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. |
Requested move at Talk:Auriga (constellation)#Requested move 1 July 2024
editThere 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)
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
editThere 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
editI 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
editHi, 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
editFYI, 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
editHi 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
editTemplate: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
editNGC 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
editNewly 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
editTwo 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
editThere 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
editHi,
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
editHello 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)
- What do you mean "this effect?" It's just a difference in use of a term. In astrometry, epoch is the date of the observation (Julian Epoch Year), in cosmology it's "that period of time" (e.g. the epoch of reionization). I'm a bit surprised at that redirect, but I guess it's reasonable. - Parejkoj (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry I meant: Does anyone have a reference discussing how the word "Epoch" has a different meaning in cosmology? Johnjbarton (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- The word epoch covers both definitions. I don't think it's unique to cosmology. Praemonitus (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- The third definition: "(chronology, astronomy, computing) A specific instant in time, chosen as the point of reference or zero value of a system that involves identifying instants of time." matches Epoch (astronomy) which says
- In astronomy, an epoch or reference epoch is a moment in time used as a reference point for some time-varying astronomical quantity.
- The close connection between cosmology and astronomy would have lead me to think the same word would have the same meaning. That's why I was surprised. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- The third definition: "(chronology, astronomy, computing) A specific instant in time, chosen as the point of reference or zero value of a system that involves identifying instants of time." matches Epoch (astronomy) which says
- The word epoch covers both definitions. I don't think it's unique to cosmology. Praemonitus (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry I meant: Does anyone have a reference discussing how the word "Epoch" has a different meaning in cosmology? Johnjbarton (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Exception for WP:Toosoon and WP:SOURCES?
editIn this edit to Hubble's law @Banedon added content based on an unpublished and uncited ArXiv paper:
- Freedman, Wendy; et al. (12 August 2024). "Status Report on the Chicago-Carnegie Hubble Program (CCHP): Three Independent Astrophysical Determinations of the Hubble Constant Using the James Webb Space Telescope".
The claim added is very mild. Bandon has made the case in Talk:Hubble's law that this source should be allowed.
Since I routinely revert additions based on newly published papers let alone ArXiv preprints, I would like consensus on this exception. I would say the exception is based on the consortium of authors being a form of review, the YouTube video review, and the mild nature of the claim.
Please respond on Talk:Hubble's_law#Update_potentially_needed_for_Hubble_Tension_section?. Thanks.
(Posted to WikiProject physics and astronomy) Johnjbarton (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Freedman's group do good work, and are probably correct, but we should wait for publication and some citations, just like we do with everything else. - Parejkoj (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
List of star systems within 500-550 light-years nominated for deletion
edit@ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of star systems within 500-550 light-years ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's not surprising that the lists of nearby star systems has kept expanding, because where do you cut them off? Praemonitus (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- It looks like the cut-off is now 500 light years, with the outermost being List of star systems within 450–500 light-years. The outer lists are fairly short, so we could even merge the ones from 100 to 500 ly. But it's probably not worth the bother. Praemonitus (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. Also, not bothering gives more room for expansion. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- It looks like the cut-off is now 500 light years, with the outermost being List of star systems within 450–500 light-years. The outer lists are fairly short, so we could even merge the ones from 100 to 500 ly. But it's probably not worth the bother. Praemonitus (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
A formal RfC against Universe Guide
editSo for context, I first noticed this questionable source regarding Theta Muscae, which I then reached out at WT:ASTRO for a note, and made me realize this source has been cited in multiple existing articles and is a worse problem than I thought. A past discussion on the RSN confirms this as an unreliable source and a personal blog website of N. John Whitworth, who has superficial background in astronomy, if at all (as one can see upon the poor grammar and science fiction-like writing of the site). However, that particular discussion was quite unfruitful and did not follow the proper method on launching an RfC investigation that should have classified this as a deprecated source and discouraged its use on Wikipedia.
This time, however, I wanted to launch a formal RfC against this website. It is very popular and appears mostly on the top of Google searches, so it would be inevitable that time and time again this farce blog will be used as a source for astronomy articles. I however did not have the tools to look for articles on where this website was used as a source and make a more solid complaint, as I believe 40 articles is an underestimation. I also don't know much about the history of how this website had been cited, so if anybody out there has the technical skills to outline this, maybe you can help out. It would be greatly appreciated.
That's all. I am having quite a bad day right now after staying all night, and I became more mad upon looking at this website's entries. SkyFlubbler (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- @SkyFlubbler: Why not do this at RSN? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Special:LinkSearch may be helpful. Yes, this is clearly an unreliable source and shouldn't be cited. SevenSpheres (talk) 02:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, this is exactly what I was looking for, thank you. I think I'll be writing one now. I'll go back here once it's finished. SkyFlubbler (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- 100% not a reliable source. Please do file for it to be "officially" listed as such. There are a few other such bad sources used on some pages; I've listed some of them on here in the past. I don't think any of those had as wide a use as this one though. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that it is an unreliable source, full of inconsistencies and wrong data. 21 Andromedae (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed here also. Universe Guide is just an amateur site, in all senses of the word. Skeptic2 (talk) 09:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- There's a claim in Saturn, a Featured article, which is cited to "Universe Guide". It needs at least a better source and perhaps a rewrite. See the opening line of Saturn#Atmosphere. Most of the other occurrences seem to be in less prominent places; they all ought to be fixed eventually, but this one sticks out in particular. I'd be concerned that any website source since 2009 could have just copied that claim from here, and I haven't yet had time to sift the literature for more trustworthy numbers. XOR'easter (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Please will a specialist review this draft with a view to accepting it or offering the creating editor advice]] 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think this comet is notable. It received little coverage outside the usual databases (not even dedicated astronomy news sites mention it). --C messier (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Archaeoastronomy
editArchaeoastronomy has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Astronomical units
editIf you have any opinions about whether AU should be converted to SI units, please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Astronomical units. (To keep the discussion in one place, please don't reply below). -- Beland (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)