The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Straw poll closed as "no consensus". "2 support plus 2 weak support" is probably not enough to make a case to the bot approval group for something that redirects 10k+ pages and makes occasional mistakes while doing so. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Per the discussion in the WT:ASTRO#Phase three pilot can start thread, The pages in Category:Main Belt asteroid stubs are being used as a trial for applying the WP:NASTRO guidelines. The vast majority of these seem to be bot-generated stubs that do not presently meet the notability guidelines, and that describe objects that are unlikely to meet the notability guidelines in the near future.
What I am proposing, and seeking yes/no indications on, is writing a bot that goes through the autogenerated list, makes note of stubs that were flagged as having at most 1 reference or external link and being "short", and automatically redirecting these back to one of the appropriate asteroid-list pages.
Plus side: This would get rid of about 90% of the stubs, leaving a number small enough to process by hand in a reasonable length of time.
Minus side: Some stubs may be redirected that shouldn't be, either because the statistics script missed a few references or because the object in question is actually notable.
The rationale for automated processing is that even if we have to un-redirect a few stubs, that's still far less work than manually going through 19k stubs by hand.
That said, WP:BOT indicates that this sort of automated processing should only happen if there's clear community consensus for doing so. What do the WP:AST and WP:ASTRO crews think about this proposal? Worth it/not worth it? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 09:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Will redirected stubs get an edit note saying that the article can always be reinstated if redirection was a mistake? I think this is, in principle, a good way to handle these stubs, but I'm still a little wary. I would like to see the bot go through some "field testing" first. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Support – the Pareto principle seems to apply based on the gathered data. Hence, I think it's a good approach. The brevity of the listed pages will make them easy to individually re-create (or to roll back the redirect) in the event that an editor wants to expand on a particular entry. The only minor drawback to this approach may be that the redirect will only be linked to the matching list page, rather than the specific entry in the list. Implementing the latter would require more coding and testing, which may not be worth the effort. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. I thought perhaps this step might be more controversial than it is proving to be. In one sense it's unfortunate that we're doing this; it seems almost needlessly destructive. But in another sense it may focus more interest on a smaller number of minor planet articles that are in need of improvement. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I'm planning to close this as "no consensus", if nobody else comments after a week. Two responses means that discussion isn't actually happening about it (odd, since I'd thought there were more currently-active members of WP:AST and WP:ASTRO, but that happens). In order to get a bot approved, especially since its actions won't be perfect (just an improvement), I'd have to demonstrate (on the application) that the overwhelming majority of affected editors think this is a good idea. Right now, that's far from clear. I'll take another look on Monday. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Are any of those objects actually in the list of stubs, above? How many would actually be affected by the proposed selection criteria (i.e. how many did the script flag as short and having too few references)? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 09:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there are some objects below 2,000. The lowest I found in the first five lists was 36 Atalante, which has three references and seems like a reasonable article to keep. The stub processing page shows it as having zero references, so Christopher might want to figure out why before proceeding. It looks like Kheider recently added some content. Asteroid 2000 Herschel was discovered in 1960, which is relatively recent in the history of astronomy. But I think that Kheider's suggestion would still allow the removal of most of the sub-stub articles. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
In that case, I can manually remove anything with a number of 2000 or lower from the "to redirect" list when/if the redirect script gets the go-ahead. That said, the optimal approach would be to un-stub those articles instead :). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Weak support, but suggest a trial run of say 500 articles first. Run the bot, wait two weeks, and see how many of those 500 get reverted / recreated in that time. If it's less than 10, go ahead and do the full list. Modest Geniustalk14:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
There will certainly be at least one trial run, where it spits out a list of changes it would have made without actually doing redirection, and we all comb through the output. That's actually one of the requirements for passing the bot appprovals process (having at least one "supervised" test run). With regards to running on a subset and seeing how much gets undone, that's certainly doable, but bear in mind that the people undoing the bot's edits will probably be us. Problems of that sort would hopefully be caught sooner (either right now by examining the stub list by hand, or during the dry run described a few sentences ago). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Un-closed
You have quite a bit of support here. Please address the concerns of the weak supporters and to persuade those whose concerns you have addressed to strengthen their support. In this context, it is unrealistic to expect all who are concerned and likely aware of this proposal and who have not weighed in to do so. It seems clear to me that they must simply prefer to obstain for complicated but not very hard to understand reasons. This should not be interpreted as opposition. Also, few people care about this issue, so anything but a small number of people will be interested enough to comment. If you really need more support, you may have to take it to the general notablity community, but that doesn't seem necessary and I seem to understand that you all would rather keep this "in house" as it were, but if you want I'm confident I could find people concerned with notablity in general as opposed to simply astro notablity to support this. But again, you're very close to sufficient consensus already, please don't give up just yet. Chrisrus (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Four people is not "quite a bit of support". As a fraction of the number of _active_ people on WP:AST and WP:ASTRO it's small. As a fraction of the _total_ membership, it's miniscule. That is not anywhere close to enough support to make the case that this bot should be allowed to break the usual bot guidelines.
The guidelines at WP:BOT clearly spell out an expectation that a bot should make no mistakes - and this is borne out by the bot approvals page, where people are picking apart one or two errors made in trial runs of a hundred edits, for bots in trial periods. My bot would not work that way - it'd have a false positive rate on the order of 1% (at a guestimate), with the premise being that it's easier to clean up _that_ mess, than to manually fix the much _larger_ mess that presently exists (tens of thousands of bot-generated stubs). That will be hard to get permission for, and there's no way to automate it (or at least, I'm not going to; it'd take more work to make an ironclad bot, or to stand over the bot's shoulder during redirects, than it would just to redirect everything by hand).
Do you understand why I closed this, now? We're asking for a bot that will have (a small amount of) collateral damage, and we have to be able to demonstrate beyond any doubt that a large number of people support this move. We have nowhere close to the support needed to show that, in this thread. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
It's in WP:Bot policy; first occurrence is point number one at WP:Bot policy#Bot requirements, and it's elaborated on in the text. To see that they do take that seriously, go to WP:Bots/Requests for approval and read the applications yourself. I already told you that they nit-pick any mistaken edits the bot makes, out of trials of 50+ edits. Any bot doing automated redirecting on the above criteria would make mistakes, that they'd object to.
For number required for consensus, go to WP:WikiProject Astronomy/Members and WP:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Members and count. There are on the order of 160/100 members, respectively. Many are inactive, but I'd want at least 10% to speak up. This is consistent with my previous statements to User:Modest Genius that I'd want at least a dozen people supporting, with no substantial objection, before going over to WP:BRFA with application in hand saying "the wikiprojects involved endorse this bot, even with the collateral damage".
I'm closing the voting portion of the thread again, as two people other than you have accepted my rationale. If you want to make a bot, do it yourself, and start a new thread for it, because arguing with you got tiresome weeks ago. I'll make one if and only if overwhelming consensus is demonstrated for doing so (in this context, a poll with at least a dozen people responding and at least 90% endorsing the creation of such a bot).
I think so. You have given this a good faith try but it's just not going to work. Thank you for trying. But please, one last thing, may we show the work you'd done, just as far as you'd gotten, to the WP:BOTREQ people? It may help when me do as you suggest. Chrisrus (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I did not file a bot application. I looked at several existing applications, at the link given above, and determined that an application that I could file would not be likely to pass. If you want to make your own pitch, carefully read all relevant pages (starting from WP:BOT, and look at present and past bot requests. That should give you enough information to make your attempt. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
No. That is a completely different script. As described above, that one spiders a category's pages and compiles statistics (which I put in the tables, also given above). That script does not count as a bot, because it makes no changes at all to the Wiki.
A script that performs redirection would be written from scratch. My version was going to take a manually-supplied list of pages to redirect. More advanced scripts could be written that combined the functions of both (spidering a category and then automatically redirecting anything sub-like that it found), but I wasn't going to bother with that for my version.
If you want sample code for actual bots, read the entire page set linked from WP:BOT. There are many libraries listed, many sample bots listed, and several other useful resources.
Please understand that the fact that you have to keep asking about this sort of thing, does not inspire confidence in me of your ability to implement any of it. Good luck. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I propose the logo of the Wikiproject be changed to File:Iridescent Glory of Nearby Helix Nebula.jpg as it is of better resolution of the current image. It wouldn't make a difference in terms of the display of the logo but it would promote the better quality image over the older lower quality image. -- A Certain White Catchi? 03:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
How about Saturn? Galaxies are more for WP:AST and more closer objects is more for WP:ASTRO IMHO. I know that isn't the scope of the wiki project but a galaxy is not AN "object" and instead is multiple objects. Just a thought. -- A Certain White Catchi? 13:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, WP:AST is astronomy in general, so galaxies are just as appropriate for WP:ASTRO as planetary nebulae. Personally I'm not sure I care; the image is just for use as an icon on the talk pages. The resolution is not really a significant factor. :-) The Saturn image probably wouldn't work because it isn't square. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Well it's true that Saturn is iconic, but it doesn't show up very well in that icon you are presenting. The current icon in the template presents an attractive appearance, so I'm still not clear that a change is warranted. The image you present here has a wider border, so it would be less impressive as an icon. For these reasons, I'm inclined to oppose changing the icon. Sorry. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree. It's an icon that only we look at, or shows up on talk pages. There are other venues to promote high-quality images, such as the articles for the objects themselves. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
As I said, I am not trying to promote images but fine. -- A Certain White Catchi? 21:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that we need an astronomy wikiproject on Commons. I note that both WPAviation and WPCanada established branched at Commons, so we could as well, considering the note above on Commons deletions.
( Commons:Commons:WikiProject Aviation, Commons:Commons:WikiProject Canada )
Probably wouldn't be a bad idea, if there was enough participation. We've had enough problems with astronomy image licensing in the past that a centralized discussion point may be helpful. I'm not sure how many of this project's members are regulars on the Commons though. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
OTS 44
I've got something of a puzzle regarding the brown dwarf OTS 44. This was covered by Luhman et al (2005a) and Luhman et al (2005b), where it was described as a solitary brown dwarf with a disk. SIMBAD associates this with 2MASS J11100934-7632178 and has a link to Stelzer & Micela (2007), who describe it as a wide binary brown dwarf system. I think the Stelzer & Micela article could be used to usefully expand OTS 44, but now I'm not sure if it is the same system. Neither of the Luhman et al papers list the 2MASS number. Might I ask if somebody could suggest which way to go with this? Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Oasa et al 1999 give B1950 coordinates of 11:8:38.2 -76:15:55, which works out to be 8 arcsec away from the 2MASS source. The uncertainties in both sets of positions are probably 2-3 arcsec. Luhman et al 2007 identify the two sources as being the same object. I really don't know what to conclude from all this. Modest Geniustalk15:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I've been working to expand this article, but it's starting to looking a little odd and it seems like there's a study I'm missing somewhere. It's categorized as a giant star, yet it has a huge rotation velocity of 236+ km/s and the little HR diagram on the Wolfram site spots it in the main sequence. Both Wolfram and David Darling list it as a shell star, but none of the journal articles seem to do so. (The secondary was apparently responsible for the earlier spectral peculiarities.) The Eggleton+ 2008 entry for HR 6879 appears to list the secondary as the source of the X-rays, but I think Hubrig et al (2001) seemed to suggest it was not. There's also a circumstellar disk that seems to be orbiting outside the secondary, which I wonder if the emission from that ties in with the shell star identification in some way? Anyway, an interesting object. I was just wondering if anybody had some interesting insights they could share? Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Stub redirection redux
As an experiment I ran through the sparsely populated list of minor planets on List of minor planets/100001–100100. First I added 'div' pairs to each of the linked minor planet names. Then I went to each of the linked minor planet pages and looked to see if it met the automated script criteria for a redirect. I added redirects to just those articles. In all it took about 15 minutes.
There are more than 1,300 list articles in total. At 15 minutes a pop, we're talking 325 hours. Say an editor provides 1.5 hours of contributed time per day, that's 217 days (or 7 months) of useless, mind-numbing scutwork. I don't find that prospect particularly appealing and I'm not sure many others would either. :-) Hence, I don't think we can expect this to happen. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
SIMBAD doesn't show much notability - it's used as a spectrophotometric standard, and is included in various surveys and compilations (because it's a bright star), but that's about it (unless I missed something). Oh and the correct name for any article would be HR 8938, the other names (including that of the song) don't make sense. Modest Geniustalk13:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that we not make an article about that star. We already have enough dross articles of that sort that are uninteresting and virtually non-expandable. (Sorry if I sound like an old curmudgeon. ;-) Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Oops, I got confused about the magnitude. I'll move it to the correct title instead of prodding for deletion then. I have the feeling that the location in the image is wrong too, but am not sure. The image also appears to have an invalid copyright tag. Modest Geniustalk20:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I created a new proposal on the same subject matter, because I feel that the other proposal is taking the wrong approach. My proposal for a sub-WikiProject for either Astronomy or this project can be found at [[3]], and the goal of this one is to enhance coverage on, and to keep up-to-date, information regarding exoplanets on Wikipedia, rather than just to make an article for all planets (which may not even be notable, there are 7,026 planets out there already). I think that the members of this WikiProject may be interested in joining. Wer900 (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Eubot etc
I noticed that not all of the stupid Eubot redirects have been deleted/fixed yet... (I just fixed A centauri right now... it did not point to A Centauri... as Eubot things A=Alpha for some weird reason)
Yes I do occasionally see a bot do something a bit odd. As the quip goes, a computer can now do in mere minutes what once took a team of four hundred people a full decade to totally screw up. Have you raised the issue on the Eubot discussion page? Regards, RJH (talk) 22:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
There is an ongoing effort by some admins on commons to delete all MESSENGER and New Horizons images. (See here and here). I think this is not justified because they use very specious interpretation of their image use policies. I think the astronomical community needs to know and participate in all those discussions. Ruslik_Zero09:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I almost think that needs to be managed at a higher level by determining whether the wording constitutes a copyright assertion. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't read it that way. The argumentative nom. is, as you say, taking a narrow interpretation. But that person also does not appear to be a lawyer so I find his arguments dubious at best. Regards, RJH (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm very unimpressed by this. Commons is not wikipedia but surely it should still work by consensus. There was clearly no consensus for deletion of that image. It is rather inconvenient that files in use in wikipedia can be deleted by commons in this way. Polyamorph (talk)13:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree. A very questionable result. I wonder though whether it would be possible to seek clarification from the NASA source on the matter? Regards, RJH (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
So every single !vote was to keep, but the closure decision was delete? That's very odd, and a clear case for deletion review (presuming such a thing exists on Commons). It would indeed be nice if Commons images could be transferred back to Wikipedia for discussion in such cases, though there seems little chance of that actually happening. Modest Geniustalk15:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Question about Epsilon Geminorum and SIMBAD
I sometimes run across data entries at the SIMBAD site that seem like obvious errors. One I found today is for the star HIP 32246 (Epsilon Geminorum) in the VizieR database entry for Tetzlaff et al (2011). VizieR lists a spectral type of A3mA6-A9, whereas SIMBAD lists it as G8Ib. Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but those seem to be completely different. I was wondering how much reliance I should place in the other VizieR information for this star? It's not listed in the paper so I can't do a cross-check. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
This is always a peril with using SIMBAD for spectral types or colours, because the data is so inhomogeneous and mistakes do occur in large catalogues. I think this is an error in the Hipparcos catalogue, which Tetzlaff presumably used as their source. All the older spectral types I can find agree that this is a G8 Ib. But the Hipparcos catalogue gives it as A3mA6-A9, with the unhelpful reference 'updated after publication of the HIC', and there's a known error in the photometry for this star. The HIC (Hipparcos Input Catalogue) itself gives it as A3m, referencing volume 4 of the Michigan catalogue. Except the Michigan catalogue hasn't got that far north yet, and volume four was for stars between -26 < dec < -12, whilst eps Gem is at +25. The CCDM, which formed part of the Hipparcos input, lists the primary as a G5 (and the secondary as K). Something's obviously wrong here somewhere; a mistake in the cross-matching perhaps? 1973ARA&A..11...29M list eps Gem as G8 Ib, and I reckon Morgan & Keenan knew what they were doing. I'd go with that. Modest Geniustalk21:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, I hadn't looked at that. The paper actually says 'effective temperature', but they presumably got that from the SpT. 19 Solar masses seems *very* high if they did; A dwarfs have masses between 1.4 and 2.1 solar masses (at least according to our A-type main-sequence star article). On the other hand, it's perfectly consistent with a yellow supergiant, which would line up with the G8 Ib classification. Modest Geniustalk23:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Also be aware, sometimes SIMBAD has entries for the star system and the stars.
ie. System X is composed of Star A and Star B.
So Simbad may list it as the following:
System X = spectra A2.
Star A = spectra A5.
Star B = spectra G2.
What happens is that System X's spectra is the combined spectra if the Star A + Star B. So some of the entries may seem incorrect but they are blended and some even includes background star's spectra. And then there are some that are an error.
Yep, I've run into that. Sometimes I've been fortunate and found a paper where they untangle the two spectra. To determine the multiplicity I've been using Eggleton & Tokovinin (2008) (where no other more specific source exists). They list Epsilon Geminorum as a single star, although the BSC lists an optical companion. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Transferring it to commons would also work... but the heart of the issue is whither Original Research in illustrations... 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The structure of subprojects and task forces is all a bit confusing, though the demise of WikiProject Space made things a bit clearer. Is the constellations task force still active? It does seem to me that Exoplanets belongs somewhere within WP:AST, but quite how things should be organised I don't know. Modest Geniustalk11:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'm not quite sure what the benefit is of turning a project into a task force. To me it just seems to (perhaps) discourage participation. I haven't noticed much work on the constellations articles of late and the Taskforce discussion is stale. The last posting was back in 2010. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Constellations task force was set up after the Constellations Project itself died of inactivity and was merged to WP:Astronomical objects... (I think there was a gap of two years between the merger and the setting up of a new taskforce)... so constellations was never all that active. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Illustration of the Tau Geminorum brown dwarf companion
The illustration on the Tau Geminorum article (File:Tau Geminorum and brown dwarf.png) seems at least a little questionable to me. If the brown dwarf is not radiating any significant light, at a distance of roughly 1–2 AU I'd expect it to at least be reflecting a lot of light from the giant primary; hence showing a crescent. Am I way off base there? I mean it shouldn't be much different than Jupiter/Saturn in terms of albedo, unless the atmosphere is choked with soot. :-) (I've studied some illustrative art, so I'm a little conscious of light, shadows and reflection from objects, &c.) Regards, RJH (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. The Bond albedos for brown dwarfs are between about 0.3 and 0.6. They're not made of charcoal. Even if the albedo was as low as that image suggests, the day side would still be significantly brighter than the night side. But this is all a bit WP:SYN. Modest Geniustalk11:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
True it is WP:SYN, but I'm not sure that having an inaccurate representation in an article is good either. :-) Shrug. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I think we could do with an inline tag (or multiple tags) to flag image captions in Wikipedia where the artistic interpretation falls into one of those categories. None of the current inline tags seems quite suitable for that purpose. (But then again, I'm guilty of that myself {File:View epsilon eridani c.png} so maybe I shouldn't complain too loudly. :) Regards, RJH (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, the description for your image is much more descriptive that the file I had issues with recently, and more fitting of known planets. Creating a template sounds like a good idea, and another one for file pages as well. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Marasama. Yes I'd kind of picked up some of that. The problem is in finding an available source to cite the explanation. None of the journal articles I checked were very clear on the notational interpretation. It almost seems to be a type of tribal knowledge. I did pick up a copy of Stellar Spectral Classification per an earlier suggestion, but it's a lengthy read and I'm still trying to wade my way through it as time permits. Hopefully that'll have more information (plus it's kind of interesting stuff). Regards, RJH (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
What does that even mean? What makes the Ca K line of an A5 star particularly different, for example? Anything with H lines and effective temperature similar to an A8 star will be by definition be an A8 star. Odd. Modest Geniustalk22:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Note that the reference actually states "Grenier et al. (1999) classify HD 15082 as an A5mA8F4 star, i.e. A5 from the Ca ii K line, A8 from the H lines, and F4 from the metal lines. This would suggest that HD15082 is a classical Am star with overabundances of iron-group metals and underabundances of Ca and Sc (Wolff 1983)." Note the important difference in the notation, and the relevance of Am star. Modest Geniustalk15:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
From what I can find out, the kA5 hA8 mF4 notation is specifically intended for Am stars, or at least that's what it says on p. 178 of Stellar Spectral Classification by Gray and Corbally. The book doesn't give an original source, but after a some checking around I suspect it may have originated from p. 306 of Gray & Garrison (1989). Some other sources use a slightly different notation: (A5/A8/F4). Regards, RJH (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
SIMBAD
The SIMBAD entry for Pi Herculis may have an oddity. It lists the star as type K3Iab:, whereas nearly every other source lists it as K3II. The nearest match I could find is Eggleton & Tokovinin (2008) who give it as K3IIab. I also wonder what the "C ~" notation in SIMBAD is supposed to mean? Shrug. Regards, RJH (talk) 04:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
C is a quality flag (on a scale of A being good to E being bad). The ~ is a blank 'peculiarities' field. SIMBAD's MK measurements for this star agree that it's a K3II, mostly listing it as variable as well. No idea why they're using the Iab: from Franchini.Modest Geniustalk10:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the SpT listed by Franchini et al is taken from SIMBAD, not derived by them (that paper is on Lick indices). So that's not the original source of that classification. Might be worth querying. Modest Geniustalk10:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. It's unfortunate that SIMBAD doesn't reference some of the data they present in the object header. Perhaps it is internally generated by the University? Regards, RJH (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Since we are missing categories for more obscure subtypes of general types, I'm going to need to move some of the unclassified into the main categories, so an astronomy field category for each type of object would be useful. 70.24.248.7 (talk) 06:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
IC 1059 doesn't seem all that well studied. SIMBAD lists only three articles, though NED shows a few references.
This page is very stubby, what should we do with the article? I found it during the ongoing classification drive of the unclassified cats. 70.24.248.7 (talk) 07:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
If it doesn't satisfy WP:NASTRO, then we could try the WP:PROD approach. That usually works if we provide a sufficiently compelling argument. If it fails, then it would need to take it to WP:AfD. For now I tagged it for notability concerns. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone wanted to ask Svick to create cleanup sub-listings for us (astronomical objects) and constellations (and exoplanets, if that TF gets off the ground), to get shorter lists than the main one for WPAstronomy?
Coin #1831 from David Sear's "Byzantine Coins", probably minted in 1054 depicts two very large stars in the back ground. It is probably a reference to SN 1054. I have located a nice picture of that coin. I think it should be included in the discussion of this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.207.94 (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I think that would be a good idea, although it should also mention some concerns about the claim.
Schaefer, B. E. (1995), "The Crab Supernova in Europe - Byzantine Coins and Macbeth", Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 36 (4): 377–384, Bibcode:1995QJRAS..36..377S{{citation}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
59 Andromedae is another unclassified cleanup problem. SIMBAD [4] has a disambiguation page for this name, strongly suggesting a rename is in order. Further, it has one of those nonstandard floating tables that CarloscomB added to articles that appears below everything on the page (including seealso,references,externalinks)... I've changed the table to a normal wikitable markup. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 11:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Isn't this a double star consisting of HR 628 and HR 629? I'm not clear why a rename is needed. The respective SIMBAD articles list them as "59 And A" and "59 And B", plus they have overlapping parallaxes within their margins of error. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
50 Cancri says it is also called "A2 Cnc", but I can't seem to find that in a cursory search. What I found with "A2" and "a2" was written in 1829, and I don't know what epoch that is, or if it's the same star. But those are two different A1/a1's. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 12:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
A1 Cancri ?
45 Cancri says it is also called "A1 Cnc", but I can't seem to find that in a cursory search. What I found with "A1" and "a1" was written in 1829, and I don't know what epoch that is, or if it's the same star. But those are two different A1/a1's. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 12:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
IC 1011
IC 1011 has a large amount of material that was written when it was confused with IC 1101. But since the article has undergone cleanup to remove IC 1101 content, this still remains, though unreferenced. I feel it should just be deleted. I'm not going to personally do it, since I'm pretty sure a bot will come around to give me a vandalism warning, or some EditPatroller who doesn't know astronomy will do it. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed the IC 1101 section as redundant, PROD-ed it, and added a notability tag. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
categoryredirects?
I was wondering if some of the recently deleted category names, and some of the non-selected category names shouldn't be created as category redirects?
Big fucking mess after a bunch of page moves and CFDs
Armbrust (talk·contribs) just recently starting moving a bunch of pages willy-nilly, and then made CFD nominations based on the page moves. Nearly all of them don't make any sort of sense, and there's a lot to revert and cleanup. Help would be appreciated to cleanup that mess, as [5] s/he aren't listening to reason. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books}18:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I was at first going to say that the strong language is uncalled for, and then I looked at the CFD page. Much of the requests are really silly and the user doesn't appear to have a firm grasp of English. If only by shotgunning requests, a few seem reasonable, while the rest are just frivolous.AstroCog (talk) 02:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
User Metebelis has been renaming star articles from the Gliese Catalogue of Nearby Stars from the GJ identifier to Gliese, apparently under the assumption that the latter is the de facto Wikipedia standard. An example is his move of GJ 1214 to Gliese 1214. In a couple of instances I disagreed and moved them back because of the preponderance of publications that used the GJ identifier rather than Gliese. (This is consistent with our past discussions on article naming conventions.) I've asked him to begin a discussion on the topic here but he has apparently declined. How do we feel about the naming convention for these articles. Should we apply a blanket principle of consistency here?
For some reason the principle of consistency within an article has now been spread to become consistency between articles. I'm not sure where that concept sprang up but I can't find a policy to support it. Personally I think the principle of consistency gets over used. It's a reasonable policy but shouldn't be pushed in the face of common sense. Regards, RJH (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
No, I never declined. I just hadn't finished my discussion with RJH before deciding. I wrote to him regarding my reasoning:
"I would argue that there you're talking scientific literature, whereas here we're talking about a general article for a wider audience. Why would they be concerned if one star used Gliese, one uses GJ, one uses Gl (and indeed, it becomes confusing . . . are all these things the same? And then, what is the difference between GJ and Gl, a distinction that they probably didn't need to have to know).
Agreed, redirects should be in place to catch all variations of the name. But my thinking (and hence, my edits) is that using Gliese as the standard name for the article provides: 1) consistency with existing articles, the majority of which used Gliese before I started making edits along these lines; 2) clarity, that here we're talking about the CNS edited by Gliese (et. al.), and from the article we can certainly indicate from the references that it's usually found under GJ."
As far as I recall, the policy regarding common names is in reference to traditional names like Sirius, rather than catalogue designations such as GJ 244. For the preface you mention, very few people will be familiar with the Gliese catalogue so I am unclear how that even applies. But if we switched GJ 1214 to Gliese 1214, then, by the same convention, we should likewise change HD 16760 to Henry Draper 16760 and HIP 70849 to Hipparcos 70849. I don't think that would be optimal because use of catalogue prefixes is a common convention in astronomy. I have seen others rename GJ articles to Gliese, but I don't believe this as a standard naming convention and, privately, I didn't agree with the renaming. It's just an example of the kind of (to me) goofy behavior one sees every day on Wikipedia. It only became a concern when I started seeing mass renamings. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, forget the Common Names policy; the preface is far more relevant. And renaming HD and HIP (and for that manner, the rest) doesn't seem right. By the way, I would be just as happy if they were all renamed to GJ ... satisfying both consistency and convention. Is that a possible solution? Regards Metebelis (talk) 11:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Could you tell us where you are getting this "Consistency" policy from? My understanding is that it applies within an article, rather than across articles. Hence we have planet articles that use American English and planet articles that use British English. AFAIK, nobody has officially endorsed any type of cross-article consistency in the manner you describe. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I think the English variant is a different issue. Consistency of usage of an astronomical term in an encyclopedia is common sense to me, not goofy in the slightest, nor pushing common sense in this instance (and in my view). We're here in WikiProject Astronomical objects, so if it's Policy that's the Issue, we've got everyone here to discuss it. Let's hear what other interested parties think. Metebelis (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, well the goofy bit was in the sense of people, typically anonymous editors, making seemingly arbitrary changes that don't particularly benefit anybody. The English variant is the same issue because it demonstrates that inconsistencies can and do occur between articles. Common sense tells me we should be following naming conventions established by common use in the astronomical community.
I did finally locate the consistency policy regarding article titles here: WP:CRITERIA. In particular, it does suggest we should apply the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects) you mentioned earlier. However, per the "Stars" section of that article, "If there is no Bayer or Flamsteed designation, then the Draper number (HD) and or Gliese number (GJ) should be the article's title based on which one is in wider use (e.g. HD 98800, GJ 3021, Gliese 876)." The key words there are "wider use". That is somewhat subject to interpretation, but I usually go by the number of significant scholarly publications. Note that it does not say that we should be choosing Gliese exclusively.
The Catalogue of Nearby Stars has a complex history as explained on the article page. Stars with CNS numbers >1000 should NOT be referred to as "Gliese NNNN" because these are from the Gliese and Jahreiß extensions (or the Woolley extension for >9000, but the Woolley designation is not used any more). So "Gliese 3021" or "Gliese 1214" are incorrect, these should be GJ 3021 and GJ 1214. For stars with numbers <1000 the CNS lists the designation as "Gl" rather than "GJ", so for these the "Gliese" designation is appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.126.76.193 (talk) 07:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I did know the history behind the editions, but I confess I didn't take it into account with the renamings. I see your point. Interestingly, SIMBAD retrospectively applies a GJ prefix to stars in the earliest edition, even though Jahreiß had nothing to do with it. Metebelis (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't quite get to it before you did, but the footnote there now seems to add the clarification we were missing before this all started. Thank you all who contributed. I will go through my previous edits and revert/modify according to the new guidelines. Metebelis (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Using clade template for mobile diagrams
A thought occurred to me that the {{Clade}} template might be useful for constructing mobile diagrams for multi-star systems. Granted it would be oriented sideways, but I think the effect would be about the same. Anyway, there's documentation on the template page if anybody wants to try it. There's also a {{Cladogram}} template for putting the diagram in a box. Regards, RJH (talk) 02:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Looks like you can modify the border, so that could be removed with "border=0" or a "border: 0px;" style. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the notification. It looks like a big charge to delete, whereas I think part of the the intent of WP:NASTRO was to encourage a redirect instead. Hopefully the closing admin will do the right thing. If not, a redirect could then be created, but the page history will be lost. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I think it might make sense to create a {{Infobox meteor shower}} template for use on the numerous meteor shower articles. Is there any concern about this? Does the layout and parameters as presented here seem reasonable for this purpose? Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Since no concerns were raised, I went ahead and created the template. As an example, it's in place on the Leonids article. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure that pronunciation is really necessary, but it's hardly an overloaded template. Looks good. Considering the Leonids use, I can't imagine a shower where the ZHR didn't vary, so using 'up to XX' would be better. Modest Geniustalk22:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
True. Well it's a free-form field and we can always add more rows and/or list a more detailed history table in the article. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Newfound Blob
I found this article, Newfound Blob, which someone has rated "mid" importance. Unfortunately, I can't find any information that tells me it is called "Newfound Blob", indeed, several other LABs have been called "newfound blob" when they were discovered. Neither reference used actually uses the term "Newfound Blob", except in the title of one of the two. It is lacking in detail, and I don't think it should have a mid-importance rating either. 70.24.248.211 (talk) 06:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd like a better name to use for the edit history than "newfound blob" which might end up being a disambiguation page. I haven't found the research paper associated with this yet. 70.24.248.211 (talk) 09:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I checked NASA ADS for publications by Ryosuke Yamauchi and found this:
Matsuda, Yuichi; et al. (2005), "Large-Scale Filamentary Structure around the Protocluster at Redshift z = 3.1", The Astrophysical Journal, 634 (2): L125 –L128, Bibcode:2005ApJ...634L.125M, doi:10.1086/499071. {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
It seems so, after reading the paper, the included redshift-space distribution graph also looks like the picture from National Geographic. Though, the paper does not imply the filamentary structure is a LAB, instead, it is composed of LABs, LBGs, LAEs. It seems to be a protocluster instead, the SSA22 protocluster or EQ J221734.0+001701 (according to SIMBAD), so we do have a better name. Though instead of 2006, it was discovered in 1998. 70.24.248.211 (talk) 07:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey there ASTRO people. There is a request to redirect a bunch of asteroid stubs (see list), so some extra eyes would be need on this. In a nutshell, when an asteroid has...
the article would be converted to a redirect to the relevant list of minor planets per WP:NASTRO. However, since this concerns a large quantity of article, some additional things need to be addressed, and I want to make sure I'm not overlooking anything before approving this request.
It would be a good idea if people were to agree on a comment message similar to those found on isotope redirects, something that mentions WP:NASTRO and the need of significant coverage.
What happens to categories, do you want them removed as they would serve little purpose, or kept for sake of comprehensiveness?
I still suggest asteroids numbered below ~2000 should just be left alone since on average they are much larger than asteroids discovered after them. -- Kheider (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Putting a cut-off at 2000 means not-redirecting the following
Ay-yi-yi. Well hopefully nobody is basing their retirement plans on Wikipedia information. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I made a number of random checks against the above list using Google Scholar. I didn't find any particularly useful references. Some of them do have a reference for their physical parameters in the JPL SBDb. (Example: 1776 Kuiper and 1993 Guacolda.) But I doubt those would satisfy WP:NASTRO. I also did a compare against the 456 Radar-Detected Asteroids and Comets, but those all appear to be excluded from the above. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:NASTRO#Dealing_with_minor_planets states, "(IF) a good-faith search has been done to locate supporting references, then it is appropriate to redirect the stub to the appropriate List of... article." Since this deletion lists contain thousands of asteroids, obviously a good-faith search will not be done for each one. So technically it is a violation of the written policy. Having said that, I suspect most of the notable ones will be the larger better studied objects (ie, the lower numbered objects). -- Kheider (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I wonder a little about 1247 Memoria. That has multiple IRAS observations with albedo and diameter estimates. It has also been the subject of an occultation study.[6] Still, the case is weak. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
For the sake of cleanup efficiency, Kheider's suggestion seems reasonable. Just postpone cleanup of those under number 2000 for a later date. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 03:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that seems good enough for now. I'm not sure it will help the above pages if they come up for AfD, but it does simplify the screening process. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
It would be a good idea if people were to agree on a comment message similar to those found on isotope redirects, something that mentions WP:NASTRO and the need of significant coverage.
Here's my put:
<!--
Before converting the XXXXX redirect into an article, please
check whether the content will satisfy the guidelines for
astronomical object notability on WP:NASTRO. In particular,
the object must have significant coverage from independent,
reliable sources. Just because an object is listed in a
database (like the JPL Small-Body Database) does not mean it
is notable.
-->
What happens to categories, do you want them removed as they would serve little purpose, or kept for sake of comprehensiveness?
Ah, you mean the categories in the redirect, rather than the categories themselves. I'd be tempted to say we should remove the general categories and keep the specialized ones. But it may be cleaner just to remove them all. Redirects in category lists can be a little misleading/confusing. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I've found a mistake in this article. In pl, ru & uk.wiki (and possibly others) this object is told to be a galaxy but in en.wiki it is classified as star-forming region. In NGC 2363's SIMBAD entry there's a note that it is a galaxy but frequently confused with the bright HII region Mrk 71 in NGC 2366. --Winiar (talk) 07:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
The reference link is bad in the article. The article uses NED, but it doesn't link to the NED page for NGC 2363, it only links to the NED homepage. Also, the article NGC 2366 states that NGC 2363 is a component of that galaxy. It also suffers from a bad reference link of the same kind. Since the same user made both articles, Clh288 (talk·contribs) in 2007, perhaps there are other errors like this (bad reference links) from that era as well. The user has not been editing since 2009, so whatever errors this user has created, we'll have to fix it ourselves. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I had an idea to apply the same finder technique we use on star articles—overlaying a circle on a map—for the purpose of identifying lunar crater locations. Based on a trial on the Peary (crater) and Rozhdestvenskiy (crater) articles using a polar image, it seems to work reasonably well. Does anybody have a strenuous objection to this approach? Regards, RJH (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
At its creation, the Omicron Aquarii article stated that the star is a Gamma Cassiopeiae variable. Given the description on the variable star article, I have no reason to doubt that. But I'm sure not having much success trying to confirm it. About the closest I can find is the GCVS entry, which lists it as spectral class B7IVe-sh;[7] presumably the "sh" means it is a shell star. Am I okay using the GCVS for a reference? (Similar concern for Pi Aquarii.) Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Apparently this binary star system has five planets. I can't find a reference to confirm this "finding".[9] Regards, RJH (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Nope, I can't find anything either. It would be highly unusual to have any planets a) around such early-type stars and b) in such a binary system, let alone five, so if true I would have expected it to be well documented. Remove unless it comes back with a reference. Modest Geniustalk18:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you could provide some clarification on the Comet article's talk page? Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Star article quality ratings
Many of the stars in the Bright Star Catalogue only seem to have a limited amount of information available. An example may be 99 Aquarii, which now has a suite of references and some details, but only three small paragraphs of text. Depending on the interpretation, that article appears to satisfy the criteria for article quality ratings of Start, C, and possibly even B on the project's quality scale. It seems unlikely that this article will be expanded in the near future unless there is an unusual discovery such as a planetary system, so how do you think it should be rated? I'm tempted to set such articles to a 'B', but I'm not sure that is appropriate. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd probably say a 'C' - it is somewhat perfunctory and could do with some explanation/context, particularly for the lay reader - e.g. why was it (and now why is it doubted as being) considered a member of the Ursa Major Moving Group? What is its variable period? Where is it in its lifespan...? Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Casliber, that seems reasonable. Getting the article out of the graveyard of unsourced stubbiness was the primary goal. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Calisber's idea seems good, but I'd it have a bit more structure to achieve "C"-class (body and introduction should be separated) -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I usually don't bother adding a separate lead until the article gets a little longer. Otherwise it just seems like padding. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Note to whoever has some spare time (or an appropriate bot): After redirecting, now-circular wikilinks on the list of minor planets pages should be removed (as I already did with Chernyakhovsky above, but there seem to be many more). Also, most red-linked named asteroids on that list should probably be removed, since being named does not imply notability. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Just to be clear, they should be delinked rather than removed. I hope that is what you meant. Regards. RJH (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I would like to see more votes and comments at Talk:S/2012 P 1 - Requested move. In 2015 we might be adding several moons to minor planet Pluto and we should have a reasonable consensus as to how to properly name them. Thank you. -- Kheider (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I ran into an issue with a reference that has me scratching my head a little:
Mason, Brian D.; Hartkopf, William I.; Tokovinin, Andrei (2010), "Binary Star Orbits. IV. Orbits of 18 Southern Interferometric Pairs", The Astronomical Journal, 140 (3): 735–743, Bibcode:2010AJ....140..735M, doi:10.1088/0004-6256/140/3/735. {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
What I'm looking at is the information on WDS 18465−0058 (5 Aql). The orbital elements listed on p. 737 shows a = 0.2″ and a period of 33+ years. However, on pp. 741–742 is says the A–B pair have a separation of 12″.8, while the spectroscopic binary (which I'm guessing is Aa–Ab) has a period of 4.77 days. (I confirmed this period in Abt & Levy (1985).) This data looks very contradictory. Am I perhaps misunderstanding something? Regards, RJH (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
It means that 5 Aquilae is quadruple system: B+(Aa+Ab), where one of Ab and Ab is a spectroscopic binary itself. Ruslik_Zero16:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
