Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Archive 13

Angular separation for exoplanetary orbits
Issue regarding : This quantity seems to have been added to a lot of exoplanet orbits, however doing so is misleading - for a start it seems to have largely been calculated by using the planet's semimajor axis, however the planet's position in its orbit will cause this value to vary (even calculating a maximum angular separation is going to be problematic when the planet's orbit is eccentric, as the orientation of the orbit needs to be taken into account). However an angular separation would be a useful quantity for the directly-imaged planets at large separations (e.g. 2M1207b). I propose removing the ang_dist field from the infobox, and creating a new field separation_mas which would be grouped with the "observed separation" field. Icalanise (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Spacepotato (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would suggest also adding a field to state the epoch at which the separation is measured. Spacepotato (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In the absence of further discussion, I implemented these changes. See More on  : imaging and microlensing below for further comments on Planetbox orbit. Spacepotato (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Most of Wikipedia's exoplanet orbits use the wrong orbital element
Most (if not all) of the orbits given in the various infoboxes on extrasolar planet articles use the longitude of periastron parameter, however this is incorrect. The parameter in question is actually ω (omega), which is the argument of periastron (see also Stepinski et al. (2000), ApJ 545:1044–1057, §3, where it is stated that the parameter in question is the argument of periastron). Fortunately the Planetbox orbit template does have this field (arg_peri), but converting the vast number of articles which use this is going to be very time-consuming... does anyone round here have a bot which could be used to convert references to long_peri in the template over to arg_peri? Icalanise (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I agree with the proposed change, many sources do call ω the longitude of periastron (e.g. Butler et al. 2006, ApJ 646, 505.) This is confusing however as the term longitude (of periapsis) is also applied  to the angle ϖ = ω + Ω.  The term argument of periastron seems preferable as it refers unambiguously to ω. Spacepotato (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I filed a WP:BOTREQ about this. Icalanise (talk) 10:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Since the bot request didn't get answered, I've created my own script to do this edit and have filed a bot approval request here. Icalanise (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have just completed a 50-edit trial run of the bot. Hopefully I'll be able to fix the remaining articles in the near future, just waiting for full approval first. Icalanise (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Completed the migration of the property from long_peri to arg_peri. I've updated Planetbox orbit to use the curly pi symbol for longitude of periapsis, and omega for argument of periapsis. Icalanise (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Steve Gottlieb
CarloscomB has added unreferenced quotes from whom he attributes to be "Steve Gottlieb" on several articles, and no listing of permission for the extracts... I think these are beyond fair use sanction, but someone should take a look. 70.55.200.131 (talk) 11:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Citation extensions
For those of you who are adding footnotes to an astronomy (or other) article in addition to citations, you may find this extension for grouped references useful. It's definitely easier to maintain than the old Ref_label method.&mdash;RJH (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it is still impossible to cite references from inside a cite.php reference. So Ref_label style will still be used. Ruslik (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case I usually just do an inline reference within the note.&mdash;RJH (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

archive

MECO
Magnetospheric eternally collapsing object has been nominated for deletion at WP:AFD 70.55.86.100 (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The result was to keep the article, though radical revision is desirable. Icalanise (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Rings of Neptune
The article is a featured article candidate now. You can comment here. Ruslik (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

GA sweeps: 4 Vesta
Hello, as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force, I have conducted a Good Article reassessment of 4 Vesta. I have a few concerns that should be addressed if the article is to remain listed as a GA. If anyone is able to help out, the reassessment can be found here. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Starbox photometry problems
I just tried to fix a problem in Cygnus X-3, which has at the moment starbox with V magnitude 5.28. This is incorrect (it is a distant heavily obscured IR star, invisible in V), and I wanted to substitute one of the near IR magnitudes from SIMBAD: J=15.309, H=13.192, K=11.921. However, I have not been able to discover (after just a brief look through the starbox system) any way to do anything but Johnson U, B, & V. If I have missed something, could somebody point me to the right way to do it? At the moment I am just going to delete the incorrect entry and give the NIR magnitudes in the body of the article text. More generally, if there is actually no way to do it properly within the present starbox template system, it seems to be fairly urgent to generalize the templates to accommodate other photometry systems than just UBV, which are after all long superseded (though still essential of course) by many newer ones. SIMBAD suggests U, B, V, R, I, J, H, K, u, g, r, i, z as ones it supports, plus there are the many HST filter names, etc, etc; and new ones almost every time a new observatory is launched or commissioned, now nearly every day. This is clearly a very large and complex subject, and I do not have either the photometric or the WIKI template expertise to address it properly myself, but perhaps a subcategory is needed, with some way to specify a previously undefined option (probably with a reference to the defining literature in extreme cases)? (We probably really need somebody from the IAU working group on photometry to help us out here, to keep from screwing it up royally.) Thanks -- Wwheaton (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you mean Cygnus X-3, not Cygnus X-1. Unfortunately there is no way to do this with the starbox templates at the moment; they only support apparent and absolute V magnitudes in Starbox observe and Starbox astrometry and the color indices U−B, B−V, V−R, and R−I in Starbox character.  It would be simple though to add new options to Starbox character, or to write a new template Starbox photometry as you mention.  Owing to the proliferation of passbands I would suggest making the passbands user-specifiable rather than coding them in the template.  I have prepared a possible expansion of Starbox character in  ; an example of its use is shown below.  Spacepotato (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Fractal cosmology
Fractal cosmology has been nominated for deletion at AfD. 76.66.192.6 (talk) 05:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

WMAP CMB Cold Spot
WMAP cold spot was moved to CMB cold spot yesterday... 76.66.198.46 (talk) 06:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

List of hypothetical planetary objects
List of hypothetical planetary objects contains asteroids, as well as planets, and other things, as such I think a better name is in order (the entire list consists of Solar System objects)... What do you guys think? Note that Hypothetical Solar System bodies and Hypothetical Sol System bodies was merged into this list in 2006. Note that List of hypothetical astronomical objects was merged into this list in 2007. Note that hypothetical exoplanets exist on a separate list, List of unconfirmed exoplanets, which was split from this list in 2006 76.66.198.46 (talk) 10:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * List of hypothetical Solar System objects ? Ruslik (talk) 11:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. 76.66.198.46 (talk) 06:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no objections.  Serendi pod ous  12:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

More on Planetbox orbit: imaging and microlensing
 For planets detected via imaging or microlensing, there are a number of parameters used in Planetbox orbit which, rather than specifying an orbit, specify the configuration of the primary and secondary at a given point in time. As these are not orbital elements, they shouldn't go under the heading Orbital elements in the infobox. So, I'd like to suggest that they be removed from Planetbox orbit and a new template be created for them. For microlensing, the parameters in question are t_approach, which gives the time of observed closest approach of the source system to the lens system (as a Julian date), position_angle, which gives the angle between the trajectory of the source system relative to the lens system and the star-planet axis in the lens system, and separation, giving an estimated projected separation in AU. For imaging, they are separation_mas, giving an observed projected separation in milliarcseconds, separation_epoch, giving a time of observation, separation, giving an estimated projected separation in AU, and position_angle, giving a position angle measured in the usual way relative to north. As can be seen, <tt>position_angle</tt> is being used ambiguously, as it is measured relative to north in the imaging case and relative to the source trajectory in the microlensing case; therefore, it should be split into two parameters for the two different cases. The proposed form for the new template is as follows: <tt>separation_angle</tt>, <tt>separation_epoch</tt>, <tt>separation_mas</tt> and <tt>separation</tt> would be used in the case of planets detected by imaging, and <tt>t_approach</tt>, <tt>alpha</tt>, and <tt>separation</tt> would be used in the case of planets detected by microlensing. Two short examples of the use of the template are shown below.
 * Spacepotato (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Might be better to put the epoch in the header bar, as in the Starbox observe template? Icalanise (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have appended an example where this style is used for 2M1207b (the other example would not change.) Spacepotato (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I added Planetbox separation (with the epoch in the header) and modified Planetbox orbit as discussed. Also, all articles using the parameters discussed should now have been switched over to using Planetbox separation. Spacepotato (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

reference table by CarloscomB
Any idea what to do with these really ugly, badly designed and unnecessarily floating table placed outside of the "references" sections that CarloscomB added to a ton of articles? AFAIR they only have this one entry as well... (It's not a template) Because it's "floating", he also adds "-" after these tables... 76.66.193.170 (talk) 11:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

SIMBAD3 shutdown
According to the SIMBAD3 query system will be shutdown soon, so references and external links using the SIMBAD3 format will need to be updated with SIMBAD4 conformant URLs. 76.66.193.170 (talk) 12:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Arp 302
UGC 9618 and MCG+04-35-019 exist as separate articles. The UGC article is about a pair of galaxies, the MCG article is about the northern element of the pair. Originally they had the exact same textual information (created by CarloscomB), I've fixed the MCG article to reflect the fact that it's not about the pair, but the northern one.  Should this pair of galaxies have a two articles? Or should they be merged together? 76.66.193.170 (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it would make sense to merge them. I added merge tags to both.&mdash;RJH (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

4 Vesta
Just a quick reminder that this article is undergoing a GA reassessment as part of the GA sweeps. It has been on hold for over two weeks, but several concerns remain. If they are not addressed soon, I will have to delist the article. Because it is part of the Main asteroid belt Featured Topic, this would also mean that the Featured Topic would be delisted. There's not much left to do, so any help you can provide would be great. The reassessment page is here. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The article was kept as a GA.&mdash;RJH (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

CarloscomB's quasars
Someone needs to look at the infoboxes, I'm sure they're not entirely accurate, some numbers seem to come out of nowhere, some alternate names as well. 76.66.195.63 (talk) 08:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * QSO B0109+492 -> 3C 35 is up at WP:RM, because 3C names are usually more prominent, and in this case, is more prominent in google scholar.
 * QSO B0210+860, according to the quasar infobox, and SIMBAD, this isn't a quasar, it's a Seyfert 2. IT also has an 8C and a 3C designation: 8C 0210+860 and 3C 61.1. The 3C designation has quite a few hits in google scholar. This is at WP:RM to be renamed 3C 61.1
 * QSO B0410+110, according to SIMBAD, this isn't a quasar, it's a Seyfert 1. IT also has a 3C designation: 3C 109. The 3C designation has quite a few hits in google scholar. This is at WP:RM to be renamed 3C 109
 * QSO B2153+377, according to the quasar infobox, and SIMBAD, this isn't a quasar, it's a Seyfert. IT also has an 4C and a 3C designation: 4C 37.63 and 3C 438. The 3C designation has quite a few hits in google scholar. This is at WP:RM to be renamed 3C 438
 * QSO B1939+605, according to the quasar infobox, and SIMBAD, this isn't a quasar, it's a Seyfert. IT also has an 4C and a 3C designation: 4C 60.29 and 3C 401. The 3C designation has quite a few hits in google scholar. This is at WP:RM to be renamed 3C 401
 * 3C 171, according to the quasar infobox, and SIMBAD, this isn't a quasar, it's a Seyfert. It has a quasar infobox and not a galaxy infobox, claimed to be the first quasar discovered, and was only a few hundred light years away from the infobox info.
 * 3C 47, according to the quasar infobox, and SIMBAD, this isn't a quasar, it's a Seyfert. It has a quasar infobox and not a galaxy infobox, was only a few hundred light years away from the infobox info.

Take 2
76.66.200.131 (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * QSO B1319+428 - reference used is NED (using this name), but NED refuses to spit out any results using this name, so the reference is clearly false. This claims to be the first quasar discovered, but it isn't. SIMBAD says that it should be classed as a radio galaxy. The text claims it is a quasar. Google scholar refuses to spit out any results for this name. Most results come from 3C 285 (an alternate name listed at SIMBAD) The quasar infobox says it's a Seyfert 1 galaxy, and not a quasar at all. He claims that it's 800 ly away and moving at 150mph... which is clearly wrong.
 * QSO B0903+16 - reference used is NED (using this name), but NED refuses to spit out any results using this name, so the reference is clearly false. This claims to be the first quasar discovered, but it isn't. SIMBAD says that it should be classed as a Seyfert 1, and so does the quasar-infobox (shouldn't that use a galaxy-infobox?) The text claims it is a quasar. Google scholar refuses to spit out any results for this name. Many hits result from the listed alternate name 3C 215. He claims that it's 800 ly away and moving at 2000mph... which is clearly wrong.
 * QSO B0040+517 - reference used is NED (using this name), but NED refuses to spit out any results using this name, so the reference is clearly false. SIMBAD says that it should be classed as a Seyfert 2. The text claims it is a quasar. This has a quasar-infobox (shouldn't that use a galaxy-infobox?) Many hits result from the listed alternate name 3C 20. He claims that it's in our galaxy and relatively slow moving... which is clearly wrong.
 * QSO B1100+773 - reference used is NED (using this name), but NED refuses to spit out any results using this name, so the reference is clearly false. This claims to be the first quasar discovered, but it isn't. SIMBAD says that it should be classed as a Seyfert 1. The text claims it is a quasar. Google scholar refuses to spit out any results for this name. Many hits result from the listed alternate name 3C 249.1. His distances in lightyears and kiloparsecs do not match.
 * QSO B1030+585 - reference used is NED (using this name), but NED refuses to spit out any results using this name, so the reference is clearly false. This claims to be the first quasar discovered, but it isn't. SIMBAD says that it should be classed as a radio galaxy. Google scholar refuses to spit out any results for this name. Many hits result from the listed alternate name 3C 244.1. He claims that it's so close as to be in our galaxy and relatively slow moving... which is clearly wrong. SIMBAD's preferred name for this object is UMa B (Ursa Major B/Ursa Majoris B)
 * QSO B0605+480 - reference used is NED (using this name), but NED refuses to spit out any results using this name, so the reference is clearly false. This claims to be the first quasar discovered, but it isn't. SIMBAD says that it should be classed as a Seyfert 2. Google scholar refuses to spit out any results for this name. Many hits result from the listed alternate name 3C 153. He claims that it's so close as to be in our galaxy and relatively slow moving... which is clearly wrong.
 * QSO B1336+391 - reference used is NED (using this name), but NED refuses to spit out any results using this name, so the reference is clearly false. This claims to be the first quasar discovered, but it isn't. SIMBAD says that it should be classed as a radio galaxy. Google scholar refuses to spit out any results for this name. Many hits result from the listed alternate name 3C 288. He claims that it's so close as to be in our galaxy and relatively slow moving... which is clearly wrong.
 * I've sent these to WP:RM with the suggested names listed. 76.66.195.159 (talk) 10:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the best way to handle these uncontroversial moves is for you to create an account and do them yourself. You only need to make 10 edits and wait for 4 days before becoming autoconfirmed. You are welcome to Astronomy and Solar System projects. Sending them to WP:RM only leads to unnecessary bureaucracy and consumes a lot of time. Ruslik (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

CarloscomB's tables
CarloscomB has several of these non-standard non-template tables spread across articles. These interfere with the standard starbox templates and since they float, jump around the page because they are so very wide. This affects usability of the star articles. 76.66.195.63 (talk) 03:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like the CarloscomB account has been indefinitely blocked.&mdash;RJH (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how these tables interfere with the starboxes&mdash;they appear to always float below the starboxes. Anyway, you may find the templates Componentbox begin, Componentbox component, and Componentbox end useful. Spacepotato (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * They shouldn't be on the bottom of the page, and if someone were to reorganize the pages in a sensible manner (ie, content should come before the references section) the table would no longer be attached to the components section, and if you have settings on your browser in a particular manner it does overlap the two tables, unless you do full screen browsing with settings higher than 1024x768. Replacing them with component boxes is probably the way to go. FYI, I've modified this particular star's version of the table to fix the problem, but it requires a clear function to clear the starbox. 76.66.195.63 (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Request bug fix
I really like the idea of Planetbox reference (wanted to request something like this for months). However, the lines in the box are not the same color as the outer and other box colors. I have no idea how to fix this, so can anyone fix this?— Nuclear  Vacuum  21:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Exoplanet discovery sites
I'm not so convinced of the merits of the discovery_site field in Planetbox discovery, especially not in these days of international collaborations on scientific projects. I suggest it is removed. Icalanise (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This field would be improved by a consistent convention on what the discovery site is. I would suggest giving the observatory where the relevant measurements were made.  Also, I think we should consider deleting the flags, as suggested by this guideline.  Discovery locations consisting of only a country and/or a flag are not useful. Spacepotato (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Consider the OGLE-2006-BLG-109L system: according to the discovery paper, there are 11 observatories involved in various countries. After listing all those, the discovery site field would take up a large percentage of the infobox. Or Fomalhaut b: is the discovery site the Hubble Space Telescope, or the various locations of the institutions of the authors on the discovery paper, or what? I really don't think this kind of information is best conveyed in an infobox: leave it to the article text. Icalanise (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * These sorts of questions are why we need to decide what to put in the box, as I mentioned above. For Fomalhaut b, I think the discovery location should be the Hubble Space Telescope.  For the OGLE-2006-BLG-109L system, it's not sensible to give a discovery location.  This is an atypical case though as this system was detected via microlensing. Spacepotato (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:ESO objects
Category:ESO objects ... following the discussion earlier about categorizing things by catalogue, should this category be kept? 08:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.195.63 (talk)
 * I'm not sure what discussion you mean. Do you know how notable this ESO catalog is?&mdash;RJH (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it's the European Southern Observatory and it's on the southern sky... I do not know the notability quotient of it. 76.66.200.131 (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like there are two WP articles (under that category) that use the ESO designation. If those are the primary designations of those galaxies, it may make sense to retain the category.&mdash;RJH (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Asteroid surveys
I created that category after I realized that many of these showed in Category:Asteroid discoverers. If you could verify that what I did makes sense, that would be appreciated. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-3.5ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It definitely makes sense. Ruslik (talk) 08:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Constellations question
In the constellation articles, the pronunciation/symbols/latin information in the lead can causes a pretty ugly page wrap that pushes the text below the infobox. (For example, Sagittarius (constellation) at certain widths.) I was wondering whether it would make sense to move that information into the infobox? Thanks.&mdash;RJH (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Kinematics
Since stellar associations and moving groups share a common theme of 'kinematic groups', I was wondering whether it would make sense to merge them under Stellar_kinematics? They are relatively brief articles that might not be significantly expanded, at least in the near term. What do you think?&mdash;RJH (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It would somehow make sense, provided that stellar association and moving group would both redirect to stellar_kinematics of course. It should be pointed out that many of the examples given in stellar association are moving groups themselves (sometimes their name even includes the words “moving group”).
 * An other option would be to expand the articles instead of merging them.
 * CielProfond (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's clearer to keep these articles separate. Spacepotato (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. These two types of stellar conglomerates are quite different from each other. Stellar associations are loose (~ 80 pc across) and unbound (expanding) groups of OB or T stars, which clear were born together from one giant molecular cloud. The remnants of the latter are usually present nearby. Moving groups generally consist of much older stars, which move along similar trajectories. They may have or may not have a common origin. Defining a moving group is equivocal, whereas associations are easily defined. Ruslik (talk) 09:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * True enough. That's why my second option -- to develop the articles further -- is better. So I oppose the merge. Only fools never change their mind CielProfond (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay.&mdash;RJH (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

TfD on Template:Planetbox star detail
I have proposed the template Planetbox star detail for deletion; rationale and discussion at Templates for deletion. Icalanise (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguate Flagstaff
The disambiguation page Flagstaff has about 75 incoming links from articles about astronomical objects. All of those links should be changed to  Flagstaff  or something similar. Before I start changing them, does anyone here have a preference? --Una Smith (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The articles are all asteroid pages. It sounds like a sensible change to me. Thanks.&mdash;RJH (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely, do it. Wwheaton (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Star's Galaxy
In more than one occasion I'd seen questions raised about the galaxy to which a star belongs. This usually comes from readers who are perhaps unfamiliar with astronomy, and so the question remains unanswered by the article because it's common knowledge among the amateur/professional astronomy community. Even though it is obvious information to many readers, I think it makes some sense to include a Galaxy field in the starbox template. (I.e. "Host galaxy: Milky Way".) We could let it default to the Milky Way. What do you think?&mdash;RJH (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My kneejerk response is no, to avoid clutter. Apart from supernova such as S Andromedae, what stars in other galaxies have articles? I suppose, not wishing to be Milky Way-centric, we could have the Starbox observe's "Observation data" link to a subpage of that infobox that explains its terms all in one place. There we could state that stars are in the Milky Way unless a "host galaxy" field is present (as in the Supernova infobox). As it is now, the reader has to click each linked header term to find out what it means. 84user (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * S Doradus, a star in the Large Magellanic Cloud has its own article. Icalanise (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not object. Ruslik (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should have a category: Category:Extragalactic stars... (like Category:Extrasolar planets) 76.66.195.159 (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe I was the astronomically lay user who brought this up most recently at Talk:Sirius. I think the galaxy should be included on all star articles as most uninformed users don't know this basic fact of astronomy that almost all known star belong to the Milky Way. I think we would be neglecting our educational responsibility by omitting this (to some) "missing link" with the rationale that it is just too plain obvious to those who dabble in this discipline on a regular basis. __meco (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Stellar association?
An alternative might be to include a field for "Stellar association", which could default to the Milky Way if the star is not a member of a moving group, association or cluster. Not sure if there is a more general term that could be used here. SkarmCA suggested possibly listing the galactic arm, and/or we may be able to say Local Bubble. Perhaps there is a term equivalent to a geographic locale?&mdash;RJH (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Defaulting a "stellar association" field to Milky Way strikes me as a bad idea, because galaxies are not stellar associations. Same goes for using such a field to indicate membership in a globular or open cluster. Icalanise (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I didn't communicate clearly. What I'm suggesting is a field that can be used to give information about what moving group, stellar association, cluster, galactic arm and/or galaxy the star system belongs. I.e. an "Astronomical locale", if you will. So it would list the star's dynamic association, albeit not in the literal sense of "stellar association". If little information is available, it could just state "Milky Way" until better details become available. Perhaps a label like "Dynamic system" or "Dynamic association" would work?&mdash;RJH (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Changing Page Name: Virgo Supercluster
I've spent some time editing the Virgo Supercluster page and I've been able to review a broad selection of professional articles. They have always referred to our home supercluster as the "Local Supercluster," to my knowledge since the term was coined in 1958. The term "Virgo Supercluster" is generally confined to popular accounts and websites. I am bringing this issue up here to solicit opinions and to ask how this might be done without harming existing links. Thanks. Vegasbri (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Gsearch Local Supercluster 459000 ghits
 * Gsearch Virgo Supercluster 112000 ghits
 * GScholar Local Supercluster 250 ghits
 * GScholar Virgo Supercluster 31 ghits
 * GBooks Local Supercluster 287 ghits
 * GBooks Virgo Supercluster 52 ghits
 * approximately a 5:1 favouring of "LSC" over "VirSC" 76.66.195.159 (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There are also a few ghits for "local (Virgo) supercluster". If you need more feedback, you might list the page on WP:RM. But based on the statistics above I think it makes sense to move it to "Local supercluster". When you do a page move it should provide you with a link to a page showing the redirects. It's just necessary to make sure that the double-redirects are all fixed. &mdash;RJH (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

FAR
nominated Hubble Deep Field 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. &mdash; Ceran '''[  speak  ] 19:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Bayesian Kepler periodogram
The article Bayesian Kepler periodogram is a load of nonsense (can anyone give me directions to the Markov Chain Monte Carlo Observatory, located in British Columbia?). I speedied it but apparently it was not obvious enough nonsense for that and also there is a proposed merger on the article. I am personally unconvinced about the suitability of the proposed merger, could someone please take a look at this issue. I'm tempted to AfD it, but would rather wait until after the merger proposal can be resolved for any more deletion discussion. Icalanise (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny. Isn't that on top of Mount Stochastic? I hear the weather can be pretty chaotic at times. Anyway I made a few tweaks; not sure whether it satisfies notability requirements though.&mdash;RJH (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

HD 11964 d merger, HD 208487 c merger
There's a proposed merger of the article about the (unconfirmed) extrasolar planet HD 11964 d into the star article HD 11964 - discussion here. Icalanise (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC) Also proposed a merger of HD 208487 c into HD 208487. Discussion here. Icalanise (talk) 12:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Night-Sky Photography +-> Category:Astrophotography
Category:Night-Sky Photography has been nominated for merger into Category:Astrophotography 76.66.195.159 (talk) 06:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Moving "List of stars with confirmed extrasolar planets"
The page List of stars with confirmed extrasolar planets has been proposed to be moved to List of extrasolar planets. Discussion here. Icalanise (talk) 09:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC) Also List of unconfirmed exoplanets to List of unconfirmed extrasolar planets. Discussion here. Icalanise (talk) 09:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Vulcanoid asteroid PR
The Vulcanoid asteroid article has been submitted for peer review here by editor Reyk. Thanks.&mdash;RJH (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)