Well, given that this page was renamed without a clear consensus (just 2 users agreed), I'll revert it anyway to the old title within a week, if a clear discussion on it won't start. RobertoSegnali all'Indiano16:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
The move was all sorts of dodgy, but don't start an edit war over it. You could ask for the "uncontested technical move" to be reverted because it was anything but a consensus, but it did slide under the radar for several weeks so might get kicked back. Or start a proper move discussion instead of one hidden behind a couple of comments on the talk page. Lithopsian (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
@Lithopsian: That's why I wanted to open a discussion here. And I had to "force" a bit the discussion itself so I could've got some answers. I'm admin and 'crat in it.wiki since 2008 and I surely won't start an edit war here. :p RobertoSegnali all'Indiano20:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Short descriptions
Hello! I've been wanting to add manual short descriptions to articles as part of WikiProject Short Descriptions, but when I looked at exoplanet articles there was a discrepancy: some were labeled "exoplanet" and others were labeled "extrasolar planet" by Wikidata. I'd like some opinions on which description would be preferable, if any (for consistency purposes). Thanks! :) Supernova58 (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Supernova58, I would simply use "exoplanet", as our own article on the topic uses that term and it has really entered wide popular use. I can't say I'm surprised that en.wiki has firmly pushed its collective head into the sand regarding WikiData. I'm halfway expecting us to disable the import of data to infoboxes at some point. — Huntster (t@c)08:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
The short descriptions need not be manual. If articles include an infobox, then it is better to set the SD in the infobox template. e.g. {{Infobox galaxy}} in NGC 4701 could set a SD such as "Galaxy in the constellation Spike". Which infoboxes cover articles in the project? — GhostInTheMachinetalk to me08:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I haven't added them into the astronomy infoboxes I've been working on, as I'm very against this whole process of having locally defined short descriptions, rather than just using the ones from Wikidata and improving them there (which are also then used on Commons and elsewhere). I could probably add some code that fetches them from Wikidata and feeds them into the new template, but I don't know if that would be acceptable by those that are against using Wikidata for short descriptions, so I've not done anything yet. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Sorry - which idea? The short descriptions will soon not be fetched from WikiData and so many articles will not display a short description at all. A local short description could be created for every individual article, but it would be quicker and more consistent to set them in the infoboxes from the parameters provided to the infobox by the article. Category:Astronomy infobox templates lists 29 infobox templates. — GhostInTheMachinetalk to me14:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Indeed; the coding of {{infobox school}} automatically adds a short description on to whichever template it is transcluded; we could very easily set up a similar coding system in the various astronomy infobox templates. This would remove the need to edit thousands of articles. Primefac (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
The indentation wasn't clear? Okay, well I was responding to Mike Peel's message regarding writing code to fetch the info from Wikidata. Praemonitus (talk) 03:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Start with the templates in that category, compare their coding to the Astronomy infobox templates, an see about the best way of using the infobox inputs to define the short description output. Primefac (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
My favourite quote from amongst the drivel: "The deepening of the universe's gravitational well is currently driven by the deepening of the Earth's debt well." I can't work out if it is supposed to be ironic or deeply metaphysical. Lithopsian (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
FAR of Earth
I have nominated Earth for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Soumya-8974talkcontribssubpages18:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Radioactive decay powers supernovae?
Could someone else please try to explain decay does not power supernovae? I made a simple clarification edit months ago, but it was twice promptly reverted with no more discussion than "yes, that's what it says".
Either I am massively misunderstanding what that sentence is trying to say or @Lithopsian is, because supernovae happen just fine without anything heavier than iron-56.
174.70.79.141 (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
The problem is one of clarity. Radioactive decay does not power supernovae in the sense that it is not radioactive decay that causes them to go boom. But the explosion does create a lot of radioactive nuclei that get mixed in with the ejecta, and their decay influences the longer term light curve. For example, Nickel-56 has a half life of 6 days and decays into Cobalt-56 which has a half life of about 80 days, so the brightness of the post-supernova object is affected by these decays on weeks-to-months timescales. ReykYO!20:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Reyk is correct. Radioactive decay does not cause the explosion, but it does power the emission of light over the following days and weeks. This could certainly be explained (and referenced) better in the article. See also Supernova#Light_curves. Modest Geniustalk12:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
That conversation is not yet complete. So any move should await its conclusion. So this is just a non-neutral call of support at this point. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I want people to talk about that. But any oppose should be really motivated, not just "oppose because it's better now", but argumenting by bringing rules and facts, as I did the same. RobertoSegnali all'Indiano11:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
It's discouraging that there are so many misguided comments in that AfD. Citing WP:CRYSTAL with the possibility that the eclipse won't happen and/or citing that the sun/moon/earth are destroyed? Citing WP:TOOSOON as a guideline? Considering large compilations of eclipses "significant coverage"? To be honest I don't see one reasonable argument yet. Sam-2727 (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I apologize for slightly necro-posting (I really fecking hate the fact that page archiving hides all future notifications), but could I solicit some opinions on why we have these articles (specifically, eclipses after the 2020s but in general "this eclipse happened" articles)? I feel like "this can be calculated indefinitely" doesn't really meet any sort of notability requirement. Primefac (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
As I said in the deletion debates, I think these are worth keeping. There's too much content in the articles to be able to merge them into a list. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
What decade do you think it's worth not having articles about said eclipses? People right now are planning to attend eclipses in the 2030s (prime locations can fill up many years in advance). It seems simpler to me to just pre-make the articles now, as someone has already done, than to try to make a new batch every few years. That said, if there is a way to have all the important information in one list, that could work, but it might be hard to do. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
The 22nd Century, obviously. As far as the 21st century goes, Praemonitus did link to the "relevant info" list above. Primefac (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
As a general point of interest, I feel like none (even the "already happened" eclipses) really need to have an article; with the exception of some of the historically significant eclipses (either in antiquity, the Middle Ages, or the few articles from the 16th-17th centuries) there's nothing really in the articles except machine-created information; if people observed them, it's just as "it happened"; there's nothing significant about these eclipses. I think that's why they keep getting nominated (albeit rather randomly) and why I'm still looking for a valid reason to keep them. Primefac (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Proxima c isn't confirmed
Proxima c : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri_c has beem confirmed by just 1 reserch note written by 1 author. I suggest that Proxima c should be considered a candidate, especially considering that all the other articles in 2020 refer to Proxima c as a candidate. It doens't appear in the NASA exoplanet archive either. Plus the Proxima c page should be considered a stub article in my opinion. As a good practice I won't rever the edits made by the main editor of that page, but instead I would like to ask someone else to please do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertheditor (talk • contribs) 13:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
To be fair, works in RNAAS are NOT peer-reviewed. See [1]. That's not a death sentence, but in light of that it may be a little premature to make the call that it has been comfirmed. ChiZeroOne (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you ChiZeroOne, I agree with you. A research note written by two authors say they confirmed the planet, but I haven't seen any other peer-reviewed article confirming that. The 'multiple sources' he mention call the planet a candidate and the 'Searching for the near infrared counterpart of Proxima c using multi-epoch high contrast SPHERE data at VLT' paper actually says 'together with the unexpectedly high flux associated with our direct imaging detection, means we cannot confirm that our candidate is indeed Proxima c.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertheditor (talk • contribs) 13:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Indeed it’s unconfirmed that the directly imaged source is the same as Proxima c; that doesn’t mean Proxima c is itself unconfirmed. If the direct imaging detection was confirmed, that would provide even more evidence for Proxima c. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Publications in RNAAS are short reports of work in progress or simple results that don't justify a full paper. It is not a peer-reviewed journal. I would treat content in RNAAS the same way as a conference proceeding or the abstract of a talk - sometimes useful for background or peripheral info, but not something to relied upon for the very existence of an object. Having said that, the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia (a reliable secondary source) lists Prox Cen c as confirmed [2], though it's not clear why. I think the best solution is for the article to say that some sources regard it as confirmed, whilst others consider it still a candidate. Modest Geniustalk14:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your input Modest Genius [[User_talk:Modest Genius| I made the edit. I agree with you. I'm in contact with the main administrator of Exoplanet.eu so I can ask him. I suspect he based the status on the same only paper written by Fritz Benedict, as none of the other papers referred in exoplanet.eu seem to confirm the planet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertheditor (talk • contribs) 14:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't see an actual confirmation of the discovery. Just a study of what they can deduce given the data from the discovery. Praemonitus (talk) 23:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Right, that paper doesn't confirm the planet, but it does seem to consider it confirmed based on previous sources. Certainly it doesn't refer to Proxima c as a "candidate", while it does refer to Proxima d as one. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Proxima c has been independently detected by 3 or 4 different groups using 2 or 3 different methods (depending on whether the direct imaging detection is actually Proxima c) - even though it hasn't been formally confirmed, there's more evidence for it than there is for the majority of formally confirmed exoplanets. The paper I linked above seems to be a secondary source that considers the planet confirmed based on these independent detections (like the Extrasolar Planet Encyclopedia). In any case I'm not going to make any more edits to the Proxima c article for now. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
That's how I read it too, "assuming it exists as described, what further can we add". Overall, I'd say astronomers are treating it as very likely, but nobody has formally confirmed it in a peer-reviewed setting. Lithopsian (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Stub quality articles of Medium importance
Per this page, the count of stub astronomy articles rated of medium importance is now down to 369. If these articles really are of medium importance, they likely deserve to be brought up to Start status. Otherwise, they should probably be de-prioritized with a Low rating. If this mini project interests you, please consider contributing. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi - I've noticed a number of new articles about stars cropping up in the WP:NPP feed. A typical example would be NGC 1240. As a non-expert, I find it difficult to determine, from the sources provided, whether it would pass WP:NASTRO - my gut is telling me 'probably not', but I'm not sure where the 'HR Catalogue identifier' would be (if it existed) on those pages, or where to check to see whether it's on one of the relevant catalogues. I'm going to ping 1Muskmelon, as the articles' author, as any reply would probably be helpful for them. Thanks in advance for any guidance, GirthSummit (blether)12:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Girth Summit, One good resource is the Simbad database. It has options for looking at the academic literature on various astronomical objects. In this case there is nothing to be found on NGC 1240 so I would argue that you're right about non-notability. ReykYO!12:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) NGC 1240 is a one-sentence sub-stub. Articles that short are completely useless to anyone, regardless of whether the subject is notable. In this case it isn't notable either - SIMBAD, NED and ADS show no sources whatsoever, and googling just brings up Wikipedia mirrors and non-RS catalogue entries. Modest Geniustalk13:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Io and Europa as terrestrial planets
As part of the move away from adhering to only the IAU's definition of 'planet', I've mentioned at terrestrial planet that planetary geologists accept the Moon and sometimes Io and Europa as terrestrials. Lakadawalla counts Io, and I've seen illustrations that include Europa as well, I just forget where. Anyone know offhand? — kwami (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Added some refs. This may not be important enough a POV to be in the lead, but we should have somewhere that there's variation in whether the terrestrials are defined as the inner planets or as the rocky planets, as you see both approaches. (I've even seen Ceres included, though it's hard for me to see how Ceres is terrestrial in the geological sense.) — kwami (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Late stage stellar evolution template
I'm thinking about creating a "Navigation Template" for the late stages of stellar evolution (AGB Star, Planetary Nebula, White Dwarf, Supernova, etc) that would be analogous to the existing
Star formation template. I've never created something like that on Wikipedia, and I don't want to anger people by not following rules that I am unaware of. Is it standard protocol to get permission from some group within Wikiproject Astronomy to do something like that? If I make a template, and then star modifying existing articles to use that template, will that be bad form? If there is some agreed upon procedure to do this, where can I learn the rules?
PopePompus (talk) 02:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
calc axial tilt
I updated the ecliptic coordinates of the pole of 7 Iris, but don't know how to calc the axial tilt from that. There is some commentary about what the axial tilt means for seasonal temp fluctuations. Could someone fix? — kwami (talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
If you want to calculate the axial tilt, you first need to determine elliptical coordinates of the orbital pole. The angle between the orbital and rotational axes will be the axial tilt. Ruslik_Zero20:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Kheider, I tried but couldn't figure out how myself. It seems the wayback machine ignores the stuff past "details.html" when you enter the link. The internet archive captures the entire table though so you should be able to click on that specific object after archiving the main link [3] (see e.g. [4]). Sam-2727 (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
With my non-functionary hat on, it looks like all of the references given (in both locations) are based off the one arxiv source. Wait until other sources verify? Primefac (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Oh my. In my last email reply to them, I said that DR could potentially take a while; I definitely wasn't implying that they should go for the process that would take even longer! Primefac (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for this push SandyGeorgia, sounds like a great idea. I would like to help, but I have to confess I have trouble understanding the somewhat baroque TFA system. What updating needs to happen for them to be considered? They're all featured articles and I don't see any open discussions on problems with the pages (except this I guess), so what TFA conditions do they not satisfy? I'll be happy to pitch in once I understand what the need is. - Astrophobe (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Once I catch up on some other pages, I will run through each of the four articles and put lists on each article talk page. Generally, though, to start meanwhile, make sure everything is cited, and nothing is outdated. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I am starting in at Jupiter now ... will leave notes there which will give you an idea of things to look at on the other three. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
As an astronomer, I find the prospect of this conjunction rather underwhelming. Planetary conjunctions are common, though the specific combination of Jupiter and Saturn happens every 20 years or so (our article is great conjunction). It's only mildly interesting to look at, and calling this one a 'Christmas star' is just made-up nonsense. If you want to feature Jupiter and Saturn in the closest TFA slot that's fine, though the event lasts weeks and is already visible so don't feel bound to that date. I don't understand why Ganymede and Titan would be included - neither is visible to the naked eye, and they're just two of the numerous moons that are visible in telescopes. Modest Geniustalk17:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is actually trying to argue that this is a once per 800 years opportunity for a TFA about a conjunction. - Astrophobe (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Starbox issues
I have edited the sandboxes at {{starbox character}} and {{starbox observe}} for two small issues I ran into. The page layout at {{starbox character}}, not the template output itself, is cobbled together from the template itself which doesn't display except for a small yellow box saying "Characteristics" and a hard-coded demo template inside the documentation which doesn't quite output in the correct layout. I have altered this to display the actual template as for the other starboxes. There should be no changes on pages that use the template. In {{starbox observe}} I found a case where the template would produce trailing whitespace that in some cases produced a blank line at the top of the page where it was used. Luckily, {{starbox character}} is usually used immediately afterwards and it swallows the whitespace. However, I have added a fix so that what is actually a blank table row is not produced, just for the appmag_v field. This may occur in other templates or for other fields, I'm sure I've seen it happen but can't track down cases now. Maybe in {{starbox sources}} or {{starbox short}}? Lithopsian (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
universeguide.com is not a reliable source
Someone added a link to universeguide.com to IC_1101 to the "Discovery" section (I've since removed that entire section: see Talk:IC_1101). Poking around at that page, it does not include citations to where it got the included data, and has a bunch of inaccuracies or questionable statements. The author of the page states "This website was put together by me, John as a learning tool for PHP then ASP.NET and has grown and grown." which is makes this seem like not a good source to use for astronomy facts, especially given the existence of SIMBAD and NED. Given this, I don't think we should use this page as a source for anything in the astronomy sphere (science fiction citations are another question). A quick google for universeguide.com site:en.wikipedia.org turned up a number of uses of the page here; I'm guessing others have a better way of doing such a search. Is there a bot that can remove these links easily, and/or replace them with better links to e.g. NED? - Parejkoj (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Information from the website (from almost any website) should be regarded with some scepticism until it can be verified by an independent source, preferably a more reliable one. Lithopsian (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Big Freeze
Big Freeze is currently up for discussion at RfD. I thought you might be interested.
Also, looking at wikt:en:Big Freeze#English, the definition on Wiktionary needs a rewrite. Anyone want to give it a try?
I have nominated Jupiter for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
This is a monstrous data set of black hole masses. I am finding for candidates above 10 billion solar masses. This might take time if I do this alone, so I may as well ask for help. If you have any concerns regarding the reference, please leave your ideas here. It would be greatly appreciated.
Also, this is the same reference where the value of 196 billion solar masses was obtained for SDSS J140821.67+025733.2. I don't think this was raised in the earlier discussion here. SkyFlubbler (talk) 05:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Looks like you've gone down the wrong rabbit-hole. Deletion reviews are for overturning deletion decisions, generally on a technical basis (ie. close did not reflect the discussion). You also haven't made it clear what you wish to happen, especially since you have moved the article to draftspace and tagged the cross-namespace redirect for speedy deletion. I'm on the verge of removing the speedy deletion tag, but would be interested to hear what you really think should happen here. Are you planning to improve the draft? Lithopsian (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I have nominated Astrophysics Data System for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog FarmBacon05:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
While I am not sure about the guidelines of composite imagery in astronomy articles, Due to technical limitations I have used post-processing afterward to further enhance the image. Attached below I have taken a screenshot of a side by side comparison of an unedited screenshot of the Conjunction taken without the Barlow lens. The one on the right is the file in question after image stacking, processing, and stitching. I have linked it to an imgur link for the record. https://imgur.com/7nxgh1o I feel like the composite image stitch would provide far more quality content for the reader in comparison to the raw image. Following your note I have clarified further on the software used to process the image in the description, and I'd gladly provide more detail if required. --KSPFanatic102(talk)20:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
KSPFanatic102, Thank you for your response, and I should re-emphasize that I'm sure you had no ill intent. I posted here because I'm not an expert on our standards for astronomy images. But, based on my general experience with scientific publishing, I'd say the general rule is, "the more detail, the better". This is especially true in something like wikipedia, where authors are bound by the tyranny of word count limitations. -- RoySmith(talk)21:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Not sure about rules, but I would say as long as it's clear how the "final product" was achieved, that should be sufficient. As an amateur photographer myself, I understand what KSPFanatic102 means in their Commons statement, and would at no point assume there's anything hinky about how it was made. I've left more comments on the article's talk page. Primefac (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Want to ask NASA a question?
Hello WikiProject Astronomy! I'm Ed Erhart, part of the Wikimedia Foundation's Communications department. (You might know me better as The ed17.)
Have you ever wanted to ask an astronaut a question about living in space or the science that's done on the International Space Station (ISS)? Or perhaps you're expanding an article on human spaceflight and can't find a citation for an important bit of information? We're looking for community input on questions to ask a NASA astronaut.
For Wikipedia's 20th birthday, coming up on 15 January, and 20 years of continuous occupation of the ISS, we're working with Modest Genius to broadcast an interview with a NASA astronaut. Suitable topics would include Wikipedia's coverage of astronautics, scientific contributions made by crewed spaceflight over the last twenty years, and plans for the next two decades of spaceflight. We'll select the best questions to put to the astronaut.
While it's a bit trivial, I'd be curious to know what they do to deal with boredom during long missions. Have they invented any new microgravity recreations to while away the hours? What type of sports will people play in space? Praemonitus (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.
Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.
Do UGC 9796 and II Zwicky 73 refer to the same galaxy? I've seen some sources like this one say that they are, while others like SIMBAD say they are two different galaxies. Loooke (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I wrote down some problems with the article on its talk page, and am wondering if other editors think the same of the article. Courtesy @Astronome de Meudon: since he/she wrote the article, and @EN-Jungwon: since he/she assessed the article. Banedon (talk) 05:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Mass-asymptotic speed relation is a similar article that might also contradict itself, since it claims that "The relation was first predicted by Mordehai Milgrom in 1983; it was confirmed in a number of observational studies about twenty years later", yet the Tully-Fisher relation predates MOND. Banedon (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
The Tully-Fisher relation is something quite distinct from the MASSR, and from the baryonic Tully-Fisher relation (in spite of the similarity in names). But there is a more important distinction that you seemed to have missed. The MASSR is a theoretically predicted relation; the BTFR is an observed correlation. Observational determination of the BTFR confirms the Milgromian prediction. Astronome de Meudon (talk)
I have reviewed the article. It is a relatively recent theory but its notability is supported by a number of papers by other authors. The article certainly has problems as it stands (eg. it is far from universally-accepted that this is proof of MOND), and of course other editors could still refer it to AfD if they have serious doubts whether it should exist at all. Lithopsian (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
The theory (MOND) is not "relatively recent": it dates from 1983, roughly the same vintage as the dark-matter theories. And nowhere does the article claim that the relation is "proof of MOND". It simply notes the fact -- discussed at length in the Merritt (2020) reference -- that observational confirmation of a theoretically predicted relation is considered by many or most philosophers of science as strong evidence in favor of the predicting theory. The standard cosmological model predicts neither the MASSR nor the RAR, although theorists have tried, and continue to try, to accommodate those relations within their theory. Astronome de Meudon (talk)
I have nominated Globular cluster for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe17:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Should a star be included in a Constellation template if the article has been changed to a redirect to the list of stars for that constellation. Because there are quite a few that have been redirected, particularly in the 'HR' section. As an example: HD 19549 in {{Aries (constellation)}}. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
DGG, tt is very hard to show notability for educators. Her papers are from her time as a PhD student at the University of Cardiff and have multiple authors. She is now in education instead of research and that is trickier. Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society just means she is a regular member, not a Fellow as in US societies. Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy is just a teaching credential. It is too soon to say what sort of impact she will have in science education. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
these factors are exactly why I have asked. What is however unusual about the record is that almost all people whose proposed notability is in science education have been involved in much less work of importance when they were still in research. (Inm y experience, the only sure way to show notability of a science educator is by being president of the leading national association in the field) DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Disclaimer: I've met Roberts several times. The references in the article don't establish notability, and in a 10 minute hunt I couldn't find any reliable sources that do. Her research career was unexceptional; she led two papers in 2004 and 2007, which is no more than a typical PhD student does, and has just a few co-authored publications since then. (Her publication record should not be confused with the unrelated Sarah E. Roberts, a meteoriticist at the University of Tennessee.) The outreach & education role is certainly worthy, but hasn't received any coverage in reliable sources. Fellow of the RAS is just the standard category of membership. I don't think she meets WP:PROF or WP:NBIO. Modest Geniustalk13:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Articles on stars with exoplanets
There are several articles on stars with exoplanets that are separate from the article on the exoplanet itself. The problem is that these stars' only claim to notability is having exoplanets, and there isn't even enough information about them to make for a sensible article. User:Lithopsian has been AfD'ing these articles one by one [7][8], but I think this is a very laborious and haphazard approach. It would be better if people could come to an agreement on how to deal with these articles uniformly. My proposal would be to merge the star's article with the exoplanet article. As suggested by User:SevenSpheresCelestia and User:PopePompus, the target should be the star's article, as this allows for stars with multiple exoplanets to be dealt with sensibly.
Examples:
Well, the general rule is to have separate articles only when both the planet and the star independently satisfy WP:NASTRO. If the star is only notable because of the planet, the articles should be merged. If several planets are notable only because they're part of a multi-planet system, again those should be merged. NASTRO explicitly states that this is something to decide case-by-case: "Whether it is best to consolidate or to have individual articles should be determined on a case-by-case basis, on the relevant article's talk page". So I'm not sure there's a shortcut solution other than to consider them one by one. Where merger is appropriate, I would prefer the article to be located at the name of the star, just because that encompasses the whole system, but it's not particularly important as long as there are suitable redirects. Modest Geniustalk17:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, perhaps I phrased it badly; I'm not asking if these specific stars are independently notable, I'm just asking what to do when it is the case that they are not independently notable. Other possibilities would be to delete the host star's article, or to merge them under the exoplanet's article. If there is a consensus to merge them under the star's article this would be a shortcut solution, as we wouldn't need an AfD for every article. Tercer (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the general idea and with merging exoplanet stubs to their host stars, but I'm not sure that all of the articles you mention need to be merged. For example, Gliese 1061 has some notability independent of its planets, and Kepler-22b is a highly notable exoplanet, so it makes some sense to have separate star and planet articles. I also note that Kepler-26b is already a redirect to Kepler-26. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Gliese 1061 is a notable planetary system, which would justify having a single combined article on the star and its planets. However, there's nothing currently in the article to demonstrate that the star is independently notable - it just quotes entries in large catalogues and mentions the planets. It does not appear that any of those planets are notable on their own either, just as a combined system. Whether Kepler-22b is 'highly notable' or not is irrelevant to whether we should have a separate article on the host star - the star itself needs to pass WP:NASTRO on its own to justify there being two articles. Again there's nothing in the current Kepler-22 to demonstrate that it's notable independently of the planet. (In both cases there might be sources that establish such notability - I didn't do a detailed literature survey, just looked at the current articles.) Modest Geniustalk18:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Re Gliese 1061: However, there's nothing currently in the article to demonstrate that the star is independently notable - it just quotes entries in large catalogues and mentions the planets. There is at least this paper, although you're probably correct that: It does not appear that any of those planets are notable on their own either, just as a combined system. I wouldn't be against merging these.
Re Kepler-22: Again there's nothing in the current Kepler-22 to demonstrate that it's notable independently of the planet. True, but the articles have existed separately for almost a decade now and are both fairly developed (neither is a stub) so I don't really see the need for a merge...In any case, these should be discussed individually on the article talk pages. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah I glossed over that Gliese 1061 reference, because that's the object's discovery paper. Those never count towards notability, which has to be established by independent coverage, see WP:NASTRO. Discovery papers are a great source, particularly for basic physical parameters, but they don't establish notability on their own. Multiple mainstream media reports of that discovery would do so, for example. For Kepler-22, having an old article isn't grounds to keep it separate - all the material would still be there after any merger. Modest Geniustalk19:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I think these articles should be merged even if the star and planet(s) are independently notable. Our goal should not be to determine what is the minimal possible degree of notability, and create an article for each object that barely crosses that threshold. Having the planets and stars in separate articles will inevitably lead to duplication of information. Having a page for every barely notable object will lead to a bunch of one paragraph stub articles with little prospect of being developed into something more satisfying. I think the whole system should be described on in a single article, unless that would result in an excessively long article (which would not be the case for any of these exosystems right now). One other benefit to doing this would be to allow the inclusion of some planets which by themselves are not notable, as long as the system itself was. We'd have a well established scheme where each exosystem had one page with everything on it, rather than a mess of pages, many of which would establish "notability" by referring to some other object in the system (like this one:K2-315). The system's page needs to have a name, and naming it after the star seems most logical. Redirects could be made for specific planets within the system.PopePompus (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
If nobody puts forth a good reason not to, I'm going to be bold and start merging these articles starting on April 1, 2021 (because I'm a fool).PopePompus (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Need someone who can check some of the content, and mathematical formulae, at Supernova neutrinos. The article was created by a Wiki Ed student and looks pretty good, but is too technical for me to verify. Also, any recommendations to this new editor about how to find and use secondary sources in this field would be appreciated. Also listed at WT:PHYSICS. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@Mathglot: It indeed has problems. Early on, About 99% of gravitational binding energy... — Contrary to source cited. Source says 99% of emitted energy comes out as neutrinos, which is not the same as the gravitational binding energy. I'm not an expert, but I see statements which don't agree with my limited understanding, and trying to chase down citations either runs into paywalls or they don't obviously agree with the cited statement. The article needs someone who works in the field to straighten out, and a large dose of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH needs to be applied. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
@Tarl N.: thanks for your comments. Are there a few editors here or at the Physics project we could {{ping}} that you trust, that might be able to offer their thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 03:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Your article seems well-intended, but the topic is already well-covered under space race. It's unlikely that an article is still lacking about a topic with so widespread interest. I'd advise you to start by improving the existing articles rather than creating new ones. After you get more experience with Wikipedia you'd be more successful at creating articles. Tercer (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I just noticed Orcus (DP) and Salacia (DP); I am not aware that dwarf planets are called "DP"s. Is this valid terminology for abbreviating "dwarf planet" ? (It is not currently listed at DP (disambiguation) nor wikt:en:DP ) If this is valid terminology, it needs to be added to the disambiguation page and the wiktionary entry -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I recently did a fairly large overhaul of this page, but with only a handful of page watchers it might not get enough followup for a few discussions on the talk page. Nothing vital or crazy (and both discussions started in the last 24 hours), just a few things that could potentially use some extra input. Primefac (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Is the Milky Way 256,000 light years across?
Explorer King is a new user here. Most of his edits were on The articles for the Andromeda and Triangulum galaxies, as well as the Milky Way’s article. He added that the Milky Way was larger than the Andromeda galaxy, basing it on a radius of 129,000 light years. It seems that it came from a news article which says that the Milky Way is larger than the Andromeda, and bases that on a paper about the Milky Way’s Mass. Any thoughts? The Space Enthusiast (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Our galaxy has historically been considered to be quite a bit smaller than M31, ≈half depending on just what you're measuring. More recently, they have been considered to be quite close in mass and overall dimensions. More than one recent estimate makes the Milky Way substantially bigger, but I'm not sure that is considered the consensus yet. The results obviously depend on measurements of different properties of two different objects and most studies tend to measure one or the other, often favouring the one they're measuring and perhaps being semi-blind to studies that would contradict that. I haven't gone through enough recent papers to offer a strong opinion either way. Lithopsian (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Galaxies do not have well-defined edges, so any measurement needs to be accompanied by an indication of which radius is being considered (effective radius, Petrosian radius, Holmberg radius, dark matter core radius etc.) and whether the value has been corrected for inclination. It's only meaningful to compare values that use the same definition of radius. For the Milky Way, things are even more complicated as we're stuck inside of it and cannot measure any of those radii directly. Lithopsian is correct that there is debate as to the exact size of the Milky Way - we know the distance between the Sun and the Galactic Centre fairly well (also sometimes referred to as a radius) but extrapolating the structure in the outer regions is extremely tricky. I think most astronomers still regard Andromeda as bigger than the Milky Way, but not by as much as was thought a few decades ago. More generally, I would avoid taking galaxy radius measurements from popular media sources, as they are unlikely to comprehend the subtleties or state which radius definition is being used. Modest Geniustalk12:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I think we should keep the claim. While there are two sources are being cited stating that Milky Way might be bigger than M31 in the Milky_Way#Size_and_mass page, we should just explicitly state that it's just a speculation Bigboithena (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
NGC 179
Hi, I'm not an astronomer, but I have a concern about NGC 179 especially "This galaxy comprises several stars lost of interstellar matter and it can be possible to flatten more until they will faint." "flattening until they faint" sounds like something in the playground that merits a teacher intervening. ϢereSpielChequers09:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
WereSpielChequers, I've removed that sentence. Looking at some of the creator's other work, their English is poor enough that it's often hard to understand. As an aside, Betelgeuse was described as "fainting", but I don't think this is related.I also suspect that NGC 179 fails WP:NASTRO. Simbad gives me 39 articles that mention it, all of which appear to be surveys or catalogues. I haven't gone through each one to look for significant coverage, though. Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks both of you, I shall go back to my trawl of "lost of" reassured that we don't know of a beastie out there that is flattening galaxies until they faint. ϢereSpielChequers14:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Request for input on distinction between solar meridian transit and highest solar altitude
Would anyone please weigh in at the discussion at Talk:Noon#High noon, particularly with regard to how the nonspecialist terms solar noon and high noon relate to both the time of the Sun's meridian transit and the time of the Sun's highest altitude? Ibadibam (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Anyone know why Template:Sky is acting all weird now? It now seems to cut into the top of infoboxes for stars and such, and I recall it being a bit higher up then now. This wasn’t occurring a few days ago. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Hrm, no changes to the template in the last few months. I assume you're referring to the difference between (for example) Algol and Antlia, where the former looks right but the latter has the coords in the middle of the title? The articles look to be formatted the same, so I'm not seeing anything layout-wise that would affect things. It might be a change with the base infobox itself (as there have been some changes recently) but I don't know if that would affect the div used by {{sky}}. Primefac (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Transit of Venus for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't look like there's enough content to justify separate articles, or demonstrate independent notability per WP:NASTRO. I suggest you work on expanding the existing sections until a WP:SPLIT is required. Modest Geniustalk10:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry to start yet another discussion about IC 1101 but this time it is not about the overall size, it is the core size.
You see, I found this paper which says that IC 1101 has the largest core of any galaxy. The link is: [9]— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Space Enthusiast (talk • contribs) 01:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Currently it reads like a press release. Immicibility of helium and hydrogen under pressure has been known for years. So it is undue highlighting the researchers. "Rain" on these planets is speculation. For rain to be formed there is more than the existence of two phases required. And separation of two liquids is more like cream floating to the surface of milk, or slag from molten metal. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
That's a one sentence sub-stub, that cites a press release, a copy of the same press release on an aggregation website, and a blog (none of those are independent reliable sources). Why would we need a separate article on this? There are already discussions of possible helium rain at Jupiter#Internal_structure and Saturn#Internal_structure. If the new study has contributed anything substantially new to the topic, it can be added to those sections. Modest Geniustalk11:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Please watchlist and keep an eye on this dab page, as it keeps getting turned into a redirect to a video game. Thanks! Skyerise (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
A few people from the newly formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather have decided to create a task force dedicated to working on articles underneath the space weather branch of meteorology. Besides articles underneath the space weather category (including subcategories) and planetary atmospheric articles, what else should be included? I was also wondering if anyone here would be interested in helping to improve these articles as they fall underneath both our projects. NoahTalk02:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Currently rosette orbit is a redirect to Klemperer rosette, which is not the same thing at all. I noticed this as a result of reading the orbital eccentricity article, which originally (back in 2012) contained just the text "rosette orbit," that was later wikilinked to Klemperer rosette (possibly due to the existing redirect), and later still edited to explicitly include the "Klemperer." Sources mentioning "rosette orbit" (no mention of Klemperer) are cited on the talk page. Anyway, I reverted it back to the original, but that still leaves the problem of the bad redirect. I can't find anything on Wikipedia that actually describes what a rosette orbit is, or why a star would follow one, although confusingly there's the very similarly named Rosetta (orbit) (but that explicitly limits itself to relativistic precession)... So perhaps someone should write something about the topic, or delete the redirect, or something? I'll leave it up to more experienced editors to decide what's best. 89.168.85.237 (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm 90% sure that 'rosette orbit' is a non-technical synonym for 'rosetta orbit'. The former term does not appear in professional literature - just two ADS hits, both for conference talks. All the mentions I could find in non-technical sources were of orbits that precess due to relativistic effects, consistent with our rosetta orbit article. I therefore favour redirecting there, or a disambiguation page could also work. Modest Geniustalk15:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Not sure if there's a specific term for it, but my understanding is that rosette-shaped orbits apply to the motions of stars in globular clusters and to clusters in a galaxy. Perhaps some type of disambiguation page is needed? Praemonitus (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
The news story[10] says, "The radial extent of the multiring measured along the satellite's surface is 7800km." I suppose if it is measured circumferentially across the sphere from the impact point, it could extend that far. Is it even a crater at that point? Praemonitus (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
The paper is Bibcode:2020Icar..35213941H, published online July 2020. I don't have access to the full text, but from the abstract they seem to be saying that the entire surface of the moon was disrupted by a single impact. That isn't a 'crater' per se, and nor does it have a well-defined size - equivalent area will give you a different value than circumference. I favour not including it in the list. Modest Geniustalk14:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
To be fair, this will be true of any crater on a spherical body, the area of a Spherical cap is not , but . It's just that usually the crater is so much smaller than the body that this difference is negligible. That said, I don't think this feature of Ganymede counts as a "crater". Tercer (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
This is a recently created category and I assume it has something to do with astronomy. But it doesn't have any parent categories so I do not know how it fits into the Wikipedia category structure. If some knowledgeable editor could assign it some parent categories or tag it for CFD deletion if it is nonsense, I would appreciate it. Thanks much. LizRead!Talk!02:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I just went and removed a bunch of references and external links to "astronoo.com". It appears to be a blog-like source, is full of ads, doesn't have any of its information sources linked on the various pages, and is an automatic translation of a French page. This seems to be not at all the kind of source we should be using for scientific articles on Wikipedia. I think I removed them all, but this is a notice others to keep an eye out if they re-appear, or if I missed any. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
List of most luminous stars / List of brightest stars
While going through Astronomy, Popular pages, I found these two lists
At article Canopus I added both to "See also" and am now wondering, while each is different, might the titles be changed? Me not being an astronomer, how can each list name be clarified? Or are they okay as is? JoeNMLC (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
The list of most luminous stars is based on absolute magnitude which assumes that all stars are at the same distance. This allows a side by side comparison to determine which star emits the most light. The brightest stars list is based on apparent magnitude as viewed from the distance from Earth. An intrinsically bright star at a great distance will then appear less bright than a dim star that is very close per the inverse-square law. I'd say that having both is ok. It depends on which metric the reader is interested in. --mikeutalk22:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I do think that the intros to the lists could be improved to clarify this distinction. --mikeu
@Modest Genius: Thank you for your lead rewrites, and Yes both are much clearer now. I did tab them in my browser side-by-side so I could flip back & forth. My knowledge of astronomy is not that deep but the leads for both these articles are much improved. THanks again. JoeNMLC (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Popular pages bot
It has been about a year since I looked here to check Popular pages bot. As of today there are 25 entries for WP not updated for July's monthly run. Click on right-side "Updated" columns sorts the table to view by date sequence. The bot is not perfect, and does stall out sometimes. Generally problems can be from the wikicode on a wikiproject talk page configuration, or at the bots configuration page for each wikiproject. Looking at details for WP Astronomy, entries look correct. For Talk:Skathi (moon), I updated to use full WP names (uncertain if this will help), and added Annual readership stats graph to help monitor daily numbers. JoeNMLC (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I did a complete overhaul of this article because it was filled with unnecessary background information, severely oudated (often using future tense from before the project bagan), and scantly referenced in many places. About 3/4 of the content was deleted in the process. It could still use some fine-tuning by making sure that the references actually support the text and updatng the results section. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Looks good. I've copyedited the lead and given the current status - observing is complete, but analysis is ongoing and only 3 years of data have been released so far. The results section could do with expansion, but that probably requires someone with expertise in cosmology. Modest Geniustalk11:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
@JoeNMLC: Please do not slap the {{expert needed}} tag on an article just to draw attention to it. There needs to be a serious issue that isn't addressed by another cleanup tag, such as the stub sorting template that is already on all three articles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Frankly I find the list pretty dubious. It should only contain stars that satisfy an error range criteria; say 5% or less. Praemonitus (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
