Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 31

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

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

→

Big Bang FAR

I have nominated Big Bang 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. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The review page seems to be here: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Big Bang/archive3. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Updated: Pages/Articles/Redirects in Category:Astronomy

A while ago some people found this useful. I've updated all associated pages today for those interested. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 00:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

NED citations

Hi! I have found and fixed a number of NED citations with broken URLs (the problem was caused by a missing '&'). Examples: NGC 446, NGC 445, NGC 415. I have also found an article citing another NGC object (NGC 449/[1]). Presumably there is more to do, thus it is time to ask for some help. Thank you in advance -- UnaToFiAN-1 (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete Astronomical catalog?

The Astronomical catalog page seems to be a very short and random grab bag, containing some very misleading claims (2MASS was not "the most ambitious project" even when it was operating). The effort required to make it decent seems drastically more than it is worth: "historical importance" and "widely used" are not really verifiable for more than a handful of possibilities (e.g. Messier, NGC, UGC, and a few of the Star catalogs), it doesn't include any non-optical catalogs (e.g. ROSAT, XMM-slew, VLA-FIRST), and modern digital surveys like the Sloan Digital Sky Survey are far more "widely used" (based on publication statistics) than anything else.

As a counterexample, Star catalog is much more well fleshed out and most of the catalogs listed there have decent pages themselves. I was going to post an AfD for Astronomical catalog, but figured I'd check here to see if others had thoughts. What should be the criteria for inclusion on this page? The proliferation of catalogs in the last few decades due to improved survey techniques suggests that either only truly historical (pre-1950?) catalogs should be included, or we shouldn't bother at all. - Parejkoj (talk) 02:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The Gaia catalog is missing there, too. I can see the point of the article - not everything catalogued is a star - but currently the article is problematic. --mfb (talk) 08:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that an astronomical catalogue is different from a star catalogue, although this should be reflected in the article. I think deletion would not be the correct action to take here as I think it's pretty clear that an astronomical catalogue (gaia, sloan, even the more famous Messier, NGC). Maybe it would be better to put a tag on it to be "completely rewritten" or something to that effect. Sam-2727 (talk) 14:47, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

It's a notable enough topic to support a separate article. Praemonitus (talk) 16:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

What we've got is two articles: a broad, bad one about all kinds, and a narrow, good one about the most important kind of catalog. Each has prose followed by a list. Seems to me there's no need to delete or merge. We should improve prosaic part of the broad one by making it address the relations among the various kinds, and delete the star catalogs from its list. Making the lists comprehensive and keeping them up to date may be beyond our powers of maintenance; better if we can find an external site that someone else is maintaining. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I have pretty much rewritten it as discussed in Talk:Astronomical catalog Jim.henderson (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The Observatory (journal)

Hi all. Quick query—does anyone know where this journal's website is now? The links on our page are out of date, as it seems to have been hosted by UCL, but they are now 404s. I'm after the 1905 volume, which I'd half-expect to be in an online archive somewhere, but without knowing where that is...! Hope you can help. Cheers! ——SN 54129 15:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

No idea what happened to their website, but ADS has the entire archive of The Observatory scanned and available in PDF or GIF formats [2]. Modest Genius ^talk 15:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The ADS website itself updated recently, breaking that link. It's now at [3], or go to [4] and enter 'Obs' in the 'publication' field. Modest Genius ^talk 17:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

New exoplanet names

A whole bunch of exoplanets and their host stars have been given proper names if anyone feels like updating their articles.

New names at http://www.nameexoworlds.iau.org/final-results

These are the result of national competitions held this year where every country in the world was given the chance by the IAU to name an exoplanet and its host star. Fdfexoex (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll make a start updating some of them Physdragon (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Despite the new announced names, please bear in mind Wikipedia guidelines for article titles. I have reverted several article moves and at least one more is up for discussion. There is a lot of publicity about the new names right now, but it remains to be seen whether they become the name by which these objects (the stars at least, since most of them have existing longstanding designations) are best-known. For comparison, note that hundreds of stars now have IAU proper names, but only a few dozen of them have Wikipedia articles with the proper name as a title. If there is going to be a mass rename of existing articles, it would be good to get some sort of consensus first. Exoplanets are much less likely to have well-known designations, and inevitably the designations they do have will be more clumsy than the ones for the host stars, but possibly even they shouldn't all be renamed. I'm not going to touch the exoplanets that have already been renamed, but maybe some discussion of that would also be good. Lithopsian (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Completely agree. I've just been adding a couple of sentences about the new names and not doing anything with the article titles. I've just been working my way down the countries in roughly alphabetical order, guess I haven't hit a popular one that someone else has done yet. Physdragon (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. The new names should be mentioned in the articles, but none should be moved unless & until they become the WP:COMMONNAME. Modest Genius ^talk 18:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Details have now been added for all the new planets and stars except where an article didn't exist. See https://melinasworldblog.wordpress.com/2020/01/02/results-of-the-nameexoworld-campaigns/ A few of the articles have been renamed e.g. Bubup, Yanyan, Awasis, Pipitea (planet), Bibha, Santamasa and Pirx (planet). Fdfexoex (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a WP:RMTR will be needed. Praemonitus (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

NGC Notability Discussion

If more people could way in at [5] on my proposal to remove NGC objects from the WP:NASTRO page and clarify the language in that section, that would be much appreciated. Sam-2727 (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Pages for planet vs star

In the course of adding in the information about the NameExoWorlds project I have come across at least one instance where there is a Wikipedia page for the planet, but not for the star. The planet HAT-P-14b and star HAT-P-14 being an example. Where there is a page for the star I've just been adding information about both the star and the planet there, but I'm not sure what to do in this instance. The HAT-P-14b page is very short so creating another very short page for the star seems somewhat superfluous. My inclination would be to create a page for the star and transfer the planet information to there, but I'm not sure if there is a convention that I should be following. Physdragon (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

If it wasn't for the infobox, it would be trivially easy to merge the planet and star articles. Praemonitus (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I suppose one can use the orbitbox planet template, like at HD 49674 (which also has a separate article for the planet for some reason), which captures most of the information in the infobox. Physdragon (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

If the star is not independently notable, then it would make sense to have a single article on both. HD 142 takes that approach, and I'm sure we must have hundreds of other examples. Modest Genius ^talk 18:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

On the principle of being bold, for those stars/planets I edited to add the NameExoWorlds info I merged the star and planet articles where separate ones existed previously. Physdragon (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

{{Starbox reference}} needs some thinking over.

So for the past year or something I had been adding {{starbox reference}}s to starboxes, but I've noticed several problems with the parameters.

. For the vast majority of objects, the |Simbad= parameter shouldn't even be necessary. Since SIMBAD accepts full constellation genitive names, that means names like "15 Monocerotis" and "RR Lyrae" work, as well as names like "Gliese 758", "HD 181068", etc. There would of course be the rare exception such as W75N(B)-VLA2, but except for those, I feel that as it stands, adding |Simbad is a waste of time.

. The |EPE= parameter is completely useless, since the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia doesn't have individual pages for stars anymore.

What are your thoughts on this? Loooke (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll just note that I'd seen SIMBAD lookup names change with time, and lookups based on the article name don't always work. Praemonitus (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

SDSS

Interested parties, please see Talk:Sloan Digital Sky Survey#Update needed. The article is in dire need of updating, as it still talked (before I edited it just now) about SDSS-III (which, AFAIK, ended in 2014) as if it was yet to happen. Also note that I suspect much of the prose in the article was copied nearly verbatim from the official website of the Survey. Someone familiar with the SDSS or sky surveys in general should do a thorough copyedit/rewrite of the article. (Not tagging it as a copyvio yet, since I thought I'd give this group a chance to take a crack at it first.) - dcljr (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Deneb#Stellar_parameters

Grateful if someone here could pick up on a post made at Talk:Deneb#Stellar_parameters by someone from galaxymap.org/ who's more familiar, I think, with the current science on stars than they are on things wikipedia. (This twitter thread kicked the whole issue off; further discussion in this subthread.) tl:dr the article might usefully present more recent science on a Deneb measurement; there may be a general point about the currency of wikipedia stellar science information; Galexymap has hitherto been unwilling to get involved with wikipedia because of an aversion to conflict & might be more inclined to do so if this approach is well met. thx --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Very simple. Wikipedia policies require reliable sources, not original research from Twitter, however credible. I'd already seen the Deneb talk post and done a literature search. There are a few peer-reviewed papers more recent than 2008 giving data for Deneb, some newly-derived and some just copied from old work, but none of them radically different from what is already in the article and none of them adopting the revised Hipparcis distance. The closest I can find to support for the closer Hipparcos distance and consequently-downsized physical properties is Kaler's page. The source is a respected professional astronomer, but also "original research" that is not peer-reviewed and not intended to be rigorous. I generally avoid it when other sources are available. Professional astronomers on the whole have not taken on board the implied Hipparcos distance, either because they consider it unreliable or just haven't had anything relevant to publish, so Wikipedia hasn't either. It is instructive to note that there were complaints a few years back when several external sources were quoting much higher distances based on the original Hipparcos parallax. Perhaps someone more tactful and less involved than me could explain "the Wikipedia Way". There may well be room for improvements to the article (always are, right?), but not based on Twitter. Lithopsian (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

As I read it, the OP was asking why measurements taken by Hipparcis were not reflected in the article. Leaving aside a) whether or not they already are and b) whether or not they should be, that doesn't sound like 'original research based on twitter'. Still. Wikipedia's reputation for having a community of unfriendly zealots was hard won, and it's good that this project is doing nothing to dilute that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so to take the twitter messages in point, we're not a uniform body but an assemblage of individuals. Some of these individuals can indeed be unfriendly zealots who dig in their heals at every change to specific articles (usually for well-known topics). That's a drawback of this type of effort. But there are ways of working through these problems, particularly when they involve personality clashes. We also have a Wikipedia:Civility policy that (in theory) editors are supposed to follow. Praemonitus (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

This comment is the kind of uncivil behaviour it claims to be complaining about...Lithopsian's point seems well-argued and relatively tame. Anyway I have replied to the comment on the Deneb page. ChiZeroOne (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thirty Meter Telescope could use more eyes

The lead is disputed, see talk page and edit history. --mfb (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Equinox#RfC on season-specific redirects

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Equinox#RfC on season-specific redirects. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Template deletion discussion

It's very slightly in our purview, but {{No orbit for payload}} has been nominated for deletion. Please join in the discussion at this location. Primefac (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Script to detect unreliable sources

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is new, and I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

If Wikipedia has lawyers, you should probably ask them to review the wording of your 'unreliable' page before they get hit by a defamation lawsuit. Praemonitus (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

If Wikipedia/WMF gets sued because of my script, their lawyers will laugh their way into the easiest case they'll ever have to argue in court. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the script. I'm talking about assertions such as, "The source has a poor reputation for fact-checking, fails to correct errors, is self-published, presents user-generated content, violates copyrights, or is otherwise of low-quality. The source should generally be avoided, but context matters a lot here." The self-published content probably isn't a worry, but if any of those sites are heavy money makers and see this wording as damaging to their business, they may decide to defend themselves in court. Praemonitus (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Legend. Also, I'd love to see the look on a judge's face when someone goes in court suing the WMF because a consensus of Wikipedians don't believe a specific source is reliable enough to be used as a source for Wikipedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The section doesn't say it's a community consensus. It just states a negative opinion without providing a source. Only by following the link does the source become clear. Praemonitus (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

If the Daily Mail hasn't sued the WMF by now I don't think I'd be worried Physdragon (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I just brought it up from an overabundance of caution. I'm sure you're probably right. Praemonitus (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

If any one sues over this issue they will just draw a lot more attention to the statement, which I expect they are not interested in doing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately it doesn't always work like that. Praemonitus (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

COROT vs CoRoT

Why are the titles of articles for exoplanets discovered using the CoRoT spacecraft written in ALL CAPS? CoRoT-2b is the only one with a correctly formatted title. Should I rename all the articles from "COROT" to "CoRoT"? SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Support: they should probably be named CoRoT based on WP:COMMONNAME, as that seems to be the more likely form, and to clarify that the 'o' is not an abbreviated word. Praemonitus (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

One week later; two for and none against. I'll do the move. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Infobox planet colors

Is there some policy or guideline for the section colors used in the background parameter on {{infobox planet}}? I've seen some usage patterns, but haven't found anything defining them. For example, the planets of this solar system use colors matching the infobox background; most moons, including Earth's moon, most of Jupiter's moons and most of Saturn's moons use a darkish gray, but the Galilean moons use green and Titan, though a moon of Saturn, uses a color matching the infobox background. Where could I find an explanation of the color choices? Thtatithticth (talk) 12:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea why the template colors are the way they are. They just seem to have been randomly selected. They do all seem to be pastels though, which makes them easier to read. Why even use different colors though? Praemonitus (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I also have no explanation for the infobox colors. I think color-coding by planet makes sense for the moons; for example, Jovian moons get a reddish color, Saturnian yellowish, etc. But I don't know if it really helps. We could just as easily use any single color (like gray) for all of them and it would be just as fine, in my opinion. Loooke (talk) 03:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not part of this WikiProject, but for what it's worth agree that it would make more sense to have the same color for all the infoboxes, planets and moons alike. The current bluish that is the template default (e.g. Charon (moon)) looks fine to me, or the gray on Moon. If some color does become standard, it should probably be made the template default. Thtatithticth (talk) 11:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Possibly, but I'm not sure how worthwhile it would be to change all the template colors at this point. I think people are used to them the way they are. Praemonitus (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

What should the title be for articles on named exoplanets?

If you look at the articles in Category:Exoplanets with proper names (which I've been doing a lot of work populating recently), most of them have the designation as the title (e.g. 51 Pegasi b) but some have the name as the title (e.g. Pirx). Which title should be used? Personally I prefer keeping the designation as the title. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

It's a case by case kind of thing. In general, the more common name should be chosen (by more common name, I mean the name that is used more often). But if both are more or less equally used, then it's probably best to keep the article how it is. WP:NAME says that the name should be chosen by consensus (per article), but you're unlikely going to be able to get more editors to pitch in for most of the exoplanets, so just go with whatever seems to fit the criteria more if one doesn't immediately appear to be more commonly used. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The guideline WP:NCASTRO covers this topic. It states the exoplanet article should follow the name of the parent star. In the case of Pirx, the star is at BD+14 4559, so the planet should be at BD+14 4559 b. Modest Genius ^talk 14:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

But those guidelines also say that "Since 2015, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) has assigned official proper names to some exoplanets via a formal process. The choice of whether to use these in the article title should follow the common names section above," so a common name should be the title if used in literature and media coverage. Sam-2727 (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

True, the guideline is a bit inconsistent there. I'd go with the proper name only if it's actually dominant in the scientific literature, per the 'common names' section of the guideline. Modest Genius ^talk 17:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

If we're talking about scientific papers only, the designation is definitely more commonly used (I'm not aware of any papers that use the IAU names). If media coverage is also relevant, the proper name may be the common name for some planets. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

From the guideline: "For astronomical objects, papers in scientific journals or publications of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) are regarded as more reliable than press releases or articles in the popular media." (disclaimer: I wrote that sentence). Modest Genius ^talk 19:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The article Pirx (planet) was moved to that title very recently by a relatively new user. They probably shouldn't have done it. It should probably have been moved back. That could be interpreted as consensus, or perhaps just disinterest. There is nothing to stop you moving it back now, but perhaps a discussion first would be wise since there is clearly no time pressure now and a discussion would avoid possible edit wars as IP editors come out of the woodwork every few days to change the name. Slight off topic, the designation BD+14 4559 b could perhaps do with some discussion also. A degree symbol has historically been used in BD designations, although a space has become increasingly common in the age of computers. Lithopsian (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Unannounced exoplanet name changes

Everyone needs to be aware of this. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

1SWASP J140747.93−394542.6 move proposal

Hey there; I just wanted to let you guys know that I've opened up a requested move discussion at Talk:1SWASP J140747.93−394542.6 to rename the article to V1400 Centauri. Feel free to hop over to the discussion and share your thoughts on the proposal! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 10:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Newsletter not in use

The "newsletter" tab on the main project page seems kind of useless at this point since the news letter hasn't been sent out in quite a while. Would it be worth removing it at this point? It would make the tabs bar seem less overloaded. Sam-2727 (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

If nobody wants to maintain it, they yes it should probably be mothballed. There's already well-maintained astronomy news sources available out on the web. Praemonitus (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I mean, I wouldn't mind maintaining it myself, but currently only eleven people are signed up for it and past versions (just looking at the archives of it) didn't really seem to provide much formative content. I guess the main reason to revive it would be to motivate people. Anyway, assuming no one else is going to comment here, I'm going to go ahead and remove it from the page. If someone strongly disagrees with me, feel free to revert me. Sam-2727 (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I've tagged Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Newsletter as {{historical}}. Modest Genius ^talk 20:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Kepler's Supernova

It's a curious anomaly that the Kepler's Supernova article is the most popular astronomy topic by a huge margin. I can't find any reason why that page is so popular. Any ideas? On the other hand, it's unfortunate that zodiac is rated the second highest, ahead of even Albert Einstein. One is almost tempted to add a warning: "today the positions of the stars and planets will have a negligible impact on your life". Praemonitus (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I was actually wondering that myself. It's not like it's a popular search term or something like that. Einstein far outweighs it on google trends [6]. I would be interested too to hear if anybody has a good explanation for it. Sam-2727 (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Digging further into the statistics of Kepler's supernova, before September 23rd, 2019, the page had page views at a level you might expect, a couple hundred per day. But on September 23rd, the page views spiked to 6,000 per day and then the day after that spiked to 45,000 per day. The pageviews reached on all time high of 100,000 (!) per day on October 16th (this can be explained by being featured on "on this day," but doesn't explain the consistent trend), and then decreased to a low on November 11th of 50,000 and then have been steadily rising since. Still doesn't explain why this is though. I tried seeing if there was some news coverage that I had missed, but there was virtually none throughout this entire time period. Sam-2727 (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The typical caveat at the WP:Signpost is that views dominated by desktop or mobile are typically the result a bot which is not identified as such, not least because mobile is in the realm of 60% of all views. Right now about 50k of the user views are from desktop and about 8k are from mobile. The views here are probably not real or interesting. --Izno (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

If it's a bot, if there's any reason in particular for this page to not detect it vs. every single other Wikipedia page. Sam-2727 (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Pronunciation removal

Is there some consensus to remove pronunciations from astronomical object articles that I am unaware of. Kwamikagami is removing them from hundreds of articles today. Is that wise considering the popularity of astronomy articles among non-scientists? StarryGrandma (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I'm adding pronunciations, and refs for them, to hundreds of articles. Astronomers are just as in need of them as the general public, since half the time they just guess themselves. I'd be curious to know if you're able to find a single article where I removed the pronunciation. What I am removing are the respellings. Those have been gone from major astronomy articles for years and no-one's complained. I'm the one who argued for and regularized the respelling system and added most of the respellings to astronomy articles in the first place, actually, but that was back before we had the hover-over key for the IPA template. Now that we have that, the IPA is as easy, and in some cases easier, to read than the spellings, which for example would render "malt" as "molt". — kwami (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Most of the astronomy templates have a Pronunciation field, which makes a convenient place to store that information so it doesn't disrupt the article flow. Praemonitus (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

OK then. I took the link to the respelling key out of the table heading in the Pleiades article. However respelling is the easy way to show students and others how to pronounce an unfamiliar word. Until we get sound associated with the IPA few of them will spend the effort to work out a pronunciation letter by letter. Respelling does have the problem that the words used will be pronounced differently in different varieties of English. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't have strong opinions on this topic, but do want to point out that IPA is not easy, even with pop-up text. Also the pop-up doesn't work on the mobile site. The vast majority of our readers cannot understand IPA and will not make the effort to do so, but can at least make a stab at pronouncing re-spellings. Providing both seems a good idea, especially if no recording is available. Modest Genius ^talk 16:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Does this warrant an article?

Hi everyone, I'd like to bring your attention to Finger of God (Carina). This article is about a Bok globule, nicknamed the "Finger of God" for its shape. My only concern is that it's not notable; I can find hardly any reference to it except for a few news sites. I also can't find any scholarly references about this object either, but that's made harder by the fact that I'm having difficulties tracking down its coordinates or other designations, if any. Should this just be merged into Carina Nebula? Loooke (talk) 04:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree this object probably isn't notable. It's a small globule near the Keyhole Nebula, visible in a narrow-band Hubble mosaic. I've been unable to find any reliable sources that discuss it, or even name it, just a bunch of forum posts. The term 'finger of god' usually refers to Redshift-space distortions or similar artefacts in radio surveys, not this nebula. I've tagged the article with {{notability}} for now, but if no-one else can find sources either I would support deletion. None of the material has a reliable source, not even the name, so it wouldn't be worth merging. Modest Genius ^talk 11:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it's part of region 37 from Hartigan et al. (2015).[7][8] I support a merge. Praemonitus (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the object. I looked at SIMBAD and it looks like only five of the regions have been put into SIMBAD, so it looks like this object is certainly not in SIMBAD. Additionally, out of all of the objects that are in SIMBAD, they have one reference each–the aforementioned Hartigan et al. (2015): certainly not enough to warrant an article. I'll merge it. Loooke (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Whoops, I haven't looked at the article closely enough. Apparently area 37 is called the "Defiant Finger" and it has been looked into a few times, including in detail once - Smith et al. 2004. It's also in SIMBAD as "Carina Defiant Finger". So it may still not be notable, but at least it gets more than just a few sentences, as I was originally planning on doing. Loooke (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Well found, both of you! That's much more substantial coverage than the forum posts I had seen. Seems enough for a paragraph in Carina Nebula, but not an article of its own. Modest Genius ^talk 16:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I've written a paragraph in Carina Nebula and redirected Finger of God (Carina) to it. Loooke (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Supernovae in galaxies

I'd like to propose that supernovae mentioned on galaxy articles be subject to a supernovae name redirect that is categorized under Category:Supernovae. For example, 'SN 2008A' could redirect to 'NGC 634'. Does this seem reasonable? Praemonitus (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I guess the question is whether the supernovae are reasonable search terms. Do we have a lot of links to redlinked supernovae? Primefac (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I would only make redirects for when there's actually a red link. Otherwise, it seems like most supernovae are just not that notable and not many people are going to search for them. Loooke (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

A redirect is sensible if the galaxy article actually discusses the supernova, and should preferably point to the relevant section. If the article doesn't mention the supernova, there's no benefit to having a redirect. Modest Genius ^talk 15:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Orbit#Merger_proposal_7_April_2020

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Orbit#Merger_proposal_7_April_2020. Soumyabrata ^{stay at home} _{wash your hands} ^{to protect from coronavirus} 12:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Frontier Radio

Draft:Frontier Radio is a draft that has been bouncing around for a couple of years now with very nominal improvements. The subject doesn't seem to have much independent coverage, but does seem to be an integral component in a few space probes. Requesting comment from this group at the MfD that has now been put up for it at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Frontier Radio. Cheers! Sulfurboy (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Making templates display minus signs

{{DEC}} substitutes hyphens so that they get rendered as minus signs, which is technically correct. Is there some way we can do that for other astronomy-related templates, such as {{Starbox character}}, {{Starbox astrometry}}, {{Starbox detail}}, {{Infobox galaxy}}, and many more? I tried to simply add the {{str rep}} a little while back, but it didn't work. Loooke (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

{{str rep}} should work, since that's what is used in {{DEC}}. I looked at a couple of the templates you mention but didn't see any testing. Did I just miss something obvious? Primefac (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, should clarify. I tried using {{str rep}} in {{Infobox galaxy}}, and while it did do the proper string replace, it added some strange characters. I did it before with {{Starbox astrometry}} and Praemonitus (rightfully) reverted it because it added ?'"`UNIQ−-ref-00000008-QINU`"'?. See my talk page for more about it. Loooke (talk) 06:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I just ran some tests in my sandbox. {{Str rep}} appears to work fine for this conversion (see User:Lithopsian/sandbox/starbox) on absmag_v. I then tested the historical version of the template that gave the weird display and noticed that the character used in the conversion template was not a plain hyphen character (see diff). Lithopsian (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Huh, I'm looking through transclusions for Starbox astrometry and it looks like almost all the time it's actually the hyphen-minus character that's being used, instead of just the plain hyphen like I thought it was. Also, might {{Infobox galaxy}} edit used the hyphen-minus because that's what my computer types. Loooke (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I may have to do some more testing. My template appears to actually contain en-dash. Not sure how that happened. I'll get back to you in a while. Lithopsian (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

So maybe the answer. A starbox field often doesn't just contain a number, but also has a reference. The reference isn't actually expanded at the time that the starbox astrometry template is processed, but instead is represented by a unique string (eg. "UNIQ--ref-0000011B-QINU") that tends to include a hyphen. If the number doesn't include a hyphen, then the first hyphen in the unique string will be converted to a minus sign. Then later, the reference expansion will fail and the unique string (plus stray minus sign) will be left visible. So, there's the reason that {{DEC}} works and {{starbox astrometry}} sometimes doesn't. I'll have to think a little what the best solution might be. Lithopsian (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the simplest solution is to use a Lua pattern to restrict the replacement to the first character. Named template parameters have leading whitespace stripped, so the first character is generally the only one we would be interested in. I think all the starbox instances will be named parameters. With this approach, it should also be fairly simple to expand the replacement to other sorts of dashes. It might be best to wrap the code in another string-handling template. It isn't very complicated but perhaps a little abstruse to be throwing around multiple locations, and maybe useful to someone else. Lithopsian (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I should probably have made clear that I have an example of of the starbox astrometry template at User:Lithopsian/sandbox/starbox with the absmag_v field changed to only substitute a standard keyboard hyphen character to a minus sign if it appears as the first character, excluding any whitespace. This diff shows the change required from the existing template. It might make sense to expand this to also substitute other hyphen-like characters, which is trivial given that it is now using a pattern-match. For example, Rigel has an en-dash character in its absolute magnitude. Nobody has noticed yet ;) Lithopsian (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Nice. Do the changes look stable enough to put into all the templates? Loooke (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I think so, but probably someone else should try it out. I may have created something that only works on the articles I thought were representative, or in the ways I thought it should be used. Maybe worth throwing into one of the template sandboxes and seeing if it stirs up some interest? I don't know how these things should go. Lithopsian (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I kind of disappeared for a while after posting this! I'll be sure to check this out at some point. Thanks, Loooke (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Surface features by space objects

I was searching for Russian names on planets, moons etc and I was thinking maybe a template like Template:Surface features of space objects would be useful, so I created it, and I've added it to List of geological features on Mercury. What do you think, is it useful? Shall I add it to more lists like List of geological features on Mercury? Avram25 (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Those objects are part of WP:SOLAR, not WP:AST. I suggest you discuss this template at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Solar System. Modest Genius ^talk 12:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion: Article on impact event in Akure, Nigeria

Recently an impact event was observed in Akure, Nigeria which originally thought to be a vehicle or IED explosion in the town is being recently classified as a meteor impact event leaving behind a crater of 21 m diameter and 7.8 m depth. The blast radius was about 1 km. Should this event deserve an article or just an addition to the List of bolides and Impact crater. My opinion is that this deserves an article as there is a lot of controversy around the impact and the news is still developing. News source suggesting Meteor impace: https://www.thecable.ng/akure-explosion-was-impact-from-meteors-not-explosives-says-oau-prof. -Crazydaemon1 (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the subject looks to have more than enough independent coverage to be considered notable per WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 01:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Google News shows plenty of sources, though I'm not sure how many of them pass WP:RS. Tabloid newspapers are generally not reliable but if there are more reputable news sources then go ahead and start an article, I suggest at Akure explosion. Make sure it covers the topic neutrally, presenting all the proposed explanations, not just the impact possibility. Personally I'm highly sceptical that was a meteor impact. Anything big enough to make a 20m crater would have been widely observed as a bolide while it passed through the atmosphere, been picked up by infrasound networks, and left pieces of meteorite in or around the crater. Plus the only scientist arguing for an impact is a specialist on earthquakes (not meteorites) who called it 'A METEORIC [sic] FROM AN [sic] ASTEROID BELT', in all caps, which is very suspicious. Modest Genius ^talk 18:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

If that's the case, I'd hold off on creating an article until there is enough RS to actually confirm an impact. Otherwise, it's just another explosion (and we don't need to list every explosion on Wikipedia, even if there is a fringe theory that it was "really a meteor").

(Update) The source linked also links to this article which says there were witnesses to an exploding truck. I'm less and less convinced we need an article about this. Primefac (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I would hold off until they recover a meteorite or strewn field. There are just so many meteorwrongs. -- Kheider (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Providing information about why this isn't a meteor impact is also useful. It already looks like it might be interesting to read. There's no reason not to make an article. But that's just me. Praemonitus (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your inputs. I will wait for a couple of weeks and see how the story develops and then decide on writing this article. -Crazydaemon1 (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Countries in space

Curious thinkers can ask themselves "What Russian names exist in space?" (comets, meteorites, asteroids, lunar craters etc having Russian names). Therefore I just started Russian names in space - also Thai names in space. And I would like to ask if it's ok to create such lists. Avram25 (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do is start with a generic "names in space" page ~~(e.g. something like "List of objects in space named after people")~~, and if there is a big list (like in the order of 20K+) fork it off into its own article. I think the issue you'll have is that some articles (like Thai names) will be too small and/or not well referenced to actually be worth a full article. Happy to help out if/where necessary. Primefac (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

As an additional thought, since we have articles on eponymous craters and minor bodies, there's probably no need to include them in the article. Primefac (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

We do have List of astronomical objects named after people, so I think you should expand that article and merge your existing ones into it. Primefac (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac: I believe that would grow the list (List of astronomical objects named after people) to an unmanageable size. The Armenians are curious about Armenian names in space first for example, so a separate list about the topic would help them find and to read exactly what they are looking for. But I might be wrong, of course. In any case, such lists can always be merged into the list you named, by anyone. Avram25 (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

As I said above, if a particular country's list is too large, it can be split into its own list (for a parallel example, see List of 2020–21 Super Rugby transfers, where about half the countries are split into their own pages). I don't think the Armenian list is going to be so huge that it (plus a dozen more like it) would overwhelm a single page. Primefac (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac: Also, I think List of astronomical objects named after people can't include geological features like craters, valleys and mountains, so it's not really usable for this purpose. Avram25 (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

As I said here, those sorts of lists already exist. Primefac (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it's also worth considering the fact that, since for some countries there are such lists in the media - so they have sources, then we can decide if such lists can exist for all countries. IMO, if the lists of Chinese, Hungarian and Czech names on the sky are notable, then a list of such names is also notable for all the other countries, even if it's not so easy to find sources. It's not very easy for an English editor to find a source in Vietnamese for example. But since the list of Chinese names on the sky is notable, then the Vietnamese should also be notable, even without finding sources for it. We can make a decision about the entire category of such lists. Avram25 (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the nationality of a namesake is a defining feature. WP:NON-DEFINING is written for categories, but similar considerations apply to lists too per WP:LISTN and WP:LISTCRIT. The nationality of a person is a defining feature of that person, but not of an asteroid/crater/whatever that was named after them. I'm not an expert on the criteria for stand alone lists, but worry that Russian names in space is likely to be deleted. I see it's already at WP:AFD. Modest Genius ^talk 11:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Modest Genius: Sorry to disagree but the nationality of craters that was named after people of that nationality is defining. There are plenty of news articles containing such lists - for example this or this. Avram25 (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't speak Magyar, but from the formatting those appear to be blogs, not WP:RS. Even if they're news articles, two very brief lists from many years ago, discussing a single nationality, does not establish general notability of all lists of names by nationality. Modest Genius ^talk 11:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. There are already lists of astronomical objects named after people. There is hardly any coverage of geographical features named in a certain language, and if there is, the list is not complete and the editor who creates the article will have to OR complete the list. WP:LISTN and WP:LISTCRIT are the policies to follow here. Articles of this kind just do not pass muster according to these policies. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

There are no other lists of astronomical objects after nationality of the people they are named for. Even without speaking those languages, I could already find a lot of such articles, even in Japanese. Once the criteria is valid (e.g. Moon craters with Japanese names), I can't see how it's unreliable Original Research to add more elements on a list, based on that certain criteria. It is OR but it's reliable, because anyone can check the facts. OR for the elements of a list is not the same with OR for say a chemistry statement. In other words, the problem with the OR is that it's unreliable - but that doesn't apply here. It can be a problem when such grouping of elements in a list do not exist in the reliable media - but in this case they do exist.

Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists - One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources - so the reliable sources have to discuss the group, they don't have to include all the elements in the list. Therefore doing OR to complete the list is not a problem, according to the policies. Say for example List of video game crowdfunding projects - do sources contain all the list elements? No. Adding elements to the list is OR but it's not a problem. - Avram25 (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed the policy says There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists. So I think we can agree in this case that nationality of the names of space objects is not trivial like "Lists of restaurants selling food X and Y". It is a matter of great national pride so we should be fine to have such lists. - Avram25 (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability for Lists, the conclusion is that completing such lists falls into general research allowance. Avram25 (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by the current title, but the subject-matter looks as encyclopaedic as that of (for example) List of Russian exonyms for places on Earth. Narky Blert (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

NGC stars

We now have several NGC object articles that are about stars. These appear to be non-notable objects; whatever notability they have is inherited from the NGC catalogue. For example: NGC 84, NGC 464, NGC 91. Should these be merged into a list article? I.e. List of NGC stars. Praemonitus (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Additions: NGC 30, NGC 32, NGC 33, NGC 44, NGC 82, NGC 156, NGC 158, NGC 162, NGC 302, NGC 308, NGC 310, NGC 313, NGC 316, NGC 370, NGC 372, NGC 390, NGC 400, NGC 401, NGC 402, NGC 405, NGC 408

In general, I believe that a lot of NGC objects aren't worth articles, but apparently quite a bit of people disagree with me. It is unfortunately a notability guideline that any NGC object should be considered notable, but in reality a list would be much better. I've found brief mentions in articles to the examples you give, but nothing that would meet the level required by GNG. So I definitely would support merging these to a list. I would double check with individual editors though that have created each page because they might try to argue otherwise under NASTRO (and technically be correct). Sam-2727 (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

From WP:NASTRO: If an astronomical object meets any of the following criteria, supported through independent reliable sources, it probably qualifies for a stand-alone article. (bolding mine). If these objects do not have sufficient independent reliable sources to meet GNG, I would support merging into a list. Kees08 (Talk) 16:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Kees08 I agree and I try to point that out in discussion, but apparently others disagree (see [9]) and think that WP:NASTRO supersedes general notability. Sam-2727 (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Well not quite; it's a supplement to WP:GNG, placing those guidelines in an astronomical context. Praemonitus (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I also support merging these into a list. I also believe that many NGC objects aren't that notable either. Loooke (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

If a stand-alone list isn't notable, we could always add a section to List of NGC objects. Praemonitus (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Or just redirect to the list section. Praemonitus (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding sources mentioning stars in the NGC catalogue, but it's kind of hard to search for them. So they might exist. Sam-2727 (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Eh NGC 91 flits with notability due to the question of if its really just NGC 90 or not (BTW I can't find anything to support the article's claim that there are questions over the star's existence). That's the kind of thing that doesn't fit will into a list. Maybe just have an article called NGC stars. Excluding planetary nebular how many are there anyway? (we may also need NGC asterisms for NGC 1252, NGC 6994, NGC 7772 and NGC 7826).©Geni (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Praemonitus:, [10] is helping me find a more complete list. I'm going to go ahead and create the table feel free to add anything you find. It also turns out there are a lot of stars in the IC. Creating a separate list for that would be useful as well. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Update: published here: List of NGC stars. Obviously a lot more work to do. If others could help that would be great.

@Praemonitus: @Sam-2727: I'm going to start redirecting articles that are just NGC stars, because I don't believe they are notable. Is that okay with you? Loooke (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

No problem here. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Loooke, yes that works as well. It's on my mental to-do list to finally finish the list. Also note that some of the objects on the list are actually asterisms (so it might be wise to move the list to "NGC errata"). Sam-2727 (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

How should we deal with the categorization of these redirects? I think it's sensible to keep Category:NGC objects in there, I could be swayed the other way. But other categories like Category:Astronomical objects discovered in 1802 (or whatever the year) makes sense, because these are essentially cataloguing mistakes. Loooke (talk) 03:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Loooke, I think the "NGC objects" category would still be appropriate, as they are still part of the NGC even if they are just mistakes. I think both categories you suggest are good and should be used (where the date of the object discovery is known, of course). Sam-2727 (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Images needing articles

This page has baffled me for quite some time. Mostly because I'm not quite sure what the purpose is. However, there is a more pressing issue in that some of these articles have already been made. Should we clear them off the list? Loooke (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, that list is fairly defunct. The title doesn't really make sense to me: "Images needing Articles." Since when does every object that has an image deserve an article? Sam-2727 (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, 'has an image on Commons' doesn't pass WP:NCASTRO. The only user to have ever edited that page is apparently no longer active. Take to WP:MfD? Modest Genius ^talk 15:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

As a sub-page of this project, if we decide that we don't need it it can be G6'd; not really necessary to take it to MFD. Primefac (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder

Could a knowledgeable editor please check my recent edit to the Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder. It relates to its part (large/small?) in discovering where the missing (~50%) of 'normal' matter in the universe is. Apparently this is not referring to dark matter. I based my edit on an Oz ABC News report, here, as the Nature article was not then available at the link in the story.
• I later became concerned the reporter may have 'overstated' the discovery.
Regards, 220 of ^Borg 09:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Correct, this is nothing to do with dark matter. The recent paper is a measurement of the missing baryons using a new method: ASKAP observations of fast radio bursts. The result confirms the amount of intergalactic baryons that had previously been measured using different methods, albeit with large uncertainties in both cases. That's a useful contribution, but a whole section of the article on ASKAP seems WP:UNDUE. I'm going to cut it down to a single sentence. Modest Genius ^talk 11:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

PS. If you're adding a discoveries section to the ASKAP article, this by some of the same astronomers was a much bigger deal, see Fast radio burst#FRB 180924. I'd add it myself, but have a CoI on papers in Science. Modest Genius ^talk 11:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the 'fact checking'. Looks like about 50% of my work has become a 'dark edit'. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I suppose it's just 'hidden' in the edit history. Also looks like the ABC reporter did get a bit over-enthusiastic about the importance of the research. It just supports /confirms the research detailed at Missing baryon problem#Resolution? 220 of ^Borg 14:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to revise my edit if you wish. Missing baryon problem#Resolution seems to be a gross over-simplification - there was no one team or paper that 'solved' the problem. Rather it has gradually become less of a problem as more evidence has accumulated, from multiple lines of evidence. The missing baryons problem hasn't gone away entirely, but nor is it as big an issue as it was 10-20 years ago. Modest Genius ^talk 19:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Ice Favorability Index

I invite input on this draft -- not sure if it should be accepted. Paper is super new and index is not picked up in any other scientific articles, but it got attention in the popular press (mostly low-quality sources). Thoughts? Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a WP:SOLAR topic, not WP:AST, so WP:NASTRO doesn't apply. The topic seems WP:TOOSOON to me - it's only been used in one paper a few months ago. However some of the media coverage is in reliable sources (the Room, Forbes and IBT references) so it probably just about scrapes through WP:GNG. The writing is a mess and seems to imply that lunar mining has already begun (it hasn't). I recommend adding 2-4 sentences about this map to lunar water, rather than creating a new article. Modest Genius ^talk 12:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

PS. the image appears to be a copyvio from [11]. If the Commons user who uploaded it to Commons is the same person as the Wikipedia user who wrote the draft, there may be a WP:COI issue too, as the Commons username is the scientist who invented the index. Modest Genius ^talk 17:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Quality control

Unfortunately, there are many errors in the article List of minor planets named after people and the underlying articles to the article Meanings of minor planet names. A suitable template should therefore be added to all these listarticles. Voyager85 (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NGC stars

A deletion discussion of interest to this Wikiproject. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The result of the discussion is a merge into List of NGC objects. Works for me. Praemonitus (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Done, fwiw. Primefac (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Jyotirmimamsa in dire need of attention

Jyotirmimamsa—an article about an Indian astronomy work—is under-sourced, poorly summarized, and highly unapproachable for someone not intimately familiar with the topic. It needs expert attention from someone familiar with astronomy, history of Indian science, or both. As a member of Wikiproject Cleanup, I put a request for an expert on the article about a year ago, but there's been little movement. Plus, Cleanup no longer does requests for additional sources. Would one of you astronomy experts lend your expertise to fixing this article? —A garbage person (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Starbox end at TfD

The {{Starbox end}} template is at TfD. I suspect the inclusion of the message on the template article is why I'm seeing an extra line at the top of star articles. When I replaced {{Starbox end}} with {{end}}, the blank line goes away. Just another pedantic editor issue at play. Praemonitus (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is. The discussion template at the top of the page creates extra whitespace. Lithopsian (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The TFD notice has been wrapped in a <noinclude>...</noinclude> pair, so it should be showing up any more. I'll see about the whitespace issue. Primefac (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The whitespace problem seems to be fixed, although I haven't checked every single article. Lithopsian (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Hen 2-428

This article says, the two white dwarf have a combined mass of about 1.8 solar masses. There is a new paper, which claims a much smaller mass https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2020/06/aa38117-20/aa38117-20.html So maybe you want to update the article. Thanks and greetings from Germany. --Wurgl (talk) 10:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Discrepancy between articles

It seems that many articles on wikipedia (to name a few KW Sagitarii and XX Persei) seem not to agree on some fundamental parameters, and articles related to similar and/or same topics have wholly different estimates. I've cleaned one of two of these but find it quite, well, 'outrageous', that this is happening. I really think there should be a major clean up of astronomy articles, so this can be sorted out, and everything can be consistent and from the latest estimate(s).

Any thoughts?

PNSMurthy (talk) 07:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I would like an answer here, many articles are complete messes, and worse, some of them don't even fit together properly, and I had to correct a few incomprehensibe paragraphs.PNSMurthy (talk) 07:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

1) Could you please be more specific re: "not to agree on some fundamental parameters"? 2) You are correct, there are a lot of inaccuracies in wikipedia pages relating to specific objects. Many of those pages have very few views and no editors noticing them, and it's a lot of work to properly clean them up by checking primary sources and digging through the literature for more recent articles. If you want to start cleaning them up, go ahead. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Then what’s the point? I’m asking myself why I edit astronomical articles, or even encyclopaedic WP when no one views them, and even if someone does, they don’t seem to dig for the details. PNSMurthy (talk) 01:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

PNSMurthy, I think the point is here that Wikipedia is a volunteer project, so it is fairly unfeasible to organize a major cleanup of all astronomy articles. It's great to encourage editors to edit articles, but organizing such an effort as you suggest isn't likely to happen. You are also welcome to make the changes yourself, of course. Sam-2727 (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Very well, but that is not going to be the first thing in my mind:)PNSMurthy (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

It's an evolutionary process, so I wouldn't expect every article to be in a polished final state. I'd only expect the FA- and GA-rated articles to be in top form. You're free to try and improve articles as you find them. Praemonitus (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Pick a category of objects that you want to work on and go at them slowly. As was already written Wikipedia is a voluntary project and there are only a handful of regular editors for any given category. -- Kheider (talk) 07:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

This is why I am generally skeptical of a lot of the single object articles here: they might be based on one or two papers, or on data extracted from a survey catalog, but the object is not particularly notable otherwise, so once the page is created, nobody is really looking to maintain it as scientific knowledge moves forward. - Parejkoj (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Barring WP:NASTCRIT #2 (which I believe to be flawed, or at least the NGC part), I believe that's exactly why NASTRO exists; a single star that is not "extraordinary" (i.e. it has no planets or other notable features) should not have an article. Primefac (talk) 00:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not going to happen. Various cleanup efforts have been made, but it's not as easy as you might think to delete an astronomical object article. The main benefit of WP:AfD is usually the edits made to push it above the deletion bar. Praemonitus (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've been going through the NGC objects and weeding out ones that are clearly not notable. Generally, I'm able to persuade people in an AfD discussion that the article should be redirected regardless of what WP:NASTRO #2 says. Sam-2727 (talk) 04:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, okay, I will see what I can do.PNSMurthy (talk) 04:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

List of largest stars

I'm seriously debating nominating List of largest stars for deletion. As Lithopsian will likely attest, it is a hotbed of OR, edit warring, and incredibly varying measurements. In the last month I've seen a star be pushed to the top of the list, then the bottom, then removed entirely, then re-added somewhere in the middle before finally returning to the top, all based on which reference the involved editors happened to choose as their preferred values for calculating L/T_eff. While I have no doubt that this list is (on paper) a notable list (because we do have "largest X" for just about everything), but I just don't feel like (in reality) it's supported reliably enough to be a valid resource. I thought I'd solicit some thoughts here before I pulled the trigger, if only to spitball ideas for potential improvements and/or things to propose at an AFD. Primefac (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Believe me, I appreciate the sentiment, but is a (let's assume) notable article going to be voted off Wikipedia because it is low quality? As in an insider, I find it impossible to guess what an outsider would make of the article. Is it a complete basket-case or are they going to say it needs more effort to resolve the content disputes? What would be the rationale to delete? WP:OR? Would probably fail since it can all be found in reliable sources. WP:SYNTHESIS? Plenty of that, but it can be weeded out. WP:NPOV for cherry-picking sources? Lithopsian (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, that last point is the main issue. I'll take Stephenson 2-18 as the continuing example - two references five years apart both measure L and T_eff that either give a diameter of 474 or 2158R_☉ (see Special:PermaLink/959640933 for refs). Both are "reliable" in that (as near as I can tell) their methods are sound and the papers are published in reputable journals. There's an editor who (in my opinion) wants to "weed out" any "small" numbers for references and only choose the largest numbers possible, while a different editor wants to do the opposite. Do we mandate that the only sizes we post have to be verified by at least two sources (within a margin of error)? Primefac (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

So I was taking a look at Stephenson 2-18 today and it seems that the 474 number is for a different star. Might need to find a different pathological example to show how bad things are out there. Not that it makes 2,158 R_☉ any more believable, just not flatly contradicted by any sources we have so far. Lithopsian (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear Lithopsian, A pathological example of how bad things are out there is V538 Carinae, with a size possibly pushing it to 3rd or 4th, at 1,870 solar radii BUT... There is another source that says it is only 580 solar radii, smaller than Betelguese! Plus, another example of how bad things are out there is HV 888 with 1,353- 1,974 solar radii. If you have seen that "Awful-Botched piece article by Sam Halls on Quora", To quote Lithopsian, Don't trust it to the bone. Sam Halls placed Stephenson 2-18 at 1,630 solar radii, When in reality it was based on A synthesis of published material, banned by Wikipedia, as well as Silly imagination. One of the sources Sam Halls used, as Lithopsian said was for an entirely different star ! And he was embarrased where that 1,630 solar radii came from ! Another thing that makes his article "Botched", To quote Lithopsian again is Sam Halls claiming HV 888 as the largest star,when in reality, It has uncertainty of around 621 solar radii !!!!! (1,353-1,974) --THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 07:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, careful. Anything inflammatory might and probably will get you blocked. And, everything doesn't need an exclamation mark. Its not the end of the world.PNSMurthy (talk) 07:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Oops, Once again sorry. It looks like when HV 888 Became 1,477 solar radii I thought: Guess I will have to update My sandbox Again... V538 Carinae might be only an AGB Star and Not one of the Largest stars... --THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 04:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd suggest adding a section at the top for stars with reliable size measurements, presumably due to direct measurements and reliable distances. That way the reader can be informed that the remaining star radius estimates are iffy. Praemonitus (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Wow that's a mess. At the very least those numbers need to report a) the wavelength at which they were measured and b) the uncertainties from their references (even those are probably underestimated in many cases). From the article title I expected to get a list of stars with direct radius measurements from interferometry or occultations, but most of the entries are L/T which is a highly unreliable method of estimation. To address the original question: this is certainly a notable topic so fixing the article would be better than deleting it. If it was deleted, it would soon be recreated, in an even worse state. Modest Genius ^talk 19:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I would dispute that deriving a radius from a luminosity and effective temperature is highly unreliable. This is the very definition of radius as applied to stars. What is unreliable is using an angular diameter that may or may not bear any relation to what is treated as the radius in any other context. With current interferometric methods, you don't even know if the measurement is of the star or something surrounding the star, whether the star is round or has a remotely uniform surface. And of course all the methods really are highly uncertain in terms of the margins of error on the angular diameter, distance, or luminosity. The effective temperature can usually be derived quite accurately, but trivial derivations from a colour index or two can be wildly wrong. Lithopsian (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I was going to try to find some reliable listing, but unfortunately it seems that all lists of largest stars online are copied verbatim from Wikipedia! Sam-2727 (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

This sounds familiar: we had the same situation in the (now-deleted) List of Largest Galaxies. Out of date citations, no consistency in definitions of size, and outright fabrications. The AfD for that list was not very controversial. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Give ranges. If the range of reputable sources is 400-1500, then that's what we can give in the list. Sort by largest measurement, I guess, give details where the range is controversial. --mfb (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Please don't try sorting by the most inaccurate available data, that being the largest value you can find. There's nothing inherently wrong with quoting a range, but it doesn't really solve the problem. There are still likely to be multiple (more than two) sources, and those giving values that would constitute the extremes of a range are likely to be exactly the ones you shouldn't be using. Lithopsian (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Correct. As you may know by now, Stephenson 2-18 is my favorite star, Due to it at the top of the list. But if we sorted Stars By their Largest estimate, Its days as Being on the top of the list are numbered. Westerlund 1-26, WOH G64, NML Cygni, KY Cygni, EV Carinae & MY Cephei all have size estimates larger than Stephenson 2-18's, making Stephenson 2-18 drop to 8th :(... The largest size estimates of these stars are 2,550 for Westerlund 1-26, 2,575 for WOH G64, 2,770 For NML Cygni, 2,850 for KY Cygni, 2,880 for EV Carinae and 2,440 for MY Cephei, To name Just a few stars whose size estimates may be larger than Stephenson 2-18's. --THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 06:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I have started a discussion about how to update/fix/display this page, while I won't expect everyone to duplicate their comments here (I'll transclude this section) I would appreciate at least some eyes on it to shoot down bad ideas (or propose good ones). Primefac (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Primefac and Lithopsian, is there some sort of idea being expressed amongst editors on this topic that large stars are notable (there's a lot on the talk page so I didn't read through all of it)? It might be worth reminding those on the talk page that the stars aren't independently notable. I've Afded I think five or so star articles that are on this list because of lack of independent notability. Sam-2727 (talk) 01:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

There's certainly been an effort to create articles, of mixed quality, for many of the redlinks towards the top of the list. In general, I don't think being on the list or even being towards the top of the list automatically confers notability, so WP:NASTRO should apply. I've AfD'd a couple that shouldn't even have been in the list. I've also tried redirecting some of the more pointless stubs, but go some pushback so they're going to AfD as well. I've let a few reasonably-constructed articles be, that probably wouldn't pass the guidelines; still, if there is enough to write an article there's perhaps enough to at least claim some notability. Any thoughts about making a list and submitting them as a batch? Or is it just going to be a trainwreck? So far I haven't seen any opposition to the deletions. Lithopsian (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Just as a note/update, the list has been updated, complete with a new template to calculate the radius based on which values are given in the reference(s). I've checked through the top 5, plus the dozen or so that come from those refs, but more eyes would be helpful in sorting out the validity/accuracy of the new entries. Primefac (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

What stars are those? --THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 07:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

All stars on the list. And, it doesn't seem to be as bad as the late list of largest galaxies (atleast everything is cited).PNSMurthy (talk) 07:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, It is better than that deleted list and the original List of largest stars.Plus, It is sill Semi-Protected and It will not have any Vandalism issues... I have almost 400 edits and could update the List, But if you are asking: why are you not editing the List? It is because I am afraid to mess up the list and add Inaccurate sizes.... THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Modification to Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects)

Hello Wikiproject Astronomy members, Following discussion, at Wikipedia talk:Notability (astronomical objects), NGC objects are no longer an example of objects of "high historical importance" and now must meet WP:GNG. I'm going to go through the current list of NGC objects and open AfD discussions for the ones that I don't think meet WP:GNG, but help is welcome (I'm starting at 1,000). Sam-2727 (talk) 04:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can see, we really don't have to delete these articles. We could simply not make anymore. I've seen similar issues, and have simply decided to just not make anymore not-notable articles. I don't see the point, but I really don't care about NGC objects either (no offense).PNSMurthy (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Having hundreds of garbage articles is kind of pointless. At minimum we should redirect to a main list with the relevant information. Primefac (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Primefac. Individual articles are kind of useless on these, but leaving a redirect is better than pure deletion (as I advocate for at AfD), because it preserves the information in the article, which can potentially later be added to the list. If anybody wants to give it a shot, I think more columns could be added to list of NGC objects (e.g. magnitude, who discovered it). Sam-2727 (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmf, okay. But then, hundreds of articles will be deleted, and its an extremely tricky business with some articles.PNSMurthy (talk) 03:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

PNSMurthy, a redirect would be preferred. So hopefully not flat out deletion. Sam-2727 (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Sam-2727 Okay.PNSMurthy (talk) 05:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Stripe 82

I came across this article, but what is the notability of this particular field of sky? It doesn't seem clear to me. Loooke (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Loooke, it seems to meet GNG. Just throwing out some sources: [12], [13], [14] and others. Sam-2727 (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Doing research in a stripe doesn't make it notable, but it appears that a) it's a scan of the celestial equator, and b) it's the only named stripe (in the sense that none of the other strips are giving hits). There's really not much out there about it, though... Primefac (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, Sure, perhaps not just doing research. But those papers I mention give long sections. For instance, much of page 2 of the first paper and page 3 of the second paper cover the specifics of the stripe. One could mention, as the papers do, the scan direction of the stripe, when and for how long the stripe was imaged, and what bands the stripe was imaged in. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Notability in the astronomy community is not the same as notability to Wikipedia. Multiple reliable sources means it can pass WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Stripe 82 is a region of the SDSS photometric survey that was imaged about 80 times, resulting in one of the widest and deepest multi-band, multi-epoch datasets of its era. Because of this, it has been observed by other instruments, resulting in very high wavelength coverage and spectroscopic followup. It is used as precursor data to test things like the LSST. Definitely notable within the astronomy research community. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Stripe 82 was an extra-deep region of SDSS, which has had multiple follow-up observations. It's a well-studied patch of sky. In principle, it probably justifies an article, like the Lockman Hole or (much more famous) HUDF. However the current article is a complete disaster. It's just two sentences of prose and an unreferenced list of other surveys, most of them non-notable. A low-importance article could certainly be written about this topic, but the current incarnation would surely be deleted if taken to AfD. Modest Genius ^talk 13:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Orgov Radio-Optical Telescope

If anyone has a bit of time to look at this article, a new editor has just added a lot of info here that looks useful, but is unreferenced. Perhaps the additions should just be removed, but it would be good to have a longer article about the topic. (I started the article last year, but it was quite short as I couldn't find many references.) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a good-faith addition, but it's very badly written and full of irrelevant digressions, as well as being completely unreferenced. I suggest reverting and explaining to the user that they need to include references whenever they add substantial new material. Modest Genius ^talk 14:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. @Elizium23: reverted it as a copyvio, but I'm not sure where the text came from (I tried googling some phrases, but couldn't find anything). I've left a follow-up note on the user's page. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Not everything on google is reliable.PNSMurthy (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

NGC 529

After two relistings, comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NGC 529 (2nd nomination) would be appreciated. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Comets in 2020

Should categories such as Category:Comets in 2020 be sorted by perihelion date instead of by name? -- Kheider (talk) 07:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it's more likely for somebody to be searching on name rather than perihelion date. Praemonitus (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

A list that allows sorting by perihelion could be nice, however. --mfb (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

List of largest stars

The article in question, has recently just come out of an edit war. It is still getting back on its feet, and many stars in it are yet to be revised and re added. I am raising a request here for the limit size (which is currently 700 solar radii), to be shifted to a 1,000, mainly because of the fact, that, in light of recent events, there are easily 500 stars that cross this limit and are yet to be added.

I have transcluded relative sections from the talk page of the article in question here: PNSMurthy (talk) 09:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk:List of largest stars#Up the limit

This is getting out of hand. There are 200 odd stars in the pending additions page, and 200 more in these three links ; https://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/898/1/24/suppdata/apjab9c17t1_mrt.txt, https://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/898/1/24/suppdata/apjab9c17t2_mrt.txt, and https://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/898/1/24/suppdata/apjab9c17t3_mrt.txt. The list will be 1.), unruly, and 2.), unimaginably long. Over this, we still haven't templated the list yet! How about we amp up the limit to 1,000 Rsol, so we can keep this list relatively large?PNSMurthy (talk) 23:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk:List of largest stars#So much work

There are still so many more stars from various refs that have yet to be added, I may not always have time or want to add so many, it gets pretty boring. I would like help with this so the list of largest stars can finally be more complete. Let's work together to find as many stars as possible! Nussun05 (talk) 05:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Like I requested above, can we amp up the limit to a 1,000 Rsol?PNSMurthy (talk) 07:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The proposal has been made, now wait for replies (and/or solicit opinions from WT:AST). Primefac (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I will transude a few sections from the talk page there shortly @Primefac:. It seems the proposal has been forgotten in the rush of new questions and statements in this talk page.PNSMurthy (talk) 02:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac: I have launched my request at WP:AST.PNSMurthy (talk) 02:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Classical astronomy and sculpture - the Farnese Atlas

A ancient classical statue of Atlas in Naples (the Farnese Atlas) holds a celestial globe, carved in the 2nd century AD (probably) but based (possibly) on an older model. This globe has constellations on, and various erudite theories have been proposed as to the relevance of this globe to the history of astronomy and science generally. There are sources that indicate it is the subject of much debate, and it would good if someone competent with astronomy and its jargon could look at the sources cited and expand on the scientific side of the article. GPinkerton (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean the Farnese Atlas? Praemonitus (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes of course thank you! – I have changed it to reflect that. GPinkerton (talk) 01:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)