from the Wikipedia:Manual of Style apply when writing astronomy articles.

Images
An astronomical image is any image file concerning non-artificial objects or phenomena that originate outside the Earth's atmosphere. It can include photographs, diagrams, and illustrations. In addition to the usual standards of image selection outlined by the Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, which cover image quality and pertinence, several other considerations apply to articles about astronomy:

Natural colors: Wherever possible, the lead image in an astronomy article should show the object as viewed in natural light, without enhancements of specific spectral bands or frequency shifting. Usually this means an image taken in the V-band of the UBV photometric system. This may not be possible for heavily red-shifted or dust-obscured objects, in which case an infrared image will serve. If the lead image has been modified or enhanced, it should state this in the caption.
Artist impression: If at all possible, scientifically-reliable sources should be used for these images. For example, the source can be a government space program, published space artist, or a commercial science news service.
Diagrams: Any such image should include a reliable source for the data used to create the diagram. In most cases, SVG format is preferred for this type of illustration.

I'm just taking a look at what such a style-guide might include. Praemonitus (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

There's already MOS:CELESTIALBODIES and WP:ASTROART. Are there things you think are missing that couldn't be incorporated into those? Everything above could be part of the ASTROART page. Modest Genius ^talk 15:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, astronomy units vs. standard metric units, nomenclature, the primacy of specific object naming conventions (e.g. Gleise or Gl or GJ), standard astronomy infoboxes, template color codes, whether to use arXiv sources, rounding of data, how many parameters to include from different sources, location chart formatting, use of specific epochs, whether to list error ranges, &c. Stuff that is mostly tribal knowledge at present. The list would probably expand as time goes by. I would suggest that having these and any other astronomy-related policies in a central guide accessible from the MOS template would make them more accessible. If you take a look at the "By topic area" links in the template above, you should see some examples. Some of those can probably be incorporated. Praemonitus (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Suddenly, the "low" importance rating isn't working

For reasons I haven't been able to discover, the "low" rating for the {{WikiProject Astronomy}} template isn't working. This is showing up on the WP:ASTRAT as a large number of articles in the ??? column. Praemonitus (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Now it's not just the 'low' rating. The talk:Big bang page displays an unknown importance for this WikiProject. Praemonitus (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

A major update to Template:WPBannerMeta on June 22 perhaps. Asking at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually will ask at Template talk:WPBannerMeta. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. It is odd though that the problem didn't occur with other WP templates. Praemonitus (talk) 04:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Always possible it did, but just didn't filter through the various wrappers. That, or we have some weird wrapper formatting that triggered it and others don't. Primefac (talk) 10:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

It looks like the issue has been resolved (for now). Praemonitus (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Webb's First Deep Field#Galaxies in the Early Universe

Does this subsection belong in the article where it currently is? XOR'easter (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

It's been removed now. XOR'easter (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Round and round we go. XOR'easter (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

agree with the removal, not connected to the First Deep Field. Artem.G (talk) 06:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

See recent edits at the JWST page itself. XOR'easter (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

yeah, noticed it. IMO it's a bit too soon to include preprints on this early galaxies problem into every article, but I have little time for edit wars. Artem.G (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Same. XOR'easter (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Possible selflink

Hi to everyone, I was looking at the List of geological features on Venus and it seems that the link Helen Planitia redirectes to the page that is in. Flatlandia (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

There are only about a dozen links on the page that aren't self-redirects... User:Anomie/linkclassifier is a great (and subtle) way to see these sorts of issues. Primefac (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. Should this links be changed or there are purposly like this? Flatlandia (talk) 09:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Similar to the List of craters on Mars, I think it would probably be a good idea to remove any circular links and only leave those that actually point to articles. Most of these features on Venus will never have articles about them, so wikilinking them from the list is rather pointless. I would also suggest removing the redlinks. Primefac (talk) 10:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Understood, thank you very much! Flatlandia (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

There was a WP:BRFA for a bot that would automatically clean up circular links, but it was abandoned by the operator. I had previously noted that they are also endemic in articles about exoplanetary systems. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Lagrange point

Would someone please check recent edits at Lagrange point#Physical and mathematical details. Some background is shown in comments by a new user and an IP at Talk:Lagrange point#L1, L2, & L3 Quintic Equations. Johnuniq (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I've checked, they are correct, and the old version is wrong. Normally I wouldn't let that pass without a source, but since the old version was both incorrect and unsourced it's a net improvement. Tercer (talk) 10:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Lead Picture for Andromeda Galaxy

So recently there has been an edit war on the Andromeda Galaxy article that seems to went unchecked betwen Daviddayag and CactiStaccingCrane (pinging them here in case) over the proposed lead image on the article, which seems to revolve around the issue of whether we should accept modified, neater images with additional data or just plain images as it was seen by visible light. I brought it here in the Wikiproject discussion to garner a wider audience.

Based on Daviddayag's summaries in this edit and this edit, he stated that his image was as follows:

It was taken in true color.
It is sharper and shows better contrast.
H-alpha data was added, otherwise no significant changes were made.

On the summary of CactiStaccingCrane's edit, however, he pointed out that we should however use raw unmodified images with very little processing to avoid misconnceptions, citing examples in the articles about the Sun, Europa, and Venus.

They engaged in a string of edits which borderline violated the WP:3RR, however since the last edit was a few days ago I am not able to give a warning about it and it died down immediately. I reverted a section tothe talk page added by CactiStaccingCrane because I don't think that the talk page was the right avenue to do so, and because the section seems to be a personal and nonconstructive dispute ignition for me.

Regardless of the edit warring behavior, I believe this is still an important discussion to do and must involve community consensus.

Personal opinion: I have to go with CactiStaccingCrane's argument here. Yes, the image by Daviddayag may be crisper, higher in quality, more contrast, and is widely used, but the addition of the H-alpha data (which is deep red but here the wavelength seem to be modified to be more visible) to enhance nebulosity features, while a welcome addition, just makes it misleading. If we want to be truthful, we must use raw, unprocessed image data based on true color, and while Daviddayag's image is true color, the H-alpha data is not.

However, I do not agree with CactiStaccingCrane's edit warring behavior and he should have addressed this in their respective talk pages. He is a long-time user so I am surprised he did this.

But I would like to hear your thoughts about this. Regards! SkyFlubbler (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Personally I would prefer CactiStaccingCrane's image as it gives a more honest impression of what can be seen through a small astronomical telescope. AstroLynx (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your perspective. While impressive, the Daviddayag image has that processed image look. (This issue makes me think we should have our own MoS topic area guide, where we can cover points such as naturalistic infobox images. Cf. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Chemistry.) Praemonitus (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The top one, per WP:ILIKEIT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Support for the bottom figure, it is more recognizable to amateur astronomers.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Support CactiStaccingCrane's image per above, since it better illustrates the galaxy's true appearance in visible light. The other image can still be included elsewhere in the article. (On a related topic, is there really no natural color image of Venus without part of it cropped out?) SevenSpheres (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Support, for the reasons above. The upper image is more beautiful and co,orful, but the lower one is more representative of how it looks like in visible light. I think the decisions here could have ramifications for the rest of the infoboxes of Wikipedia's astronomy articles.

The Space Enthusiast (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

It was me that replace the infobox image of Venus. I scoured Flickr and commons:Category:Photos of Venus by spacecraft and only found this B/W image of Venus, which I then reprocessed it to add the color channels. Sadly I don't think that a true non-cropped image of Venus has been taken yet. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Or it may exist, but doesn't have a suitable license for use on Wikipedia. Praemonitus (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my personal attacks and I think I should have been more calm with my responses. Personally, I think that the top image is a great image to illustrate the structure of the Andromeda Galaxy, and per above the bottom image should be placed at the infobox because it is a true appearance of the galaxy. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

hi :)

h-alpha is visible without filters, it's just a way to enhance it.

but it is in the red spectrum, you can even see it with your eyepiece with a big enough telescope looking at the orion nebula.

anyway, thank you all for even talking about this. i'm very honored that my image is on wikipedia at all. Daviddayag (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

We know H-alpha is visible to the naked eye; it's just that in your above image it was greatly enhanced more than it should be, which while it produces the effect of having nebulae in better contrast, sacrifices the accuracy. The human eye is more sensitive to 445 nm light (while H-alpha is 657 nm or something). That is why I prefer the second image to be the infobox image. We could however move your image to lower sections, as it is still a high quality image nonetheless. SkyFlubbler (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

so again, its not greatly enhanced. it was just captured with a f/2 telescope (11 inch in diameter).

I'm more than happy to show you the raw image captured by the telescope.

and if the h-alpha is the problem i can post the image without the h-alpha data at all. Daviddayag (talk) 06:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

No matter how much you insist that it is "not greatly enhanced", it is still a modification and not a true representation of what the naked eye would actually view on Andromeda. If you have an image without H-alpha enhancement, then place it here first so it can be checked if it is indeed accepted.

But that would be unlikely, since due to your unruly behavior in edit warring, I would recommend you to other users to check if you are still eligible to contribute here. SkyFlubbler (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I feel like anyone who says that processed images are "misleading" doesn't know anything about photography.

My images are in no way edited, as opposed to lots of other astrophotographers i try to keep them as close as possible to the real data, i use photometric color calibrations to make sure my image are as close to reality as possible.

so i have two points to say here:

1. you can look at the hubble hi-res image of andromeda and see that the colors and nebulocity in my image is way closer to it than this very amateur image that you now chosen as the main image for Andromeda Galaxy (which btw so many people thanked me for my image there over the years).

link to hubble high res andromeda image: [6]https://esahubble.org/images/heic1502a/

2. every image is processed. and most of the times, way more than those, your phone for example does way more processing than what was done here.

I just use better equipment (11 inch telescope at f/2 config with a hyperstar lens), better filters (physical filters for h-alpha and uhc) and better astronomical camera (ASI1600GT which cools itself to -45 degrees c below ambient).

in summary, my image is closer to reality than what's currently there.

sorry if i offended the one who changed my image, that was no where near my purpose. and thanks for reading my comment.

appreciate you all. Daviddayag (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Support for the bottom figure - images can be pushed in all kinds of directions re: false color, enhancements of certain wavelengths, etc. Lead images should look natural, not pushed, so that they do not require any explanation. Enhanced images can be used (and explained) in the body somewhere. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Support for top figure. The bottom one has been clearly enhanced by the use of a an analog optical telescope. I'm guessing that a camera was used, probably a digital camera. Probably photographed under some kind exceptional viewing conditions!!! It's not at all what you would see, if you stepped out on a typical night and looked up at the sky in downtown Chicago. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 01:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Latest reverts

So apparently Daviddayag tried to revert my edits into the page again and insists of using his image because "it was used for the last 3 years" (see here), despite ZaperaWiki44's revert and the overwhelming consensus in this discussion. I do think he is not here to contribute to Wikipedia but rather make a self-promotion on his image while disregarding any accuracy concerns. Another revert on his part would constitute WP:3RR violation. SkyFlubbler (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Admittedly, he's uploaded some nice images:[7], but WP:BRD, WP:UNCHALLENGED and WP:SELFCITE applies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

thank you, I appreciate it! Daviddayag (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

i think this guy is just trying to make me look bad. i invested many many time and resources to succeed in capturing those images, and saying they're too "processed" is just wrong.

I try to stay as close to reality and hubble images (when i use hubble pallet) as possible.

my other astrophotographer friends say that i'm too conservative in my ways since they all use AI sharpening tool etc and i dont.

anyway, i would gladly give way to better images! i would be honored to be replaced by someone capturing with better equipment.

but in this case it seems like a very lazy image, taken with a cheap camera from soneone who just want's to push his image to wikipedia. Daviddayag (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

PR on Pulsar planet

If anyone is interested, I've opened Wikipedia:Peer review/Pulsar planet/archive1 to see if this article would work as a GA. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Spaces in exoplanet names?

In Exometeorology, we render exoplanet names in a variety of ways, with or without spaces, sometimes as non-breaking spaces ( ) in one or both places. "Gliese 1214 b", "GJ 1214b", etc. Is there a canonical format these should be in? This is going to be on the main page tomorrow as part of the DYK section; it would be nice to have this cleaned up before that happens. RoySmith (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's too bad we don't have something like a MoS for astronomy where we could document this. Praemonitus (talk) 01:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the current convention is to decide on a case-by-case basis which format is more common in sources. Databases such as the NASA Exoplanet Archive tend to always use spaces, while the form without a space is sometimes used in other sources, especially for designations from exoplanet search projects (e.g. WASP-12b) and planets in multiple star systems, where the planet's letter follows another letter (e.g. 16 Cygni Bb). SevenSpheres (talk) 02:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

There is something of a convention: exoplanets using designations from planet-identifying projects (eg. WASP and Kepler) don't usually take a space; exoplanets around stars with older designations (eg. Flamsteed or Bright Star Catalogue) have a space before the letter. Simbad appears to follow this convention which may be why we do also. Some other sources don't. Authors vary somewhat. There are exceptions such as exoplanets around the secondary in binaries, or circumbinary planets. Lithopsian (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

We have WP:NCASTRO for article titles, which covers this topic. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Andromeda Galaxy recent edits

hey, I've noticed that the "Formation and history" of the Andromeda Galaxy was fully rewritten today by FrançoisHam, who's probably "Hammer, F.,"; article by this author is now used as a source. It looks like COI, maybe somebody can look through the recent edit? Artem.G (talk) 14:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you're perfectly right, though I'm not sure to understand the meaning of COI.

In fact, I have waited for years in looking to Wikipedia M31 english page that looks almost without recent references, while progresses with Keck, CFHT, Space Telescopes have provided so much new to our big neighbor. Notice also that wikipedia pages in other languages are often more advanced.

The part on M31 formation (how the galaxy got its shape and kinematics) was so far from our present knowledge that I cannot resist to modify it. As far as I know, nobody in the scientific community think that M31 has been formed through an ancient merger 10 billion year ago, while this is true for the Milky Way 5gaia-Sauage-Enceladus).

In case one think this addition I have made is not justified, please re-edit and cancel my doficiations.

Otherwise, I'd have the pleasure to add two videos showing the modelling of M31 recent merger, please see them at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz86Dd_L7HY (disk formation)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exetDytuUYQ (halo and giant stream formation)

(they are the most popular videos of the youtube channel of the Paris Observatory)

Regards,

Francois Hammer FrançoisHam (talk) 09:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

nice, thanks for clarification! I don't know what is the current view on the formation and the age of the Andromeda galaxy, that's why I asked it here. Artem.G (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that there doesn't seem to be consensus that Andromeda formed in the merger 2 billions years ago that you study in your paper. In fact one of the references you added, D'Souza, is clear that Andromeda already existed 6 billion years ago. Tercer (talk) 10:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure of this? Title of their paper is indeed "The Andromeda galaxy's most important merger about 2 billion years ago as M32's likely progenitor", i.e., in agreement with their quotation in the proposed text.

On the other hand, one may give some precision about how a galaxy is formed. It is under its present morphological shape and dynamics that we can say M31 to be formed 2 to 3 billion years ago. If you account for the star formation, one found (e.g., Williams et al.) a very large fraction of them have been formed much earlier, including during the first epoch of star formation (though it doesn't mean anything about the structural formation of M31).

Do you think it would be useful to add such cautionary sentences? FrançoisHam (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm certain, and I have zero tolerance for gaslighting. The paper differentiates between M32 and its progenitor, M32p, but does no such thing for Andromeda: it's always M31. Also, it explicitly says that Moreover, M31's disk and bulge were already in place suggesting that mergers of this magnitude need not dramatically affect galaxy structure. and Yet, M31 had already formed its bulge stars > 6 Gyr ago, long before M31's merger with M32p.

It's not about adding cautionary sentences. We are not going to say at all that Andromeda formed in the 2 Gyr ago merger if you're the only one defending that. Tercer (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

You're right to mention this, I have forgotten this sentence in the paper abstract, my fault. The major impact of the merger is to explain the disk heating, which represent a considerable change of its initial structure, as well as the fully re-instated young disk, 2 Gyr ago (all agree on this). The major disagreement is about the role of M32 which is considerably discussed by the whole community (see, e.g., https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018NatAs...2..705G/abstract).

The former text was mentioning 10 Gyr for the M31 formation: there is no scientist defending this, up to my knowledge.

I may change the text in a more balanced way (including about the meaning of when a galaxy is formed), and showing also the D'Souza & Bell opinion on M32. FrançoisHam (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing newer references to the Andromeda article. I think we should be a bit cautious about defining "when did a galaxy form", since that could be defined in a few ways (mass, mean stellar age, dynamics, last major merger). I don't actually know whether the literature has a preferred choice of definition for that. My Sparke & Gallagher isn't on hand right now; some have a reference handy? - Parejkoj (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, I agree with that (see my answer to Tercer), I suggest to introduce this (real) ambiguity. FrançoisHam (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) has an RFC

Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals), which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Tercer (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Credibility bot

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The BRFA for this task is at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Credibility bot. Primefac (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Minus signs in modules

I’d like to eliminate some violations of MOS:NEGATIVE in certain templates and modules by replacing instances of U+002D - HYPHEN-MINUS with the prescribed U+2212 − MINUS SIGN. Presently I have my eye on some templates and modules pertaining to solar eclipses that feature a negative gamma value. An example of a relevant template would be {{Solar eclipse set 2004–2007}}. An example of a relevant module would be Module:Solar eclipse/db/165, which populates {{Infobox solar eclipse}}, as may be seen at Solar eclipse of August 12, 1673.

Correcting the character in the templates raises no functional concerns; I think the same is true of the modules because as far as I can tell this content is being used only as strings for transclusion. To be cautious, though, I’m asking if anyone is aware of an instance where Gam is being used in an actual value in a function in which the typographically correct character might present a technical problem. Please let me know if you do. (Pinging Tomruen and Frietjes, the primary contributors to the modules.) Cheers! —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 00:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure in detail. Myself I'm a minimalist and will write a keyboard hyphen for negative, so any other fancy symbols will be done by some other fancy person. I suppose there are cases where I prefer hyphens for negative, like copying data into Excel, it is annoying if it is not interpreted as a number. I'm not aware of calculations inside wikipedia, but anything is possible in the future. Tom Ruen (talk) 07:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The only thing that might be worth considering is passing certain values through {{val}} on certain templates, like infoboxes, which will convert hyphens to minuses automatically. But on something like Template:Solar eclipse set 2004–2007, the conversion should be done directly on the template. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, both. Headbomb, making the changes to the data tables using AWB would be quick work, but I certainly like the elegance of using {{val}} instead. If it were were being introduced at the template level, I could probably handle it, but the change would need to be made at Module:Solar eclipse, and I’m lacking Lua proficiency. Is this something you can implement in a matter of minutes? —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 11:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Well that table doesn't invoke that module so... but as far as Lua goes, I'm useless. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn’t say the table invokes the module, but more the reverse. The way I’m reading the flow is {{Infobox solar eclipse}} invoking Module:Solar eclipse, which in turn imports data from the associated database of tables (of which Module:Solar eclipse/db/165 is one). Am I turned around? —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 13:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

jameslucas, having Module:Solar eclipse change the hyphen to a minus automatically before output in the infobox would be pretty easy. just let me know if you want me to add this feature. Frietjes (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

now implemented in Module:Solar eclipse/sandbox and tested in preview in the referenced article, so it is ready to be copied over to the main module at any time. Frietjes (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

That is excellent and much appreciated. Test in preview looked good to me too, so I copied the code out of the sandbox and took it live. New personal edit count in Module space = 1 🙃 —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 16:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Headbomb, if you have a minute, could you review the line I wrote to integrate {{Val}} into {{Infobox lunar eclipse/sandbox}}. As far I as I can tell it works as desired, but the last time I felt even halfway fluent in templating was 15 years ago, and I might be missing a more elegant solution. Cheers! —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 01:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks fine. Don't know about more elegant, but it should do what you want. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

[Osterbrock-1] Osterbrock, Donald E.; Ferland, G. J. (2005), Ferland, G. J. (ed.), Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei, University Science Books, ISBN 978-1-891389-34-4

[2] "Messier 27 (The Dumbbell Nebula)". nasa.gov. 19 Oct 2017.

[1]

[2]