Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 38

Cosmology inactived

I noticed the cosmology group on some wiki page was listed as inactive does anybody know why? Yesterday my discussion titled Abell clusters and new physics dissapeared from the discussion list Is anybody out there? Crandall a clark (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

WikiProjects come and go; it all depends on who is actively editing and what stuff they're interested in.

Your comment was removed in Special:Diff/1040900518 (not by me), with an edit summary please see WP:NOTFORUM, especially point 4. This page is for discussing how to improve Wikipedia articles on astronomy, not your personal research. That being said, I've removed a handful of your comments because they were mostly irrelevant to the conversations they were pasted on to. You are of course welcome to join in discussions here, but please make sure that what you're posting pertains to the topic of the thread. Primefac (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Mass changes to citation author names

See Special:Contributions/Urhixidur for a few hundred changes to citation authors, for the most part changing the initials format that is standard in most citations to spelled-out given names. See User_talk:Urhixidur#Authors_in_citations for the justification. I have reverted a number of changes just to get a reaction. What think thee? Lithopsian (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Seems pretty harmless if the names are correct and the citation style is consistent within each article. I couldn't find any guidance on initials vs full names on MOS:CITE or its supporting pages, though might have overlooked something. Modest Genius ^talk 10:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

It isn't consistent within articles since the changes have been made on an author by author basis. It also isn't harmless. There is a reason why authors of scientific papers are cited in a very specific and consistent way across all publications, to aid searches and to avoid misidentification of authors with the same surnames and similar given names. Changing an initial to something else such as the full name risks at worst, confusing one author with a different one. At best, Wikipedia won't match the source being cited. Lithopsian (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The inconsistency is a problem. It is inconsistent even within a single reference (example). It suggests some special role of that author. It also creates multiple different ways authors are cited across Wikipedia even when the author is cited in the same way across all their publications. --mfb (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree there is an issue if the citations are no longer consistent - which I noted in my original comment. The rest of Lithopsian's objections seem misplaced to me. Modest Genius ^talk 11:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't really have a significant issue with this, except for FA pages which have more stringent requirements. In particular, provision 2c per WP:FACRITERIA. Praemonitus (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Henyey track

The Henyey track page is our highest rated stub article. It could use some TLC from those interested in the subject matter. (Or perhaps the importance should be lowered?) Thank you! Praemonitus (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I have reclassified it as mid importance. It's the high-mass counterpart to the Hayashi track, a high-importance topic, but much less widely observed because the time those stars spend on the pre-main sequences tracks is much shorter. It could certainly still do with expansion and secondary sources. Modest Genius ^talk 11:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Amateur photographs

Is there a policy about amateur photographs of well known astronomical objects being placed in an article? For example the article on M13 now has six amateur images on it. None of them show the object as well as the images shown in the article which were taken at a major observatory. I know the persons who took these pictures are very proud of them, and it's heartbreaking in a way to remove them, but if they aren't removed, they may increase in number without limit. The M13 article is slowly becoming the M13 Facebook page. I think all such images should be removed unless they show something not seen in any other image on the page (like a supernova in a galaxy). Is there a rule about this? PopePompus (talk) 22:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:GALLERY is pretty clear that such groupings of all-the-same-image-but-slightly-different should not be included in articles such as this. If there's a desire to include an "amateur vs research" image pair, I think that would be fine, but we really don't need seven amateur astronomy photographs of the same thing (nor, to be complete, do we need three different Hubble images). Primefac (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Modest Genius ^talk 12:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd remove everything except images that provide an interesting perspective, such as the Hubble shots. The rest can be accessed via the Commons link. Praemonitus (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Has anyone here access to Sky & Telescope

Greetings, has someone access to " Extreme Astronomy Brunier, Serge Publication: Sky and Telescope, volume 78, page 366. Pub Date: October 1989 Bibcode: 1989S&T....78..366B "? I need it at User:Jo-Jo Eumerus/Ojos del Salado; I already posted at WP:RX but this being the astronomy project I thought that someone here might have access as well.

Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I can't find it online at any of my usual places. You may need to find a library that has a physical copy, then request a scan or inter-library loan. Tbh it seems quite peripheral to your volcano article, so probably isn't worth the effort. Modest Genius ^talk 17:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Well the thing is I can't find any library in Europe, either. And for comprehensiveness reasons I need to use it in the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The Royal Astronomical Society has a 'slightly imperfect' print run back to 1941 [1]. Leiden University also has a set [2], as does Paris Observatory [3]. I'm sure there are others. Modest Genius ^talk 10:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, seems like someone managed to find this at WP:RX. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

What do we call MP moons when the MPC doesn't seem to have assigned a label?

In our info boxes, we have a param for MPC designation. However, for moons we can't always find a designation. Is it acceptable to create one based on the template the MPC uses, or do we need a RS?

For example, what should we call the moon of (532037) 2013 FY27 in a table listing TNO moons?

@Double sharp:

— kwami (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, a similar problem occurred for Gonggong I Xiangliu. Our article was at S/2010 (225088) 1 before it got named, which follows the MPC template, but never seems to have been an official designation. Double sharp (talk) 11:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it's usually just referred to as the secondary, in the context of the binary system. Praemonitus (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Right, but say we have a table of moons. In the first column we put "Charon", "Dysnomia", etc. What do we put for the moon of 2013 FY27? Does it matter? — kwami (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps use roman numerals as has been done with planetary satellites? Praemonitus (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

We've done that before, but it's sometimes inaccurate. The MPC keeps a list of labels they've assigned, incl. (136108) Haumea I and II etc. When we extend that to other objects, the OR is so obvious that it probably shouldn't matter, but still, it is our invention. So should our position be, "who cares? this is silly. obviously the only known moon of a TNO is moon I", or "we can't say that because it's not just OR but technically incorrect"? — kwami (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, Roman numerals are only actually given to planetary satellites when the orbit is secure enough. For this reason some Jovian moons have been languishing without numbers since 2003, e.g. S/2003 J 10. So I'm not sure assigning Roman numerals by ourselves is the way to go. I kind of feel like if we're inventing labels, the provisional designation style like "S/2018 (532037) 1" is better, because that's the style the MPC gives to minor planet satellites even if they're not yet eligible for numbering. Except, of course, that that is OR too as long as they haven't actually done it. Double sharp (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Since there is no standard, I'm wondering now what is the point of this exercise. Is it just for the purpose of consistency in the text when referring to a moon? You could just as easily refer to them as first, second, and third, or inner, middle, outer orbit. Praemonitus (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

It's pretty much for things like {{Moons of dwarf planets}} or List of natural satellites (both give a sampling of objects on the larger side). 2013 FY27 is large, has been called a DP, and clearly its moon belongs on a list of moons of probable dwarf planets. It's just that there's no name to give it. Unless maybe we should just call it "the unnamed moon of 2013 FY27"? Double sharp (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

2 camps of plutinos

How would I distinguish the two camps of plutinos? I would think we should separate them the way we do the two camps of trojans. Mean anomaly doesn't seem to do it, as there are several with values intermediate between Pluto and Orcus, e.g. 2003 UZ413. — kwami (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Do reliable sources separate them into two camps? There's no mention of such a division in our plutino article. Modest Genius ^talk 10:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Orcus has been explained as the "anti-Pluto" partially because it's out of phase with Pluto, and that it's the largest plutino in that population. I thought that in order to keep out of the way of Neptune, plutinos needed to be out of phase either ahead of it or behind, analogous to trojans. But the acct might've been simplified; I don't actually know this is true, which is part of why I'm asking here. — kwami (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I do not understand by what you mean by two camps? I known that some plutinos (including Pluto) are in a Kozai resonance with Neptune in addition to the mean motion resonance but otherwise they are not divided into camps. Ruslik_Zero 20:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Science Competition 2021

Hi all, just a quick reminder that Wiki Science Competition 2021 has started in many areas, and will last until November 30th or December 15th. WSC is organized every two years, and it is formally open to all countries (the goal are the international prizes, the national ones are an incentive) but specific national pages are set up for example for USA or Ireland.

There will be a sitenotice for all readers here on Wikipedia as well, but probably during the second half of the month when all countries with national competitions are open for submission. In the meantime, if you are preparing some nice images, consider to submit them to WSC, you might win a prize.--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

TRAPPIST-1

Noting here that I did a major expansion/rewrite at TRAPPIST-1. I've raised a peer review here to collect concerns/suggestions for improvement; I am kind of hoping to send it to WP:FAC but it needs some work still (mainly, input from editors who have actually authored astronomy FAs) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandanta

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandanta. Venkat TL (talk) 14:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Notification

Galileo Galilei has been nominated for a community 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Redirects to List of geological features on Venus

FYI, a mass deletion of redirects to the list article List of geological features on Venus has been proposed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 28 -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 08:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

That was me. Someone went halfway through the list and turned all the red links into self-redirects, which is circular and hides the links to actual articles. — kwami (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Move request

RFM made at Yangelʹ to rename it Yangel (crater). If we do rem. the soft sign, we should probably do the same for the dozen or so other lunar craters that have them. 11:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Mars

I have nominated Mars for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 13:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Other opinions requested

There is a discussion at my talk page that could use some additional input; long story short a user is adding light curves to every variable star we have an article about. I have many questions, hopefully yall can provide some insight and/or answers. Primefac (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Primefac for putting this notice about the discussion here. I've responded to the recent comments on your talk page. These plots are a large project for me. I hope to include a variability plot for nearly every Wikipedia article about a variable star (in some cases, there simply isn't enough data available to do it, however). I've added plots to about 370 articles so far. I have not put my plots on articles which already have light curve plots; I don't want to replace anyone else's plots. I'd very much like to get feedback about how these plots could be improved.PopePompus (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

As I said on Primefac's talk page, you need much better citations for where you got the data from, and you need to include errorbars. That's standard practice (whether it is common on existing wikipedia plots or not). - Parejkoj (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

On every plot that came from data in a published article, I cite the article and the citation includes a link to the article if it is available online (as virtually every professional astronomical article is). Would you be satisfied if I included a citation to the data server for plots like the one for PDS 70, which were not adapted from any publication? As for error bars, I include them when the error data is available and when the error bars would be large enough to see distinctly from the points themselves. Many (actually I think most) of the plots of variability in the professional journal papers I have used as source material do not include error bars, so I don't consider the lack of error bars to mean the plot is useless.PopePompus (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

GAR notification

Proxima Centauri b has been nominated for a community 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Layers of the stellar atmosphere

The article Stellar atmosphere identifies the following regions: (1) photosphere; (2) chromosphere; (3) transition region; (4) corona. The individual articles tend to agree that the Sun's photosphere is part of its atmosphere:

• Photosphere: "The Sun's visible atmosphere has other layers above the photosphere", in which "other" implies that the photosphere is among the layers comprising the visible atmosphere, and therefore its atmosphere.
• Chromosphere: "The chromosphere ("sphere of color") is the second of the three main layers in the Sun's atmosphere" – note that this is not phrased so as to apply to stars in general). This raises the question, which of the four regions above is not a "main layer"?

However, section Sun § Atmosphere states: "It is composed of four distinct parts: the chromosphere, the transition region, the corona and the heliosphere." This leaves out the photosphere but now includes the heliosphere. We have:

• Heliosphere: "The heliosphere is the magnetosphere, astrosphere and outermost atmospheric layer of the Sun."

This would make the planets of the Solar System be embedded in the Solar atmosphere. Something should be done to fix the internal inconsistency. I do not know whether part of the issue is the existence of competing definitions of the concept of stellar atmosphere; otherwise I would fix this myself. If different definitions are current in the literature, this should be noted in the article.  --Lambiam 09:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

It appears the error is in Sun § Atmosphere, where this claim (that the heliosphere is part of the atmosphere) is not referenced. The other articles are mutually consistent and match my own understanding of the term. See also astrosphere, which is clearly not part of the star. Modest Genius ^talk 11:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

If Sun § Atmosphere is in error in this respect, it is not the only article that is in error: this unreferenced claim is also implied by the article Heliosphere. At least, I interpret the term "atmospheric layer" as "layer that is part of the atmosphere". Also, if the photosphere is part of the stellar atmosphere, then there is a second error in section Sun § Atmosphere: the photosphere is omitted. The question which layers are "main" layers remains unresolved.  --Lambiam 05:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually there is no any clearly defined boundary between the corona and heliosphere. Ruslik_Zero 19:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't look up?

Hi, I would like your opinion on what I wrote here. I was thinking of adding it as a section titled "the really scary part" at Don't Look Up (2021 film) as a bold edit just to see the response. I would prefer to have someone with some astronomy background and more experience editing Wikipedia review it to make sure I didn't miss something before I make a fool of myself.

What do you think? Annette Maon (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

This is the most ridiculous abuse of Wikipedia I've ever seen. WP:NOTESSAY. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Please forgive my inexperience. The Don't Look Up (2021 film) article currently quotes Rooney who describes it as an "insufferably smug satire stuffed to the gills with stars that purports to comment on political and media inattention to the climate crisis but really just trivializes it" Rooney's article goes on to say that it does not provide "depth, nuance or any sort of intelligent curiosity". I am looking for a way to mention that the satire in the film is much deeper than Rooney and most of the other media sources give it credit for. In addition to the obvious political and talk show targets already covered in several of the article's secondary sources, the satire also targets so called "scientists" and mainstream (WP:RS) media like Rooney himself in a much subtler way.

I have not found any secondary sources that expose the deeper satire which shows up even in the movie trailer. My initial attempts to describe it use too much text, some of which looks like WP:OR even to me. In that sense, I already made a fool of myself, but at least it was not in main space. I would appreciate any help in finding a way to describe the deeper satirical level of the film within the Wikipedia guidelines. Annette Maon (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think wikiproject astronomy is the place to ask about evaluating satire. Would be if you wanted an evaluation of the science. Maybe try Wikipedia:WikiProject Film or a related project? — kwami (talk) 02:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

For feedback on an opinion piece, I'd give Wikipedia:Reference desk a try. Praemonitus (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

References

The probability that [fictional] comet Dibiasky discovered only two days ago will hit Earth in six months is 100%

Comet Dibiasky may be fictional but in the last week it got more press than most real comets. I can not imagine a scenario in which two competent self respecting scientists would make such a claim. Even spacecraft with two way transponders can not achieve the accuracy required to make such a statement, that is why they plan course correction maneuvers.

For any realistic scenario like the ones described at the end of the Wikipedia article on the Torino scale, the correct response to the discovery of a new comet that might hit earth in six months is to collect a longer observation arc that can be used to assess the actual probability of a hit as opposed to a near miss. The orbit determination data from these longer arcs will also be required for planning any interception mission in the unlikely event that one is needed. The phrase "sit tight and assess" which is ridiculed in the trailer (and the movie) are actually a reasonable summary of the prudent response.

Am I missing something? Can any of you imagine a scenario in which a prediction made only two days after a new comet is discovered would not sound preposterous? Annette Maon (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Precovery images could reduce the real-world time needed to much less than a week. Being a Hollywood movie, they do not discuss if they found precovery images in their own archives. -- Kheider (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kheider: Precovery would indeed be relevant for asteroids. In this case, however, they describe it as a comet from the Oort cloud that has not been this close since the beginning of civilization. Precovery of 3 hours is actually shown in the movie but even a few months precovery at a distance of more than 5AU and with very high eccentricity is unlikely to give much information about the radial velocity so the orbit accuracy would still be too low. Am I missing something? Annette Maon (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Precovery images of comets several months back are common as well. The software can only detect the object if it is above a certain brightness threshold. Manual searches can finder it when it was fainter. If an impact is predicted, I am sure every telescope (survey or not) would be checking their archives. With impact only 6 months away you do not need that long of an observation arc. Comet NEOWISE was 4.7au from the Sun on 2019-Sep-01 and would have only been 6.5au from the Sun 6 months earlier on 2019-Mar-01. The further an object is from the Sun, the slower it will be moving even if it has a high eccentricity. -- Kheider (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kheider: Thank you for trying. According to our Wikipedia article Comet NEOWISE was discovered on Mar 27, 2020 at a distance of 2AU from the sun which is well within the water ice line where the tail significantly increases visibility. JPL Small-Body Database gives Mar 27, 2020 as first observation used in their arc (BTW, the info box in our article seems to be outdated, I wonder if there is some way to automate updates). I am not sure where your dates of Sep 2019 and Mar 2019 come from, can you provide a source? Can you find any WP:RS for a long period comet with precovery images "several months back"?

I agree that if an impact is predicted, many telescopes would be checking their archives but that does not mean they will find anything. Even if they did, what makes you think that "you do not need that long of an observation arc" to get a 100% prediction for an impact 6 months away? Annette Maon (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

C/2013 A1 (Siding Spring) was discovered in Jan 2013 and has precovery images from Oct 2012. C/2017 K2 (PANSTARRS) was discovered in 2017 and has precovery images from 2013. (See also my new addition at Precovery#Oort cloud comets) For most recently discovered comets or asteroids there is really no reason to conduct an aggressive precovery campaign as there is generally little benefit from it. Comet NEOWISE was 4.7au from the Sun in Sept 2019. You may only need an obs arc of around 8 months (precovery images count) to predict an impact only 6 months ahead with say 80+% confidence. -- Kheider (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kheider: Thanks for the long period comet precovery references. The 4 year precovery of C/2017 K2 is particularly interesting because most long period comets are not active enough to be detected at such a distance. The activity which makes it possible to discover these comets is inherently different from the later activity when the comet gets within the water ice line. I suspect that non-gravitational parameters derived from such early observation arcs would not be accurate enough to provide the accuracy needed to derive a 100% probability of collision with Earth. The observations in these early arcs may be self consistent enough to give a low 3 sigma in the JPL tracking software which could mislead us into a higher confidence than is actually warranted. One way to see that is to look at the evolution of the projected perihelion time in these early ephemerides.

I do not know if ecliptic crossing dates are published and archived. Trying to generate them myself would be WP:OR. I would prefer to compare true of date ecliptic crossing times instead of perihelion dates. A 10 minute uncertainty in ecliptic crossing time would be enough to make the difference between a hit and a near miss. If the uncertainty is within an order of magnitude of the ones that can be seen in perihelion time predictions of C/2017 K2 even precovery would not provide 98% confidence of "hitting the Earth in six months". Annette Maon (talk) 10:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Watchout for "original research" and assumptions. Non-gravitional forces as a result of outgassing are basically insignificant outside of Jupiter's orbit and lost in the uncertainty of the observations. Inside Jupiter's orbit, nongravs and the fuzzyness of a comet (and therefore lower quality astrometry) would be an issue. C/2017 K2 was discovered when it was 16au from the Sun (5 years from perihelion), not 5au (6 months from perihelion). The date of perihelion for C/2017 K2 has been well known since 2017. You need to be careful using a generic two-body solution to define the Time of perihelion (tp) when perihelion is far from the defined epoch. The two-body orbit as defined in 2017 will not be the same as the two-body orbit defined in 2022 (after numerous perturbations). The time of perihelion passage for C/2017 K2 is decreased by 2 days between the epoch 2017 two-body solution and the epoch 2022 two-body solution (T 2022 Dec. 19). -- Kheider (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kheider: Any comet that hits Earth will spend more than 6 months "inside Jupiter's orbit" before it does so and will have ample time for the nongravitational forces to change earlier orbit predictions. To predict collision with 98% probability, the ephemeris needs to have an accuracy on the order of 10 minutes, knowing the date is not enough. The differences between the three ephemerides I posted earlier (taken from the info box in our wikipedia article) as well as this one are much larger than 10 minutes. Is there a reason to assume that any of them are based on a two-body solution? If they are - I agree that would make them irrelevant.

Is there some way to get JPL Horizon ephemeris archives with solutions from earlier dates so we can compare them to each other? Annette Maon (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

JPL defines a two-body solution at epoch 2020-Jun-05. Gideon van Buitenen defines a two-body solution at epoch 2022 Jan 03. The MPC defines a two-body solution at epoch 2022-12-07. They are all generic two-body solutions defined at different dates. -- Kheider (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm missing something but what Wikipedia page or pages is this conversation in reference to? I'm having trouble understanding if this conversation has any implications for content. - Astrophobe (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Astrophobe: I started this topic with reference to this Wikipedia page: Don't Look Up (2021 film). I would like to see a paragraph in that page that mentions orbit determination uncertainty in real astronomy and exposes the fact that the film presents "the sky is falling" as real science and ridicules the prudent "sit tight and assess" response. As we hash out details, we can also improve the accuracy of several other Astronomy articles (see example). Annette Maon (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, I somehow couldn't figure out where the material in question was! - Astrophobe (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

References

{{Databox star system}}

FYI, Template:Databox star system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Cosmology articles needing infoboxes

FYI Category:Cosmology articles needing infoboxes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

{{Lunar geological period}}

FYI Template:Lunar geological period (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Chicxulub crater

User:Hemiauchenia has nominated Chicxulub crater 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. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

{{Ceres Quads - By Name}}

FYI Template:Ceres Quads - By Name (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Concepts in astronomy

I've been thinking that we could use a Category:Concepts in astronomy that parallels the Category:Concepts in physics and includes mathematical theorems related to astronomy. Some possible topics as a starting point:

• Von Zeipel theorem, Virial theorem, Van Cittert–Zernike theorem, Small-angle approximation, Odd number theorem, Von Zeipel theorem, Chandrasekhar's white dwarf equation, Velocity dispersion, Three-body problem, Hill sphere, Roche limit, Kepler's laws of planetary motion, Stellar nucleosynthesis, Expansion of the universe, Tidal force, Sigma-D relation, Cosmic distance ladder, Faber–Jackson relation

Does that make sense? Praemonitus (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. IMO astronomical models and hypotheses that don't meet the mathematical criterion should be a subcat (e.g. Nice model). — kwami (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I've implemented this and tried to populate it with meaningful entries. Praemonitus (talk) 05:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garbhadhan (astrology)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garbhadhan (astrology). Venkat TL (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

This article has practically zero to do with actual astronomy, so I'm not clear why you are commenting here. Try WP:Astrology instead. Praemonitus (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

FYI, an excerpt from the article : "If the Sun, the Moon, Venus and Mars ... ". You are free to ignore. Venkat TL (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

"If at the time of commencement of menses the lagna for that moment is aspected by Mars the woman will have sexual union with an evil person; if aspected by the Sun, with a noble ruler and if aspected by Saturn, with a servant." Err, no, not astronomy. Praemonitus (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

There's now a separate deletion sort for Astrology articles, so hopefully the two will no longer be conflated. Praemonitus (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Infobox image dimensions

I noticed that the image size options are inconsistent between various astronomy templates that allow an image. For example:

• {{Infobox astronomical object}}: allows image_size
• {{Infobox astronomical survey}}: no size options
• {{Infobox comet}}: no size options
• {{Infobox galaxy}}: allows image_size and upright
• {{Infobox galaxy cluster}}: allows image_size
• {{Infobox globular cluster}}: no size options
• {{Infobox nebula}}: allows image_size
• {{Infobox open cluster}}: no size options
• {{Infobox planet}}: allows image_size
• {{Infobox quasar}}: allows image_size

Perhaps we can standardize on the galaxy infobox approach that allows both image_size and upright? Praemonitus (talk) 13:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

It should also include caption, credit, alt, parameters if missing -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Axis of evil (cosmology)

This page is trying to achieve two goals and is failing at both. It is neither convincing me that the earth is the center of the universe or explaining to me what the Axis of evil (cosmology) actually is. I made a few edits to remove some of the POV, but it needs much more. This is just an FYI if anyone is interested. PS what a stupid name for a cosmological inference. Dushan Jugum (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The name comes from the title of a paper on WMAP data (Land & Magueijo 2005). What do you think the "POV" problem in the article is? The move/delete discussion from 2016 suggests it needed work then. It's probably worth surveying more recent literature on the topic (I don't actually know what the current consensus is). I restored the sentence in the lede: introducing the Copernican principle at the start is important. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

There is an interesting correlation. Some say chance, some say statistical error, some suggest a new cosmology is needed, some say it means the earth is the center of the universe. Wikipedia now gives quite a bit of weight to the fourth option (half the introduction with no mention of the others), does science do the same? But I am happy to keep, till someone comes along who is up to date. Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Without access to the articles, I can not tell if/how they claim to calibrate for the inherent measurement anisotropy of the WMAP instruments. WMAP's scanning pattern covered the ecliptic plane twice for every time it covered either of the ecliptic poles. Without knowing anything more, I would have been surprised if the CMB quadrupole and octupole axes from WMAP did not align with the ecliptic. Annette Maon (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Do these pages have any merit?

I indefblocked a vandal, CP -84 1219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see user talk page for context). I am not able to judge the merit of some star articles created by this user, could you have a look at it and tag them with {{db-g3}} if they are not ok?

• HE 0020-1741
• HE 1219-0312
• HE 0107-5240

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geschichte (talk • contribs) 16:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted the diff in your third bullet point. The two new articles probably don't meet WP:NASTRO, they certainly don't cite sufficient sources to demonstrate that, but someone would need to look closely at all the SIMBAD refs to establish that for sure. They're not obvious vandalism, so G3 doesn't apply. I've tagged with {{notability|astro}} for now. Modest Genius ^talk 17:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the articles were created in good faith. Notability is certainly questionable. I let them go since there was coverage of both, but they are fairly obscure. From contact with the creator, it appears that they were being created to fill redlinks at List of oldest stars. Lithopsian (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Bonadea has moved both to draft space. Modest Genius ^talk 11:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to explain why I did that: CP -84 1219 is a returning vandal/serial disruptor, who has previously edited as CD -32 9396SSE, Kleuske33, Kepler-78b, UnderThirteenAllower 228784, Join Instagram at Under 13, Norway RX 1700, Norway FX 1400, and probably others as well (I don't know who the sockmaster is). Astronomy is not my field, at all, and the user has created a fair number of pure hoax articles, but I had a hunch that these are quite possibly existing stars. It still didn't seem like a good idea to leave them in mainspace for other websites to pick up and propagate, in case some or all of the (meager) info is wrong. --bonadea contributions talk 12:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Deletion proposal for Central massive object

I've put up Central massive object for deletion. It's a stub that I don't see any utility in attempting to improve. Discussion page here. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Moon wiki links broken

Several lunar impact crater articles have external links to "the Moon Wiki" at:

  http://the-moon.wikispaces.com/crater_name

Wikispaces shut down a while ago so all these links are dead. The Moon Wiki project has moved to its own domain:

  https://the-moon.us/wiki/

so all these links should be updated to:

  https://the-moon.us/wiki/crater_name 

Apologies if this has been reported before. --agr (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Link rot/URL change requests. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Redirect discussion for Supermassive star

There is an ongoing redirect discussion for Supermassive star, at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 1#Supermassive star. It would be helpful for someone with a greater understanding of this term/concept (if indeed it is something worthy of mention anyway) as I can't tell if this is the same thing as a Population III star as the term isn't mentioned in stellar population#Population III star. Please leave your comments there. Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

List of astronomy abbreviations?

It may be useful to have a List of astronomy abbreviations similar to List of computing and IT abbreviations and others in Category:Lists of abbreviations.[4] Praemonitus (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh wait, we've already got List of astronomy acronyms. Hmm. Praemonitus (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

To some extent that's covered by the symbol lists, though we might want e.g. L_☉. — kwami (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Short descriptions

I have recently added/imported a chunk of short descriptions for star articles, the vast majority of which apparently had descriptions already. I have started adding descriptions to some asteroid articles too. Since categories like "main belt" aren't added to the infobox in a very machine-readable way, I assume that it would not make sense to implement this description into that automatically, but maybe there are infoboxes of the project where that would make sense? ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I think adjusting the infoboxes to automatically add shortdescs is a good idea. If you've got ideas for the wording for any of them pop a thought on the template's talk page and ping me. Primefac (talk) 09:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually I think that could prove confusing for editors. Better to stick to one approach. (Or add a standard flag to the 'short description' template to make it clear what is happening.) Praemonitus (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Why would it be confusing? The lay editor would never even see the code that creates the shortdesc, and it would save the gnomes needing to edit potentially thousands of pages. Primefac (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

An editor finds a star article with no short description template, so they helpfully add one. What happens then? Does it override the infobox description? Another editor is aware that the description is in the infobox, so they do a revert. The original editor objects, and reverts the revert. &c. Now multiply that by thousands of articles. Who is going to patrol that? A bot, I suppose. But you're wasting a lot of effort there, and is that really helpful? Seems like it will generate a lot of confusion over which articles need a description and which ones don't. Praemonitus (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

What happens then? Does it override the infobox description? Yes. And I know of no editor who a) knows an infobox adds a shortdesc AND b) edit wars to keep it that way. Additionally, though anecdotally, the primary folks who know/care about shortdescs use the script helper, which will tell them that the IB is adding one and they are able to make an informed decision about whether to override that. Primefac (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

You haven't seen that scenario because those circumstances haven't happened yet. I'm just suggesting it is a possibility. As for the "primary folks", well I don't have any data on how many of the inserted templates are from those people; it may be a small minority. It does appear though that those templates seemingly occupy a lot of effort for very little reward, much like many of the fussy edits on WP. Whatever. I've given my perspective. Praemonitus (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, if you are correct and things go to hell, it's a single edit to remove a shortdesc from a template, i.e. an easy remedy. Primefac (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Extremely weird pageviews

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T280844

This is a weird question but does anybody have an idea of what is going on at Skathi (moon)? Since December this random stub has gotten a ridiculous volume of pageviews, totally unique in its history as a page. Over the past month this landed it in the third position of most popular pages in this WikiProject, above pages like Earth and Isaac Newton. Last month, 1 view went to this page for every 20,000 views that went to any other English Wikipedia page. And yet I have absolutely no idea what is causing the surge. There's no news or media event I can figure out that could have caused it (and it would have to be a huge media event to drive page views for half a year -- page view spikes from things like major elections usually only last 2-3 days, and are never as much as half a million views in a month). Nothing has changed about this moon in the past few months, and it's not people looking for the goddess with the same name. What gives? Is this a faulty page view measurement, or some kind of very successful and sustained automated pinging? If people are genuinely so interested in this random moon, then this is an important page for us to improve, but I just can't believe that these are actual organic page views. - Astrophobe (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Still no idea at all what's going on here, and I have to assume it's some kind of automated attack with unclear motivation. But just in case even a tiny percentage of these hits are real people looking for information, I've given Skathi (moon) the old WP:BB treatment. More eyes (and thoughts on this situation) are naturally appreciated. - Astrophobe (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes that's odd. I don't see any obvious reason for the traffic. Maybe an Admin has some tools that will let them analyze the page hits further? Praemonitus (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I get excited when one of my near-Earth asteroid articles reaches 25,000 hits/day, but that is very rare and is always because of sensational press coverage. Most of the lesser known NEA articles seem to reach at best 700 hits/day. -- Kheider (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I totally agree. Unless we find that, say, Taylor Swift has been posting once a day about this moon since December, I think these simply cannot be real hits. I even looked to see if some pseudoscientist with a big following had attributed magical powers to this moon, but no dice. - Astrophobe (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

No idea why that's happening. There's an even split between desktop and mobile views too, which would be unusual for an automated tool. Maybe worth asking at WP:VPT? Modest Genius ^talk 17:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I thought that was really weird too -- if this is an artificial bombardment of some sort, and I think it simply has to be, someone is putting a fair bit of time and effort into it. WP:VPT is a great suggestion, I'll take this there now. - Astrophobe (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Two months later, the page views are over 70k per day [5]. In May it was the 26th most popular article on enwiki [6], which is ridiculous. The bug report [7] seems to have ground to a halt. Modest Genius ^talk 11:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm curious about the solution to this puzzle; should be easy enough for some admin that has access to the user agents of the visitors. My guess is that an app uses this page as an automatic test for internet connectivity, and as the app increased in popularity so did the page views. The funny thing is that if this is true, they would have chosen this page precisely because it was tiny, and now Astrophobe's considerable expansion is making them waste a lot of bandwidth. Tercer (talk) 11:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

That was an excellent expansion and it's now deservedly a GA. So at least these mysterious page viewers might be seeing a decent article. Modest Genius ^talk 13:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I find it extremely unlikely that these page views are from humans looking at the article. Tercer (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hah, thanks Modest Genius. Bots have rights too, they deserve to visit a high quality page. As for wasting the bandwith of people who are freeloading off of wikimedia resources without permission or (evidently) even telling anybody, well, maybe that will teach them a thing or two about WP:HERE. Maybe if I add some high resolution videos I could bring it to FA ... - Astrophobe (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I love you Astrophobe. Tercer (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Haha thank you Tercer, that means a lot to me - Astrophobe (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Another update: page views peaked at 91,000 on 29 June. Since then they fell in apparently two steps and are now hovering around 55,000 per day. [8] Modest Genius ^talk 11:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Seeking something else? Skathix perhaps? Jim.henderson (talk) 02:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Not at that level. The disambiguation page XXXX is in the top 100, too (but it has been popular for years). It had a dip right when Skathi had a peak. --mfb (talk) 03:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Still getting ~40k/day [9], but another pattern is emerging: the clear downward steps occur on 3 July, 1 August and 1 Sept. There's a smaller drop spread over 31 May / 1 June. Is something updating monthly? Modest Genius ^talk 11:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Something similar was happening with Cleopatra, which turned out to be a demo in Google Assistant [10]. No idea if Skathi is being used for something similar. Modest Genius ^talk 12:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I find that unlikely, as Skathi is both obscure and hard to pronounce, nobody would choose it as a demo. It must be something automated. Tercer (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

constellation-guide.com is not a reliable source

A user added constellation-guide.com as a source on IC 1101. Looking at that page, it appears to just regurgitate information from wikipedia and other places without citation in a blog-like fashion. We should remove any uses of this page: it does not appear to be a reliable source, given its lack of sources and unknown provenance. I cleaned up a few other refs to the page, but there are still some references to it on individual star pages and elsewhere: could some others try to clean these up, please? - Parejkoj (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

FAR notice on Hubble Space Telescope

Article about to be dethroned with issues noticed [11]. 2001:4455:30B:6C00:45B7:D10F:374A:178A (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, an entry has not been made on the Featured articles review page; standard practice is to raise concerns at an article's Talk page and give them a couple weeks to see if they get resolved before escalating. The {{citation needed}} tags on Hubble Space Telescope have been resolved, but other problems may be lurking: dead links, outdated material, text sourced only to press releases that needs the more tempered judgment of a peer-reviewed journal article, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 05:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ginan (star)#Requested move 6 April 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ginan (star)#Requested move 6 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 20:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Featured article review of Mars

The question has arisen as to whether the Featured article review for the article about Mars has reached a satisfactory conclusion. Community input would be welcome. XOR'easter (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Could anyone lend an additional pair of eyes to double-check the figures in the Mars infobox? This is the sort of thing where different sources can quote values that vary in the later decimal places, the values in the box might have been derived from a source in a way that's not covered by WP:CALC, etc. The infobox needs to be completely sourced if the article is to stay Featured. XOR'easter (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Various historical ESI-related templates nominated for deletion--again

Firstly, I'd like to apologize in advance if my rant here breaks Wikipedia guidelines, but I cannot Assume good faith over essentially bringing up bad blood from 6 years ago that had lead me to (mostly) quit editing WikiProject Astronomy articles (and slowed me down on editing on Wikipedia as a whole).

I'd like to mention that historical templates Template:ESIScore Template:HabPlanetScore, which I argue should be kept around for historical revisions for articles such as List of Kepler exoplanet candidates in the habitable zone, List of potentially habitable exoplanets and the former being used for various individual exoplanet pages (It's been too long to remember exactly which ones) have once again been nominated for deletion. I know at one point there has been a technical policy to keep templates on Wikipedia that have been used extensively for historical edits, and I will say without these templates historical revisions from ~2014 to 2016 will essentially be a red-link mess. Of course, I'm just here to bring attention to the rest of the editors in this community that a specific editor that has previously nominated these templates and the articles these templates rely on. I have my point of view, that it's not right to completely erase and render illegible articles from when I would argue were in a better state back then, than today (List of potentially habitable exoplanets has so little content today compared to in 2015, is now completely devoid of images, and the table is I'd argue more of a mess today then it was back then).

As for the ESI consensus, yes, I remember opening that RfC. However, I think the fact that these "deprecated" metrics are still being used outside of Wikipedia, both in the "regular" civilian/enthusiast astronomical circles (a la astronomical software such as Universe Sandbox, and Space Engine) and still by PHL UPL Arcebio. While I agree that ESI alone cannot and should not be a measurement of planetary habitability (ignoring the fact that even then we would only be using a sample size of 1--the Earth--as a reference) I'm not sure if the consensus from 2016 that the ESI essentially must not be included is still a conclusion accurate for today. But even if the consensus still holds up today, I do not appreciate the attitude of editors who--from an optics perspective--appear to be degrading the quality of this project's exoplanet articles and attempting to shovel any historical evidence of these metrics being used on exoplanet related articles. Then follow by constantly opening AfDs and templates for discussion, which while the WP:AGF policy is supposed to make us assume that this is done in good faith, as an editor who put in work to develop these articles it's very hard to believe the same few editors renominating these articles and templates over and over again are doing it in good faith instead of essentially trying to put these "deprecated metrics" (used outside of Wikipedia) down an Orwellian style memory hole.

I apologize for being blunt and potentially uncivil, but I'm tired of going round and round with certain editors that move/transfer their accounts to obfuscate their edits, and attempt over and over again to get content that they do not like or feel is not worthy of inclusion in an academic paper to be completely removed from Wikipedia (which is technically not required to be for these metrics to be used or included in Wikipedia, look at other spaces/projects on Wikipedia there's far more unverifiable, unscientific "garbage" here on Wikipedia than you may think). I do not have the time to go round and round playing wack-a-mole over the same articles and templates, and I'm personally not impressed that we're potentially bringing back this chain of AfDs and Templates for Discussions as we had in 2016 which--concequently--lead me to mostly stopped editing Astronomical articles because of the behaviour of specific editors in 2016. Davidbuddy9💬 22:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Wow, tl;dr. Sorry you had some issues over templates, mate. I hope some day you can finally just let it go and focus on something else. Praemonitus (talk) 14:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not "some issues over templates"--it includes these templates--but it's not about the templates themselves but rather the egregious amount of WP:FORUMSHOPing for consensus from my time editing Astronomy articles here. Look at Template talk:HabPlanetScore, clearly a result of WP:FORUMSHOPing: TfD 1 opened on April 1st, closed on April 16th as keep, TfD 2 opened on April 28 by same nominator, 12 days after first one closed as keep, after the nominator essentially purged all pages that used this template. A more egregious example occurred with List of Kepler exoplanet candidates in the habitable zone: AfD 1 closed on April 9th, AfD 2 opened on April 20th--17 days after the first--which had a controversial decision on May 11 that was later overturned, and THEN another AfD on May 24th, that was closed in June. Of course, it's been 6 years, but the consequences from the WP:FORUMSHOPing that occurred 6 years ago has--in my opinion--lead to worsening of some of this project's exoplanet pages--particularly the ones dealing with habitability. See List of potentially habitable exoplanets (April 2016), May 2017, April 2022. I think these pages don't need to include the ESI-scale at all, (though the consensus for not including the ESI hinged on the fact that in 2016 only 3 papers included the ESI and 2 weren't peer-reviewed, which may not be the case today, and we know this scale is used outside of academic literature) and still be of decent quality, but other policies such as inconsistent enforcement and interpretation of WP:ASTROART--which my complaints about editors randomly removing certain artists impressions from exoplanet pages with vague suggestions of WP:CRYSTALBALL likely sparked this policy--likely participated in the degradation of some of this WikiProject's articles.

Usually, we see articles improve over time. But with some editors creating almost arbitrary rules in their heads--which aren't written, and WP:FORUMSHOPing have made it very bureaucratic to actually have any bold changes stick. Davidbuddy9💬 20:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

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

and turns it into something like

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

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

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

90377 Sedna - featured article review

I have nominated 90377 Sedna 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. Renerpho (talk) 05:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

List of largest known stars

Recently, there was an edit war on this page regarding Stephenson 2-18. One person named SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer (not to be confused with me) wants it gone, but another whose name I cannot remember wants it back. The situation escalated into an edit war by yesterday noon, and on the talk page, most people wanted it to be added back. SIEI still wants it gone, however. I encourage you to be in this discussion, so we can settle it down.—The Space Enthusiast (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Supernova

I have nominated Supernova 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. BloatedBun (talk) 10:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm wondering why so many astronomy articles are being subjected to an FAR at (about) the same time? Praemonitus (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Sky and COORDS

Now that {{coords}} was converted to LUA Module:Coordinates, which is able to switch between decimal degrees, DMS, and selectable display values; perhaps something should be built for astronomy, that can convert between galactic coordinates, RA-DEC, different epochs and eras, values in Decimal Degrees, DMS, HMS. And perhaps then {{sky}} could be converted to handle more than just HMS/DMS coords -- 65.92.247.17 (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Transit of Mercury / Mercury transit

The title of Mercury transit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Category:Transit of Mercury (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is under discussion. "Transit of Mercury" was recently renamed to "Mercury transit". For the discussions, see talk:Mercury transit -- 65.92.247.17 (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

After a discussion, the article has been moved back to its original title. Praemonitus (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Infobox for Earth

The Earth article transcludes {{Infobox planet}}. The period parameter, which displays as "Orbital period (sidereal)" gives the number of days, 365.256363004. But it is also converted into Julain years, 1.00001742096.

I would like to know if it is normal, in astronomy, to state the sidereal orbital period in Julian years. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Unless otherwise stated, in astronomical contexts the unit 'years' means Julian years. See the IAU guidelines. Whether that distinction is necessary in the infobox is another matter; '≈1 year' might be close enough. Modest Genius ^talk 11:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The guide mentioned by Modest Genius indicates that if some variety of year is to be used, normally it should be the Julian year. But I haven't seen any publications that state sidereal orbital periods in years; everything I've seen was stated in days. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Mars

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Mars/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

A modified list of largest galaxies

Hello, there people!

If anybody here is interested, check my list at my sandbox at User:SkyFlubbler/sandbox/Pending list of largest galaxies where I am trying to develop a modified list for largest galaxies, which is hopefully better and more organized to merit an article of its own.

This would be my attempt in solving the problems that plagued the past list. If anybody here is interested, feel free to modify it, or reply if you have any questions, suggestions, or critiques. SkyFlubbler (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

For context, the official list is at List of galaxies#Galaxies by size which I am personally not satisfied with its construction. It includes the outer haloes and tidal tails that would be very debatable as a "part" of a galaxy. SkyFlubbler (talk) 06:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

NOTE: I am now making a new draft for the article, at Draft:List of largest galaxies. Please check out the draft article and leave your thoughts and critiques here, or even better to help out write the introductions, because this is such a tedious work. Any help would be appreciated. SkyFlubbler (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(events)#Eclipse_RfC

There is a Request for Comment about articles on eclipses that may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

TRAPPIST-1

TRAPPIST-1 is an FA candidate; the review is here. Perhaps a few more eyes may be beneficial? Praemonitus (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The article was not promoted. Praemonitus (talk) 12:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

It is, however, undergoing a peer review in preparation for a second FAC. Additional feedback is welcome. ComplexRational (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Planet at FAR

I have nominated Planet 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. Artem.G (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

In a word: oof. XOR'easter (talk) 02:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. Primefac (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Would anyone like to take a crack at editing Planet#Exoplanets for organization, appropriate level of detail, and general clarity? XOR'easter (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I took a crack at it. Feel free to revert if that doesn't work. Praemonitus (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

The review has picked up activity; help would be greatly appreciated. XOR'easter (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Too many articles about March equinox

There are two many articles about the March equinox: March equinox, First Point of Aries, Equinox, and Equinox (celestial coordinates). There are questions on the talk pages of the first two showing there is confusion or concern about this. I'm not saying all four should be merged, but four is too many. The number of articles should be reduced, and the lead of the remaining ones should clarify the scope of each remaining article, and provide appropriate cross-references.

Please discuss at Talk:March equinox/Archives/2022#First Point of Aries vs. March equinox. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

On a quick look, First Point of Aries appears to be a misguided attempt to discuss the topic from an astrology point of view. That is pseudoscience that doesn't merit a separate article, let alone one that doesn't designate it as such. The salvageable material should be merged into March equinox. The other articles equinox and equinox (celestial coordinates) are on broader concepts than just the March equinox, with detailed astronomical treatments, so should be retained. Some rationalisation of the text on equinox would still be beneficial. Modest Genius ^talk 16:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

After discussing placement of this discussion on Modest Genius's talk page, I will copy the above comment to Talk:March equinox/Archives/2022#First Point of Aries vs. March equinox and request further discussion occur there. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Webb's First Deep Field

I invite your attention to the RfC on the importance tag for Webb's First Deep Field. Thanks for your time. Airborne84 (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Chicxulub crater

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Chicxulub crater/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Stars with resolved images

I'm worried about the article List of stars with resolved images. I'm afraid it confuses imaging the stars via interferometry, as done in [12], with measuring its diameter via interferometry, as done in [13]. As a result, the list contains several stars for which there is no image, e.g. Proxima Centauri. I'm willing to go through the list removing these entries, but I'm no astronomer, so perhaps there is some subtlety I misunderstood. Maybe someone here knows better? Tercer (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a bit of a mess. "...resolved beyond a point source" is not a helpful definition. A cleanup is certainly warranted, as is some further specificity (is R Doradus "resolved" with an interferometric image that determined its size but nothing else?). - Parejkoj (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. It turns out only the Alpha Centauri system was unambiguously not imaged. I'm not sure what to make of R Doradus so I left it there. Several stars remain there without showing their images, but this is because no free source is available. I wonder whether it is worth to get into contact with the authors of the papers to see if they're willing to release the images under a free license. Tercer (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)