Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy
Main | Talk | Astronomical objects (Talk) | Eclipses (Talk) | Article ratings | Image review | Popular pages | Members | Wikidata |
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
|
WikiProject Astronomy was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 14 January 2013. |
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I am expressing concern about the list of brown dwarfs. This article is in a deplorable state, entire sections are almost unreferenced, objects refuted years ago are still in the list, many brown dwarfs are missing, tags like "more citations needed" have been in the list for over 8 years... In my opinion, this article should be rewritten from scratch. 21 Andromedae (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Requested moves for Lunar soil and Martian soil
[edit]This may be of interest to this Wikiproject and I doubt either of the talk pages on those articles get too much traffic, but I've requested Lunar soil and Martian soil be moved to Lunar regolith and Martian regolith. I could be a little biased here as a regolith specialist, but I've basically never encountered consistent use of "soil" here outside of either much older papers or some more general public conversations, where regolith is still more common (and this seems to be backed up by google trends), and both articles accidentally distinguish the Lunar and Martian surfaces from the main regolith article. I would have just done it but there was a recent rename discussion on Lunar soil after someone renamed it Lunar dirt, so I didn't want to just plow ahead.Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for informing us of the move discussions. I don't know the literature well enough to make a call one way or another, so I'll leave that for more editors more experienced in the field. I added some comments regarding WP:CANVAS, because you go into detail on your argument here. I don't think that's a problem at all, I purely did this for transparency and clarity. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think that's perfectly fair, I've added in the text from here into both of the requested moves so there's not extra information visible here that isn't visible to anyone coming to this wikiproject. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Are these "dishes" tasty (or should i keep them away from English-wiki)
[edit]At another English version of Wikipedia, there are a bunch of new articles of stars. Link,
simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/47.186.42.50
. Please say if I should not bring those over to English-wiki.--One of the sources used, is "Facts for Kids|url=... kids.kiddle.co/List_of_largest_known_stars|": would that be a source that one should steer clear of? Thanks, 2001:2020:301:A9E4:CD87:5740:719B:B2A7 (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- No. That site places advertisements on top of free content from List of largest stars. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Many of those stars probably aren't notable, and the sources used seem pretty random - some are reliable sources, some not. The "Facts for Kids" site you mention is clearly a Wikipedia mirror, so not a reliable source. SevenSpheres (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Most of (if not all) these stars would fail our notability guidelines for astronomical bodies, so it's better to don't create them. Also, most of these articles use unreliable sources e.g. Universe Guide. 21 Andromedae (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Does the Pisces–Cetus Supercluster Complex actually exist?
[edit]This will be a review of this supposed structure. The only extant papers mentioning this are by R. Brent Tully dating back to 1986 and 1987. The conclusions of his papers have been challenged in recent years, for instance this 1989 as well as another 1992 paper by Postman et al. suggesting that there is no statistical significance of the supposed complexes from clumps in random simulations. After that there doesn't seem to be any explicit papers supporting its existence, and Tully just ended up in 2014 by having Laniakea.
We should review once more if this warrants an article on its own, or even at least be updated to conform to newer papers. It might as well just be a memoriam article of a pseudo-supercluster complex that was subsequently dismissed. SkyFlubbler (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Well these folks seem to disagree:
- Scott C. Porter, Somak Raychaudhury, The Pisces-Cetus supercluster: a remarkable filament of galaxies in the 2dF Galaxy Redshift and Sloan Digital Sky surveys, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 364, Issue 4, December 2005, Pages 1387–1396, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09688.x
- And this review mentions Portman's work as not definitive I would say:
- Stefano Borgani, "Scaling in the Universe," Physics Reports, Volume 251, Issues 1–2, 1995, Pages 1-152,
- Johnjbarton (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- The paper by Porter and Raychaudhury refers to the Pisces–Cetus Supercluster, which is different from the much larger supercluster complex. The supercluster complex consists of this Pisces–Cetus Supercluster + Perseus-Pegasus and Pegasus-Pisces Chains + Sculptor Wall + Aquarius-Capricornus + the Virgo–Hydra–Centaurus region, and extends for about a billion light-years. There is only a brief mention of Tully's 1987 paper on the introduction and noted it as "speculated."
- I can't seem to access the Borgani paper due to a paywall, but looking on what is available information he did not seem to cite Postman's (not Portman, btw) two papers. Regardless if even Borgani dismissed Postman or not, Tully himself in a 1992 paper did show some ample evidence but then retracted his claims a little bit and said that the present evidence for the Pisces-Cetus SCC (or any structure within the supergalactic plane on the scale of 300 h/Mpc) is "far from conclusive", with further statements on the summary stating that it was "unsatisfactory" with "predictions which must be tested by more rigorously defined samples", which never fully materialized.
- This is evidenced by the fact that Tully no longer cited any of the aforementioned papers mentioning the Pisces-Cetus SCC in any of the 26 references of the 2014 paper on Laniakea, further strengthening the conclusion that he may have given up in supporting the existence of the Pisces-Cetus SCC. SkyFlubbler (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Ok but to me this all makes the case for clarifying the article. The topic is even more notable. (However the lack of citation is not a verifiable source as this may be for many reasons).
- The Borgani review is available via the Wikipedia library > Science Direct (Elsevier) > Advanced search > Show all fields > Title. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- I tried to go for the Wikipedia library version of the article, but I cannot view it due to software limitations, and any attempts to download it also failed (I am using a mobile phone). But I did see the three papers by Postman in the references, so I will nonetheless give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it did cite the works by Postman as not definitive.
- It still doesn't invalidate the claims from Tully himself that the evidence present did not constitute firm evidence for the existence of the Pisces–Cetus SCC.
- "Ok but to me this all makes the case for clarifying the article. The topic is even more notable."'
- I think you missed my emphasis that the only existing literature mentioning this structure came from the late 80s and early 90s, and even so that calls its existence into question. With no subsequent mentions in the literature, and the subsuming of a new definition of a supercluster in 2014, the Pisces-Cetus SCC fails to meet WP:NASTRO. I suggest instead to have it relegated as a section in the Galaxy filament article, as the current article is too short, anyway, coupled with information from the papers that question its existence. SkyFlubbler (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted articles resurface
[edit]The following articles went through AfD with the result being deletion. They have since been restored with the comment, "I brought back this page for consistency. This was the only eclipse from ####-#### to not have its own page. I'm not sure why it was deleted, but it should not have":
- Solar eclipse of December 24, 1916
- Solar eclipse of January 5, 1935
- Solar eclipse of July 19, 1917
- Solar eclipse of July 30, 1935
- Solar eclipse of June 13, 2094
So it goes. Praemonitus (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think you revert with summary "AfD had WP:CONSENSUS". No need to discuss. (Any discussion should have occurred before restoration.) Johnjbarton (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Somebody else is welcome to do that; I've had enough of these tiresome battle of late. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hah, so I see.
- If anyone is having a bad day and needs a laugh, type "Solar eclipse of" in to the search bar. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Somebody else is welcome to do that; I've had enough of these tiresome battle of late. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Nonmetals in astronomy
[edit]I have a question about the notion of metals and nonmetals in astronomy, and the exclusion of a reliable source in this regard.
The context for my question follows.
So, the start of the Nonmetals in astronomy section of Nonmetallic material reads:
- A quite different approach is used in astronomy where the term metallicity is used for all elements heavier than helium, so the only nonmetals are hydrogen and helium.
After the second paragraph, which starts, "About 45 years later, Gustav Kirchhoff and Robert Bunsen noticed that several Fraunhofer lines...", there used to be a third paragraph, as added by me:
- "The astrophysicst Carlos Jaschek, and the stellar astronomer and spectroscopist Mercedes Jaschek, in their book The Classification of Stars, observed that:
- 'Metals' (a term which is used very equivocally). Stellar interior specialists use 'metals' to designate any element other than hydrogen and helium, and in consequence ‘metal abundance’ implies all elements other than the first two. For spectroscopists this is very misleading, because they use the word in the chemical sense. On the other hand photometrists, who observe combined effects of all lines (i.e. without distinguishing the different elements) often use this word 'metal abundance', in which case it may also include the effect of the hydrogen lines. It is important to make sure in each particular case what the author really meant."
See: Jaschek C & Jascheck M 1990, The Classification of Stars, Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, p. 22, ISBN 978-0-521-26773-1.
Ldm1954, who will no doubt speak for himself, has removed the paragraph on the grounds that, in his view, "This is editorializing, and shouldn't be done", and "original research and verging on academic dishonesty" and that, "It adds nothing".
This seems like a case of unjustified censorship to me, even if done with good intent. Editorialising is a WP concept, referring to editorializing by WP editors. It does not apply to reliable sources. In this context, asserting that J & J are editorialising "which is definite [and] not appropriate", is meaningless.
J & J are matter-of-factly laying out the situation when it comes to the conception of what a metal is in their respective fields. The knock-on consequences are which elements are regarded as nonmetals in astronomy, as per the first sentence at the start of the Nonmetals in astronomy section of Nonmetallic material.
The J & J extract adds useful information by nuancing the understanding of metals in astronomy and related fields
How do WP:ASTRONOMY members view this? Thank you. --- Sandbh (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- This seems like a reasonable inclusion, though I wouldn't be able to make a call on this. However, shouldn't this information be in Metallicity itself? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- For rigor, the above statements by Sandbh contain significant factual errors:
- @Ldm1954 never removed the paragraph.
- The main paragraph without the first and last sentence was added by @Sandbh on June 27 in this edit
- @Sandbh added the first and last sentences in this edit
- @Headbomb reverted this addition as editorialized here
- There was then an edit skirmish with @Sandbh reverting @Headbomb, and my reverting in turn.
- There followed a brief discussion in talk where @Ldm1954 and @Headbomb commented that this paragraph added little, and I also mentioned that J & J were editorializing.
- N.B. Metallicity already has more information and is already pointed to as the main. In Nonmetallic materials I have added a little about the history of how the term metallic originated with Kirchhoff & Bunsen interpreting Fraunhofer lines using metals in their lab, which I
was going to suggesthave suggested be added to Metallicity Ldm1954 (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)- @Ldm1954: I apologise for my error of fact concerning item 1, and appreciate your setting the record straight, as to the sequence of events. — Sandbh (talk) 05:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think that paragraph does provide some interesting historical perspective. It doesn't feel like editorializing to me: Jaschek is saying how the various fields used the term differently. Could those claiming it's editorializing say more about why they think that? I think in modern astronomy, that distinction has mostly melted away (spectroscopists have shifted to the astronomy "metals as all Z>2 elements), but that last sentence is a good reminder that terms are different in different fields. I feel like the paragraph is slightly more appropriate for Metallicity, but a random reader would probably end up at Nonmetalic Materials first, I'd expect? - Parejkoj (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- I can't speak for @Headbomb. My reservation is that the lede to Nonmetallic materials already has as it's second sentence Depending upon context it is used in slightly different ways, so the whole page is an attempt at a WP:NPOV presentation about the assorted science uses (with hopefully none missed). If card carrying astronomers are happy to vouch that J & J are not going too far with their statements about "the field", I am OK with it. Statements here can be used if it is challenged. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Sirius to split the page into a new page called Sirius B. This discussion might be relevant for some people of this wikiproject, so help to gather consensus for split or not split this article! 21 Andromedae (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Use of ScienceDaily as a source
[edit]@Warrenmck and XOR'easter: Due to the recently closed Drbogdan discussion on ANI which centered around, in part, using press releases as sources, I am posting this query here about the use of ScienceDaily press releases in our articles to establish best practices. Recently, User:Galilean-moons added ScienceDaily to the article Syntrichia caninervis regarding its potential use for establishing life on Mars (assuming some form of it doesn't already exist).[1] Because this use of press releases was recently discouraged, I am wondering how these recent edits fit into the larger discussion about this kind of reporting. The Guardian has also reported on the subject.[2] Moving forward, is this an acceptable use of ScienceDaily? Should The Guardian be used instead? Or are there other guidelines that you recommend for editing this page? Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think of ScienceDaily as press releases in the sense of an organization public relations output. Rather these are uncritical summaries of primary publications for the purpose of generating ad revenue. The primary publications may or may not have been peer reviewed and almost certainly are not cited. The only sense in which ScienceDaily is a secondary source is that they filter for interest. (Our page on ScienceDaily says they are primarily press releases).
- I think these cases need to evaluate the primary reference and not the ScienceDaily summary per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PSTS Almost always the primary ref will be WP:TOONEW and have no citations. Similarly for the Guardian. In this case it's not clear the paper was peer reviewed.
- To put it another way: readers can get this kind of info from ScienceDaily. This is an ecyclopedia. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Let me reformulate my question: instead of using ScienceDaily, can a citation to the following source be used instead: Li X., Bai W., Yang Q., et al., (2024). The extremotolerant desert moss Syntrichia caninervis is a promising pioneer plant for colonizing extraterrestrial environments. The Innovation. 5 (4). The article appears to be peer reviewed. Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Depends upon the content being referenced, see WP:PRIMARY. This seems like a case that might pass many of the tests, esp. the reference is open access and not narrowly technical. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- You all might want to see [3] - or even raise the issue again. Doug Weller talk 14:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Might be important considering that what links here shows it is presumably used more than 350 times as a citation. Viriditas (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- You all might want to see [3] - or even raise the issue again. Doug Weller talk 14:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Depends upon the content being referenced, see WP:PRIMARY. This seems like a case that might pass many of the tests, esp. the reference is open access and not narrowly technical. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Let me reformulate my question: instead of using ScienceDaily, can a citation to the following source be used instead: Li X., Bai W., Yang Q., et al., (2024). The extremotolerant desert moss Syntrichia caninervis is a promising pioneer plant for colonizing extraterrestrial environments. The Innovation. 5 (4). The article appears to be peer reviewed. Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Johnjbarton: I've made these changes. I realize that you said you don't like The Guardian, but I think it's acceptable to use it like this. I'm also fond of citing the primary and the secondary together. Viriditas (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Viriditas Thanks! Your edits are clearly an improvement. I believe the previous content is inappropriate without secondary refs. For examples
- "S. caninervis is well-known for its ability to tolerate drought conditions,..."
- An uncited primary ref can't verify "well-known"
- Except it does in the paper, citing two papers? Viriditas (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- An uncited primary ref can't verify "well-known"
- "Research has shown that S. caninervis can ..."
- One paper is not "research has shown"
- The "research" refers to multiple cited papers. Viriditas (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- One paper is not "research has shown"
- "Some studies have even suggested..."
- One study is not "some".
- Multiple studies are cited. Viriditas (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- One study is not "some".
- "S. caninervis is well-known for its ability to tolerate drought conditions,..."
- And so on. It is this kind of extrapolation that the page WP:PRIMARY is trying to avoid. To put it another way, the content if correct, could easily be refed correctly. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Johnjbarton: I don't know what your time constraints are like, but I not only appreciate your help with this, but I would also like to ask you for additional reviewing. User:Dcotos hasn't submitted this to DYK and I would like to nominate a hook, but we are up against a deadline. If you could take a quick glance at the article and wield your axe to its benefit, that would be helpful. Viriditas (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I should note that there is additional research in the literature that supports its status as an extremophile. I just added another one. Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Viriditas Sorry I'm sure what you are asking here. DYK? hook? deadline? Johnjbarton (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm asking if you think the current version of the article, as it stands right now, is problematic. Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think I just answered my own question. The primary author did not paraphrase and quote correctly, and much of the article is written far too close to the sources. It needs to be rewritten. Viriditas (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Let's follow up on that articles Talk page. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm asking if you think the current version of the article, as it stands right now, is problematic. Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Johnjbarton: I don't know what your time constraints are like, but I not only appreciate your help with this, but I would also like to ask you for additional reviewing. User:Dcotos hasn't submitted this to DYK and I would like to nominate a hook, but we are up against a deadline. If you could take a quick glance at the article and wield your axe to its benefit, that would be helpful. Viriditas (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Viriditas Thanks! Your edits are clearly an improvement. I believe the previous content is inappropriate without secondary refs. For examples
- @Johnjbarton: I've made these changes. I realize that you said you don't like The Guardian, but I think it's acceptable to use it like this. I'm also fond of citing the primary and the secondary together. Viriditas (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Auriga (constellation)#Requested move 1 July 2024
[edit]There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Auriga (constellation)#Requested move 1 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 03:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Article was moved. Praemonitus (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Request at Teahouse
[edit]For the interested, Wikipedia:Teahouse#Please_help_me_with_an_article. New editor wishes help for article about Andrzej (Andrew) Pohorille, astrobiologist, who no longer falls under WP:BLP (well fine, he died recently). Draft at Draft:Andrew Pohorille. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Hey guys. I wish to work on Orion Belt, but I'm not sure what is needed to be on the page, nor do I know of adequate reference pages to expand the article. For now, a chunk of it is dedicated to cultural depictions.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- ZKang123, glad to hear you're looking to improve the page. Unfortunately, the primary steps for improving a page are a) determining what needs to be added, and b) finding references that will allow you to add that content. Once you figure that out, it's just a matter of editing the page and adding the content. Primefac (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- You're right that it's appallingly written in places. I have made a start at improvement but please carry on if you wish. Skeptic2 (talk) 09:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Lunar soil#Requested move 27 June 2024
[edit]There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lunar soil#Requested move 27 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 23:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Requested articles
[edit]I migrated the list of requested astronomy and cosmology articles to a separate page so it is easier to watch. The separate astronomers list from the "Scientists and people in science" section has been migrated to the same page. Praemonitus (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Multiple metric unit conversions
[edit]Hi, all. Praemonitus asked me to take this question here from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Manual of Style. I actually already raised this point on this page, but that discussion was closed before anyone could reply.
Anyway, the question was whether the new guidelines for astronomy articles should discourage multiple conversions of the same quantity into two different metric expressions. For example, the equatorial rotation velocity of Mars is given as both 241 m/s and 870 km/h. If I had to pick one, people are familiar with km/h speeds from driving, so that seems like a good choice of units for this field across all planetary infoboxes. If someone needs m/s it's easy to get that without having to look up any conversion factors. But regardless of which is preferred, having both seems like overkill in an already-number-heavy infobox.
Any thoughts? -- Beland (talk) 08:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think astronomy articles should present unit scales that most readers will be familiar with; hence km, kg, cm, and so forth. It should also preferentially use units that astronomers conventionally use in their peer-reviewed papers; thus AU, pc, kpc, Mpc, Myr, and so forth. Adding less familiar units as additional conversions just generally increases clutter. In the case of widely popular Astronomy topics such as the planet articles, old English unit conversions may make some sense, but otherwise the MOS:CONVERSIONS guideline usually applies: "in science-related articles, supplying such conversion is not required unless there is some special reason to do so". Praemonitus (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just to clarify: if, for example, km and cm are both familiar to readers because they are part of the metric system, are you in favor of only converting a given quantity into one of those? -- Beland (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just those two? Nope. Praemonitus (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- What's the benefit of expressing a quantity in both km and cm when everyone can easily convert between them just by moving the decimal place? -- Beland (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Huh? How did we get there? I never said anything like that. Praemonitus (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I read your above reply "nope" to mean no, you would not support only converting into one of km or cm, but that you would want the quantity converted into both. If that's not what you meant, then I apologize for misunderstanding. Could you clarify your position on multiple metric conversions? For example, converting into both m/s and km/h instead of just one or the other. -- Beland (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- My position is that I prefer less of the data clutter that distracts from the information being presented. In most cases a single conversion should suffice. It would be even cleaner if there were none, but I know that's rarely possible. We have many data "wonks" here that like a lot of numbers, and I understand that, but that isn't necessarily the case for the target audience. Just present enough information for the reader to get a picture of what's going on, then leave it at that. They don't, for example, need a distance in km, miles, AU, and light seconds, as I've seen in some cases. (Or a temperature in Centigrade, Fahrenheit, and Kelvin.) Just use the unit that's most widely recognized and appropriate for the scale. Praemonitus (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I read your above reply "nope" to mean no, you would not support only converting into one of km or cm, but that you would want the quantity converted into both. If that's not what you meant, then I apologize for misunderstanding. Could you clarify your position on multiple metric conversions? For example, converting into both m/s and km/h instead of just one or the other. -- Beland (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Huh? How did we get there? I never said anything like that. Praemonitus (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- What's the benefit of expressing a quantity in both km and cm when everyone can easily convert between them just by moving the decimal place? -- Beland (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just those two? Nope. Praemonitus (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just to clarify: if, for example, km and cm are both familiar to readers because they are part of the metric system, are you in favor of only converting a given quantity into one of those? -- Beland (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree. Anybody looking up rotation velocity, escape speed, etc., is interested in doing calculations with them. m/s is the useful one. km/h is neither SI not useful for anything. I don't think familiarity with driving helps here, because the numbers are almost never in the same order of magnitude as car speeds. Tercer (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- OK, so if we settle on m/s, would you favor not converting into km/h or any other metric units? -- Beland (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would. Tercer (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Same. I think m/s is the most useful unit. --mfb (talk) 11:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I'll update the proposed MOS. Thanks for weighing in! -- Beland (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, except in the case of a direct comparison with vehicle velocities. Praemonitus (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Same. I think m/s is the most useful unit. --mfb (talk) 11:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would. Tercer (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- OK, so if we settle on m/s, would you favor not converting into km/h or any other metric units? -- Beland (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Conversion of light years and parsecs
[edit]FYI, there's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Conversion of light years and parsecs where editors are considering whether to require conversion of light-years to kilometers instead of parsecs. Please reply there if you have an opinion so we don't have to revisit this later. -- Beland (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Preferred units for speed
[edit]@Praemonitus, Tercer, and Mfb:, you all expressed support above for using m/s for speed in astronomical contexts (outside of direct comparison to driving speeds). Looking at orbital speed, all the orbital velocities there are in km/s. (Pinging JohnOwnes as top authors of that article.) To clarify, are m/s preferred over km/s, or are they both equally OK and should be used according to the magnitude of the speed? -- Beland (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I see m/s and km/s as equivalent, use whatever is appropriate for the size of the number. 0.01 km/s is silly, 100,000 m/s is not ideal either. Orbital velocities are usually several kilometers per second so km/s makes sense there. --mfb (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, meant to @Kheider, JohnOwens, and Deuar:. I've added km/s as an acceptable option in the draft MOS, but feel free to continue the discussion and agree or disagree with that. -- Beland (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, km/s is also fine. Tercer (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, km/s (or m/s) is suitable for astronomy. Radial velocities are typically given in km/s, for example. Use of km/h would require an extra conversion step when calculating with SI, so it doesn't seem of much use in astronomy/physics. Praemonitus (talk) 23:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
The Venus article includes the sentence, "Strong 300 km/h (185 mph) winds at the cloud tops go around Venus about every four to five Earth days." I think that is a case where using "km/h" makes sense. Atmospheric motion should be an exception to the criteria. Praemonitus (talk) 19:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- It seems generally agreed upon that atmospheric motion should be in km/h; this is standard for most weather articles from what I've seen. Could be worth an MOS mention. ArkHyena (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well spotted; I will add a note about that. -- Beland (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- km/s is generally the relevant unit for speed in astronomy; I sometimes see others in use but they're either straightforward SI multiples (e.g. cm/s) or should give a conversion to km/s. The recession of distant galaxies should be expressed as redshift, which is directly related to speed but is not technically a unit. Wind speeds within the atmosphere of a planet is meteorology, not astronomy, so should follow those guidelines instead. Modest Genius talk 15:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Although they include their WP rating template on articles such as Atmosphere of Venus, WP:WEATHER currently lacks a MoS supplement, so for now we won't be able to redirect to there. Praemonitus (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Requested split of V1400 Centauri into J1407b
[edit]Hi everyone, I've recently expanded the V1400 Centauri article. I am proposing splitting a portion of the V1400 Centauri article into a new article titled J1407b. Please join the split discussion in the article's talk page. Thanks! Nrco0e (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Result of the discussion was split. ArkHyena (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Astronomical catalogs
[edit]Template:Astronomical catalogs has now two links to disambiguation pages (Arp 83 and Arp 84). I have tried to solve it but the way the template is created is way over my head. I asked the disambiguation-creator for help, but he stumbled on the same thing. How can this be ironed out? The Banner talk 08:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think anything needs solving, since Arp 83 & 84 are indeed ambiguous. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 11:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- A template should not point to a disambiguation page. The Banner talk 20:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Generally, yes, but in this rare & specific case, where both dabs are mutually inclusive, I think it's ok to WP:IAR. If one of these arps showed up on Arp 83 or Arp 84, for example, then I would agree. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 00:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- A template should not point to a disambiguation page. The Banner talk 20:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Arp 83 & 84 aren't ambiguous; they each refer to a pair of interacting galaxies. In both cases each of those galaxies has its own article, so these pages help navigation, but I'm not sure it's correct to treat them as disambiguation pages? SevenSpheres (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Interesting take. The Banner talk 20:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe a list? Or set index? Or another form that removed the dab-designation? The Banner talk 11:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's useful to highlight them (i.e. as a dab), or at least distinguish them in some way (e.g. with a superscript), in the template as referring to multiple resolved objects/articles, as this is the exception, and not the rule.
- Pinging creator, Sir MemeGod. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sir MemeGod could not solve the template either as the template is very technical. The Banner talk 22:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Since Arp 83 & Arp 84 were recently de-dab'd by R'n'B, I boldly added
<sup>([[Interacting galaxy|i]])</sup>
to their entries on the nav via Template:Astronomical catalogs/Interacting. Anyone feel free to tweak. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Since Arp 83 & Arp 84 were recently de-dab'd by R'n'B, I boldly added
- Sir MemeGod could not solve the template either as the template is very technical. The Banner talk 22:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe a list? Or set index? Or another form that removed the dab-designation? The Banner talk 11:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Interesting take. The Banner talk 20:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just noting that I've added an example of the issue to the top of the thread, and copied the relevant code below; the issue is that this template creates a generic list based on the input (the above is
|Arp=85
) and thus adding disambiguation to the template would be rather cumbersome for just those Arp values that are around 83/84.
Template code for Arp values
|
---|
| group11 = [[Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies|Arp]]
| list11 = {{#if:{{{Arp|}}}|
* {{#ifexpr:({{{Arp}}} - 6) > 0 |[[Arp {{#expr:{{{Arp}}} - 6}}]] }}
* {{#ifexpr:({{{Arp}}} - 5) > 0 |[[Arp {{#expr:{{{Arp}}} - 5}}]] }}
* {{#ifexpr:({{{Arp}}} - 4) > 0 |[[Arp {{#expr:{{{Arp}}} - 4}}]] }}
* {{#ifexpr:({{{Arp}}} - 3) > 0 |[[Arp {{#expr:{{{Arp}}} - 3}}]] }}
* {{#ifexpr:({{{Arp}}} - 2) > 0 |[[Arp {{#expr:{{{Arp}}} - 2}}]] }}
* {{#ifexpr:({{{Arp}}} - 1) > 0 |[[Arp {{#expr:{{{Arp}}} - 1}}]] }}
* '''Arp {{{Arp}}}'''
* {{#ifexpr:({{{Arp}}} + 1) < 339 | [[Arp {{#expr:{{{Arp}}} + 1}}]]}}
* {{#ifexpr:({{{Arp}}} + 2) < 339 | [[Arp {{#expr:{{{Arp}}} + 2}}]]}}
* {{#ifexpr:({{{Arp}}} + 3) < 339 | [[Arp {{#expr:{{{Arp}}} + 3}}]]}}
* {{#ifexpr:({{{Arp}}} + 4) < 339 | [[Arp {{#expr:{{{Arp}}} + 4}}]]}}
* {{#ifexpr:({{{Arp}}} + 5) < 339 | [[Arp {{#expr:{{{Arp}}} + 5}}]]}}
* {{#ifexpr:({{{Arp}}} + 6) < 339 | [[Arp {{#expr:{{{Arp}}} + 6}}]]}}
}} |
- I'll think about a technical fix, but the above ideas regarding changing how/where the link points may be a good alternative idea. Primefac (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Expanding Template:NGC objects:1-499 to 1–1000 to match Template:NGC objects
[edit]NGC objects |
---|
Since NGC object pages (right) are in groups of 1000, similar to the LoMPs & MoMPs, I think it makes sense to similarly group the Template:NGC objects:1-499 family of templates to match. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 11:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I believe, though I may be mistaken, that the template family is limited to 500 due to size; I note that all of them are in groups of 500. Primefac (talk) 12:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Since 2 "{{NGC objects:X-Y}}" are used per NGC list article, here is a size comparison:
- Current:
- Proposed:
- Also, using the proposed {{NGC objects: 1-1000}}, etc., will cut the height of New General Catalogue#External links in ~half. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- For what it's worth I'm not necessarily opposed, just giving my hypothesis for why it is the way it is. Primefac (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Now that I think of it, I only mean for {{NGC objects: 1-1000}}, etc., to replace {{NGC objects:1-499}}+{{NGC objects:500-999}}, etc., on the NGC list articles. {{NGC objects:1-499}}, etc., can/will still be used elsewhere, like on individual NGC object pages (NGC 1). With that limited scope, I don't think there'd be much objection.
- Also, I just noticed that List of NGC objects (1–1000) is currently missing NGC 1000, because {{NGC objects:500-999}}, so creating {{NGC objects: 1-1000}}, etc., seems even more appropriate. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- For what it's worth I'm not necessarily opposed, just giving my hypothesis for why it is the way it is. Primefac (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Also, using the proposed {{NGC objects: 1-1000}}, etc., will cut the height of New General Catalogue#External links in ~half. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Larger templates will mean longer load times on portable devices and/or remote locations. I don't see a benefit to combining them. It's not like they need a lot of maintenance. Praemonitus (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Naming convention for Sharpless objects
[edit]Newly created article Sh 2-185 is being discussed for a move to Sh2-185, with the argument that would provide, "consistency with other articles on Sharpless objects". However, IAU naming convention uses the format: Acronym ^ Sequence ^ (Specifier). If you look at the scientific publications for Sharpless objects, they have the form: Sh^[1-2]-NNN. I.e. with a space after the 'Sh'. For some reason on Wikipedia they are all named Sh[1-2]-NNN. I.e. no space. Do we just stay lazy and keep the current names, or move them to the IAU version per MOS:ASTRO. Yes, I know it's a nit. Praemonitus (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Editor SevenSpheres has opened a move request on Talk:Sh 2-185 regarding this issue. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- In general I'd support the use of names that follow the IAU conventions. Aldebarium (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Proposed changes to infobox constellation
[edit]Two changes were proposed to {{Infobox constellation}}, see its talk page for more information.
- Remove parameter "stars with planets".
- Add parameter "Nearest star in constellation".
21 Andromedae (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I support this per the referenced talk page discussion. SevenSpheres (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at 2MASS J10475385+2124234
[edit]There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2MASS J10475385+2124234#Requested move 5 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Related discussions for reference:
- Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (astronomical objects)#Abbreviating catalogue designations (2MASS, WISE, etc.)
- Talk:2MASS J09393548−2448279#Requested move 16 June 2024
SevenSpheres (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not seriously opposed to this kind of abbreviation but I fail to see a need for it. I'll note that there is currently no consistency in whether and how these kind of titles are abbreviated; in fact in the two proposed moves above, the current titles are consistent but the proposed (shortened) titles are not. SevenSpheres (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
COI edits
[edit]@Paolosalucci has been systematically adding reference to papers that include "Paolo Salucci" as an author. Some of these are fine, some are clearly not the best reference. Many of the edits mangle the surrounding text. The topics are all related to dark matter and galaxy rotation; Paolo Salucci is a world class expert on that topic. I left a Talk message pointing to WP:CIO but there was already one from some time back. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's a clear COI, so while there is nothing that stops an author from adding their works as references, they should be reasonable references for the subject material. If that is not the case, and it appears haphazard, then it might be time to start discussing a topic ban. However, I would like to get thoughts from Paolosalucci on the matter before we get to that point. Primefac (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- I did this: I replaced twice one of my old reference with a better one, more recent and more readable from people, since it is a review on TAAR (IF=35). Moreover, I added a new a reference of my most known paper( 1600 citations in a place where there were no references). In that place maybe other references are needed, not to remove mine . Then, I added a new small chapter for M87 the biggest galaxy around. I did not changed the content of the text since I do not consider wikipedia the place to put controversial content. I do not understand self promotion. I get some result , well agreed in the literature certainly deserving at least a couple sentence why I cannot put it . Furthermore the text is in some point on the verge of being cracpot, the references are often of works unknown and jollybarton has something against me ( as I remember 10 years ago) ? Is it possible to zoom each other ? I do not understand as all the main editors of astrophysical astroparticle journal beg me to write a review on the dark matter in galaxy and you do not accept a single reference????? Paolosalucci (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Paolosalucci Please don't over react. I don't have anything against you or your work. The edits you have made are self-promoting in the sense that they are minimal contributions focused on your publications. I suppose the editors of any astrophysical journal would would be wary of a review that only cited one author's work. Thus we are wary of an edit that solely adds a reference to your own work.
- Personally I hope you will make more edits or maybe comment on any the Talk page for any content that is "on the verge of being cracpot". The essay Wikipedia:Expert editors has some really good perspective on how to approach wikipedia editing.
- I would especially encourage you to call out your involvement with sources you cite. For example, the edit summary you wrote when changing Dark matter was "Added two wellknown works at support of dark matter in galaxies.". In my opinion a forthright edit summary would be: "Add a reference to my well-cited paper and my review on dark matter in galaxies." That would make it clear that these are appropriate references (well-cited or secondary refs) and that you are acknowledging the COI issue.
- Please also consider adding a short comment in the Talk pages for these articles to explain why your paper is appropriate for the context. Such comments will build up confidence that your goal is to improve the article rather than self-promotion. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Paolo: I think the most important thing is as User:Johnjbarton says, to note in your edit summaries that this is a COI edit, and/or noting on the talk page for such articles that you've added refs to your own work. COI edits are not a problem in and of themselves, but they should be transparent. We need more people with a background in cosmology and galaxies editing here, so please stick around. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Primefac The references added are top notch and mostly on target. I primarily wanted to raise awareness that the refs are self-promoting. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- I did this: I replaced twice one of my old reference with a better one, more recent and more readable from people, since it is a review on TAAR (IF=35). Moreover, I added a new a reference of my most known paper( 1600 citations in a place where there were no references). In that place maybe other references are needed, not to remove mine . Then, I added a new small chapter for M87 the biggest galaxy around. I did not changed the content of the text since I do not consider wikipedia the place to put controversial content. I do not understand self promotion. I get some result , well agreed in the literature certainly deserving at least a couple sentence why I cannot put it . Furthermore the text is in some point on the verge of being cracpot, the references are often of works unknown and jollybarton has something against me ( as I remember 10 years ago) ? Is it possible to zoom each other ? I do not understand as all the main editors of astrophysical astroparticle journal beg me to write a review on the dark matter in galaxy and you do not accept a single reference????? Paolosalucci (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Multiple issues with List of largest exoplanets
[edit]Hi,
There is an ongoing discussion in the talk page of the List of largest exoplanets, regarding the accuracy of large radii calculated from the luminosities of young planets surrounded by dust, usage of artist's impressions, and miscellaneous notes. The specific discussion can be found in Talk:List of largest exoplanets#Multiple issues. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 21:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging this section, as the above talk page could use some more opinion on the value of artists' illustrations. - Parejkoj (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:HR 2562 b#Requested move 11 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Your input on the discussion would be welcome! ArkHyena (talk) 09:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Regarding lists of solar eclipses
[edit]Hello astronomers! I have already posted this on the Teahouse, but I was told to ask you guys instead. I am working on a list of all of the solar eclipses visible from Canada, and I have a question regarding how the list entries are classified. What exactly determines if only a "sliver" of the subdivision was in the path of the eclipse (and would therefore have a dagger next to its entry)? Is it subjective, or is there a concrete definition? Thanks! ✶Antrotherkus✶✶talk✶ 20:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Link to draft for reference. Primefac (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- To answer the question, though... I don't know if that's particularly useful information. Is it really relevant to know whether something passed across the entirety of Nunavut, half of it, or a quarter of it? I wouldn't bother including that information, and would probably make the argument that such information could be removed from any existing articles (though I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise). Primefac (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- In my opinion the vast majority of these eclipse articles are not notable, amounting to data, not knowledge. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, and AFD has supported that opinion for the most part, but that's somewhat of a different discussion. Primefac (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry if you think that my draft isn't that great. I'm mainly just copying from the already-existent list of solar eclipses visible from the United States, meaning that I am using the same key (daggers included) as that article. ✶Antrotherkus✶✶talk✶ 18:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Never said the draft wasn't great, I just don't see the "sliver" information being particularly useful. Primefac (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- In my opinion the vast majority of these eclipse articles are not notable, amounting to data, not knowledge. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
"Epoch" seems to be used in astronomy to mean a point in time, eg the first instant of a calendar. In cosmology it seems to be a synonym for "era". Does anyone have a reference to this effect? "I have seen it used ..." is not helpful because we can't cite our own experience its not exactly verifiable ;-) Johnjbarton (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)