OOOOk… sorry if this is un-cyclopedic but for the life of me I can’t remember this… there was a star, called “star of saint catherine” o “saint catherine’s star” because pilgrims going to saint Catherine’s monastery could see it right above the monastery, sparkling and twinkling… anyone knows what the proper name of this star is? I’m looking around on the web and can’t find it, and I have no access to my books for the next weeks…
Well, sorry for the semi-unrelated matter, and thanks in advance!Idonthavetimeforthiscarp15:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
YES! It's Canopus, thank you RJH!
@ChiZeroOne eheheheheh well the important thing is i found the answer ;P
i'll squeeze the info into the canopus article too ;P
thank you all ! Idonthavetimeforthiscarp15:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
There's a redirect Extrasolar system ... is this really an appropriate redirect? It points to exoplanet, and not planetary system or star system. Though, in I think, 2004, someone created a whole batch of now-deleted categories that categorized everything outside the Solar System into "extrasolar system", so even the linkage to planets is not automatic since that person from early 00's used a different definition. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 07:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
There's a question about the Phobos & Deimos orbits at the Graphic Labs. The question is basically if the P&D orbits should pass closer to Jupiter. Reply here or there. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books}18:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The new article Lorenzo Iorio was deleted at AfD but then been resurrected through DRV. It seems to have a whole load of problems with sources and a potential conflict of interest. I've tagged a bunch of these and brought up several issues on the talk page; could someone familiar with either his science or the way we handle other articles on current academic astronomers take a look? I'd appreciate a second opinion. Thanks. Modest Geniustalk02:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I suspect the difference is becuase the radio source will have been observed earlier than the actual optical-light confirmation (made by Baade and Minkowsky, as you say) of the galaxy responsible. ChiZeroOne (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
"Cygnus A" is a name for a radio source, and the paper you linked to is about identication of optical sources related to radio sources, so one is the discovery of Cygnus A, the radio source, the other is the identification of the optical counterpart of the radio source. In your paper, the sources have already been discovered, so there is no "discovery of a new object" there, just the identification linking an optical object to a radio object. 65.93.13.129 (talk) 05:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think semi-protection of the page could be justified yet. I see that not a single warning has been placed on any IP talk page...that would be a start. If they are persistent after repeated and final warnings then a rangeblock could be placed on the groups of IPs they use by an admin. ChiZeroOne (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
At present, semi-protection would be declined due to insufficient volume (I've asked for it elsewhere before, with mixed success). As far as warnings go, any given IP makes one or two edits, and then isn't re-used. Warnings on IP talk pages would be futile. It's been explained to them repeatedly in edit summaries that this is not appropriate material, and they continue to revert, with edit summaries that make it clear that they don't accept this. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't be against that, but fiction that directly deals with the heat death of the universe could be argued to be relevant (per any other "in popular culture"/"in fiction" section). The problem with this anime is that it has absolutely nothing to do with the article's topic, as far as I can tell. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
astrology and pseudoscience
Astrology is currently protected due to attempts to deny that it's a pseudoscience. Some of the people on the talk page appear to think they are approaching consensus to do the same once it goes off protection. Just a note in case anyone here wants to chime it. — kwami (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I wanted voice support for a strong statement in the lead that astrology is a pseudoscience, but that talk page is much too much to get involved in. I'll try to dig up anything authoritative on the matter. My favorite discussion of this is the one at Bad Astronomy, but that is not really going to be useful here. James McBride (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
What would it take to resolve this? No amount of independent and published sources will satisfy those who believe it is not pseudoscience (a classic trait of the practitioners of pseudoscience). However, for the sake of providing something useful, the following webpage has a nice citation list: Astrology Entry in the Skeptic's Dictionary.Astrocog (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
No matter what we say, every couple months a couple astrologers will get together and claim they have consensus to change it. Basically, I think it would be nice if some of the people on this project would keep it on their watch list to revert non-consensual changes. (Maybe you already do.) I don't expect people to counter the claims on the talk page point by point, which would be a waste of time, but when an alleged "consensus" is developed, it would be nice if a few would chime in and say this has been gone over many times before, and that the current article does reflect consensus. (Though of course any contributions in content would be useful, if you feel it's worth your time.) IOW, basically just policing the article and giving voice to the silent consensus. — kwami (talk) 04:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Considering the recent flap with Ophiuchus, Western Modern Astrology is not even pseudo-science, it's completely calendrical numerological mysticism. Ancient western astrology atleast was pseudo-science (they could identify constellations and knew what the sky looked like), and some other traditions that are not found in Western Civilization's newspaper columns do actually look at the sky. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 07:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):
{{cite journal
|author=John Smith
|year=2000
|title=How to Put Things into Other Things
|journal=Journal of Foobar
|volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4
|arxiv=0123456789
|asin=0123456789
|bibcode=0123456789
|doi=0123456789
|jfm=0123456789
|jstor=0123456789
|lccn=0123456789
|isbn=0123456789
|issn=0123456789
|mr=0123456789
|oclc=0123456789
|ol=0123456789
|osti=0123456789
|rfc=0123456789
|pmc=0123456789
|pmid=0123456789
|ssrn=0123456789
|zbl=0123456789
|id={{para|id|____}}
}}
Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books}02:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. The arXiv template has an archive option; does one simply use the full path including the archive now? Or is there a separate archive option? Example: id={{arXiv|archive=astro-ph|id=0603770}} => id=arXiv:astro-ph/0603770 —RJH (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah just put the full path.
{{cite journal
|author=R. O. Gray ''et al''
|year=2006
|title=Contributions to the Nearby Stars (NStars) Project: Spectroscopy of Stars Earlier than M0 within 40 parsecs: The Southern Sample
|journal=Astronomy Journal
|volume=132 |issue= |pages=161–170
|arxiv=astro-ph/0603770
|bibcode=2006AJ....132..161G
|doi=10.1086/504637
}}
becomes
R. O. Gray; et al. (2006). "Contributions to the Nearby Stars (NStars) Project: Spectroscopy of Stars Earlier than M0 within 40 parsecs: The Southern Sample". Astronomy Journal. 132: 161–170. arXiv:astro-ph/0603770. Bibcode:2006AJ....132..161G. doi:10.1086/504637. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)
As long as it is countered by reason and logic, such otherwise flaky things are perhaps an opportunity to promote some astronomical knowledge. :-) —RJH (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I've made a request for a bot to try and guess bibcodes for the most popular astronomy journals / journals with the biggest presence in the ADSABS database. Feedback is welcome. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books}03:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Renaming List of molecules in interstellar space?
The List of molecules in interstellar space article contains several molecules that have only been found in circumstellar space. I think it would make sense to rename it to List of interstellar and circumstellar molecules. Before moving this article, I wanted to see if there were any issues you might have. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Holy smokes, those citation edit bots are running amuck. This makes it difficult to monitor articles for vandalism. I hope they will be done soon.—RJH (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Stansberry, J. (2007). "Physical Properties of Kuiper Belt and Centaur Objects: Constraints from Spitzer Space Telescope". The Journal of Business. arXiv:astro-ph/0702538. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
which is pure nonense. It should be
Stansberry, J. (2007). "Physical Properties of Kuiper Belt and Centaur Objects: Constraints from Spitzer Space Telescope". arXiv:astro-ph/0702538. {{cite arXiv}}: |class= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
This seems to affect several infoboxes and is too systematic to be due to random vandalism. It's either a dedicate vandal, or a malfunctioning bot. Someone should look into this (and cleanup the mess, I've done a few, but this is a slow process) Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books}16:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't the journal name be Astrophysics rather than arΧiv:astro-ph/0702538? To be blunt, the "Cite arxiv" template is a horrible idea, and should never be used when the article was published in an actual journal. — Huntster (t@c)06:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I actually had meant to revert myself, just not in that fashion, because I realised after the fact that I wasn't certain about the use in this situation. I read the year=2007, and figured it must have been published already. — Huntster (t@c)08:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Er, what? It's been published[2], and that citation as it currently stands is incorrect. This is worrying. I really wish these bots linked to the ADS record instead of arXiv, handy as arXiv is. Iridia (talk) 02:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
You're a language editor, not astronomy editor, as far as I can tell; And this is an astrology article, since it is a term coined by an astrologer for astrologers to use. 184.144.166.85 (talk) 05:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with kwami on this one. I think this article seems to give astrology undue merit. It also seems to have original research, with the claim about mag 8 earthquakes and dates of lunar events near the end.Astrocog (talk) 10:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Assistance req'd - major edit intended to be appended to stub. "7604 Kridsadaporn"
Dear Wikipedia community,
I am very ne wat thgis - just 1 month since registering for a username and findinmg it all a bit daunting. I have written what is intended as a major edit to append to 7604 Kridsadaporn in my user subpage Article draft folder.
I hope that any one that has a few spare moments can comment upon this draft - I am not confident enough to append to that stub as I feel there must be many things to consider or alter before it could be considered being worthy of the quality required to put into main-space articles.
The part that most worries me is perhaps the heading "Discovery and naming" - many Google/translate references to the Thai langauge - I don't know if Google/translate is an acceptable reference source for Wikipedia standards. If not, can I simply leave those references out and leave the text as is ??? - leaving it up to the reader to translate themselves if they need. The reference numbers [8] and [10] are bothering me most.
As mentioned I feel like a bull in a china shop - lacking the sofistication of experienced editors - as mentioned before, its been a single month since first registering at Wikipedia. Hope you can help me, please. --NehruR42 14:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NehruR42 (talk • contribs)
(edit conflict) I've not been through it in any great detail, but that looks like a good draft. It's properly referenced and mostly well formatted, and once it's in the main article space other editors will gradually improve it over time. Please be bold and incorporate it into the 7604 Kridsadaporn article!
Once you've done that, I do have two suggestions, though neither is major:
The discussion on the name is rather over-involved and could be reduced to a couple of sentences simply stating what the name means. You could also get rid of the Google Translate references you mentioned.
The Tisserand parameter is mentioned in a strange order - it would be better if the article followed an order something along the lines of 'the Tisserand parameter (which means <xxx>) for this asteroid is <yyy>. This is usual because few asteroids had previously been found with these values of the Tisserand parameter' and so on.
Thanks for taking the time to contribute, and don't be afraid to add to articles - if your changes are straightforward improvements and expansions then there's really no need to ask for approval first. Modest Geniustalk16:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
This article is really unbalanced. It used to be called traditional star names, now it's just a section in the renamed article, except there is nothing else. It appears to have been a campaign last year by a user to remove "traditional name" from the titles of several star-related articles, because they are not "traditional in astronomy" (though, I think stars exist outside of astronomy terms as well... in culture, where there are traditions) 65.94.45.160 (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. The use of the term "proper name" seems pretty conventional and the meaning is clearer. "Proper names" are also used to designate the names of bodies in the Solar System as well as galaxies and nebulae, so it's not just stars.—RJH (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I came upon this on an "Articles for Translation" page. It is a somewhat awkward translation from French Wikipedia. In a perfect world, it would benefit from the attention of someone who knows both astronomy and French, but the next best thing would be some copy-editing by someone familiar with astronomical terms. Thanks, Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Not everything has been translated, particularly, the notes (not references, but notes) have several that are not translated. The translation also left several references behind at the French Wikipedia which were not transferred over to English Wikipedia when it was translated, leaving missing references. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
It seems like a useful approach as long as the overlaid animated image displays at the correct location in everybody's browser.—RJH (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't actually flash, it's more a pulsing effect. But I think a static indicator would look better. That's what's used on geographic place articles, which have presumably had rather more discussion on this point. Modest Geniustalk11:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Just to make clear, there is nothing in the article that suggests the comment "Many now believe that Gliese 581 g may not exist at all. Instead, it may simply be a result of noise in the ultra-fine measurements of stellar 'wobble' needed to detect exoplanets in this system." came from The Astrophysical Journal, it is an opinion of the writer on the current state of the astronomical community's thoughts on the matter. This is the problem in reporting on science as fact when "facts" only come into being after long and vigorous debate turns into established dogma. These proposed planets are an important part of the history of the study of this star system, I don't think we need yet erase them from the record until the dogma has fully taken hold. I do think however it would be appropriate to place "(unconfirmed)" after the planets in question in {{Gliese 581}}. ChiZeroOne (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Vetting needed on "stellar core collapse" draft article
I'm posting here on the suggestion of RJH. I am writing a fairly substantial article on stellar core collapse. Because of the scope of this topic, its technical nature in parts, and its connections to numerous fields (physics, astronomy, cosmology) I would like to ask in advance for any users prepared to review it for accuracy, omissions, and "latest research findings" before I move it to mainspace. Would anyone interested or knowledgeable please let me know on my talk page. Estimated timeline - not less than 3 weeks and maybe more as I have a lot left to do before I would feel I've done "all I can".
with the 100th anniversary of AAVSO this year, it might be a good time to improve the article. The current "Astronomy" magazine has a profile on the organization. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Guys, can you help expand NGC 4444? I found this a heavily tagged stub. I did some fixes and added some refs but I can't translate some of the astronomy data like coordinates and other stuff.--Lenticel(talk)00:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
You appear to be hashing it out on the talk page. That's probably the best place for it. I'd suggest holding off on the reverting to see if the editor can reach a reasonable compromise, but I know that isn't always possible.—RJH (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, as you undoubtedly know, he is correct in that Halton Arp has been a long time critic of the Big Bang theory in general, and there is no reason to try to suppress that. (Other notables include Hannes Alfvén, Geoffrey Burbidge, Fred Hoyle and Robert Gentry.) Whether this article is the best place for it, I don't know, but it might be better to collectively discuss the opposition to the theory in an article. That way we are in compliance with WP:NPOV. (See, by way of comparison, Objections to evolution.)—RJH (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, those also apply. I'll mention it, but as I said, he's completely ignored all my other suggestions, and he doesn't understand the papers he is citing to claim support for his fringe idea. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Orphadeus has now completely re-written Extinction_(astronomy) making it full of falsehoods, inaccuracies and misleading statements, and removing most of the valid scientific references and discussion. I have pointed some of these problems out on the talk page, but Orphadeus has not responded to any of my comments on the talk page, and has kept making the same inaccurate changes. Now what? - Parejkoj (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a pretty ridiculous rewrite, which that user laughably refers to as 'near-perfect'. If you think there's a systematic problem with this user, can provide evidence, and have tried to address the problems on both the article and user talk pages, I suggest you bring it up on WP:ANI. Modest Geniustalk19:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Although it is not related to astronomy, my past experiance with this user (see Talk:Number of the Beast#The gospel of Mark), combined with his behavior in other articles confirms to me a complete inability or refusal to grasp WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. The fact that he had have the word "archive" explained repeatedly (see his talk page) really doesn't make him look like a productive or competent editor. I would not recommend steering him to simple Wikipedia, because I believe he would only cause problems there as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
195.245.149.70(talk·contribs·WHOIS) has recently made a series of edits to several cosmology articles, mostly concerning heat death and related concepts. It's hard for me to tell whether the edits are legitimate or not; if someone with expertise could look them over, that would be handy. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Looks legitimate enough to me. Not the best-explained prose ever, and could do with referencing, but the concepts seem to be right. Modest Geniustalk21:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
New stub types
Hi all - just a heads-up that two new stub types relating to your project have just been created:
The first of these should greatly reduce the nmber of stubs loose in the main Category:Astronomy stubs and will be a subcategory of it - the second will be a subcategory of the existing Category:Moon stubs. Any help youn can give in moving articles over to the new stub types will be greatly appreciated, though much of it will be done by WP:WikiProject Stub sorting. If you've got any comments or questions, please drop a note at WT:WSS. Thanks - and I hope the new stub types are useful to you! Grutness...wha?02:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
A couple more astronomy-related stub types have been proposed at WP:WSS, as well - input from your WikiProject would be very welcome here! Grutness...wha?11:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Mmm, well moving stub templates from one type to another doesn't seem to be especially useful activity. I'd rather just work on creating and improving articles. Sorry. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't matter - they're all done now. As to not being especially useful, it'll now be far easier for members of your project to find the stub articles. Anyone interested specifically in eclipses will have all the stubs relating to them in one place separate from unrelated articles. I'd say that's a pretty useful thing. Grutness...wha?02:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
There is a guy who is interested in that. He even tried to make his very own wikiproject on eclipses (actually two, one for solar, one for lunar). 65.94.47.63 (talk) 07:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
That's useful. I had a glance through, but couldn't see any major research observatories. That suggests we're actually doing fairly well. A few points:
Why are the US states listed individually rather than in a section entitled United States?
Several of the articles listed are actually telescopes which don't have coordinates, but the article on the observatory they are part of does. For example, the Siding Spring 2.3 m Telescope has no coordinates but the article on Siding Spring Observatorydoes have coordinates. Same for MPG/ESO telescope / La Silla Observatory and Discovery Channel Telescope / Lowell Observatory. Of course it would be nice to have precise coordinates of each telescope, but I'm guessing there are many more telescope articles missing this info. Bad categorisation?
An anon recently commented at Talk:Gamma-ray burst#PBH Evaporation claiming that there is now strong evidence that short-duration bursts are due to primordial black hole evaporation. The link they provide is to a conference paper, not a journal paper, and it doesn't appear to be a survey article (so it reflects one group's opinion rather than academic consensus). That said, astronomy is not my field. Would someone who follows the literature be willing to check to see if consensus has changed in the last few years, and comment at that thread? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
For your convenience, here is the current delta. (I find it easiest to do a comparison between just before it hits the front page and just after it leaves the "Recently featured" list. By that time most of the vandalism has been removed.) Regards, RJH (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Most of the changes in that diff look fine to me, but there's one change in the last paragraph of Gamma-ray burst#Progenitors that could use vetting. "...such as galaxy halos and intergalactic space" was changd to "...such as elliptical galaxies and galaxy halos", with the reference remaining the same. If someone with expertise in the field could verify that the reference does indeed say that, that would be handy. There was a similar change made earlier in the text, but not as closely coupled with a reference. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I changed this article to a Start class as it did not seem to fit into the category of a Stub. I am currently working on it for references as it looks like a lot of the references were only placed once in the article by the previous editor(s). A second opinion on it would be nice though. Marx01Tell me about it00:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
It is currently rated stub. I think it should be upgraded to start. Also any feedback on the article (is it comprehensible/hopelessly confusing) would be much appreciated! Once I understood what an eclipse season was, eclipse frequency and cyclity made a whole lot more sense. --TimL (talk) 03:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I just created an article, ULAS J1120+0641, about a newly reported quasar with the largest redshift ever measured. It is possible that a mention of this will shortly appear in the In the News section on the front page, so if there are any actual astronomers around who could give this a quick once-over to check for errors, it might perhaps be useful. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Just for the record, the regulars at ITN contacted me before they posted. I gave it a going over before it went up on the Main Page. It's not the best article on the planet (certainly wouldn't pass GA in its current state), but at least there aren't any actual errors I'm aware of. Modest Geniustalk22:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I was reading a book about the origin of elements, and it was great reading. I looked for an article in WP that summarized the source of elements, but I could not find one. I see there are a few articles related to the topic: Nucleosynthesis, Big Bang nucleosynthesis, Stellar nucleosynthesis, and Supernova nucleosynthesis. But I was looking for a table/list that enumerated the elements and identified the process that generated them (at least, the most common process). Question: Is there such an article already in WP? Would such an article have merit? I've got a few sources already, but are there additional sources that others can recommend that cover the topic? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
In the articles about neighbourhoods of the Sun, such as Local Interstellar Cloud, Local Bubble and Orion–Cygnus Arm, I think it would be a great improvement to include some kind of estimate on the number of stars in them. The LB article, for example, opens with an image that while aesthetically pleasing might give a layman the impression that the Sun and β CMa are the only stars there, which is of course terribly wrong. Now, I think I understand that the problem here is that we don't really know enough about these things to be able to say for sure. But even knowing if a star count is closer to 100, 103, 106 or 109 would be great information for those of us who constantly get lost in the vastness of our home galaxy. Perhaps what would be really interesting to know is the approximate proportion of all visible objects (or all objects above some threshold of apparent magnitude) that are located in the region in question. Just a suggestion from someone too ignorant to implement it himself. :) 85.226.206.229 (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd think that finding an absolute count on the number of stars in those regions would be rather difficult. But you might be able to find a total mass estimate. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
1) For the really faint low-mass stars and brown dwarfs, we can barely detect them at all, let alone all the way to the edge of the Local Bubble. And the bubble itself is probably open at both ends, extending into the halo. I agree that the NASA image with only two stars in it is misleading, but don't know how we could do better. If you want a better impression of how many stars are inside the bubble, take a look at the plots in . Bibcode:2010A&A...518A..31V. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help) (which of course only plots stars that were included in their analysis, the true number would probably be at least ten times that many). The LIC is another issue, because it's not really a region within which stars reside, but a poorly-defined and very difficult to measure cloud of gas.
2) There is a big problem with the standard 'Salpeter' IMF - if you integrate the total number of stars, you get infinity. The total mass is a fixed number for some given set of IMF parameters, but the IMF predicts an infinite number of very small stars. This is clearly incorrect, and has been known about for decades, but without a good understanding of a) fragmentation within star formation and b) the numbers of brown dwarfs and other low-mass products, we have no idea what the correct form of the IMF should be at low ends. On top of that, the IMF is for a fixed burst of star formation, whilst the population of e.g. the Local Bubble or a spiral arm are from many generations of star formation, over a long time, during which many of the higher mass stars will have come to the end of their lives. All of this means we can't use the IMF to predict the number of stars in those regions.
3) RJH has a good point on total mass estimates, which may be possible. I've never seen any for the regions you mention though (and the Local Bubble is an area I do actual research in). Modest Geniustalk20:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your interesting replies; I certainly do appreciate the difficulties involved. Perhaps we could have, in at least some of the cases, an estimate on the number of known stars? That would be a lot lower than the actual number, but it would still remove the reader from possible extreme misconceptions. 85.226.206.229 (talk) 08:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Is the ISS as bright as Venus, Brighter or comparable ? Is looking through a telescope at the ISS even astronomy ? is it an astronomical object ? We could use some help here. Anyone got 10 minutes ? Please come to the ISS talk page to help. Penyulap talk15:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated International Space Station 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.
Please understand, this is about an effort to improve the article, and get some new blood and new ideas into this article. Penyulap talk15:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The ISS and HTV photographed using a telescope-mounted camera in 2011 by astrophotographer Ralf Vandebergh (left) and the International Space Station in a time exposure (right)
My apologies, I thought I had seen overlap when I had looked to find a definitive answer to the question, are satellite spotters astronomers ? The many people who photograph the international space station using telescope mounted cameras use the term astrophotographer, and their activities are within it's common-use meaning, but as for it's technical meaning, astronomy seems to be the observation of astronomical objects, and the ISS as with other artificial satellites appears to fall outside the definition of astronomical objects. However, no mention or guidance was obvious to me on the pages, as I had seen them when I went looking. I thought this may be of interest. I thought that by assisting answering these simple-ish questions, you'd come back to your own pages with a fresh perspective allowing you to see the possible omissions regarding man-made objects in the heavens. Places where a little more clarity may be considered for the definitions. Sometimes it's not easy for (you) absolute experts in a field to see it from a novice perspective, so a small holiday in a fresh perspective helps. Just a thought, I'm on holiday myself at the moment, just catching up on on messages. Sincerest thanks once again Uncle Bob ! (RJH) your work on the article was spectacular and I'm sure I didn't thank you enough on your talkpage, I was blown away by it's quality. I just thought I'd add this food-for-thought here for your buddies to chew on. Penyulap talk14:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah blush. Well I think photographing the ISS would fall under the same category as the hobby of satellite watching. Mostly I think satellites just get in the way of observational astronomy. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why spotting artificial satellites shouldn't count as astronomy, any less than looking for meteors. OK they won't be much in the way of research coming out of it, but that doesn't disqualify it. Amateur astronomy is still astronomy. Having said all that, there isn't a huge amount astronomers can contribute to the ISS page... Modest Geniustalk22:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I know this isn't a forum, nevertheless, one of the more satisfying things I have done in my life is shown those I care about the ISS passing overhead. Technically it's not astronomy, this is a man-made object after all. Or is it? Once we put something into space, does it fall under the umbrella of astronomy once it gets there, man-made or not? Quite a philosophical question, or not, depending on your point of view. Hopefully the ISS article has some emphasis on how easy it is to view, I'll take a look. As I was showing it to my parents a neighbor came out, wondering what the heck we were staring at, so this is of popular interest IMO (ISS visibility is notable). --TimL (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I am delighted to see I have inspired the discussion I had intended from the start. Please, oh please, take this up wheresoever you go, to the observatories, clubs, social groups and forums, because right now, there seems to be no guidance about this on any of the related pages, or anywhere I can find. I think that means it needs more discussion and definition in the wider Astronomy community. At the moment, there is just the common-use term the astrophotographers use to guide me. I disagree with you Modest Genius, I think there is a great deal that you could contribute to the ISS page, there has been a lot of misunderstanding over the ISS magnitude of late, so a paragraph about how the magnitude of an object is determined (I have ZERO idea about this) and how the ISS magnitude relates to other objects magnitude, such as Venus, would be WOW. I know we will have found just what we need when that paragraph guides potential magnitude editors to a better understanding of magnitude and consensus. Uncle Bob, I'd like to apologize about the ISS being in the way 8-) it's getting pretty big these days, it's only a matter of time before it starts cutting us off in traffic. :D Tim, I am so right there with you, though I must admit the not-often-used 8" Dob proved more popular a week ago at a bonfire/BBQ looking at the moon than my pointing out the ISS has so far. (which makes me think I want to make a fast tracker for the ISS for my manual scope). Penyulap talk12:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello Anna. It looks fine so far; better than many minor planet articles I think. Some of the paragraphs are a little short, so you might want to do a couple of merges. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Proc IAU is not a journal, but rather a series of conference proceedings, most on the IAU Symposia. PASJ is indeed a small astronomy journal, which we should probably cover (though most likely as a part of an article on the society itself). The others I'll confess to never having heard of. Modest Geniustalk19:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
By "journal" it's implied that it's "journal, monographs, conference proceedings, ..." and other periodicals. Astronomical Communications from Space Vehicles refers specifically to "Astronomical Observations from Space Vehicles, Proceedings from Symposium no. 23 held in Liege, Belgium, 17 to 20 August 1964." which seems to be quoted in several articles on X-Ray sources. An article on the series of symposia would probably be the ideal solution, with a redirect there for Astronomical Communications from Space Vehicles. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books}20:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Asteroid Infoboxes
A number of the articles on Asteroids could do with their hardcoded infoboxes replaced with a version using {{Infobox planet}}. I've tagged them on the talk pages using {{Newinfobox}} and the following link lists them all. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there are literally thousands of minor planet articles on WP. Trying to maintain them would be a full time job. RJH (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
This had ben a "child" project of WikiProject Space which is now defunct and has apparently become WikiProject Astronomy. Thus I have made WikiProject Eclipses a subproject of WikiProject Astronomy. This only shows up in categorization for now, and that is fine. --TimL (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Not really, but does it matter in the slightest whether there are separate infoboxes? I suppose that if you merged them, you may get some tiny gain in an organizational sense. The issue then would be substituting the large number of copies, for which task a script would be eminently suited. But if nobody wants to script the task, there is little point in bothering. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
So I can convert it? Because it is problem for my image importer, and it probably will be problem for sb else with different bot. Additionaly it makes wikipedia more confusing for newcomers Bulwersator (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
A common template design will also allow for mass updates. It sounds like a task you are highly motivated to perform. I'd say go for it. The WP:TfD criteria allow for deletion of redundant templates if there is a better designed version available. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the invitation to comment. Best to have one template, with the others calling it, and pre-populate where appropriate. See {{Infobox settlement}} for examples of this in practice. {{Infobox extraterrestrial impact site}} is perhaps an over-long name. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits14:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
{{Infobox impact site}} as base infobox and {{Infobox terrestrial impact site}}, maybe {{Infobox lunar impact site}} as specialized variants? Bulwersator (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
If the field is blank, there's not really an reason to display it. I don't think it needs special logic. You could just explain the purpose of the field in the template document. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Fewer infobox templates simplifies everything for users. Alternatively, creating a template for each planet's craters works as long as they all reference one another in the "See also" and call upon some higher level organizational template such as {{Infobox crater data}}. This parent organization is already set up but possibly incomplete. The name {{Infobox crater data}} may be misleading in that it does not reference the "various solar system bodies" that it is intended to apply to. As most of the field parameters are similar across planets and editors/astronomers can update them if they are not. There should also be some instructions on {{Infobox crater data}} as to how to translude the fields to other templates (planets /earth ...). I agree that Template:Infobox extraterrestrial impact site as Template:Infobox terrestrial impact site are unnecessarily long names. My personal preference would be to have one infobox template for all geological features where the various field parameters only show when they are filled (and logical). I admit that the infoboxes for lakes, mountains and impact structures are useful but at the same time a lot of that content could simply be in the article rather than in a specially formatted infobox.--YakbutterT (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I just finished a version of an article on the potential supernova impostor SN 1961V. I'm not that knowledgeable about astronomy so I'd appreciate it if the more knowledge individual (presumably people here) could take a quick look and help correct any egregious errors. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
4th Pluto Moon
can anyone please have a look at the Lemma of the article S/2011 P 1? The designation given there is wrong, as Pluto is no longer considered a Planet. With Pluto being a dwarf planet, the correct designation is "S/2011 (134340) 1". This designation is also confirmed in the IAU release on the discovery of this moon [4]. As IAU is the only authority to asign these provisional designations, the article should be named this way. Please see also Astronomical naming conventions#Natural satellites of planets on this topic. Thanks, --Spiritus Rector (talk) 08:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
There is a further confusion, because Ζ Apodis - that is, with a greek Ζ, not a letter Z - redirects to the first one.
If they should be two separate articles, some kind of hatnote might be helpful, such as;
"Ζ Apodis" (with the Greek letter Zeta) redirects here. For the star in the constellation of Apus, see Z Apodis (with the letter Z).
If, however, they're the same subect, some kind of merge might be more appropriate.
Could someone who understands such things please sort it out?
I've subsequently done my best with this, because someone pointed out that it wouldn't normally create confusion when written as lowercase, ie ζ.
So, I've changed the redir to use a lowercase title (this, see [6]), and added hatnotes, [7] and [8]. Does that sort it out? Feel free to edit/improve on it, of course. Chzz ► 12:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Those are definitely two different stars. The zeta is a Bayer designation, whilst the Z is a variable star designation. The lowercase zeta should indeed redirect like that, but of course all article titles get capitalised, hence the confusion. This is undoubtedly true for all other constellations, though whilst we probably have articles for all zeta *s we probably don't have them for all Z *s. Modest Geniustalk13:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, similar problems will also exist for any other Greek letter which capitalises to look like a Latin one e.g. omicron, alpha etc. Again for all constellations. Modest Geniustalk13:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Three of our articles, moonlight, daylight and lux say that the light of a full moon can attain a level of 1 lux when overhead at tropical latitudes. They all cite the same reference for this claim: "Bunning, Erwin; and Moser, Ilse (April 1969).Interference of moonlight with the photoperiodic measurement of time by plants, and their adaptive reaction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 62 (4): 1018–1022. [9]." That paper says "With the altitude of the moon at 60°, the intensity may reach 0.7 lx.6 With the moon at still higher altitudes in tropical or sub tropical regions, the maximum intensity may reach 1 lx." For the 0.7 lux claim, Bunning and Moser reference a 268 page book, (6) "Sauberer, F. , and O. Hrtel, Pflanze und Strahlung (Leipzig: Akad. Verl. Ges., 1959), p.12."
Other sources give a maximum value for moonlight in the 0.2 to 0.267 lux range, e.g. [10]. The value seems to be of most interest in biology, for the study of light induced behaviors in plants and animals. A Google Scholar search on "moonlight lux" gives many such biology papers a wide range of moonlight values (one as high as 2.2 lux [11]). It there an authoritative source for this number in the astronomical literature? Surely we must have better instrumentation and data than was available in 1959. Not surprisingly, a regular Google search on "moonlight intensity" gives our moonlight article as the top pick. Should we leave this possible dubious claim in the three articles?--agr (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
The distance to the Moon varies by 12%, which I'd think would produce a 25% variation in intensity. Crawford (1997) lists 0.29 lux. Based on this source, the visual magnitude mv is related to the brightness in lux B(lux) by:
According to Wikipedia, at full moon the peak magnitude is −12.74, so the lux would be 0.31. Budding (1993) lists 0.24 lux for that magnitude, but perhaps that includes an averaged adjustment for atmospheric extinction? Shevchenko (1980) lists 0.449 lux after compensating for the opposition effect. RJH (talk)
I have rescued from the speedy-deletion pile this article, which was started in February and left in an untidy and incomplete state. I have found a reference which shows it is not a hoax, and it has been reduced to a stub, which could probably be expanded by someone better-qualified. The original author gave it a long list of categories; it would be useful if someone could check whether they all really apply. JohnCD (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Certainly not a hoax, though obviously created as a copy-paste from another star article and not fully fixed. I've expanded it to a three-paragraph stub with four references and an infobox, and fixed the categories, but I didn't want to do any more because I'm not sure it's that notable. There are a few papers on it yes, but only because there aren't that many nearby 6-member star systems known. Modest Geniustalk19:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how you can have an authoritative article on most astronomical objects without relying on primary sources. In that regard, the WP:GNG seems unnecessarily restrictive. If we follow that guideline, then most astronomy object articles should be purged. I tend to ignore it except in cases that an article goes to WP:AfD. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I just threw up an article on the newly discovered supernova PTF 11kly which I believe to be noteworthy, and something that will attract attention in the next few days (and likely for a long time after). I'm not very much up with astronomy though, so it's just a stub, and I thought I'd let others know! Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
There were at least two major factual inaccuracies in the stub (21 ly vs 21 million ly, and dark matter vs dark energy). I've attempted to correct these, but it needs a thorough editing pass by someone familiar with the subject (ideally after the observations and resulting papers and press releases die down). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 08:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks (and thanks for your revisions!). Mine was very much a drive-by attempt, creating a place-holder stub - I'm reluctant to write longer articles about subjects I'm completely unfamiliar with. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
A couple of other editors are also looking at it, so it should improve further from here. It isn't an earth-shattering event, but it's still important (giving a better model of Type Ia supernova events, improving standard candles used for other observations). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 09:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Done, though most of that article is duplication of content at PSR J1719-1438b (unsurprisingly, as there's only been one paper on the pulsar + white dwarf system). Also, I take great issue with describing the companion as a planet - it is in fact a compact carbon-oxygen white dwarf, which is a type of star. Modest Geniustalk22:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the proper location to bring this up, but there seems to be widespread confusion in Astronomy article between the term "equinox" and the term "epoch" when related to coordinates of astronomical objects. The distinction is relatively simple. Equinox refers to the precession of the coordinate system used. Epoch refers to the timing of an event such as an observation. The coordinate system we currently use J2000, uses the equinox as defined at epoch J2000 (= 2000 Jan 1, 12h TT).
The distinction is important, for example in the Hipparcos catalog. In it the coordinate system is equinox J2000 but the epoch of the coordinates is J1991.25. In any other catalog that includes proper motion the epoch is important. It's also important to variable stars, pulsars, neutrino detections from supernovae, etc. I've seen a lot of people wrongly precess coordinates when given a set with an observation epoch attached.
I don't think it's widespread confusion, so much as widespread lack of awareness. As a professional astronomer, I've only seen the term 'epoch' used and never saw 'equinox' when dealing with catalogs and maps...and I was taught old-school observational astronomy! It's been my experience that professional astronomers generally don't get much practical observational experience, and are more focused on computational analysis of data gathered by remote telescopes or telescopes with their own operator. So, it's not confusion, it's lack of awareness...and that's not something that is going to change, even by fixing wikipedia (though that isn't to say it shouldn't be done!).Astrocog (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Suffice to say I've had to explain this to several dozen professional observational astronomers, most of whom didn't know what the difference was. Whether that's confusion or lack of awareness is rather moot; the fact is many of them (us) don't understand the terms either correctly or at all. You're correct that most of us observers spend far more time on analysis and writing up than we do observing, but personally I don't think that's sufficient excuse for anyone to not know what they're doing when they go observing. The terms are explained in just about every introductory textbook! Modest Geniustalk13:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps we need to start a WikiProject to-do list for astronomy articles? That way we can track these general concerns over time. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
What exactly is there to be done about this, other than to watch out for it? There's no way anyone could audit their use in every single astronomy article. Modest Geniustalk22:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
The way to fix it among astronomers is for every Astronomy department to have an annoyed astrometrist willing to disrupt colloquium every time a speaker uses epoch incorrectly.
One possibility for wikipedia is to start with the templates, which usually have an erroneous epoch field. That could be replaced with equinox and an additional epoch field when justified (i.e. star with proper motion.) Then again, maybe that's just a way to annoy everyone who edits astronomy articles.
BTW, my understanding with the Hipparcos catalog is that the coordinates are interpolated to epoch J1991.25 and precessed to equinox J2000, and that proper motion and parallax corrections are applied to the coordinates based upon the the difference between the prediction epoch and J1991.15. I suppose it's possible I'm wrong.SETIGuy (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, you're right, the original catalogue notes state 'right ascension and declination are expressed in degrees for epoch J1991.25 (JD2448349.0625 (TT)) in the ICRS (International Celestial Reference System, consistent with J2000) reference system.' There's a similar statement in the later van Leeuwen catalogue. My mistake, Vizier was confusing me with its automatic propagation to Equinox=J2000.0 Epoch=J2000.000.
Galaxy box only seems to have epoch and displays the epoch as "Observation data (J2000 epoch)". I doubt that M31 has significant proper motion or variability, so who cares what epoch the data is for? The equinox of the coordinates is probably of interest, though. I would guess that other non-stellar templates have the same problem.SETIGuy (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Gah, that is indeed a problem, well spotted. I just checked - proper motion has been measured for a handful of other galaxies, but very few. More importantly, several types of active galaxies do vary strongly over time, so epoch should be retained. But quoting any coordinates without an accompanying equinox is nonsensical. Unfortunately templates are one area where I don't know what I'm doing, so I'm not sure how to go about fixing that. Modest Geniustalk22:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, we could add a to-do item to watch out for it. New members can then see the information five years down the road. (I doubt that most people bother to read the archived discussions.) Regards, RJH (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
It strikes me that "equinox" involves the reader selecting from many context sensitive meanings, and the correct meaning actually involves a great deal of shorthand. Apparently, for the meaning being discussed here, "equinox" must take one of a few values generally recognized by the astronomical community, one of which is J2000, and it involves many things other than the direction of the equinox and the time, such as whether the direction of the celestial north pole neglects nutation. Perhaps a term like "standard coordinate frame" would be more appropriate for a general readership. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Mass was off by an order of magnitude according to the link provided in the article. Apparently a corrected error, but both versions lie outside the norm.
A Jan. 2009 archive of the page jibes with our old figures. It has:
6.23E+18 kg ± 1.17E+18 kg and 0.71 ± 0.16 g/cm^3 (Baer et al. 2008)
In today's version, the order of magnitude has been iterated by one, a number approximated by their 2010 calculations:
1.87E+19 ± 1.03E+19; 2.13 ± 1.21 (Kochetova 2004)
6.23E+19 ± 1.17E+19; 7.09 ± 1.64 (Baer et al. 2008)
5.81E+19 ± 1.97E+19; 6.61 ± 2.41 (Baer et al. 2011)
The old density was amazingly low (even for a rubble pile), and the corrected density incredibly high (almost solid iron). The greater error bar on the 2011 data though makes it look more reasonable; I suspect (31) may lie near the lower end of the measurement and yet be a solid body. Anyway, just a heads up. — kwami (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
