Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Archive 14

Ring Galaxies vs Ringed Galaxies?
Harald Khan Ճ pointed out a possible issue with NGC 1300, NGC 1365, and possibly some others being misclassified as ring galaxies. The NED database lists the type of these as including "(R')" so I wonder does that mean they are ringed galaxies or ring galaxies? Harald wrote on this subject:
 * According to Phillip's Astronomy Encyclopedia from 2002, ... ringed galaxies are not the same as ring galaxies, where collisions and near encounters are the preferred explanations; in contrast to ringed galaxies where stellar dynamics are the cause. Supposedly, bars could later on turn into such rings through these dynamics.

Please assist. Thanks. WilliamKF (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Gamma ray bursts
Category:Gamma ray bursts has been proposed to be renamed at WP:CFD to Category:Gamma-ray bursts, and appropriate subcategories. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 08:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

PSR B1259-63
Someone might want to look at PSR B1259-63, it's a CarloscomB article, so it had grammar errors making it hard to read. A comment from the talk page states that it's factually wrong, so I've done some corrections on it to remove the false data, and excessive category subscriptions. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 08:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I've been reverted, so the starbox with several wrong facts is still on the article page. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 09:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I did a re-edit and added cites. Please let me know if there are any errors remaining. Thanks.&mdash;RJH (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks better... but the SIMBAD page is about the binary system not one star or the other... (it wouldn't make sense to have a B2e neutron star, since the non-degenerate companion is specifically noted as a B2e in the original article references) The 10 for apparent magnitude also seems suspiciously high for a pulsar. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I've removed the non-pulsar data.&mdash;RJH (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I wonder whether it may instead be better to expand the scope of the article to the complete pulsar+Be star system. Is there a designation that applies to both, so we could put the article there? Icalanise (talk) 11:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the references say either the "PSR B1259-63 system" or the "PSR B1259-63/SS2883 system". A few say the "PSR B1259-63/Be" system. I think it would make sense to just use the current name for both and then bold-face and redirect the various designations.&mdash;RJH (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The spanish Wikipedia is using TYC 8997-1597-1, the Tycho catalogue designation, as the name of the binary system. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That looks to be the Simbad query name as well. I couldn't find any google scholar hits though.&mdash;RJH (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Solar core → Stellar core
Solar core has been proposed to be renamed Stellar core at WP:RM 76.66.198.171 (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I oppose this change, as (a) we know by direct observation (via neutrino measurements, & helio-seismology) a lot of specific details about the internal structure of the Sun which we must infer almost entirely from theoretical modeling for stars; and (b) Stellar cores vary tremendously over the range of stellar types, from newborn O stars to pre-supernova Wolfe-Rayet stars to M-dwarfs. The current solar core article is really just about the Sun.  If we had a good article on stellar cores, surveying all the known types, we might well include a section describing the Sun's core as an example, but it seems premature to me until we have the latter. (I suppose it would be better to collect comments at one place, and I guess talk:Solar core is the right place.) Wwheaton (talk) 07:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion about the move should occur on Talk:Solar core 76.66.198.171 (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Dark matter in the Galaxy article.
An anonymous editor is insistent upon adding a proviso to the first paragraph of this article regarding the "possible hypothetical" nature of dark matter. It has been discussed before and I think the consensus was just to state "dark matter" as one of the components (and thereby ignore MOND, &c.) The current discussion is at Talk:Galaxy. Please take a look and help us reach consensus. Thank you.&mdash;RJH (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

OH masers
OH masers was recently turned into a redirect to Hydroxyl radical, after having been a very short stub for quite a while. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to be an improvement.&mdash;RJH (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Epsilon Eridani peer review
Currently in progress at Peer review/Epsilon Eridani/archive1.&mdash;RJH (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Jupiter Trojan peer review
Currently in progress at Peer review/Jupiter Trojan/archive1.&mdash;RJH (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

List of most luminous stars
A problem has become more and more pressing on the List of most luminous stars, which is in danger of turning into an embarrassing mess. See here for further discussion. Thanks — Wwheaton (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's still a mess. Sometimes it seems like it would better to just start over with a stronger criteria. Perhaps a parallel page can be constructed with very restricted requirements for addition? The line seems pretty arbitrary. Perhaps they must one of three criteria: a confirmed absolute bolometric magnitude of -10, a luminosity of 1,000,000 times the sun, or at least 100 solar masses? We can also limit it to the Milky Way: List of most luminous Milky Way stars. When it's complete, it can be proposed as a replacement for the current page.&mdash;RJH (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Habitability of Brown dwarfs
I added this to the article on Habitability of Red dwarf systems. As it is original I thought I would ask serious scientists to look at it and decide whether or not to keep it. Proxima Centauri 2 (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reverted that insertion in the lead of Habitability_of_red_dwarf_systems, as it was unsourced original research and "unencyclopedic", so it does not belong in article space. As far as the question goes, I think the answer is probably "yes, they might", although at this point nobody knows for sure.  However, Europa is considered by NASA and many scientists to be a possible abode of life (and Jupiter does not even qualify as a brown dwarf, being too small), so it is a good question.  If you can find a reliable source (and there certainly are some for Europa), the issue could be raised in the article, though I would not put it in the lead. Wwheaton (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Jupiter Trojan
The article is a featured article candidate now. You can comment here. Ruslik (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

nebular stubs
I was wondering if we shouldn't create a nebula-stub ? 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * O great, this it what the world was waiting for all these years. Another astronomy stub! Debresser (talk) 12:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * IF you look at WikiProject Stub sorting, you'll see discussion on various many types of star stubs. And what have you got against astronomy? 76.66.193.90 (talk) 12:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That was said jokingly. In connection with my opinion about the bulk of the asteroid-stub articles. I'd recommend making a list first. Later on you can always have a look and decide: if there is anything more interesting than the most basic information about at least some of the nebula - make a nebula-stub, otherwise - don't. Debresser (talk) 12:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What have asteroid stub articles got to do with a template for nebulae stubs? We already have stub articles on nebulae, just no specific template for them. I am *not* talking about articles, I'm talking about a _template_ for a specific stub type. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 12:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have an associate degree in astronomy myself, so the answer to your question is: nothing. But I do like to use common sense in helping build this Wikipedia encyclopedia. Debresser (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Then you should realize that nebulae are one of the basic things studied by astronomers over the centuries. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 12:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * And if I do? That would not change my opinion in the least, because the subject at hand is not nebula, but building an encyclopedia. Debresser (talk) 12:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm sorry. Yes of course you should have a template for that. I just wish you would have less nebula-stubs and would use lists instead. Debresser (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggested format for nebula-stub:

Using as its matching category

76.66.193.90 (talk) 07:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Every stub is about only 1 nebula, so that should be Category:Nebula stubs. Debresser (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

So it's been a week, and I've just posted this proposal at WP:WPSS 76.66.193.90 (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Can't find it. Debresser (talk) 13:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:WSS/P 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the template nebula-stub and category have been created, and an initial set of articles have been tagged. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 10:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery
Did anyone notice Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery and subcategories? Are we going to use this categorization scheme? 76.66.193.90 (talk) 12:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If we are going to use this schema, then can someone precreate year categories for every year in the 20th and 21st centuries? 76.66.193.90 (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnard 68
I am having a disagreement with User:Rotational over WP:LAYOUT, since he's using the 4th level heading, and I'm trying to correct it with the 2nd level heading format, at Barnard 68.

Additionally, I think it needs cleanup, since it appears to contain generic information about dark nebulae that would better be off in the type article. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I did some moving, removing and layouting. Debresser (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Rotational was officially warned. Barnard 68 has temporarily been protected. Rotational removed the whole thing from his talk page. Debresser (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Rotational
Considering Rotational's preference for level-4 headers, he's also reverted my change to NGC 2818 to have level-2 headers (like other articles across Wikipedia). I've left a note at WP:Village Pump requesting community input on the issue. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You probably already know this, but many times it seems to help when I act like a wiki rules lawyer and quote a section of the dogma in the edit summary. E.g. Converting to level 2 headings per Manual of Style.&mdash;RJH (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I put this on his userpage last friday, after trying to talk to him without throwing it in his face. Then he also received an official warning there, so he deleted the whole thing. :) Debresser (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. &mdash; Delievered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems like RJH is the closest thing to a coordinator here... (or perhaps Icalanise) 76.66.193.90 (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Funny, I'd always thought of the project membership as a herd of astro-cats. ;-) &mdash;RJH (talk)

Article alerts
Everyone loves this so far, so I don't see why you wouldn't love it as well.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Eponyms of Trans-Neptunian objects to Category:Eponyms of trans-Neptunian objects
At WP:CFD a rename has been requested for Category:Eponyms of Trans-Neptunian objects to Category:Eponyms of trans-Neptunian objects

76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Eponyms of Trans-Neptunian objects
Category:Eponyms of Trans-Neptunian objects has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Popular pages
It would probably be a good idea to get the 100 top articles in WikiProject Astronomical objects/Popular pages to a B-class or better (other than those that are ephemerally in the top 100 because of recent news)... 76.66.193.90 (talk) 07:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

cat:Transiting planets → cat:Transiting exoplanets
→ has been proposed at WP:CFD, to exclude Mercury and Venus. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent change to Infobox Planet
A change was recently implemented in the Infobox Planet that is causing infobox reference notes to appear at the bottom of the infobox, rather than at the end of the article. If you would like to express an opinion on this, I believe it was discussed here: Template talk:Infobox Planet. Thank you.&mdash;RJH (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's fixed now.&mdash;RJH (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Star systems rumored to be inhabited with intelligent life
This one just popped up on several star articles:


 * Category:Star systems rumored to be inhabited with intelligent life

It's under Category:Ufology of course.&mdash;RJH (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That's an ugly name for a category... UFOlogy names its categories and articles in a highly inappropriate manner in several recent cases... 76.66.201.179 (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like it is headed for deletion.&mdash;RJH (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Alpha Capricorni
I have nominated the redirect A Capricorni for deletion at WP:RFD, because it's a latin letter redirect to a greek letter starname, which is inappropriate, since Bayer designation stars also use upper and lower case latin letters for names. Note that α Capricorni already exists as a redirect. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 12:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I note that several of the redirects listed at User:Spacepotato/List of Roman-format Bayer designations also need to be cleaned up (repointed, dabbed SIA) or deleted. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * See also a bunch of related deletion nominations. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

variable star designations
While cleaning up entries at, I had a thought that it might be a good idea to create a to complement it. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 13:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the star catalogue categories seem to be of the form "XXXX objects", would Category:Variable star designated objects work?&mdash;RJH (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds alright with me, though it might cause confusion on objects not named using variable star designation but are variable stars or companions of objects named with the variable star designation systematic naming system. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 05:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. I'm not really particular about it; there was just a minor concern about the category name length.&mdash;RJH (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Need information from an Icarus article
(Cross posted from Reference desk/Science) I'm hoping someone here has access to this journal article: If you do, I'd like to know if it provides a classification of asteroid 243 Ida, when the spectroscopic measurements were taken, and what pages of the article the information appears on. Thank you. Wronkiew (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Droptone got me the information I needed. Wronkiew (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Appendix:Astronomical terms
Some people might want to look over wikt:Appendix:Astronomical terms. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 13:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I encountered a similar problem with star clusters a while back. There seemed to be no universally recognized system for notating them, only lots of special cases.  I finally resorted to Cl* for Cl* 1806-20 for the star cluster including SGR 1806-20 and LBV 1806-20, but this did not seem very satisfactory, though it is a generic designation SIMBAD uses.  Anyhow, for generic variable stars SIMBAD uses "V*" with a co-ordinate specification, which is something someone might recognize.  They also have a table of designator prefixes somewhere, which includes those and several others of the same sort. Wwheaton (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean... are you saying something is missing from the Appendix? (as there surely are) 76.66.201.179 (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I was not criticizing that Appendix, I was just saying there seems to be no standard system of prefixes for astronomical object types, like SGR, QSO, PSR, LMXB, LBV etc, that would permit one to identify an object by a name like "XYZ JAAAAA+BBBBBB", where XYZ is a type identifier, and AAAAA & BBBBBB would be the co-ordinates (J2000, in this case example).
 * So all we have a countless catalogs, like PKS, NGC, 2MASS, 4U,... etc.  The appendix you mention does not attempt to give guidance re this question.  I'm not suggesting wikt:Appendix:Astronomical terms should attempt to fill this gap; it seems more like something the IAU should do (or may already have done).  Anyhow, I thought part of the issue here and in the "Variable star designations" section above was about this point, of how to name generic non-catalog objects.  This got batted around here a bit six months or so ago, and nobody came up with a better solution than using the SIMBAD table of generic prefixes, some of which (like Cl*) seem to lack recognizability.  Anyhow, at the moment I don't really know a better way.  Wwheaton (talk) 06:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, actually, this isn't related to the above section, it's just an FYI, and a hope for improvement to the appendix. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 10:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

HR star catalogue
FYI Special:AllPages/HR, many of the HR redirects and articles need disambiguation (hatnotes most likely) to point to the star's information, since most appear to be articles or redirects to legislation introduced in the US Congress' House of Representatives. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

etc 76.66.201.179 (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I checked the first ~600 instances of HR in a wikipedia search. In almost every instance, "HR" was used for the star designation and "H.R." for a house resolution. The exceptions were resolutions HR 676, HR 623, HR 333, HR 9006, HR 2060 and HR 5252. Of these, the only one where there was a possible redirect conflict was with 14 Arietis and HR 623.
 * We might want to add a hatnote to all of the appropriate resolution articles that match with the Harvard Revised names, but personally I'd rather that work was performed by a bot. :) &mdash;RJH (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I must have been unlucky in what I clicked, as many of them (picked at random) hit US legislation (somewhere around 30%) 76.66.201.179 (talk) 06:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a List of HR objects to go with Bright Star Catalogue and Category:HR objects should also exist? 76.66.193.69 (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

CoRoT planet renaming
A bunch of planets named with "Corot-Exo-xxxx" have been proposed to be renamed

COROT-Exo-1 → COROT-1 COROT-Exo-1b → COROT-1b COROT-Exo-2b → COROT-2b COROT-Exo-3b → COROT-3b COROT-Exo-4 → COROT-4 COROT-Exo-4b → COROT-4b COROT-Exo-5b → COROT-5b COROT-Exo-6b → COROT-6b COROT-Exo-7b → COROT-7b

See Talk:COROT-Exo-1

76.66.201.179 (talk) 06:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Twin Quasar
Twin Quasar was renamed to Twin QSO, and the notation was changed for the image pair from QSO to SBS, a couple of days ago. The name change was because it is more common to say the second form than the first... but since in the world at large, it's more common to call it the Twin Quasar... this doesn't seem like an uncontroversial move. I can't find usage of the SBS or TXS notational formats in Google Scholar for this particular quasar either. Should the changes be reverted to the previous form? (would require a pagemove back for the article name)

76.66.201.179 (talk) 07:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Twin Quasar elicits 10x more hits than Twin QSO in a basic Google search, but there would be some false positives for gravitationally twinned quasars other than this particular one, in both cases. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 07:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that SIMBAD lists the name "TWIN QUASAR" but not "TWIN QSO". I'd say put it back at Twin Quasar. Icalanise (talk) 08:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Merger of HD 80606, HD 80607 and Struve 1341
Well since apparently posting stuff on this talk page appears to get attention but putting stuff on this project's Rename/delete/merger log doesn't (so does that mean no-one has the log on their watchlist?), I'll point out here that I've proposed a merger of HD 80606, HD 80607 and Struve 1341. Discussion is here, one of the issues is what to name the merged article if the merger goes ahead. Icalanise (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As a side note, I have the current page on my watchlist, but whenever I check my watchlist, I only see the latest edit of each page it contains, so there can be a lot of changes between each time I connect. So that could explain why you think no one has the log on their watchlist. CielProfond (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Clunk... it is now. =) &mdash;RJH (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Article naming
I noticed that user:Icalanise moved PSR B1829-10 to PSR B1829−10, does that mean that all articles should be moved from the ASCII minus sign "-" to the Unicode minus sign "&minus;", which have negative declinations as part of their article names? 76.66.201.179 (talk) 06:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm no longer entirely convinced that was a good idea. Using minus as opposed to hyphen-minus messes up sorting for one thing. Icalanise (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My personal preference is towards ASCII if possible. It also solves ASCIIbetical problems. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 05:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I have changed my mind to the ASCII form. It would be good to know how the two forms are read by screen reader (or other such assistive) technology though. The symbol should definitely be read as minus, not treated as a hyphen. Anyone got access to this kind of software? Icalanise (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia
Hi there all. Over at the Simple English Wikipedia, we have started writing a lot of articles about asteroids and other various phenomena that have to deal with space. If you would like to help, we can always use some more active editors to help expand or write more asteroid/other space phenomena articles there. Cheers, Razorflame 17:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Start a simple:Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy? 76.66.193.69 (talk) 12:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't allow WikiProjects in the Wikipedia namespace yet, but I've started a WikiProject Asteroids :P. Cheers, Razor</b><b style="color:#696969">fl</b><b style="color:#808080">ame</b> 17:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Start a simple:User:Anonymous/WikiProject Astronomy? 76.66.193.69 (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Creating a database of astronomical objects in Wikipedia
Imitating the successful project WikiProject Geographical coordinates, the template Sky has been created. Now, only is transcluded in few articles, but if the number increases, it could be the starting point of a database of all articles in Wikipedia about astronomical objects. Now, the template only links to a sky map, but the same code could let:
 * Create a page similar to Template:GeoTemplate that links to a full list of points in different sky maps and different versions of these sky maps.
 * External projects could use the information about astronomical objects accumulated in Wikipedia, converting the Free Encyclopaedia in a referent in this field. It was what happened when (for example) Google Maps and Google Earth linked to all articles in WikiProject Geographical coordinates. And it could let (for example) to Google Sky to link to these articles.
 * Finally, and the most ambitious, it could let create a reply of WikiMiniAtlas but dedicated to sky. The problem is that it requires people with a high knowledge in programming.

Telescopi (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there a Wikiatlas.org project in the offing?


 * Er, what does do?


 * 76.66.193.69 (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WikiMiniAtlas isn't a future project. Go, for example to Barcelona article. On the top at right there is a little image of the Earth. Click there and a map with all geotagged articles in Wikipedia will expand. Wikipedia has the potential for doing exactly the same with a sky map. You'll see what that template does if you click to the blue coordinates link beside the tiny Earth. Telescopi (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I remember there was an effort to link to http://wikisky.org a bit back... 76.66.193.69 (talk) 06:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but using name as parameter, and with less utility for future free projects. Telescopi (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Arcturus stream
Hi all, does anyone know if this idea is generally accepted in the astronomical community? I had not heard it before but sounded fascinating...Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is some usage:
 * http://images.google.com/images?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=Arcturus%20stream&cf=all&sa=N&tab=ni
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Arcturus%20stream&hl=en&ned=us&um=1&sa=N&tab=ps
 * http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=Arcturus+stream&cf=all
 * 76.66.193.69 (talk) 05:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

GRB 970508 FAC
Greetings! I've submitted GRB 970508 for FAC here. Unless I am mistaken, this is the first GRB to have been brought to FAC, so I'd really like to set a good example for future articles. For that reason, I would appreciate any and all comments you guys have for the article. Thanks! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

comet redirects to nothing applicable up for deletion
C/1978 A1 and Great Comet of 1771 have been nominated for deletion. They are redirects, and their target doesn't say anything about these comets. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)