Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 1
FACPlease add comments to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Redshift. Thanks, --ScienceApologist 23:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC) Astronomical subjectsPlease review Special:Contributions/Mlhooten and Special:Contributions/166.82.166.38. Uncle G 14:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Transit of Venus is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 17:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Definition of planet is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 20:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I wrote a short stub on morning width using a definition I found somewherew on the Internet. Could someone who actually knows sometihng about astronomy verify its correctness? Cheers, —Ruud 21:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Anon changing dataHi, 80.121.98.214 (talk · contribs) has changed some values for physical data about stars. It looks suspicious, but I'm hoping for a second opinion about whether the changes are legitimate. Thanks, Wmahan. 19:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
John Dee is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 21:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Black hole is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 16:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
This is one of those essential astronomy topics that I think deserves a FA-rated treatment. The current page is fairly decent already, but I think there's more to be done. (Particularly with regard to meeting the stringent reference requirements; a prerequisite of a GA article.) Could the members of this group suggest a to-do list to make this page meet the comprehensiveness standards required for an FA article? Thank you. — RJH (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Project directoryHello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Astronomy versus AstrophysicsI just nominated Category:Astrophysicists for deletion today, as it appears to duplicate Category:Astronomers. The discussion on the nomination led into a discussion about whether "astrophysics" can be considered a subcategory of "astronomy". My immediate perception as a professional astronomer/astrophysicist is that the difference does not really exist, as most astronomers use physics in their analysis. When I do a Google search on "difference between astronomy and astrophysics", I get links to a bunch of "ask the experts" pages that seem to say the same thing. This led me to look at the astronomy and astrophysics articles in Wikipedia. Unsurprisingly, the two articles contain duplicate information. Additionally, some of the things described in astronomy are physics oriented, and some of the things in astrophysics are not physics intensive. Similar statements can be made for Category:Astronomy and Category:Astrophysics. In my opinion, it looks like all of this stuff should be merged together. What are other people's opinions? GeorgeJBendo 18:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Scientific citationsWould your WikiProject like to endorse Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines? If so, please let those editors at that guideline know. --ScienceApologist 19:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Merger with WikiProject Astronomical objectsA discussion has started at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects on merging these two WikiProjects. This project seems mostly inactive. However, if anyone here would like to comment on a potential merger, please do so at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects. Dr. Submillimeter 20:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Stellar classification - (LeDrew)
In the Stellar classification page, their are several sentences under the O-M class stars that have the (LeDrew) phrase. They been there for a while. I deleted the G star phrase and put citation for the phrase that (LeDrew) left. I think that the information if valid, but no citation is on it.
Thanks, CarpD 09/12/06
This page has received a number of edits and inline citations over the past couple of months. It's just been given GA status and it's in the queue for SCotW. I think that now it's fairly complete, if not a tad bloated. I'd appreciate it if some subject matter experts from the Astronomy projects could give it a review and see if there is anything missing or erroneous. It would be good if the page can be brought up to FA, but I suspect they'll want the size reduced. To do that there would probably need to be separate pages for Type Ia and Type II supernovae. Any thoughts? Thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RJHall (talk • contribs) 21:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC).
Jupiter, Universe and Black hole AC&IDFYI—These astronomy articles are up for an Article Creation and Improvement Drive nominations. — RJH (talk) 23:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia Day AwardsHello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector is now FACHi, I just nominated Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector to be a Featured article candidate. Hopefully, you all think that the article is excellent and can support it. ;) But if not, please offer constructive criticisms on how it might be improved, which will be much appreciated. Thanks very much for your help! Willow 10:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC) Science Collaboration of the MonthSupernova is the new Science Collaboration of the Month. Good work! NCurse work 06:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Renaming astro-stub to astronomy-stubI have proposed that Template:astro-stub be renamed to Template:astronomy-stub. Please comment at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/January/7. Thanks. Mike Peel 10:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC) WorklistThere's a draft worklist available for the project. I attempted to prioritize pages in a reasonable manner, but opinions will undoubtedly vary so it will require some alteration (and expansion). — RJH (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I've set up Template:WPAstronomy, which can be placed on the talk pages of astronomy articles using {{WPAstronomy}}. An article can be marked as an astronomical object by using {{WPAstronomy|object=yes}}. Note that all articles marked as objects will appear as being part of WP Astronomy and WP Astronomical Objects, which I thought would be the best approach; if not, I can create a seperate template for astronomical objects. Ratings can be done as described at Template:WPAstronomy/usage. Additionally, I've added an astrophysics parameter to the template, so that only one template is needed on pages covering astrophysics subjects, which currently fall under both WP:Astronomy and WP:Physics. The following pages list the articles tagged with the template:
These pages will be automatically kept up to date by a bot (updating approx every 24 hours). I operate a different bot, Peelbot, which should be able to do automated tagging of article talk pages with this new template, if people want. I need to put in two requests if people want me to do this; one to update the software I'm using so that it can support the object tag, and another to get approval to do the tagging using a bot. I would then need a list of categories and/or pages that need tagging. Mike Peel 22:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Planet Infoboxes TfD'sPlease see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 11. Mike Peel 20:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Astronomy articles by qualityI've noticed that the article quality categories are getting populated by astronomy articles on individual objects. (I.e. within the domain of WP:Astronomical Objects.) In particular the Category:B-Class Astronomy articles category contains a number of individual galaxies and planets. So mayhap we need to reconsider a merge again? Also does anybody why are there duplicate columns in the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Astronomy articles by quality statistics table? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I plan on merging Wikipedia:WikiProject Telescopes into this WikiProject in a week's time, as that project doesn't seem very active (apart from me), and it seems pointless to have it separate from this one. Please let me know if you have any objections to this. Thanks. Mike Peel 09:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Astronomical templatesI've tried to collate all astronomical templates into three categories: Category:Astronomical templates and its' subcategories, Category:Astronomical infobox templates and Category:Astronomical navigation templates. I've also put together a list of all astronomical infoboxes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Space/Astronomy templates/Infoboxes. If I've missed any, please add them to the categories/lists. Thanks. Mike Peel 16:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC) Citation systemsPlease see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#Citation systems. This has major implications for everyone, including RJHall and his work on galaxy. Dr. Submillimeter 08:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC) CopyrightUnfortunately, a site called Famous Astrophysicists have been copying Wikipedia articles in violation of the GFDL, Wikipedia's license. In fact, they haven't even cited Wikipedia as the source of their content. We've tried contacting them about this, but they've done nothing. I would be grateful if contributors to any of the astrophysics biographies at http://www.famous-astrophysicists.com/index.html (make sure you contributed before the article was copied) would help out with this. Only contributors to these articles can officially act. What I'd like you to do is send a DMCA notice to their ISP. There is contact information at Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Def#Famous-astrophysicists.com. If you have questions, please ask; this would really be quite helpful. Superm401 - Talk 04:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Ugly formatHere we go again. The main project page looks plain hideous now. Did we reach a consensus on the appearance chance, or was it updated by fiat? — RJH (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, would people have a use for a box like the "Current activity" one on Wikiproject Physics? Mike Peel 19:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
50000 Quaoar - GA workI've nominated 50000 Quaoar as Good Article, and have received a review noting various things that should be done to bring it up to GA status. Help on improving it would be much appreciated. Thanks! - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 21:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Comet Hyakutake has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are hereJeffpw 09:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC) JupiterThe suggested Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism for the slow shrinking is not mentioned in several papers about the formation of Jupiter! Is this a true statement or a hoax or something new?
--Stone 17:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Carl Sagan is a featured article candidateCarl Sagan is also being reviewed as a featured article candidate. (I have now tagged the talk page with the WPAstronomy template so that people will think to talk to us about the article.) Dr. Submillimeter 00:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Carl Sagan FARThe message above is incorrect - Carl Sagan is not a featured article candidate. Carl Sagan has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
WiktionaryMight I suggest that one of the tasks for this WikiProject be to add definitions to Wiktionary? 70.55.85.124 11:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC) Astrobox templatesI have nominated the Astroboxes for deletion; please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 28. Thanks. Mike Peel 22:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Possible Astronomy Featured Topic(This message copied to WP:Astronomical objects, WP:Space, and WP:Astronomy) Hey! I was looking around for groups of articles to nominate as a Featured Topic, and I came across Upsilon Andromedae, b, c, and d. All four of these articles are GA class, and together fulfill every requirement of a FT, except that none of them are Featured Articles themselves. If one of them, preferably Upsilon Andromedae itself, was promoted to Featured Article, then the Topic as a whole would most likely pass FTC. So, if anyone wants to shoot for that, have at it! Also, if any members of this Wikiproject know of a group of articles that fits the criteria, then please nominate them! Thank you! --PresN 18:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC) It is nearly 11 months since we established this review process as a minimal process after we failed to reach consensus about a number of matters. During that time it has been largely left alone with nobody really keeping a close watch on it. A couple days ago I cleaned everything up. I archived old reviews, corrected the tags on talk pages and made minimal changes to the process based on what I had learnt. I also reviewed how it had operated. There were some reasonable reviews and some that attracted no interest what so ever, but I guess that is the case even with Wikipedia:Peer review. Some entries may have missed some attention since they were not properly formatted, or had no tag on the article's talk page and hence did not appear in the category. See Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review for my review and report on the clean up. Of course, in hindsight, I wonder whether we, and particularly I, could have done better a year ago. In hindsight, does anyone have ideas how we progress this review process. To be worthwhile, it must attract reviews that perhaps would not go elsewhere such as Wikipedia:Peer review and it must attract expert reviewers to add to what might be achieved by the general Wikipedia:Peer review. If it can not do either, perhaps we should close it down and just encourage articles to go to Wikipedia:Peer review. Articles for review are listed on the science WikiProjects such as this one, but they are transcluded in so changes do not appear on watchlists. I have also added recent reviews to Wikipedia:Peer review in the same way that WikiProject reviews such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Peer review are added. In this way both review pages refer to the same page for the review discussion and hopefully more editors will be attracted. The key point is attracting expert reviewers who might look at Wikipedia:Scientific peer review but not look at Wikipedia:Peer review. If you have any ideas on this, please add your views at Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review. --Bduke 02:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Andromeda-Milky Way collision nominated for deletionAndromeda-Milky Way collision has been nominated for deletion. Please go comment. Dr. Submillimeter 23:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
List of possible articlesI've tried to find any relevant redirects for my list of missing astronomy topics but could anyone have a look at it? - Skysmith 12:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
There is a request for Solar system to appear as a Today's featured article--mikeu 19:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
University of Illinois ObservatoryHi all. There is an article I am working on, and have been, the University of Illinois Astronomical Observatory, that I think could benefit from some input from this project, though it's probably only partially related. There is a lot of information in the article pertaining to stellar magnitude and photometry, while I maintain more than a passing interest in astronomy I simply lack the expertise to ensure that the text in the section: 'Astronomical Significance' and beyond is fully accurate, and correctly written (so as not to contradict itself). I was hoping someone(s) would be able to look at it from this project and help me out. I really appreciate it and thanks ahead of time. : ) A mcmurray 12:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
This vital article was demoted as a featured article in Nov. and failed a GA nom in Jan. It is now a candidate for Wikipedia:Article_Creation_and_Improvement_Drive#Black_hole and has nearly enough votes to place it at the top of the list...--mikeu 00:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Pulsar vs Rotation-powered pulsar (and X-ray pulsar)Pulsar and Rotation-powered pulsar are a mess. Anyone interested in merging these properly? —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 03:21Z
Hi, I contested a prod on the Aspects of Mars page, and have asked for a discussion here, is this info worth saving? regards sbandrews 11:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC) EphemeridesFound these, several of them have been prodded. 70.51.8.30 06:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Exploded Planet HypothesisExploded Planet Hypothesis has been AfD'd. 70.55.84.23 06:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Conversion templatesHello! This is to announce that several templates for automatic convertion between metric and imperial units and for displaying consistently formatted output have been created: {{km to mi}}, {{mi to km}}, {{m to ft}}, {{ft to m}}, {{km2 to mi2}}, {{mi2 to km2}}, {{m2 to ft2}}, and {{ft2 to m2}}. Hopefully, they will be useful to the participants of this WikiProject. The templates are all documented, provide parameters to fine-tune the output, and can be substituted if necessary. Any suggestions, requests for improvement/features, or bug reports are welcome.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC) During my work on Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Articles I came across this article. Obviously I'll do my best to improve it, but it could use some tender loving care from people who know more about the subject than I do. - Mgm|(talk) 08:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC) I think it would be better if we split articles on spacecraft and their missions. For example this would mean that we would have an article on Cassini orbiter, Huygens probe (these two may be one article) and Cassini mission -- Cat chi? 15:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Spacecraft names
I have proposed merging Category:Free astronomy software into Category:Astronomy software. Most of the software listed in Category:Astronomy software is also free, so the subdivision does not seem appropriate. Please go state any opinions you have at WP:CFD. Dr. Submillimeter 22:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Please review "Black hole" articleI've completed pass 1 of the edit of Black hole discussed in Talk:Black_hole#Possible_restructure? Please check it for errors, inconsistencies and serious omissions. For comparison, the previous version of the article is at [8]Philcha. Talk:Black_hole#Please_review_the_recent_edits states the objectives of the edit. I've also asked Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics and Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects to review Black hole, and I'm informing these projects that I've asked Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy to review Black hole. Dr. Submillimeter commented that Black hole is too long, and I think that for each major "entry point" article WP needs a plan which defines how much detail goes where (Talk:Black_hole#Please_review_the_recent_edits).Philcha 22:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Awsome siteI just found this on Digg, totally badass star map site... wikisky.org I wonder if we can work out a partnership with them. -Ravedave 03:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
aspects of asteroidsA whole lot of asteroids appear to have these ephemerides sections attached to them. See asteroids starting at #10, and continuing on and on and on. 132.205.44.134 21:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
transitsHas anyone noticed the proliferation of articles about transits visible from planets other than earth? The Transit of Phobos from Mars is notable in that it has actually been observed. I'm not sure the same can be said for the transit of earth as seen from jupiter. What does everyone think?
U V W Space velocitiesDoes anyone have a good reference for U V W Space velocities? See my entry at Talk:Celestial coordinate system --NealMcB 03:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Categorization of astronomers by religionA few people have been categorizing astronomers by religion; see Category:Astronomers by religion. I have nominated the category tree for deletion. I personally think this is a bad idea, as religion has no influence on the careers of any astronomers that I know. Please go voice your opinion here. Dr. Submillimeter 09:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Category:Greek and Roman astronomersI just nominated Category:Greek and Roman astronomers to be renamed Category:Roman astronomers. Combining the Greeks and Romans together just seems confusing. Also note that Category:Greek astronomers already exists. Please go voice your opinion at WP:CFD. Dr. Submillimeter 00:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Category:Astronomical units of lengthIs there any object to a migration of the category Category:Astronomical units of length to a slightly broader group called "Category:Astronomical units". That would allow the inclusion of topics such as Angular diameter, Solar mass, Solar luminosity and so forth. — RJH (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Meteoroid → MeteorUser:Smkolins has proposed that meteoroid be renamed meteor 132.205.44.134 22:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings → Apollo missions tracked by independent partiesIndependent evidence for Apollo Moon landings → Apollo missions tracked by independent parties- proposed by user:ScienceApologist. 132.205.44.134 23:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Template:Pluto spacecraft, Template:Neptune spacecraft, Template:Uranus spacecraftTemplate:Pluto spacecraft has been proposed for deletion at WP:TFD by user:Cop 633. 132.205.44.134 23:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC) There are currently 32 articles listed at WP:MWA#Observatories that might be of interest to this project. --Sapphic 20:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Planetary mass typeAnyone heard of the Planetary mass type classification? --mikeu 02:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Planetary mass type is now nominated for deletion. Please go comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planetary mass type. Dr. Submillimeter 08:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Proposal for merger Celestial Atlas into UranographyHi. Intrested to discuss? Then go HERE! Rursus 10:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
EquinoxEquinox (astronomy), a redirect, has been proposed for deletion at WP:RFD. 70.51.11.38 03:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Micrometeoroid merge to meteoroidUser:Rsduhamel proposes that micrometeoroid be merged into meteoroid. 132.205.44.134 14:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
stub-type planet-stub has been nominated for deletionSee WP:SFD, User:BlueEarth created the stub type template:planet-stub/category:planet stubs 132.205.44.134 23:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Note that I turned supergiant planet into a redirect for gas giant, which seemed more appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 08:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
SIM PlanetQuestI first expanded Space Interferometry Mission in November and spent a bunch of time expanding it today, I plan to take it to GA soon, maybe eventually FA. It needs copy edited which I haven't done myself yet but will, additional eyes will be needed. Any volunteers would assist greatly. Need help making sure jargon isn't used to much, I strived to keep it accesible to the layman, the sources were pretty dumbed down so it should be mostly good but may need some work at parts. Thanks in advance.IvoShandor 01:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Category:Extrasolar planets and Category:Planetary systemsIs anyone familiar with these categories? According to their descriptions, Category:Extrasolar planets is used for stars with one planet, while Category:Planetary systems is used for stars with multiple planets. In plain English, however, "planetary system" would usually refer to any star with a planet, and "extrasolar planet" would refer to planets (not stars). Would people object if I reorganized these articles following my above interpretation? Another option would be to rename one or both of the categories to more clearly indicate their contents. Dr. Submillimeter 20:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Big Bang FARBig Bang has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 14:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Miranda (moon)There's a problem... someone changed the Miranda.jpg image to be some child actress. Every place where there's supposed to be an image of the moon, she appears. I don't know what to do in this circumstance -- should someone revert the Miranda.jpg image file? Kier07 22:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Constellations task forceConstellations need cleanup. Anyone interested in participating in a new Constellations Task Force?? Said: Rursus 21:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC) Artificial Satellite → (multiple possibilities)Apparently "Satellite" was renamed Artificial Satellite at some point. 132.205.44.134 21:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Userbox
commons:Category:Astro_icons has a lot. How about . —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-22 06:08Z
The Template:WPAstronomy boxes use . Maybe we should just use that anyway. Dr. Submillimeter 19:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Astronomy category consolidationNow that the Category:Units of measure in astronomy discussion has resolved itself, I wanted to take a look at further organization of category:Astronomy. Categories along the lines of astronomical quantities and measurements seem to suggest themselves. Here are some tentative candidate lists:
Any thoughts? Or perhaps a better approach? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The category:astronomy has been thinned out. The remaining articles are primarily high-level topics that seem appropriate at this level. Thanks for the feedback. — RJH (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
CfD: Star formationI suggested a deletion of Category:Star formation at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_6#Category:Star_formation. Please comment if you have an interest. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Polar-ring galaxyCan someone take a look at Polar-ring galaxy? It seems to require some work. 132.205.44.134 23:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Category:Terrestrial planetsCategory:Terrestrial planets - do we need this category? I wonder if we could confirm the composition of extrasolar planets that might be terrestrial anytime soon. 132.205.44.134 23:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Artistic impressions and Astronomy Image Review.Hello All - there was a lengthy and exciting conversation at talk:Gliese 581 c about the appropriateness and encyclopedicity of a particular artistic representation of the planet, and artistic representations generally. The solution we came to was to set up an image review page as part of the project, in which contributors could request an illustration for an article, then artists would generate drafts, and once they met community consensus they would be put into the articles. There is a very successful precedent for this system at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review - take a look at that, and our initial version of Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Image Review and see if you like it - we're ready for comments/revisions/and image requests! Cheers, Debivort 01:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Category:Astronomy institutes to Category:Astronomical institutes and departmentsSpeedy category rename is listed for Category:Astronomy institutes. 132.205.44.134 16:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
For your considerationWP:Vital_articles#Astronomy is a lean listing of selected articles that are considered "vital" by a group of wikipedians. I find it useful as a place to focus some editing energy. But for the purposes of this group, might it be beneficial to build a "Vital astronomy articles" tree (with, say, 3-4 branches of depth) of broad-topic articles that should be in every public astronomy encyclopedia? (And sign the names of the contributors.) Once the list has reached a consensus, then it could be linked as a sub-article from the above section. For example, "Wikipedia:Vital astronomy articles". At least half the current list of vital astronomy articles is oriented toward the Solar System. The Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded#Astronomy list seems equally biased. (Not that there's anything wrong with articles on the Solar System, mind you, I just think that many other astronomy topics should be covered to an equal level of quality.) There are online astronomy encyclopedias against which such a list could be compared. (C.f. Eric Weisstein's World of Astronomy.) There's also the Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Worklist, which would provide a useful starting point. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Earth-Moon space Orbit comparison has been proddedEarth-Moon space Orbit comparison was prodded by User:Swpb on May 14. 132.205.44.134 22:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Zvezdno Obshtestvo ObservatoryUp for AfD. — RJH (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
radio astronomyHello. The article radio astronomy is not listed with one of this project's tags. It seems to me that it should be listed. Also, the article may need some attention. Bubba73 (talk), 16:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Blue dwarf article at Articles for DeletionThe Blue dwarf article is up at AfD here. I think this is one that needs input (one way or another) from you good people. My personal thought is that some of the edits to the article have confused the issue. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 02:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Astronomer vs Amateur nominated for deletionWikipedia:Astronomer vs Amateur has been nominated for deletion. Please go express your opinion if you are interested. Dr. Submillimeter 15:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
a bunch of things were prodded because of transwiki to wiktionary on June 3rdChasma, Dorsum, Flexus, Flumen, Fluctus, Linea, Macula (planetary geology), Mensa (geology), Rupes, Tholus. Personally, I feel they should be redirected somewhere... 132.205.44.134 22:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Has anyone taken a look at Wiktionary? They seem to have a heirarchy for astronomy related words and names. 70.55.87.222 06:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC) USer:Lofty created Template:Types of nebula. I generally do not like the idea of having a navigation template for "types" of nebulae. The major problem is that most nebulae cannot very easily be divided into one or a few types. A few objects, such as planetary nebulae, can be characterized as distinct objects, but most of the interstellar medium is diffuse. Moreover, a broad number of terms may be applied to different parts of the diffuse interstellar medium, including reflection nebula, emission nebula, HI region, HII region, molecular cloud, dark nebula, etc. Furthermore, classifying diffuse nebulae as "reflection", "emission", or "dark" nebulae is misleading, as many clouds may emit, reflect, and absorb optical light simultaneously. I ultimately recommend deleting Template:Types of nebula simply because it looks too problematic. However, I would like other people's feedback first. (At the very least, the plural form of "nebula" should be used in the template name.) Dr. Submillimeter 09:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Template nominated for deletionI nominated Template:Types of nebula for deletion. You can comment at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 14#Template:Types of nebula. I really do not think that it is salvagable. Dr. Submillimeter 13:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC) I proposed renaming Category:Historical astronomical instruments as Category:Astronomical instruments, mainly because of the subjective issues with using the word "historical". Please go comment at WP:CFD. Dr. Submillimeter 15:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
(undent)I have to say, Category:Historical cats is quite hilarious, albeit useless. IvoShandor 22:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Wiktionary: wikiproject?I think we should have a sister WikiProject at Wiktionary, looking at that link further up the talk page... and this worklist on Wiktionary... But Wiktionary doesn't have much detail on how they handle wikiprojects (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:WikiProject) 132.205.44.134 00:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Operation Moonwatch is up for deletion here [12]. It was a worldwide project of amateur astronomers and observatories improvised to track early satellite launches in 1957 and was the first to track Sputnik but somebody thinks it might be a hoax.... Nick mallory 23:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Merging astronomy and astrophysicsI'm currently engaged in a discussion with yet another user without a Ph.D. in the physical sciences who wants to list astrophysics as a subfield of astronomy. This discussion has ticked me off badly enough that I am now ready to push forward with merging the astronomy and astrophysics articles. In reality, astronomy and astrophysics are really synonymous with each other. Hardly any professional astronomers make the distinction (although, in past discussions on Wikipedia, someone has mentioned some person somewhere who is observationally-oriented that would not be conisdered a physicist, but these people are rare). Virtually all professional astronomers have to take physics courses to earn degrees, and virtually all astronomical research in the past 100 years has involved the use of physics. Even the professional journals blur the lines between "astronomy" and "astrophysics" in their titles, as can be seen in the title of Astronomy & Astrophysics. Making the distinction between "astronomy" and "astrophysics" in Wikipedia is impractical. The two articles need to be merged together. What are other people's comments on this? Dr. Submillimeter 22:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
This is kind of like the question of whether "Physics" and "Modern Physics" should have separate articles, no? (Not that I'm putting them up as models.) Perhaps it would work to keep both articles, but let Astrophysics handle the more modern and technical topics so Astronomy can stay more general. Saying something to that effect in the leads would be a good idea. Certainly we should try not to repeat too much material in the articles. BTW, I hadn't heard the joke about the astro____ on the plane, but I'll certainly be repeating it. Gnixon 21:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Gnixon's edits actually demonstrate the redundancy that existed between the two articles. While I do not have any good printed references for the differences between "astronomy" and "astrophysics", I was going to start with the introduction to Frank Shu's The Physical Universe, which uses "astronony" when describing the subject in qualitative terms and "astrophysics" when describing the subject in quantitative terms. (Keep in mind that the book is an "introductory" astronomy or astrophysics book.) Another point about the astronomy article: It needs to be written to focus on the study of astronomy. The enitre section under "Astronomical objects" seems to be giving a brief overview of astronomy. I would rather revise this to discuss the subjects that are studied within astronomy and how the subjects are studied. For example, rather than describing the Milky Way, I would want the galactic astronomy subsection to describe topics of research within galactic astronomy and the methods used to study the galaxy. Some science information can be kept, but it should be kept to a minimum. What do other people think? Dr. Submillimeter 16:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC) Additional note: see http://www.erie.psu.edu/academic/science/degrees/astronomy/astrophysics.htm . Dr. Submillimeter 16:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC) Draft paragraph for astronomyHere is a draft paragraph that I wrote for astronomy:
Comments would be appreciated.
Ready to turn astrophysics into a redirectI have integrated the term "astrophysics" into the astronomy article and adding the paragraph explaining how "astrophysics" is more or less synonymous with "astronomy". Other users and I have incorporated most of the useful, non-duplicative material from astrophysics into astronomy. It looks like astrophysics could now be turned into a redirect to astronomy. I will do so on 25 Jun 2007 unless I receive strong objections. Dr. Submillimeter 13:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Template:Types of nebula nominated for deletion (second try)I have again nominated Template:Types of nebula for deletion. The first discussion closed with no other comments to keep or delete this template. I really think that this template is HARMFUL in that it suggests that nebulae can be divided into different "types" when no real classification system exists for nebulae. It was generated by a person with no college education who, while well-intentioned, had not thought of the problems that this template could cause. It should be destroyed. Please comment at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 25. Dr. Submillimeter 10:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC) There are 100 red links to this guy on 66 pages. Someone wanna create the article? Im trying to get rid of red links, but am not into astronomy Willy turner 09:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Change to Template:Starbox detailThere's a new article on Stellar rotation that was requested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Hot/S4. I modified the {{Starbox detail}} template so that the "Rotation" field is linked to this new article rather than Rotation. Please let me know if that is objectionable. I'm planning to add some more material to the article, so it's not quite up to snuff yet. Another article requested on the hotlist of topics was Stellar magnetic field. The article has some content, but it's a big topic and there's plenty more that could be added. Please take a gander if you like. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC) Created this article, did not know what stubs needed to be added to it. Thanks, CarpD, 30/6/2007.
More work on astronomy articleI have a couple of additional questions on the material in astronomy where I would like some feedback:
Please let me know what your comments are on this, or else I will just change the article by myself. Dr. Submillimeter 13:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Category:UV Telescopes has been nominated for renaming to Category:Ultraviolet telescopes at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 4. This seems so mundane and uncontroversial that I do not expect the rename to be a problem, but feel free to comment. Dr. Submillimeter 21:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Ultra-cool dwarfs nameI have been reading different AJ papers and seen the following. Ultra-cool dwarfs for the so called "Y dwarfs". But other papers mention Ultra-cool dwarfs as anything after M6.5, (the beginning of the brown dwarf regime), M-L, and even just L-T+. Can someone verify this for me, since I am not sure which. Because if the term means anything after M6.5, then the stellar classification page needs an update on the Y dwarf section and the removal of the name, "Ultra-cool dwarf". Thanks, CarpD, 3/7/07.
The lesson here is that some astronomers use some informal terms very loosely. As a result, different authors may use the same term for different things. One of my personal favorites is the phrase "cold dust", as this could refer to temperatures ranging from 5 K to 30 K. For the stellar classification article, I suggest stating that the phrase "ultra-cool dwarf" could be used to refer to either stars cooler than M6.5 stars or Y-type stars while citing papers for each of these terms. Dr. Submillimeter 21:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Magnitude letterings U B V G R I J H K Ks L L1 M N Q Z - questions & inconsistencyWhile researching the values in wave length, I came across some inconsistencies and incomplete values.
Notes from the webaddress, Diane Dutkevitch's school notes. List UBVRIJKLL´MNQ. Thanks, CarpD 8/7/07.
Subdwarf deserve its own section in Stellar classificationAfter reading some papers, I think there needs to be a prefix section.
paper, states that:
What do you think? Thanks, CarpD, 7/11/07.
Galileo Galilei FARGalileo Galilei has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Constellations in popular cultureConstellations in popular culture has been nominated for deletion. 132.205.44.5 19:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Cosmosophy proddedUser:Banno on July 12 2007 WP:PRODed cosmosophy. 132.205.44.5 18:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
List of asteroids at AfDList of asteroids was nominated for deletion at WP:AFD by user:Cerejota as listcruft: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of asteroids. 132.205.44.5 21:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC) CallistoI requested peer review of Callisto (moon of Jupiter). Any comments are appreciated. Ruslik 16:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
proposed merger of Hypervelocity star and Runaway_stardiscuss here --mikeu 13:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The List of astronomical topics has been nominated for deletion. This list is truly unmaintainable. Please go comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of astronomical topics (2nd nomination). Dr. Submillimeter 14:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC) The sizes of the Large and Small Magellanic CloudsHi, I've asked this in another area, but haven't had any success in getting an answer, anyway, the Large Magellanic Cloud and Small Magellanic Cloud articles are in need of some attention. Specifically, nobody seems to know how big they are. There's been several contradictory and probably erroneous figures put up (some by me), ranging from 5,000 to 35,000 LYs (for the LMC). Now, in going through a few Websites I've found various estimates for the LMC, this site [14] says 39,000 LYs, this site [15] says "about 30,000 LYs", this page mentions the LMC being "about 7 kiloparsecs" which is about 23,000 LYs, this NASA page [16] says "Spanning about 15,000 light-years or so", etc. The Celestia Astronomy programme I have says the LMC is 32,000 LYs in Diameter. As for the SMC, well this site (listed above again) [17] says it's "3 kpc" which is about 10,000 LYs, this page [18] also says 10,000 LYs, while Celestia says it's about 19,000 LYs big. This page (again listed above) [19] ambiguously says it's "under 20,000 lightyears in diameter". So, as you can see it's all quite confusing, can anyone clear things up? Does anybody know the diameters of the Magellanic Clouds? Or at-least where to get the information? Thanks. --Hibernian 15:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC) AfD on Comets in popular cultureComets in popular culture has been nominated for deletion by user:Eyrian at 19:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC). The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comets in popular culture. 132.205.44.5 22:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC) List of stars with confirmed extrasolar planets → List of published extrasolar planetsChaos syndrome has proposed that List of stars with confirmed extrasolar planets be renamed as List of published extrasolar planets. (though there also happens to be a List of unconfirmed exoplanets, which contains published but unconfirmed planets...) . 70.51.8.214 07:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Solar nebula → Nebular hypothesisSerendipodous suggests that Solar nebula be renamed Nebular hypothesis. 70.51.8.214 07:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:AFD on Astronomical names in popular cultureAstronomical names in popular culture has been nominated for deletion by user:Eyrian. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astronomical names in popular culture. 132.205.44.5 22:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Superforce has been prodded by user:Creelbm on 04:08, 31 July 2007. 132.205.44.5 22:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Speculation that Iapetus is artificial has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speculation that Iapetus is artificial by User:Radiant!. 132.205.44.5 22:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC) User:RobertG has nominated Category:People with craters of the Moon named after them for conversion into the list List of people with craters of the Moon named after them. 132.205.44.5 23:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
TelescopesHI the main Hubble Space article is superb but the Telescope artice is quite poor indeed, Is there any way you could help write it professionally with references into a GA encyclopedia article. I came acrosss it just now expecting to see another great article and was quite disappointed with it compared to other work on astronomy on wikpiedia. It didn;t even had a history -I've added it - it just needs condensing and structuring and a great deal of work. Thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 17:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC) Category:Extrasolar planets with unofficial namesCategory:Extrasolar planets with unofficial names was created by user:Zazaban on 15 August 2007 and then nominated for deletion by user:ProveIt on 18 August 2007. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_18#Category:Extrasolar_planets_with_unofficial_names for the deletion discussion. 70.51.11.13 07:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC) This article has just been created. I left the message below on the creator's page "Hi, I'm no expert, but the subject of this article would already seem to have been covered in Star and the daughter articles Stellar evolution, Star formation and Main sequence. The content in this article should probably be merged into the relevant sections in Star and appropiate daughter articles. Exxolon 19:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)" Knowledgable editors may wish to look at this. Exxolon 19:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Great Comet of 1882Great Comet of 1882 is currently under review at Wikipedia:Good article review. If any members would like help keep this a good article please see the comments on the Good article review page. T Rex | talk 19:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC) AfD Nomination: 3 March 2007 lunar eclipse and 28 August 2007 lunar eclipseAre individual lunar eclipses notable enough that they should have individual Wikipedia articles? Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/28 August 2007 lunar eclipse. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. Discussions such as these usually last five days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. Peter G Werner 22:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Not inducted?Uhm, I just visited the article dealing with the Big Dipper/the Great Bear constellation and the article doesn't seem to be inducted into this project. How come? Lack of quality? Or is it simply overlooked? --Broadbandmink 19:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
January 0 AfDYour participation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 0 would be most welcome. -- Jreferee (Talk) 17:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC) AFD on List of extrasolar planet extremesList of extrasolar planet extremes was nominated for deletion by Chaos Syndrome, and then delisted. The article has been greatly reworked though. 132.205.44.5 22:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC) This article is currently a FA candidate. Please, participate. Comments can be left here.Ruslik 13:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC) 2006 definition of planet2006 definition of planet has an ongoing renaming debate on the talk page, and several non-consensus renames over the weekend. 132.205.44.5 00:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
True massTrue mass is a relatively new article I created (and a couple other editors have contributed to). Any help on it would be appreciated, and I'm also wondering if it falls under the purview of this WikiProject. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 22:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Milky WayA couple people have decided that the Milky Way is defined by a "hazy band of light" in the sky and that all the commentary about a galaxy should be subordinate to that or even moved to a seperate article. Could people take a look at Talk:Milky Way and try to foster common sense. I'm going back to my vacation, which I probably shouldn't have interrupted in the first place. Dragons flight 19:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure what purpose is served by opening up a "second front" on a discussion that is already ongoing at Talk:Milky Way with the same cast of characters but I will repost a rational here. Please note full text and references are posted at Talk:Milky Way: Rational When a college level text book states: "Don’t be confused by terminology: the Milky Way itself is a band of light that we can see from the Earth, and the Milky Way Galaxy is composed of a hundred billion stars plus many different types of gas, dust, planets, etc. The Milky Way is that part of the Milky Way Galaxy that we can see with the naked eye in our night time sky". -- (Contemporary Astronomy - Second Edition, by Jay M. Pasachoff, P.414), that is a statement of nomenclature. Nomenclature, if it is established, is not to be ignored or discounted. Scientific Nomenclature is a primary way of determining articles titles and subjects (Wikipedia:Naming conflict). Any claims that nomenclature has changed need to be supported by reference. Nomenclature is not established via Googling (unless you come across articles that specifically deal with nomenclature). On line sources seem to be following this nomenclature, differentiating between one "thing", Milky Way, and a second "thing", Milky Way Galaxy [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] (please also refer to Talk:Milky Way#Additional Sources). Searches on Google Scholar are currently being used in a biased non-neutral interpretation (something that should be specifically avoided re:Wikipedia:Search engine test#Search engine tests and Wikipedia policies ---> Neutrality). The bias comes from failure to properly intemperate the results (in fact no interpretation is being used at all, the editors are simply doing a word count, counter to Wikipedia:Search engine test#Search engine tests and Wikipedia policies ---> Notability). This brings in a bias along the following lines:
So far editors have expressed opinions that are just that, opinions, and not a basis for creating or structuring an article re: WP:V and WP:NPOV. Actual reference have to be cited, not opinion. The International Astronomical Union may be a definitive source on this but I can't find a reference. Sky feature nomenclature may fall outside their bailiwick of naming radiating and non-radiating bodies. Halfblue 16:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
AfD for Stanley DuninAn article is up for deletion where a key claim for notability is that this person might have been the first to "successfully calculate the way to inject a satellite into a geosynchronous orbit" Some expert opinions and reliable sources on the validity of this claim would be appreciated. Tim Vickers 01:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC) I nominated Callisto to FAC. You can leave your comments here. Ruslik 12:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Collaboration with journalsHi, this week Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals has selected Astronomische Nachrichten (aka Astronomical Notes) as our CotW. Perhaps members of this project would like to join in. Cheers, John Vandenberg 03:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Most_wanted_articles#Astronomy has been updated using the 2007-09-08 data dump. --Sapphic 17:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This article needs a rating or a good article review. I listed it at WP:GAC on September 16. Thanks. - Jehochman Talk 13:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Asteroid botHi! Eagle 101 and I and created a bot that would create articles on every asteroid we don't have articles on. Please provide your support or objection to the proposal here. Daniel Bush 17:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Dyson Sphere GA pushI recently nominated Dyson Sphere for GA status, and it was failed; however, it's close, and with some help we can get it there. In particular, the reviewers left suggestions on a few specific issues:
Thanks for your help. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Trojan planet was proddedTrojan planet was transwiki'd to wiktionary, and subsequently prodded by a bot. 132.205.44.5 02:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
category rename nominations
132.205.44.5 22:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC) New page to add to projectI just created SN 2005ap. It needs a lot of work obviously, just thought I'd let you guys know. --LiamE 13:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Extrasolar planet illustrationsHey all - not too many requests at Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Image Review recently. What fraction of extrasolar planet articles have illustrations? Do we want to get this to 100% If so, I'm ready to help.de Bivort 04:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Change to Manual of Style on measurement systemsThe section on choosing measurement systems has been changed from:
Into:
Comments on this change are welcome at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Units_of_measurement. Thank you Tim Vickers 18:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
17/P Holmes17P/Holmes is on the main page right now in the in the news section. Now is the time for any comet experts and or enthusiasts to come out and make the article shine. Just thought I would drop a note here. IvoShandor 15:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Gamma ray burstGamma ray burst is now a featured article candidate. We need help, especially expert help, so this high importance can pass. - Jehochman Talk 01:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC) How strong is the evidence for this being an intermediate-mass black hole? The article seems to start off stating straight out it is one, and then cites all the dispute about said status. Perhaps some more explicit hedging is indicated? Alai 02:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Astronomical changesUntil 26 July 2007 there used to be a "related changes" service which provided an up-to-date summary of every change made to an astronomical page on Wikipedia, and this represented the best tool available for combating vandalism on the Astronomy pages. Does anyone know what happened to this? On the deletion log it says "why not move it to the project that would have the most use for such a thing?"(see this), but I cannot find the related changes service on Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy. According to User:Sr13 the page was deleted on 26 July 2007. Does anyone know what has happened to the astronomical changes service (can it be found somewhere else on Wikipedia)? Rnt20 14:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Notice of List articlesPage(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me). This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity 19:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC) When I was your age, Pluto was a Planet at AfDWhen I was your age, Pluto was a Planet has been sent for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/When I was your age, Pluto was a Planet. 132.205.99.122 20:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC) This Scientific Peer Review project can hardly be called successful. While there have been a steady but small flow of articles submitted for review, the actual reviews have been either non-existent or in no real way different from those done through the standard Wikipedia:Peer review process. Some editors will recall that the project was started with an enthusiastic discussion about identifying expert reviewers through an elected board. Unfortunately as time went by, it became clear there was no consensus on whether we had a board, or on how it was to be set up or on what it was supposed to do. There was also a lack of consensus on what "sciences" we were covering, and on many other aspects. In the end we sort of lapsed into a minimal review process which has staggered on for about 18 months. I think it is time we decided what to do about the project. Unless people can come up with a new way forward and enthusiastically implement it, I think we have to declare that this project be no longer active in any sense and that editors should ask for review at WP:PR. I am posting this on the talk pages of the major Science WikiProjects. Please feel free to publicize it elsewhere. Please add you comments at Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review#Is this inactive?. --Bduke 01:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Denis DenisenkoGreetings! Can I bring this new article, Denis Denisenko, a Russian astronomer, to your attention please? He appears notable but the article clearly could do with some work (I have already attempted a cleanup). Thanks. --Malcolmxl5 05:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC) The article has been nominated for Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive.Nergaal (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Astrosociobiology at AFDAstrosociobiology has been nominated for deletion. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Surface features of celestial bodiescategories of Surface features of celestial bodies has been nominated to rename from cat:X on Y to cat:X of Y. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 9#Surface features of celestial bodies 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC) Greenspun illustration project: requests now openDear Wikimedians, This is a (belated) announcement that requests are now being taken for illustrations to be created for the Philip Greenspun illustration project (PGIP). The aim of the project is to create and improve illustrations on Wikimedia projects. You can help by identifying which important articles or concepts are missing illustrations (diagrams) that could make them a lot easier to understand. Requests should be made on this page: Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project/Requests If there's a topic area you know a lot about or are involved with as a Wikiproject, why not conduct a review to see which illustrations are missing and needed for that topic? Existing content can be checked by using Mayflower to search Wikimedia Commons, or use the Free Image Search Tool to quickly check for images of a given topic in other-language projects. The community suggestions will be used to shape the final list, which will be finalised to 50 specific requests for Round 1, due to start in January. People will be able to make suggestions for the duration of the project, not just in the lead-up to Round 1.
thanks, pfctdayelise (talk) 12:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC) (Project coordinator)
Royal College Astronomical Society needs cleanup.
Colour of F-class starsI always read these were considered yellow-white. Someone has just changed Canopus and Procyon to say white instead - has something changed recently? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Venus FARVenus has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Serendipodous 15:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Request for input re Science Super-CategoriesThere is a CFD discussion underway at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_December_15#Category:Physical_sciences regarding the relationship between, and possible merging of, two Categories: Category:Physical sciences and Category:Natural sciences. Thus far the discussion has attracted very few comments and it has been relisted. Two editors suggested asking for input from this Project, but as far as I can see there was no follow-through on that -- until now. So please give this some thought, and then share your thoughts at the CFD linked above. Thanks! --Bduke (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Star articles and navboxes - an idea by White CatI propose a navigation template for various stars. They are currently hard to navigate. Perhaps a 'constellation' navbox? I just had this idea and its pretty raw. -- Cat chi? 21:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
|