Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

Size comparisons for Solar System objects smaller than Enceladus

At the standard image size of 250px, the typical Earth-Moon-thing comparison image shows Enceladus as only 8px wide in its article. It's not much use using the same format for the smaller moons, so we've got to figure out a nice comparison format for the smaller satellites, maybe by combining the ideas behind the TNOs and the British Isles comparisons. Since this is not a small undertaking, getting a WikiProject Astronomy consensus seems like a good idea before someone (Primefac?? :) starts working on it.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  20:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd be happy to make the images. We should definitely have a consensus about what comparisons we're making, but also we need to figure out what Commons already has to avoid unnecessary duplication. My vote (to keep this talk page from getting huge) would be to create a Worklist subtopic to keep track of everything (assuming there are enough interested people to make such an undertaking worthwhile). Primefac (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
For the smaller bodies such as Enceladus and Mimas, perhaps a better comparison image would be to use Mars or Ganymede as the largest object in the image, rather than Earth. I suggest Ganymede since it is the largest moon, and Mars because I'd guess that most people know the rough relative size of it compared to Earth. StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I like the idea of reappropriating the large-format comparison to use as the small-format. What if we combine this with a country (or something else, maybe even Enceladus itself) by putting the Moon where Earth normally is, since it's smaller than Ganymede (which works to our advantage in this case; Ganymede is starting too big in my opinion), then put another common-ish object where the Moon normally is? The United States is too large (25% wider than the Moon), but the British Isles are at least at the scale we're looking for. I'd say people have a better idea of the size of the British Isles than of Mars (plus Mars is too big anyway).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  14:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Simply enlarge the Moon and don't show the whole Earth. Leave just about 1/4 of it showing on an edge. Another idea is to compare the size of the smaller moons with a country or continent. You get a satellite image of, say, England, and use it as scale Tetra quark (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I like that, enlarging it and not showing the whole Earth. I think it best shows the relative sizes. A comparison with a country may also be useful, but it doesn't show the relative size of the satellite compared to Earth and the Moon and I don't think people will know it intuitively then. --JorisvS (talk) 12:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Since it's for small objects, don't show the Earth at all. Overlay the object on the Moon, showing it against the mare, giving it something familiar to compare against. These objects are small enough that the numbers alone are meaningful in a human sense: most people have travelled far enough to have a good sense of how far 400 km is. Tbayboy (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I suggest if you put a sub-image showing a zoom in portion. I don't support the use of countries, because 1. This is astronomy, not geography, and 2. Not everyone knows a size of a definite country, and 3. Not everyone lives in England to know its size. Just an example, I live here in the Philippines, and Tetra quark himself says he's in Brazil. So using England as comparison would be unfamilliar to us. SkyFlubbler (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Zoom won't be necessary; if the Moon is 100px the smallest body (Nereid) will be 9-10 pixels, large enough for a Wiki image. Primefac (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
What about the United States? Most readers live there Tetra quark (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm in the U.S., and I think that using any country would be a bad idea, since they're all irregular in shape, making it harder for readers to discern the actual size. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
For instance, this comparison of Enceladus and the UK is more illustrative than the image Tom.Reding added, in my opinion Tetra quark (don't be shy) 19:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Enceladus is a big jump (in smallness) from Tethys and starts the parade of smaller objects. Since it's a transition between "large" and "small" (relative to the Earth-Moon-thing format) it's nice having the large-format comparison next to what will be the small-format comparison (whatever it is) on that page.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  13:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I think both the Enceladus–Earth–Moon comparison as the Enceladus–British Isles comparison add value for our readers. For the smaller satellites it would be the same. --JorisvS (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Three new stubs

They could use a bit of help, if you have the inclination. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

article quality bot?

Hi, can someone tell me how often the bot runs? The one that checks the articles for quality and upgrades their rating from stub-class to C-class to B-class? Thanks. Lehasa (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no bot (that I know of), though I often take the uncategorised articles and give them a ranking. Primefac (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
How can a bot possibly know whether an article is good or not? I am confused Tetra quark (don't be shy) 00:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Tetra quark, you'd be surprised what well-trained computers can do. However, in this instance it's the real-life humans who do article rankings.Primefac (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
@Primefac:Now that I think about it, an article rating bot would be very helpful. People's ratings are completely arbitrary and no one ever changes the it after the article has been improved. For example, I posted the banner of my Cosmology WikiProject on talk pages and almost blindly rated them. Actually, I mostly just copied the ratings of other wikiprojects Tetra quark (don't be shy) 00:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
An article rating bot would need to know the subject matter to assess the articles properly other than for pure English form and grammar, and whether sources exist or not (and possibly if the exact terms occur in the source) Though that doesn't stop people from writing journal article bots that spit out gibberish that gets past peer review and published into reputable academic journals. Actually, many people who rate quality of articles seem to blindly copy the quality rating over from existing banners (ie. FA/A/Start/Stub). Somepeople even blindly copy the importance ratings over, though that is invariably wrong. There (is?/was?) a bot that runs that auto-copies stub-quality over to all banners but I don't remember which circumstances it runs under. I suppose a bot could be made to autoassess as stub , and if a stub is no longer a stub could autoupgrade to start class, but doing more than that probably wouldn't be worth the error rate. FA/A/GA-class articles require manually nominations and assessment subpages. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Capitalize the "U" in "universe" or not?

Now that I've got access to AWB and its find and replace feature, I had the idea to ask you guys whether the word "universe" should be capitalized or not. A few sources claim that it is ok to write it either way, but the problem is that the word is found both capitalized and not in different articles and sometimes in the same article, so we must reach a consensus to choose the best way to use the word and stick to it.

In my opinion I'd choose to capitalize it, but of course, I can't do such a major change without talking about it before Tetra quark (don't be shy) 00:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The topic has been open for 9 days at Talk:Universe, with no responses. An archive search for "capitalize" gives results from 2006, 2011, and 2013. Did you read through and consider those before posting? What are the major points? Which do you agree with and which do you disagree with?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  01:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
@Tom.Reding: It doesn't matter if I read through the archives. I have to ask for your opinions before making a significant edit Tetra quark (don't be shy) 02:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
This is a tough one. When we are talking about our universe as the Universe, I believe that it should be capitalized, just as when we are talking about the Sun or the Moon. On the other hand, when we are talking about a universe as in the context of the multiverse or that a universe must have some qualities to support life. I believe it should not be capitalized, just as when we talk about a moon or a sun of a different planet. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
seems simple- the Universe, a universe. Bhny (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
We have the same problem with "moon"/"Moon" , "earth"/"Earth" , "sun"/"Sun" , "solar system" / "Solar System" / "Solar system". There are too many articles using "earth" to mean the planet instead of meaning dirt or ground. Ditto for our lunar companion -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
"Wow. There really are many missuses of the lowercase "earth". What is worrying is that I found those errors on popular articles like Saturn and Sirius. Tetra quark (don't be shy) 06:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I think the above commenters have it exactly right: capitalise when speaking in terms of a proper noun, lowercase when speaking in general. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
For the moment, I'll check the articles and spot usage errors of upper/lowercase moon, earth, sun and solar system. Considering I'll be checking astronomy related articles, chances are that words like Sun and Earth should be capitalized most if not all the times.
And by the way, what if we retire the lowercase version of those words? Instead of using "a solar system", should we use "a star system"? It sounds more formal and more encyclopedia-like. Anyway, this probably has been discussed before Tetra quark (don't be shy) 06:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The generic "solar system" is usually used to mean "planetary system" (a system of objects around a star or stars) and not "star system" (a system of star(s) which might contain other stuff) though; there also being "stellar system"... -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 06:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The term planetary system refers to a planet and its moons orbiting it. There is the Solar System and there are other star systems. Solar, star, solar, sol, sun... star. Well, let's not get off topic. You know what I was trying to say Tetra quark (don't be shy) 06:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Planetary system is a system of objects (planets and stuff) in orbit around a star. Which is how ESO uses it, Scientific American, Astronomy Magazine, Wired, Princeton University, arXiv, Caltech, etc. It is not "planet+moons", it is "star+planets" -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
There are multiple reasons for capitalising (or not capitalising) Universe. Thus, AWB would be a very bad way to handle this issue, as it has to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Primefac (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
@Primefac: No, AWB is good at that. I basically have to find the term "the universe", check the context and replace with "the Universe". Or I can also simply find "universe" and check the context to see if it should be capitalized. Tetra quark (don't be shy) 21:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support capitalizing Universe. I agree with Bhny. We talk about our Moon, and moons of other planets. We capitalize Galaxy when we are talking about our own, but other galaxies don't get the capital. Similarly, we should capitalize our Universe but not other hypothetical parallel universes. Reyk YO! 06:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
@Dondervogel 2: Fine, I guess that's the final decision then. Tetra quark (don't be shy) 21:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Tetra quark: Could you explain exactly what you are doing in the 100+ edits relating to "universe" that you have done in the past few days? I see from this edit that you changed "the universe" -- but you didn't change "Einstein's static universe" or "the Einstein universe" or "model of an expanding universe" or the template that has "Age of the universe", etc. ... Also: you're not changing to Universe if universe is inside quote marks, right? I didn't see an example, but I know you've changed sun to Sun inside a direct quote, so I hope this exception has been considered. I do not see in WP:MOSQUOTE that such changes are prohibited, but I don't see that they're allowed. According to an earlier discussion "The Chicago Manual of Style says "Retain original capitalization, spelling, and punctuation in titles and quotations from early modern sources ...". Or take Oxford: "In quotations from printed sources the spelling, capitalization, and punctuation should normally follow the original" (with exceptions that don't seem to apply here). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
--> It seems like all the edit summaries have called the attention of more people, which is understandable. I will try to answer to all of you above. First of all, I want you to keep in mind that I didn't edit those articles based on my preference. All I care about is to do what's more correct. As you can see, I asked here which way we should use the word and I didn't influence anyone in my message (although I left my opinion).
So, according to the MOS, it's ok to capitalize words like "sun" when they are in an astronomical context (As in "the Sun is a main sequence star") and it's not ok when it is not. The word sun, for example, can be used to refer to stars in general as well ("our sun is our primary source of energy". Implying -> there are other suns), and yes, it should be lowercased. When it comes to the word "universe", the same rule can be applied. There is the Universe (which means, the totality of existence) and there are other uses of that word that can refer to one universe in a multi-verse, or used in a philosophical way, or even when referring to wildly different things like "Miss universe". Even though MOS doesn't have an specific example that mentions the word universe, it's pretty clear the same rule should be applied, as everyone above my last message has agreed.
@Peter Gulutzan: that was a first step at changing the word. In the find and replace feature, I typed in "the universe", considering that pretty much all of the cases in which that term is used it refers to the Universe. If I hadn't put the "the" there, it would take a really long time to sort what words should be capitalized or not; that's why "Einstein's static universe" wasn't changed. I do intend to do more detailed edits soon. (Update: I've made the changes in a few articles. Take a look: Albert Einstein [1] Giordano Bruno [2] List of cosmologists [3])
And no, I'm not changing anything inside quotes, file links, templates, refs, link targets, and so on. I really may have capitalized the word "sun" inside a quote accidentally Tetra quark (don't be shy) 04:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
This approach to changes in Wikipedia adoption of style is what many editors soon learn editing can sometimes be a joke. In this case, a typical nitpicking editor finds a flaw in the AWB and exploits it. Worst, they deliberately find a common term not in the adopted procedure, then exploit it by enforcing or imposing some change for the sake of it. IMO, the changes being made here by Tetra quark are a deliberate attempt to stir the pot rather than solving a problem. From past behaviour, this individual seems more than happy to impose his views on others rather than doing so by actual consensus, and basically avoiding WP:GF.
Clearly, the adoption is as follows.
"Universe" with a capital 'U', refers to "THE universe" as a proper or given name. I.e. "The Universe is a big place."
"Universe with a lower case 'u' refers to universe when referred to as a place . I.e. "Travelling for future humans to explore the universe is difficult."
Other similar usages are;
"The Sun is at the centre of the Solar System."
"The sun shone through the window."
"The Earth is the only place in the solar system that is known to have life."
"The astronaut looked down on the earth from the International Space Station."
Carte blanc changes already made here by Tetra quark is tantamount to vandalism.
If you want to make such changes, you should wait a significant amount of time. Already half the contributors disagree with you, but you still went just change Wiki pages anyway.
As an long term editor, I will be using the usage explaining above, and will revert any changes imposed by this User.
Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Who's disagreeing with Tetra quark('s edits) on this except you? I can only see people who agree with capitalizing if it is the one and only, but not in other cases. It looks to me that he saw the consensus and acted on it. You should try WP:AGF here. --JorisvS (talk) 09:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
First, @JorisvS:, read the main commented thread, about half of the replies have mentioned that there are almost as many exceptions to the "the Universe" rule as there are valid reasons, or that AWB should not be used for such specific updates. Second, @Tetra quark:, you waited a grand total of 20 hours before deciding that consensus was raised; we're one of the more active WikiProjects, but seriously, give us some time to discuss! You would have seen Gronk Oz' post about the existing MoS. Additionally, your blatant disregard for past precedent ("It doesn't matter if I read through the archives") is rather worrying and I completely agree with Arianewiki1 that your existing edits should be thoroughly checked and reverted if incorrect. I think it's great that you're enthusiastic and wanting to improve Wikipedia, but there is NORUSH to push changes through, which has been happened a lot lately. Primefac (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Which thread? Besides, those things do not say anything about the consensus here that where it refers to the one and only it shouldn't be capitalized. --JorisvS (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
You are not listening regarding the problem. AWB has a direct warning about adopting its use I.e.
Consensus is really, really important here, because is effect users and the interpretation of text. A good example is your edit on Alpha Centauri, where you, changing the sentence to read "On June 10, 2013, scientists reported that the earlier claims of an Earth-like exoplanet orbiting Alpha Centauri B may not be supported." (my bold.) Earth-like is plainly wrong, it plainly should be earth-like Where is the consensus to do that? (The article here is discussing universe not our home planet!)
My other minor issue is thaaft Tetra quark is likely to have English as his second language, after his native Portuguese. (I'm concerned with the implications of these changes. He has already admitted "I really may have capitalized the word "sun" inside a quote accidentally", which shows the dangers of this approach.
So please stop editing this carte blanc until the issue is properly sorted. Thanks Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
NOTE: I did some tracking on the example of Earth-like versus earth-like, which I wrongly attributed to JorisvS (talk). Although my point is valid, I'm incorrect to attribute this to his work. My humble apologies. (I'm having problems with sorting out these edits, as most naturally will.) It is struck out above in my earlier post. Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


@Primefac: Well, the thing is that Gronk Oz would not have commented if I hadn't made the changes. All the edit summaries have called the attention to this page, and the thing is that people will only leave a message if they have something opposite to say. Users who agree with the changes will not comment.
Also, this is an encyclopedia, and capitalization errors are serious problems. What concerned me the most was ambiguity. While editing, I stumbled upon several cases where the word universe when referring to the universe was indeed capitalized, so we had to choose a definite way to use the word. Tetra quark (don't be shy) 15:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


@Arianewiki1: Ok, well.
1st: I didn't do anything based on my preference. As I said, I didn't try to influence anyone in my first message
2nd: You're wrong - "The astronaut looked down on the earth from the International Space Station". The word "earth" in this case IS capitalized. It is referring to our planet.
3rd: As I said above, all the edit summaries have called the attention of many people. The thing is that people will only leave a comment here is if they have something to oppose. When you say you will revert my edits, you're pretty much disregarding the dozens of people who are ok with them. Cheers, Tetra quark (don't be shy) 15:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
'-->

Tetra quark said; "Now that I've got access to AWB and its find and replace feature, I had the idea to ask you guys whether the word "universe" should be capitalized or not."

It sounds like a User with a new toy. AWB is not designed to do thing on a whim. The question is valid, but the drastic implementation causes drama to sort things out. Yet there are now +500 pages these changes have been applied to, and this includes 'earth', 'sun', 'moon', 'solar system'. This also applies to astronomical as well as non-astronomical subjects. I.e. J. Marvin Herndon. What is worse, these changes have been applied across references as well.

The first chance to discuss this is by Tetra quark 00:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC), but the changes were implemented just before 17:17, 16 January 2015, leaving less than 16 hours.

No one replied to his statement Talk:Universe on 22:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC), until Gopher65 at 12:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC) then Isambard Kingdom at 13:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC). Both advised to avoid doing so and advised on the problems with context. This left almost no chance to correct this.

Worst AWB has changed this to other words like 'earth', 'sun', 'moon', 'solar system', also WITHOUT ANY Consensus.

Why bother debating this, if the edict has already been implemented? Damage done.

Yet this is abusing AWB in clear violation of the usage policy of AWB.

Should this issue submitted be via WP:DRN ? Arianewiki1 (talk)

Let's see. First. You accuse me on my talk that; "I didn't get in a content dispute. You were the one who started everything."

This is not the issue. You have implemented the AWB without any adequate consensus or agreement, and have total disregarded the consequence of your actions, even when you were advised of the issues and risks.

As for the quotes above.

1st: I didn't do anything based on my preference. As I said, I didn't try to influence anyone in my first message
That is not relevant. Influencing people is not the problem, it is the way you have damaged +1000 articles with AWB when you were expressly advised not to do.
2nd: You're wrong - "The astronaut looked down on the earth from the International Space Station". The word "earth" in this case IS capitalized. It is referring to our planet.
Just shows how little you comprehend the usage of these terms. It's an example of your opinion not the consensus view. (What is worst, is that you have changed a lot of references, which have the correct usage as published.)
3rd: As I said above, all the edit summaries have called the attention of many people. The thing is that people will only leave a comment here is if they have something to oppose. When you say you will revert my edits, you're pretty much disregarding the dozens of people who are ok with them. Cheers,"

So what. It also disregards the other who don't think it is OK, and whom you just ignored.

If you wish to defend your position, just go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard and make you case.

In the meantime, please don't revert any future pages with this specific issue until this is resolved. Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Tetra quark said; :"This is turning into personal attacks. If you are new to this discussion, please read the whole post to see what consensus we came to. The changes won't be undone because of one user."

There is no personal attack here.

It is clear you are not listening or do not understand the problem here.

Stating there is consensus when there is not shows clearly that point.

Furthermore, my objection was the way you have done this, not necessarily because I object to the changes.Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1: I take this to be a very unambiguous sign that there is a clear consensus to capitalize "Earth", "Moon", "Solar System", and "Sun". Tetra quark's edits regarding this are appropriate. Maybe Tetra quark should have allowed more discussion time, but I understand why he went ahead: everyone who came here basically said the same thing about it.
Also, Arianewiki1, that AWB warning does not call for consensus, but for taking full personal responsibility. AFAICS, Tetra quark is doing that. So what if a mistake is occasionally made? Mistakes are bound to be made because we're all humans and we all make mistakes, whether we're using AWB or not. Also, "Earth-like" should be capitalized because it means "(being) like Earth", referring specifically to our planet. --JorisvS (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Section 3 of AWB says ""Do not make controversial edits with it. Seek consensus for changes that could be controversial at the appropriate venue; village pump, WikiProject, etc. "Being bold" is not a justification for mass editing lacking demonstrable consensus. If challenged, the onus is on the AWB operator to demonstrate or achieve consensus for changes they wish to make on a large scale."
Tetra quark violated this provision, probably deliberately by his actions, to avoid proper scrutiny.
Conclusive statement stating "...that AWB warning does not call for consensus, but for taking full personal responsibility, is plainly absolutely false.
An occasional error on one page is understandable. +1000 is tantamount to a deliberate provocative act, especially mad worst that no single editor could possibly fix it page by page with out almost months of effort - whose wicked effect was implemented by machine code.
If editors are given such things, and abuse the privilege defined precisely by the rules, they ought to be sanctioned for any abuse of them. Yet the rule seems to be punish the complainer and reward the transgressor for such violations. Achieving consensus is rewarded, even when another wantonly tries so desperately to conceal that someone might disagree. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
You're the one who put the above banner here. It does not call for demonstrating or achieving consensus in all cases, but only in cases where the changes could be controversial. Given the discussion here, with everyone basically saying the same thing, it didn't appear that it would be controversial. --JorisvS (talk) 11:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
@Arianewiki1: Do you disagree with capitalizing "Universe" where it refers to the one and only and not where it doesn't? Or do you only disagree with the speed at which Tetra quark took action? --JorisvS (talk) 11:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it would make a great deal of sense to turn this discussion into a broader discussion, through the Wikipedia:Request for comment system, to get input of those who may have more general linguistic knowledge than those editors who are specifically interested in this project and watch this page. Having said that, most of these terma, as I have already said at the WP:DRN discussion, are generic terms primarily and secondary names secondarily, and it would probably be better to go to WP:MOS or some similar more appropriate page to get broader input from the community, probably best received through RfC. John Carter (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Q. All the references that have these terms in them have been now changed. Most astronomical papers have all lower case or mixtures of them to make them unique. How are these going to be repaired now? Sources like the Astrophysical Data Service, for example are structured that way. Arianewiki1 (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Re WP:MOS I decided to look if there was earlier discussion there. I found the original editor's explanation about Capitalization of celestial bodies for sun earth moon -- it was discussed on the talk page and some authorities (though not NASA) were consulted. I did not find any talk page discussion or edit summary explanation about the addition of solar system by this edit of January 9 2012. The latest arguments were about Capitalization of sun only two weeks ago. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I have added a section in the Wikipedia Manual of Style/Capital letters talk page: Capitalization of universe. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW - if not already considered, a relevant reference for the discussion *may* be the "Style Guide for NASA History Authors and Editors" at the following link => http://history.nasa.gov/styleguide.html - especially? => "Astronomical Bodies: Capitalize the names of planets (e.g. Earth, Mars, Jupiter). Capitalize moon when referring to Earth's Moon, otherwise lowercase moon (e.g. the Moon orbits the Earth, Jupiter's moons). Do not capitalize solar system and universe." (and more? - see link) - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Where it says "Do not capitalize solar system and universe." I don't, personally, agree with NASA, but I certainly think arguing about this sort of thing can be a waste of time. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree either. I agree with the MoS on this one. There are several solar systems (although the technical term is star system or planetary system). The same can be applied for "universe" (even though this word isn't on the MoS). There is a difference between talking about the Universe and "Miss universe". Tetra quark (don't be shy) 17:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes I mentioned it on the DRN and on the MOS talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:DRN

A request for dispute resolution has been filed at the dispute resolution noticeboard. However, I don't see an issue that is appropriate for the dispute resolution noticeboard, the purpose of which is to improve an article by moderated discussion. I see at least two issues. The first appears to be a more general issue about capitalization, which, as User:John Carter has said, could be better addressed at a manual of style talk page, if necessary by a Request for Comments. The second is a complaint about an editor's use of the AWB tool, and a demand that his privilege of using the tool be revoked. DRN is not a forum for administrative requests or for conduct allegations. Is there an issue about the content of a specific article or articles? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The statement by me is specifically with the second item you mention. I agree with some of these modifications, but the issue is that Tetra quark should have gained consensus over a much longer timeframe, rather than less than 16 hours. He They were advised not to do this, but then changed it anyway, and gave no indication of that change. There are numerous problems, which are specifically the change was with the word 'Universe' or 'universe' as the title in this discussion, yet Tetra quark also change all 'solar system', 'earth', 'moon', etc. without bothering to engage to find any consensus at all.
Making changes to +1000 plus pages, is plainly serious enough to allow some reasonable discussion. Hence the the dispute resolution noticeboard. This was not done. All other problems with the dispute resolution are irrelevant.
Tetra quark claims he had consensus WHEN HE MADE THE CHANGES, when the evidence says otherwise.
The only question to answer is; Should Tetra quark who made such carte blanc changes by sanctioned for his improper changes without gaining proper consensus to do so? Evidence presented at the time of the placement the dispute resolution noticeboard, appears to validate this point of view.
1) Tetra quark should have left much more time to gain consensus
2) Tetra quark has done everything in his power to avoid scrutiny on this issue. I.e.
  • Tried to close this thread with archivetop [6] (and clearly broke the three edit rule)
  • Attempted to manually block this page by archiving it [7]
  • Then the request to archive was later deleted . [8]
  • In later discussions refuses to engage in solving the issue, and claims false negatives to justify Tetra quark actions. I.e Keeps stating (many times)" is it that difficult to notice that there was a consensus", [9], when at the time of the actual AWB, there clearly wasn't consensus. , etc.
So based solely on the evidence here, there was not justification to impose the edit on +1000 pages.
Hence, the request for sanctions using AWB tool by not allowing realistic debate and consensus to be properly reached.
Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Question. Should I have posted this at the dispute resolution noticeboard, under Talk:WikiProject Astronomy discussion [10], rather than here?
I'm not sure? Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization of universe

There is currently a discussion about the capitalization of Universe at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Capitalization of universe. Please feel free to comment there. —sroc 💬 13:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

9Spitch

Hi, while browsing WPAST's cleanup listing, I came across this galaxy. While certainly notable based on the press it has received, I have been unable to find its RA and Dec anywhere online, nor its entry on SIMBAD. Does anyone by chance know these items of information, or where I could find such info? StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

StringTheory11: I did a little rewriting on that piece, removing some significant original research. One of the folks at Spacewarps provided a link to the SDSS survey record for this object. I've added what I could to the infobox. Please, review and fix anything I've messed up. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks man! StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

CALIFA

While exploring DRAFTspace for WPCOSMOLOGY articles, I found an interesting astronomy draft article that might be worth saving, Draft:Calar Alto Legacy Integral Field Area Survey. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 06:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I found some extra sources and listed them on the draft's talk page. There are also lots of Spanish ones but, because I speak no Spanish, I can't evaluate them for content or reliability. Even with the sources I found I still question the topic's notability. Perhaps it should be merged to Calar Alto Observatory. Reyk YO! 08:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I know some Spanish, so I'll look at the sources, and if it seems that they demonstrate notability, I'll move the draft to mainspace, since other than notability, it looks good. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Hmm, even without spanish sources, I believe that the topic is notable, having been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works. That said, I don't feel comfortable moving it to mainspace right now, seeing as the draft was rejected by another AfC reviewer, @Mr. Guye:. Mr. Guye, what are your thoughts on why the subject is not notable? StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Indeeda, that's worth publishing Tetra quark (don't be shy) 16:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I have moved it to article space. My first guess for previous declining is that the references are not independent of the topic. But AFC decliners should add a clear comment so that contributors can improve. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

IC 1101

We really need to come to some kind of resolution regarding what to use as the size for IC 1101. Mainstream sources continue to widely report a range of figures, averaging on 5.5 Mly in diameter, which seems to be a misunderstanding by the media dating back to 1990 regarding the extent of a reported faint halo. NED, citing de Vaucouleurs (1991), gives a major/minor axis of 114.68 by 58.49 kpc (374.0 by 190.8 kly). Clarke (2004) says "more than 600 kpc". On Talk:IC 1101, Peter Erwin's math says the diameter is 1,060 to 1,480 kpc (3,500 to 4,800 kly), while Arianewiki1 finds a major/minor of 139.86 by 54.39 kpc (456.2 by 177.4 kly).

My first thought would be to use the NED data, but given the tremendous disparity between different reports, I think this needs a degree of consensus from the community. I'd appreciate any and all thoughts so as to put this to rest. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

That really is a problem. I just added that information back there because in the past an editor removed it based on original research. He was a professional astronomer and he kept claiming there was no way the galaxy was that big, but failed to supply a reference. I used the diameter that was on Phys.org, which is a website that has a fairly good reputation, but of course, it can always be wrong Tetra quark (don't be shy) 22:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Diameter estimates vary from x to y. If the highest estimate is correct, IC 1101 would be the largest galaxy observed. This could be a good way to put it. Tetra quark (don't be shy) 22:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I will do a bit of digging, see what the academic journals say and see if I can find some commonality between them. Primefac (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree. As a quick fix, why not give a range to be more explicit about the discrepancy: Major axis between 114.68 kpc[ref 1] and 1,480 kpc[ref 2]? As for a longer term fix, this problem isn't specific to IC 1101, but to any diffuse (fluffy) halo galaxy. I haven't looked into the current handling on other diffuse galaxy pages, but this might be an opportunity to either initiate a reporting convention or to modify the template in a favorable way (i.e. by adding a half-light radius parameter or the like, perhaps only used in times like these (to avoid back-checking all |size=s currently quoted in all {{Infobox galaxy}} templates)).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  22:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Regarding size, galaxy edges extend well beyond the visible edges seen in images. (I already explained it here [11]) Simply put, diameters of galaxies are measured, breadth and width, in arcmins, which are taken from photographs or astronomical plates. These taken images are often at different wavelengths. I.e. blue (B), infrared (IR), hydrogen-alpha (hα) and even NIR bands, like J or K. Therefore, sizes are dependant on wavelength. Traditionally, size should always specify the colour band. My recommendation, is to use the commonplace visual photographic diameters, similar to the ordinary images placed in articles. (In telescopes, much of the outer portions of the galaxy are invisible, and we see perhaps a third to one-fifth the diameter of the
True physical diameters are based on similar ideas. As sizes vary depending on distance, a scale is produced, which is expressed as a number in parsecs per arcsec. (It is based on the fixed 'standard' value at distance of 1 Mpc. per arcsec. times the true diameter. N.B. It is actually more complex than this.) This is done to analyse the differences between measured plates.
Diameters quoted should be of simple visible wavelength images, which makes more sense. My exampled calculation major/minor of 139.86 by 54.39 kpc (456.2 by 177.4 kly) quoted in the talk page result is on this assumption.
I note the last correction by Tetra quark has two errors. It is 5 million light years NOT 5 light years. Also you should express size in terms of kiloparsecs (kpc.) as well, which is actually the proper referred term in calculations.
Please note, accept for correcting Tetra quark errors, I have not edited IC 1101 before this, but only attempted to answer this questions on the talk page. Tetra quark stating "Who removed this information in the past was doing so based on original research." is a deliberate accusation not supported by evidence. I.e. You must state who removed it and you must where it was based on original source. It is bordering on WP:GAMING.
Comments. Huntster statement of; "...while Arianewiki1 finds a major/minor of 139.86 by 54.39 kpc (456.2 by 177.4 kly).", is not precise. I exampled how the calculation was done, and expressed a result. Notably, this was only on the talk page NOT the article.
Tom.Reding. The half-light radius parameter is only used on globular and open star clusters. It cannot be used on galaxies, as the distribution of light is far from even. (How would you distinguish between galactic core, spiral arms or halos, for example?)
Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Arianewiki1, as mentioned in the article, IC 1101 is an elliptical galaxy, not a spiral galaxy. Half-light (or some scale-length) radii exist as contours for ellipticals. Regardless, I'm only providing direction towards a solution, not a/the solution.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  01:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for reminding me it was an elliptical. (Too much to think about) I did appreciate you thought. The idea of half-light radius, if you thought of an elliptical as a super globular cluster, but I have not seen in seriously discussed in the literature. Half light radii are based on the King models, and assume a kind of kinematic distribution. Half-life radii have been used in comparison with tidal radii, etc. Rotation profiles of ellipticals are vastly different. No this doesn't add to a solution here, but I thought you deserved some explanation for the idea. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

This has been a big problem in the last few months. I looked upon SIMBAD, providing an angular diameter of 1.22 arcmin, which corresponds to somewhat 1.5 Mly. Not too large for my opinion, and a big mistake. It's like what happened to NGC 6872. Press releases say it is the largest spiral, unaware of the even larger Malin 1. What makes it here is, it is most likely IC 1101 is less than 2 Mly in diameter, like those Virgo Cluster members.

The radius of 5 Mly was most likely to be the X-ray emission of A2029, which spans about 1.5 degrees. The size was unlikely to be 5 Mly. I used the Hubble constant by Planck, giving 700,000 ly radius. SkyFlubbler (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we need to focus more on finding references. If all sources indicate that the galaxy is x light years in diameter, that same wrong information will have to be on wikipedia too. What we need to know is what source(s) to use. All I know is that we have to leave some information on the article about the size of the galaxy because many people go there because of it. Tetra quark (don't be shy) 04:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Research papers will always be considered more reliable than a media report. That's why I favor the NED figures, which are sourced to the 1991 paper. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, sure. Tetra quark (don't be shy) 05:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, NED's fine. Which figure do you use then? [12]
Also saying "Research papers will always be considered more reliable than a media report." means what. Many media reports are based on the research paper, anyway, released by the authors to highlight their work. Media reports are often available to quote, while the professional papers and catalogues, do not have free access to their works. Worst, the size depends on the wavelength of the source. GALAX or 2MASS, for example, appear in the research papers, and have wildly different sizes. I.e. the 2MASS size is 98.9×63.30 arcsec.
Actually, the result 1973 POSS1 103a-O image, which is from the UGC Catalogue, is probably the closest, because it is nearest the visible wavelengths. The RC3 catalogue is from blue image. Great for spiral galaxies, as the spiral arms are bright in the blue wavelengths from the hot luminous O-B type blue stars that formed there. As there are few blue stars in elliptical galaxies, which have consumed most of their gas, that can be rather dismal in blue wavelengths, appearing smaller than they are. This is why in NED [13], the small table "BASIC DATA for IC 1101", uses the RC3 for the redshift, but quotes the 1973 size.
However, I've already have explained this above.
True apparent size is also based on distance, whereas, closer galaxies appear slight smaller in size than more distant ones, only because their light is dimmer.
Criteria should be.
  1. The diameter should be quoted from visual images. I.e. POSS1 103a-O or POSS2 103a-O
  2. If no visual image is available, the diameter quoted should include the Plate colour info.
  3. All diameters should be referenced to their source. I.e. RC3, PGC, UGC. (RC3 tell you the size in from a B-plate.
  4. Other wavelengths beyond the visible should quote the size and source. I.e. 2MASS, which is applicable to under-luminous galaxies.
  5. Else any size should be referenced to the source where it was taken.
  6. If size cannot be determined, the example calculation for IC 1101, which is simple to understand, should be used.
Considering all the errors involved, quoted sizes are mostly 20% to 40% in error. Most quoted results are rather poorly known, anyway.
If you really want to be pedantic, we could use T. Padmanabhan's "Theoretical Astrophysics. Vol 3, Galaxies and Cosmology", Cambridge University Press, (2002). However, explaining dimensional reductions here, is beyond our scope. (Note too, the word 'universe' isn't capitalised all the way through it.)
Comment: Notably Tetra quark saying "If all sources indicate that the galaxy is x light years in diameter...", is actually an utterly impossible condition, because the true size is dependant on many variables to gain a results. I've never seen it ever happen. Among the astronomer's this isn't standard, hence the sources of diameters differs from one source to another. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
@Primefac This based on RC3 blue plates, making the galaxy much smaller than it is visually. They were measuring for the velocity curves. 42±8" is about half the visual data quoted in NED - smaller because it is an elliptical. I could contact some profession astronomers about then, but then it becomes 'personal research.' The ordered list of possibilities, stated above, is adequate for general purposes. Any quoted source must be verifiable. Either average everyone you find, or quote the visual one. I could do the 'official' Padmanabhan's method, but it is some complex, and relies on other data, it is frankly a waste of time. If it were me, I would use the PGC and then the RC3. This would cover all the bright galaxies, and none would be the wiser.
If Tetra quark has a better idea, either state it, or adopt common sense for general reader on galaxies. Simple. Arianewiki1 (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_21

Actually, many different astronomy templates have been nominated on this date -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

What are you even tring to say Tetra quark (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Not to be snarky, but he's literally saying there's a number of astronomy-related templates that have been nominated and listed on that page, if editors are interested in discussing them. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this to our attention, 67.70.35.44. Much appreciated. Andy seems to be trying to condense templates over several WikiProjects, based strongly on parameter similarity.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  17:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, my. This is indeed an urgent matter. SkyFlubbler (talk) 11:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
This issue is still open -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Stellar classification requested move

I've posted a requested move for one of our project's most popular and vital articles, stellar classification; details can be found at talk:stellar classification. Any thoughts would be appreciated. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

This issue is still open -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

AU vs au vs ua

What symbol should be used for the astronomical unit in Wikipedia articles. I have seen mostly either AU and au, but the international standard symbol turns out to be ua. Please comment at the Astronomical unit talk page. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The recent IAU resolution (2012, Res B2) says "au", and that's all (with AU) I've ever seen in English papers. It's not a SI unit (proper), so I think the IAU position trumps SI. Tbayboy (talk) 06:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I believe that "ua" is an abbreviation of the French term, unité astronomique. Evensteven (talk) 08:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Although I'm usually all for going with whatever the standard is, I don't think I've ever seen "ua" used, not once, and thus I cannot support it. I'd be inclined to stick with AU, since it seems to be used most. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: Most of the discussion action seems to be taking place at the Astronomical unit talk page. Evensteven (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

For your information: The vast majority of editors involved in the discussion about harmonisation prefer not to adopt a single unit symbol for astronomical unit. Of the reasons presented, the only one I could follow was a preference to follow whatever unit symbol was used in the sources. Several editors also expressed the view that the discussion did not even belong there, so I am not planning to respond further on that page. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Please note the comments from that discussion indicating that WT:MOSNUM would be the proper venue for any such discussion. In contrast to Dondervogel, I did not see a "vast majority" of editors preferring not to discuss, and there was good participation there. While I was among those who did not regard "harmonization" as productive or necessary, I did not get Dondervogel's sense that everyone agreed with that, but rather that there was broad support that if WP were to adopt a standard that the world usage has not established, that the MOS was the proper place for it, and that the discussion should happen there. That would be the best place to watch for any continuation. Evensteven (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

What I said was "The vast majority of editors involved in the discussion about harmonisation prefer not to adopt a single unit symbol". Out of 6 editors who expressed a clear opinion, 5 opposed harmonisation. I agree that is not "everyone", but it is literally all but one. As far as the "right place" is concerned I don't see why a discussion on the use of the astronomical unit cannot take place at Talk:astronomical unit, but if there is no will for harmonisation the discussion is pointless, wherever it is held. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I think there is no need to get exercised about it. If the discussion is pointless, it was nevertheless you who brought it to WT:MOSNUM, which is fine with me. It might be good to see if a wider group of the editing community shares your view. I don't oppose "harmonization"; I merely ask "harmonization with what"? True "harmonization" would ensure editing in harmony, which I would hope would be the goal of any discussion. Evensteven (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I did not mean to imply that you oppose harmonisation in general. The discussion was about adoption of a single unit symbol across WP (i.e., to make a choice between ua, au and AU in WP articles), and that is what you and the other editors oppose.
  • I did not take the discussion to mosnum. I just posted a note there to advertise the existence of the discussion, in order to encourage wide participation.
Dondervogel 2 (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: User:Dondervogel 2 has moved the disucssion to WT:MOSNUM#What is the correct symbol for astronomical unit?. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 16:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@ASHill Did you read my reply to Evensteven? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, there's still a section there. I guess it's up to responders where to put their comments, and they can find us here too. Evensteven (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Prefer 'au' (per the IAU resolution) but 'AU' is also acceptable (per common usage). Define and link on first use either way. There's no need to force every article to use the same nomenclature, but it might be slightly easier for readers. I doubt it's worth the effort though. Modest Genius talk 22:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
There is no mechanism to force articles to do anything, but there is a mechanism to provide a uniform guideline. My original question was about which was preferred between AU, au and ua. You have answered that question clearly enough, but the consensus at Astronomical unit was that it is better not to standardise at all, i.e. to allow individual articles to make a free choice between these three symbols and (presumably) any other symbols or abbreviations they care to think of, such as a.u. or A.U. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Once again, Dondervogel, I question your characterization of the consensus. The presumption of "any other symbols" being included is all yours, it seems to me. It is irritating to see preemptive supposition replace what others have said. Evensteven (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@Evensteven Are you irritated because I point out the unwillingness to standardise, or because I have misinterpreted that unwillingness? If it is the latter, please clarify what I have misunderstood. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
It is you who must do the work of clarifying what you have misunderstood; I am unable. You have the means before you. It is present in the comments left in this discussion thread. Evensteven (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Rfc on Capitalization of universe, (Solar System, etc...)

In case some were not aware, there is an Rfc going on at the MoS talk page under the heading Capitalization of universe. Since this may also affect the capitalization of Solar System, galaxy, and maybe some others, I just wanted to make sure the Astronomy Project was fully aware (in case they missed the link buried in a recent discussion). We can always use more viewpoints. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

1SWASP J140747.93-394542.6

This is a new article about a star with a unique exoplanet with a massive ring system. The star's name is sometimes abbreviated as J1407, but the French, Norwegian, and Polish wikis are using the full name. I'm not clear on what the policy or guideline should be for the article title, and I'd appreciate some more input at the talk page. Thanks. —Torchiest talkedits 12:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

As a side note, we need to do some serious cleanup, as someone decided The Far, Far Away Sun was a good title for the article, (mess cleaned up) and J1407b also exists. Primefac (talk) 12:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone copyedit the lead section of Universe?

As I told Primefac not long ago, I consider to be myself a pretty calm and comprehensible person, but one thing that makes me totally lose it is when dealing with immature people. If anyone could do me a favor, copyedit that monstrosity before more more lurkers have the displeasure of reading that. Thanks Tetra quark (don't be shy) 21:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Probably not since it is now protected :) Lithopsian (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I suggest working on the Universe talk page. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The article is unprotected now. Someone for god's sake remove "wave particle dualities" from there as it is a ridiculous information. Plus, simplify the definition a little. thanks Tetra quark (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Minor planet redirects from March 2014

Soon after the ides of March last year there was very narrow consensus (1 other editor) on Category talk:Main Belt asteroid stubs to turn all (or most) minor planet stubs into redirects to List of minor planets: xxxx–xxxx. Solo Toady (talk) (contribs) initiated the discussion, received support from @Chrisrus: (ping) 5 hours later, began redirecting 12 hours later, redirected about 326 asteroid pages, then quit Wikipedia literally the next day after receiving a request to stop from @Kheider: (ping). I spot-checked about a dozen non-current versions and most are still redirects, so I'm left wondering (as anyone who might stumble across these):

  1. Revert these ~300 redirects, restoring the stub articles?
  2. Do nothing?
  3. Manually or WP:Bot request to make the remaining several thousand minor planet articles redirects to their corresponding List of minor planets page?

I'll leave a pointer on the category talk page to here, and I'll try not to induce bias with my opinion right now.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  03:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Chrisrus has left comments about the viability of asteroid stubs before, at Category talk:Asteroid stubs -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 08:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
While we're at this, there's WP: Minor planet articles that might fail NASTRO, seems to be the only work on asteroids that Chrisrus does besides saying that stub articles and list articles should not exist (ie, at Talk:List of minor planets ; and using {{help-me}} to try to delete articles at Talk:(237357) 2059 T-3 and Talk:(5796) 1978 VK5) . -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 09:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I believe it is better to put them all in a list, as long as there is a description and a thumbnail image if possible. Just my two cents Tetra quark (don't be shy) 03:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
We've discussed this issue several times before. That category talk page was the entirely wrong place to continue it. archive AArchive 1Archive 2Archive 3 -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 08:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Wow, I had no idea I'd be delivering a flaming bag of poo here. The most recent, relevant (imo) discussion is that started by @StringTheory11: (ping) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive table of asteroids 1#Minor planet redirection bot? in August 2014. The older discussions (≲ 2012) potentially predate existing notability guidelines, brought up by Fram here July 2014. Spot-checking a handful of Solo Toady's 300 redirects reveals that he was operating on:
  • asteroid stubs with ≤ 1 external link (specifically, to JPL) checkY
  • asteroid stubs created by either ClueBot II or Merovingian checkY
  • asteroid stubs < 2000 bytes (with only 15 exceptions, the largest being 3469 b) checkY
  • asteroid stubs beginning with any number (as opposed to only those > 2000) ☒N
as (mostly) prescribed (after the Solo Toady fact) by StringTheory at bot requests, so the same rules would apply.
Therefore, my take on all this would be to revert redirects to those pages starting with a number < 2000, to effectively match the now-completed (unperformed) bot request. This amounts to at most 51 20 pages, listed here User:Tom.Reding/Minor planet redirects from March 2014. I wouldn't want to do so without getting the approval of StringTheory and/or Kheider, though.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  15:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I initially delayed my response to see what other people might think without them reading my personal bias. My concern with Solo Toady was that I did not want to see hundreds or even thousands of low numbered asteroids re-directed without a proper discussion involving several people. I have always enjoyed working with StringTheory. On the other hand, I have accused Chrisrus of Forumshopping since October 2013. In March 2014, I did NOT know Chrisrus was using Solo Toady to forward his crusade. Undoing 20 of of the 321 re-directs is probably the most reasonable solution, though even many of them may not be very notable. -- Kheider (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like Chrisrus should be brought to WP:AN as a having serially and persistently for years had a problem with articles that Chrisrus has campaigned against ignoring existing discussions, and being disruptive editor. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 08:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll do so after a few days (Monday), pending additional comments.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  14:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)  Done   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  16:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

What I would like to know is how many of Category:Main Belt asteroid stubs are NOT re-directs to a list? -- Kheider (talk) 12:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Aren't the ones in italics redirects? --JorisvS (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
There're 14,622 articles total in that category though, and at 200 articles/page = a lot to look through, so that sounds like a WP:BotReq, unless there's an easy way in like Emacs to check for italics.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  21:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I figured out an easy way (but I'm leaving for the weekend). In AWB, grab all the pages in the category, then set the only skip option as "Page is redirect", then go through the list. AWB's log tab keeps track of whether you clicked skip or if it automatically skipped (i.e. is a redirect). Save the log, Ctrl+H replace "redirect" with "blah" and have it count how many instances of "redirect" there are. Have fun! (If no one does this I will, gladly)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  21:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Category search returned 14,640 pages; 482 redirects; 14,158 articles.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  17:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I still support StringTheory11's August 2014 bot request. Too bad no one has worked on it. If Chrisrus had directed Solo Toad to start with higher numbered asteroids, Solo Toad might have fixed a large part of the problem instead of being driven away from Wikipedia. Chrisrus seems to be his own worst enemy. -- Kheider (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with your comments, and 65.94.40.137's, here on Chrisrus; the evidence is against him. Causing someone's removal from the WP community through actions against consensus to forward an unnecessary personal crusade is worse than any number of bad edits. That's like reverse-mentoring.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  14:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is rather unfortunate that the request was ignored. When I have more time, I may post it again, as this discussion is reaffirming that consensus. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Of the 482 redirects in Category:Main Belt asteroid stubs, all 15 starting with <= 2000 are still redirects to the list (none of these were performed by Solo Toady and are still redirects after my 20 redirect reverts).
Also, those 20 redirect reverts need to be put into Category:Main Belt asteroid stubs pages weren't in the Category, but the articles all are.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  16:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone object to unredirecting the 15 redirects I found numbered <= 2000 in Category:Main Belt asteroid stubs?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  21:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll do this tomorrow (30th) if no comments, or later today if I get an affirmative, since it isn't controversial.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  14:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)  Done   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  14:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Central meridian (planet)

There's a notice about Central meridian (planet) at talk:Meridian (astronomy) -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Crab Nebula

I have nominated Crab Nebula 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. DrKiernan (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Astrography Rfd

You might want to comment at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Astrography. We're not sure if it's synonymous to Astrophotography or an entirely different discipline.--Lenticel (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of capitalization of universe

There is a request for comment about capitalization of the word universe at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization of universe - request for comment. Please participate. SchreiberBike talk 00:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I've !voted there. I encourage members of this Wikiproject to do so - it seems in danger of being overwhelmed by contributions from outside astronomy. Modest Genius talk 15:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
@SchreiberBike: God, that discussion is huge! I'm afraid I won't have the time to read all of that Tetra quark (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Me neither, but I have responded there somewhere anyway (finding where is the best place is tricky and I've probably not found the best one). --JorisvS (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
You don't need to read all of it. The important part is Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Capitalization_of_universe_-_request_for_comment which describes two possible outcomes of the RfC (actually it describes about half a dozen options, but I recommend ignoring all but the first 2 because the 3rd and subsequent choices were added late and distort the discussion). Just read the two choices, scroll down and add your signature to the one you prefer. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but the discussion is happening at MOS precisely because the Astronomy project is an insufficiently wide venue, which does not have ownership of the issue. Dondervogel's comment amounts to vote canvassing, as it is based on the assumption that the "RFC" defines the issue, which is a matter in dispute. Evensteven (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Meridian (planets) vs. Meridian (astronomy)

Pls see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Central_meridian. Thx. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

White space

In HIP 13044, it looks like the infobox produces the extra white space that shouldn't be there, but I can't find out where. Can anyone find it and fix it? Compare Lalande 21185, where the extra white space is not produced. --JorisvS (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this doesn't do it (otherwise I would have easily fixed it). I also couldn't find anything obvious (i.e. what I could see in there) in the infobox's templates. --JorisvS (talk) 11:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't know, but I suspect the good article is messed up. The tag is there, but the rating doesn't appear. Instead an extra paragraph gets inserted. Lithopsian (talk) 12:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Removing the tag altogether does not affect the white space. --JorisvS (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Fixed now. Someone should probably look at the article rating. The talk page says class C, but it looks better than that. Not good article though, the review says ON HOLD. Lithopsian (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't know, it looks pretty accurate. It does not quite look B-class to me. --JorisvS (talk) 09:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Weird as hell : Category:Star

FYI, there's a category called Category:Star that is not about star -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That category appears to refer to Star (sailboat), and should be renamed. Modest Genius talk 11:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Type IIa supernova (redirect to Supernova )

What is a type IIa supernova?

By coincidence, I came across a reference to this in a journal. It is a Type Ia supernova (white dwarf explosion) within dense circumstellar material so that after at first looking like a type Ia, it develops hydrogen lines and starts to look like a type II. That's all I know. The Supernova article doesn't mention them, the IIA disambiguation page redirects them to Type II supernova which also doesn't mention them. After fixing a couple of mistaken references (typos?), there don't appear to be any other links to this page within Wikipedia. Lithopsian (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Type IIa supernova is a hybryd IIn/Ia. For example, SN 2006gy or SN 2005gj. Ruslik_Zero 20:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Amendment to Celestial bodies section - paragraph 2 at MOS:CAPS

Discussion at Amendment to Celestial bodies section - paragraph 2 Cinderella157 (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Yet another discussion about capitalising Universe etc.? WT:MOSCAPS is looking decidedly dysfunctional at this point - the topic has been discussed to death. I've made my opinion clear in the earlier discussions, and see no reason to keep repeating it. Modest Genius talk 13:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
This current proposal is about the uncontroversial second paragraph of MOS:CELESTIALBODIES. Still haven't gotten close to a resolution on "Universe", and parallel discussion of "Solar System" is just beginning, likely to be followed by "Sun", "Earth", "Moon", and possibly every single word in the English language. The main new substance of the discussion of this paragraph (in my distillation) is the suggestion that we no longer explicitly base the Wikipedia MOS on the IAU MOS. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 15:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

{{infobox astro object}} and {{infobox cluster}}

{{infobox astro object}} has been proposed to be merged with {{infobox cluster}} ; for the discussion see WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 21 -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I've gone through and fixed all the error where the astro object infobox was used when the cluster infobox was suitable. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Sardanaphalus‎ and I revamped the sh!t out of {{Infobox astro object}} today. I went through astro obj transclusions to make sure all old parameters were updated.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  19:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
This issue is still open -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
It turns out that "Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes." here as of 10 September 2013, but is now being reconsidered here (currently in the evidence gathering phase). The fact that he's been very active on this issue seems to violate that restriction. That should be enough, yes? Has anyone gone through that process?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  23:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Apparently the arbs clarified that the restriction does not apply to replacing one infobox with another better one. The case should really be discussed on its merits, rather than on the people involved. If every one opposes the proposal, it won't happen. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Tom Reding has also posted the same cmt here and here as well as on this page. POtheW's restrictions do not apparently include anything beyond articles. Tom your posts both poison the well and sidetrack the discussion, intended or not. Further the issue of how far these restrictions extend is under review. Might be a good idea to discuss content and not editors.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC))
  • I'm posting related information to areas where Infoboxes are being discussed, just as 65.94.40.137 posted to the top 3 sections of this talk page recently. This case is (or was, based on the original wording of the restriction on the administrators' noticeboard (which I made sure to include)) pertinent to those discussing the TfDs and should not be excluded from that discussion. However, I won't be posting, and haven't posted, anymore because I think that information is well-disseminated, and now because of the concerns you bring up (giving equal weight to both).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  01:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
FYI, this was reopened, so is again under discussion -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 February 21.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  22:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Board of Longitude

Wikimedia UK and the National Maritime Museum are holding an editathon one the 15th April to improve articles related to the Board of Longitude. Members of this project are very welcome to attend, or to make suggestions as to articles that could be improved by this or outstanding queries that the NMM experts might be able to answer. I have already found ten talkpages with outstanding queries that I hope are related to the measurement of longitude. Any suggestions/ queries gratefully received on Wikipedia:Meetups/UK/National_Maritime_Museum_April_2015 or Wikipedia talk:Meetups/UK/National Maritime Museum April 2015. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy/Archive_16&oldid=1144517898"