Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

WikiProject Astronomy was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 14 January 2013.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37

Merged from old talk

Old WikiProject Telescopes talk

Topical archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Shortcuts

Template:Astronomical catalogs

Template:Astronomical catalogs has now two links to disambiguation pages (Arp 83 and Arp 84). I have tried to solve it but the way the template is created is way over my head. I asked the disambiguation-creator for help, but he stumbled on the same thing. How can this be ironed out? The Banner talk 08:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anything needs solving, since Arp 83 & 84 are indeed ambiguous. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 11:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A template should not point to a disambiguation page. The Banner talk 20:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, yes, but in this rare & specific case, where both dabs are mutually inclusive, I think it's ok to WP:IAR. If one of these arps showed up on Arp 83 or Arp 84, for example, then I would agree. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 00:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arp 83 & 84 aren't ambiguous; they each refer to a pair of interacting galaxies. In both cases each of those galaxies has its own article, so these pages help navigation, but I'm not sure it's correct to treat them as disambiguation pages? SevenSpheres (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting take. The Banner talk 20:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a list? Or set index? Or another form that removed the dab-designation? The Banner talk 11:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's useful to highlight them (i.e. as a dab), or at least distinguish them in some way (e.g. with a superscript), in the template as referring to multiple resolved objects/articles, as this is the exception, and not the rule.

Pinging creator, Sir MemeGod. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sir MemeGod could not solve the template either as the template is very technical. The Banner talk 22:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since Arp 83 & Arp 84 were recently de-dab'd by R'n'B, I boldly added <sup>([[Interacting galaxy|i]])</sup> to their entries on the nav via Template:Astronomical catalogs/Interacting. Anyone feel free to tweak. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I've added an example of the issue to the top of the thread, and copied the relevant code below; the issue is that this template creates a generic list based on the input (the above is |Arp=85) and thus adding disambiguation to the template would be rather cumbersome for just those Arp values that are around 83/84.

Template code for Arp values

| group11 = [[Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies|Arp]]
| list11  = {{#if:{{{Arp|}}}|
* {{#ifexpr:({{{Arp}}} - 6) > 0 |[[Arp {{#expr:{{{Arp}}} - 6}}]] }}
* {{#ifexpr:({{{Arp}}} - 5) > 0 |[[Arp {{#expr:{{{Arp}}} - 5}}]] }}
* {{#ifexpr:({{{Arp}}} - 4) > 0 |[[Arp {{#expr:{{{Arp}}} - 4}}]] }}
* {{#ifexpr:({{{Arp}}} - 3) > 0 |[[Arp {{#expr:{{{Arp}}} - 3}}]] }}
* {{#ifexpr:({{{Arp}}} - 2) > 0 |[[Arp {{#expr:{{{Arp}}} - 2}}]] }}
* {{#ifexpr:({{{Arp}}} - 1) > 0 |[[Arp {{#expr:{{{Arp}}} - 1}}]] }}
* '''Arp {{{Arp}}}'''
* {{#ifexpr:({{{Arp}}} + 1) < 339 | [[Arp {{#expr:{{{Arp}}} + 1}}]]}}
* {{#ifexpr:({{{Arp}}} + 2) < 339 | [[Arp {{#expr:{{{Arp}}} + 2}}]]}}
* {{#ifexpr:({{{Arp}}} + 3) < 339 | [[Arp {{#expr:{{{Arp}}} + 3}}]]}}
* {{#ifexpr:({{{Arp}}} + 4) < 339 | [[Arp {{#expr:{{{Arp}}} + 4}}]]}}
* {{#ifexpr:({{{Arp}}} + 5) < 339 | [[Arp {{#expr:{{{Arp}}} + 5}}]]}}
* {{#ifexpr:({{{Arp}}} + 6) < 339 | [[Arp {{#expr:{{{Arp}}} + 6}}]]}}
}}

I'll think about a technical fix, but the above ideas regarding changing how/where the link points may be a good alternative idea. Primefac (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naming convention for Sharpless objects

Newly created article Sh 2-185 is being discussed for a move to Sh2-185, with the argument that would provide, "consistency with other articles on Sharpless objects". However, IAU naming convention uses the format: Acronym ^ Sequence ^ (Specifier). If you look at the scientific publications for Sharpless objects, they have the form: Sh^[1-2]-NNN. I.e. with a space after the 'Sh'. For some reason on Wikipedia they are all named Sh[1-2]-NNN. I.e. no space. Do we just stay lazy and keep the current names, or move them to the IAU version per MOS:ASTRO. Yes, I know it's a nit. Praemonitus (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor SevenSpheres has opened a move request on Talk:Sh 2-185 regarding this issue. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In general I'd support the use of names that follow the IAU conventions. Aldebarium (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes to infobox constellation

Two changes were proposed to {{Infobox constellation}}, see its talk page for more information.

Remove parameter "stars with planets".
Add parameter "Nearest star in constellation".

21 Andromedae (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support this per the referenced talk page discussion. SevenSpheres (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at 2MASS J10475385+2124234

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2MASS J10475385+2124234#Requested move 5 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Related discussions for reference:

SevenSpheres (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seriously opposed to this kind of abbreviation but I fail to see a need for it. I'll note that there is currently no consistency in whether and how these kind of titles are abbreviated; in fact in the two proposed moves above, the current titles are consistent but the proposed (shortened) titles are not. SevenSpheres (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COI edits

@Paolosalucci has been systematically adding reference to papers that include "Paolo Salucci" as an author. Some of these are fine, some are clearly not the best reference. Many of the edits mangle the surrounding text. The topics are all related to dark matter and galaxy rotation; Paolo Salucci is a world class expert on that topic. I left a Talk message pointing to WP:CIO but there was already one from some time back. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a clear COI, so while there is nothing that stops an author from adding their works as references, they should be reasonable references for the subject material. If that is not the case, and it appears haphazard, then it might be time to start discussing a topic ban. However, I would like to get thoughts from Paolosalucci on the matter before we get to that point. Primefac (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did this: I replaced twice one of my old reference with a better one, more recent and more readable from people, since it is a review on TAAR (IF=35). Moreover, I added a new a reference of my most known paper( 1600 citations in a place where there were no references). In that place maybe other references are needed, not to remove mine . Then, I added a new small chapter for M87 the biggest galaxy around. I did not changed the content of the text since I do not consider wikipedia the place to put controversial content. I do not understand self promotion. I get some result , well agreed in the literature certainly deserving at least a couple sentence why I cannot put it . Furthermore the text is in some point on the verge of being cracpot, the references are often of works unknown and jollybarton has something against me ( as I remember 10 years ago) ? Is it possible to zoom each other ? I do not understand as all the main editors of astrophysical astroparticle journal beg me to write a review on the dark matter in galaxy and you do not accept a single reference????? Paolosalucci (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Paolosalucci Please don't over react. I don't have anything against you or your work. The edits you have made are self-promoting in the sense that they are minimal contributions focused on your publications. I suppose the editors of any astrophysical journal would would be wary of a review that only cited one author's work. Thus we are wary of an edit that solely adds a reference to your own work.

Personally I hope you will make more edits or maybe comment on any the Talk page for any content that is "on the verge of being cracpot". The essay Wikipedia:Expert editors has some really good perspective on how to approach wikipedia editing.

I would especially encourage you to call out your involvement with sources you cite. For example, the edit summary you wrote when changing Dark matter was "Added two wellknown works at support of dark matter in galaxies.". In my opinion a forthright edit summary would be: "Add a reference to my well-cited paper and my review on dark matter in galaxies." That would make it clear that these are appropriate references (well-cited or secondary refs) and that you are acknowledging the COI issue.

Please also consider adding a short comment in the Talk pages for these articles to explain why your paper is appropriate for the context. Such comments will build up confidence that your goal is to improve the article rather than self-promotion. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo: I think the most important thing is as User:Johnjbarton says, to note in your edit summaries that this is a COI edit, and/or noting on the talk page for such articles that you've added refs to your own work. COI edits are not a problem in and of themselves, but they should be transparent. We need more people with a background in cosmology and galaxies editing here, so please stick around. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac The references added are top notch and mostly on target. I primarily wanted to raise awareness that the refs are self-promoting. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple issues with List of largest exoplanets

Hi,

There is an ongoing discussion in the talk page of the List of largest exoplanets, regarding the accuracy of large radii calculated from the luminosities of young planets surrounded by dust, usage of artist's impressions, and miscellaneous notes. The specific discussion can be found in Talk:List of largest exoplanets#Multiple issues. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 21:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging this section, as the above talk page could use some more opinion on the value of artists' illustrations. - Parejkoj (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at HR 2562 b

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:HR 2562 b#Requested move 11 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Your input on the discussion would be welcome! ArkHyena (talk) 09:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding lists of solar eclipses

Hello astronomers! I have already posted this on the Teahouse, but I was told to ask you guys instead. I am working on a list of all of the solar eclipses visible from Canada, and I have a question regarding how the list entries are classified. What exactly determines if only a "sliver" of the subdivision was in the path of the eclipse (and would therefore have a dagger next to its entry)? Is it subjective, or is there a concrete definition? Thanks! ✶Antrotherkus✶^✶talk✶ 20:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link to draft for reference. Primefac (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question, though... I don't know if that's particularly useful information. Is it really relevant to know whether something passed across the entirety of Nunavut, half of it, or a quarter of it? I wouldn't bother including that information, and would probably make the argument that such information could be removed from any existing articles (though I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise). Primefac (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the vast majority of these eclipse articles are not notable, amounting to data, not knowledge. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and AFD has supported that opinion for the most part, but that's somewhat of a different discussion. Primefac (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you think that my draft isn't that great. I'm mainly just copying from the already-existent list of solar eclipses visible from the United States, meaning that I am using the same key (daggers included) as that article. ✶Antrotherkus✶^✶talk✶ 18:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never said the draft wasn't great, I just don't see the "sliver" information being particularly useful. Primefac (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Epoch (cosmology)

"Epoch" seems to be used in astronomy to mean a point in time, eg the first instant of a calendar. In cosmology it seems to be a synonym for "era". Does anyone have a reference to this effect? "I have seen it used ..." is not helpful because we can't cite our own experience its not exactly verifiable ;-) Johnjbarton (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "this effect?" It's just a difference in use of a term. In astrometry, epoch is the date of the observation (Julian Epoch Year), in cosmology it's "that period of time" (e.g. the epoch of reionization). I'm a bit surprised at that redirect, but I guess it's reasonable. - Parejkoj (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I meant: Does anyone have a reference discussing how the word "Epoch" has a different meaning in cosmology? Johnjbarton (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The word epoch covers both definitions. I don't think it's unique to cosmology. Praemonitus (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The third definition: "(chronology, astronomy, computing) A specific instant in time, chosen as the point of reference or zero value of a system that involves identifying instants of time." matches Epoch (astronomy) which says

In astronomy, an epoch or reference epoch is a moment in time used as a reference point for some time-varying astronomical quantity.

The close connection between cosmology and astronomy would have lead me to think the same word would have the same meaning. That's why I was surprised. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exception for WP:Toosoon and WP:SOURCES?

In this edit to Hubble's law @Banedon added content based on an unpublished and uncited ArXiv paper:

Freedman, Wendy; et al. (12 August 2024). "Status Report on the Chicago-Carnegie Hubble Program (CCHP): Three Independent Astrophysical Determinations of the Hubble Constant Using the James Webb Space Telescope".

The claim added is very mild. Bandon has made the case in Talk:Hubble's law that this source should be allowed.

Since I routinely revert additions based on newly published papers let alone ArXiv preprints, I would like consensus on this exception. I would say the exception is based on the consortium of authors being a form of review, the YouTube video review, and the mild nature of the claim.

Please respond on Talk:Hubble's_law#Update_potentially_needed_for_Hubble_Tension_section?. Thanks.

(Posted to WikiProject physics and astronomy) Johnjbarton (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freedman's group do good work, and are probably correct, but we should wait for publication and some citations, just like we do with everything else. - Parejkoj (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of star systems within 500-550 light-years nominated for deletion

@ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of star systems within 500-550 light-years ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not surprising that the lists of nearby star systems has kept expanding, because where do you cut them off? Praemonitus (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the cut-off is now 500 light years, with the outermost being List of star systems within 450–500 light-years. The outer lists are fairly short, so we could even merge the ones from 100 to 500 ly. But it's probably not worth the bother. Praemonitus (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Also, not bothering gives more room for expansion. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A formal RfC against Universe Guide

So for context, I first noticed this questionable source regarding Theta Muscae, which I then reached out at WT:ASTRO for a note, and made me realize this source has been cited in multiple existing articles and is a worse problem than I thought. A past discussion on the RSN confirms this as an unreliable source and a personal blog website of N. John Whitworth, who has superficial background in astronomy, if at all (as one can see upon the poor grammar and science fiction-like writing of the site). However, that particular discussion was quite unfruitful and did not follow the proper method on launching an RfC investigation that should have classified this as a deprecated source and discouraged its use on Wikipedia.

This time, however, I wanted to launch a formal RfC against this website. It is very popular and appears mostly on the top of Google searches, so it would be inevitable that time and time again this farce blog will be used as a source for astronomy articles. I however did not have the tools to look for articles on where this website was used as a source and make a more solid complaint, as I believe 40 articles is an underestimation. I also don't know much about the history of how this website had been cited, so if anybody out there has the technical skills to outline this, maybe you can help out. It would be greatly appreciated.

That's all. I am having quite a bad day right now after staying all night, and I became more mad upon looking at this website's entries. SkyFlubbler (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SkyFlubbler: Why not do this at RSN? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special:LinkSearch may be helpful. Yes, this is clearly an unreliable source and shouldn't be cited. SevenSpheres (talk) 02:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this is exactly what I was looking for, thank you. I think I'll be writing one now. I'll go back here once it's finished. SkyFlubbler (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

100% not a reliable source. Please do file for it to be "officially" listed as such. There are a few other such bad sources used on some pages; I've listed some of them on here in the past. I don't think any of those had as wide a use as this one though. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is an unreliable source, full of inconsistencies and wrong data. 21 Andromedae (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed here also. Universe Guide is just an amateur site, in all senses of the word. Skeptic2 (talk) 09:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a claim in Saturn, a Featured article, which is cited to "Universe Guide". It needs at least a better source and perhaps a rewrite. See the opening line of Saturn#Atmosphere. Most of the other occurrences seem to be in less prominent places; they all ought to be fixed eventually, but this one sticks out in particular. I'd be concerned that any website source since 2009 could have just copied that claim from here, and I haven't yet had time to sift the literature for more trustworthy numbers. XOR'easter (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Comet C/2023 V4 (Camarasa-Duszanowicz)

Please will a specialist review this draft with a view to accepting it or offering the creating editor advice]] 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this comet is notable. It received little coverage outside the usual databases (not even dedicated astronomy news sites mention it). --C messier (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Archaeoastronomy

Archaeoastronomy has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomical units

If you have any opinions about whether AU should be converted to SI units, please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Astronomical units. (To keep the discussion in one place, please don't reply below). -- Beland (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Artemis 1#Requested move 4 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Artemis 1#Requested move 4 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radius calculation discussion

There is a discussion about NML Cygni and how to best calculate its radius. Please join in the conversation at Talk:List of largest stars § NML Cygni. Primefac (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]