Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Archive 26

Mars-crosser/Main-belt category intersectors
After some reading, I see that the Hungaria family contributes from the belt to Mars-crossers. I found 6 non-Hungaria-family articles in both of these categories. But I've by no means done an exhaustive search of all the families (there are a lot). It's not clear whether or not this is the only family/group which bridges the belt and Mars-crossers. Can anyone clear that up on Hungaria family, and all pages of families that do?

I removed Category:Main-belt asteroids and/or Beltasteroid-stub on 3: 1065 Amundsenia, 1747 Wright, and 3040 Kozai, because the JPL DB destinguishes Mars-crossers from main belt (and I've haven't seen an asteroid with both yet). I decided not to touch the other 3, 323 Brucia, 391 Ingeborg, and (101429) 1998 VF31, until resolving this here. Please revert if I've done so in error. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 19:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea, because being a MCA (14,000) is more notable than being a common (undisturbed) MBA (630,000). -- Kheider (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

NGC Objects
I'm trying a little experiment with regards to satisfying the WP:GNG criteria. On the requested articles page I'm building a list of red-linked NGC objects that a search on Google Scholar seemed to show a suitable availability of reliable sources. The first 999 NGC entries have been checked, with more to come. (Unfortunately the Google algorithm for detecting machine scans keeps blocking me, so this will take longer than I thought.) Praemonitus (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Is anybody able to explain why template Ngc15 has NGC 1448 red linked? I've found other instances like this. Praemonitus (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not redlinked for me, you might just need to WP:Purge.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay; the article was just created. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Subcat naming inconsistency in Category:Minor planets named from mythology
Of the 14 subcats, 10 of them are named "Minor planets named from ...". The other 4 are "Asteroids named from ...". The grandparent category is Category:Minor planets, so it seems like a no-brainer to change the 4 starting with "Asteroids" to "Minor planets", which I'll do very shortly. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

discussion on the categorization of astronomical bodies at WP:AST
available here exoplanetaryscience (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

And category-by-category cleanup here, here, here, and here. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The last one (WT:AST) is pending input from project members before getting started.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

EV Carinae and other very large stars at Talk:List of largest stars
There is currently a discussion at Talk:List of largest stars about how to treat very large red supergiants with some published parameters but no published radius on the List of largest stars. Any input would be very helpful. Thanks! A2soup (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

HD 47366
The star HD 47366 appeared in the Physorg news stream today for the discovery of two giant planets, so I thought I'd put together a draft article (still in work). A concern for me is that the star is otherwise non-notable. Should I post it or not? Praemonitus (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * At magnitude 6.1, I do not have a problem with it. The planets push this near-naked-eye star over the notability barrier for me. -- Kheider (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Star is in HR catalogue (HR 2437), so that's notable. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Article posted then... and ready for the pedants. Praemonitus (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Close to the borderline, but it passes WP:NASTCRIT #1 and I don't have a problem with the article existing. Modest Genius talk 14:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hopefully there will be a follow-on study at some point. Praemonitus (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

18 Scorpii age illustration
I noticed that somebody inserted an illustration at the bottom of the 18 Scorpii article showing the star's age relative to the Sun. A problem though is that it isn't a match for the latest age estimate showing up in the published journals—it doesn't even lie within the margin of error. The original source was an ESA web page. How do we feel about it? I tend to see quite a lot of variability in age estimates, so that's a hazard in using static illustrations. Praemonitus (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

"Be star"
Be star has been nominated for deletion, see Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_29 -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 06:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Banner question for asteroid redirects
Does WP:ASTRO want on all asteroid redirect talk pages? While updating the WP banner for redirects, I noticed some redirect talks without yes (between 10-50%, probably on the lower part of that range). I wasn't sure if this was intentional or accidental, so I didn't add nor remove that parameter. If y'all want, I can add it, though. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The banner template pages says This parameter populates Category:Pages within the scope of WikiProject Astronomical objects (WP Astronomy Banner), and the relevant subcategory of Category:Astronomical objects articles by quality. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's got my vote. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ 94 yes added (~0.5%).  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Minerva asteroids is up for deletion
At Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 26. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 19:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

AFD for pages describing Transits
I know it's slightly out of your purview, but I thought I'd mention it since you're a sister project to WP:AST. There are a number of pages being nominated for deletion which cover the "Transit of X from Y." Please join in the discussion at Articles for deletion/Transit of Venus from Uranus. Primefac (talk) 05:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Treatment of actual vs assumed diacritics in named asteroids
There are many asteroids whose JPL SMDB name doesn't contain diacritics, but whose namesake description does contain them. It appears that we're adding the diacritics (via moves and new articles) from the namesake to the JPL name, regardless, which is respectful to the namesake and all, but seems overly-meticulous to me, and ultimately incorrect. And, if continued, this will produce many additional (but uncategorized) redirects. Which direction are we/should we be going with this? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirects from diacritics to official names are fine, I would say encouraged. However, they should be categorized and tagged with R from diacritic (and their talk page tagged as redirects). The actual article should be located at the actual JPL SMDB name. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with everything Headbomb said. The article should be located at the official IAU-approved name (which generally do not include diacritics). The form with additional well-meaning but incorrect diacritics should be a redirect. The person it is named after can be mentioned in the article with diacritics. Modest Genius talk 14:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * An IAU reference would seem appropriate for the name itself. There's a list at the IAU's Minor Planet Center. Otherwise, I agree with the above. Praemonitus (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I checked the IAU rules and conventions on naming planets. They say that, "When more than one spelling of a name is extant, the spelling preferred by the person, or used in an authoritative reference, should be used. Diacritical marks are a necessary part of a name and will be used." So it looks like the diacritics are appropriate. Praemonitus (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Ironically, the purpose of that list seems to be to list minor planets which should have diacritics in their names, plus their ASCII alternatives. Modest Genius talk 13:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I've written the code to identify naming mismatches between WP & JPL, alongside all my other checks. Previously, I simply assumed the WP page was correctly named (for named MPs), and used it for the DEFAULTSORT:, if needed. I also noticed the wording on WP:SORTKEY saying to avoid diacritics (apostrophes ok, if not the 2nd character in the key).


 * I'm curious to see how many MP page names have unnecessary diacritics. I'll post them here when I'm done.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Looking at a sample of MPs numbered between 20 000-25 000, ~6.5% had name mismatches with JPL. > 90% of this 6.5% are due to diacritics in WP's MP name and not in JPL's name. There are ~15,000 named MPs on WP, so ~975 of them have superfluous diacritics (assuming the 6.5% error rate is constant throughout all WP MPs).

Since I'm sorting Category:Palomar–Leiden survey, I found 19 with superfluous diacritics there that I would like to correct first. The pages that I want to move these diacritics to all already exist, so I'd like someone with administrator privileges to delete the targets (i.e. ) so that I (or they) can move there, IF the target has a negligible edit history (as 7441 Laska does). Or I could go the RfD route. Here's a list of all the needed moves in this category:


 *  → (7441) Láska
 * → (1779) Parana, however
 * → (4386) Lust, however
 * → (4385) Elsasser, however
 *  → (10244) Thüringer Wald
 *  → (9482) Rubéndarío
 *  → (10949) Königstuhl
 *  → (9481) Menchú
 *  →  (12610) Hãfez
 *  →  (12132) Wimfröger
 *  →  (6807) Brünnow
 *  →  (5194) Böttger
 *  →  (5694) Berényi
 *  →  (11428) Alcinoös
 * → (3046) Moliere, however
 *  →  (6350) Schlüter
 *  →  (2256) Wiśniewski
 *  →  (5010) Amenemhêt
 *  →  (15120) Mariafélix

There're 3 ways to proceed that I'm thinking about (after these 19), assuming most of these diacritics have an associated non-diacritical name (all I've seen so far do). Which does everyone think is the best way to handle this? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 21:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Go through the normal RfD route for 20~50 separate RfDs of 20-50 articles for each RfD, spread out over at least a few weeks.
 * 2) I could list all the ~1000 to-be-moved pages somewhere (either here or in my namespace), then have admin(s) confirm each delete and move.
 * 3) I could be granted very narrow, temporary admin privileges for this and only this task. I'd keep an associated log containing all moves made with checks for each item, i.e. in userspace.


 * Most of the listed minor planets above do have diacritical marks in their name. It's a known issue that JPL's database, sometimes even MPC's lists do not display the correct names (for some discrepancies I found see here and here). The correct names are most likely displayed in MPC's object view page, for example for (7441) Láska. Tom, with all due respect to your efforts, your moves due to "superfluous diacritics" are detrimental to the overall project. BR,  R fassbind  – talk   01:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Well that strengthens the argument for removing diacritics, actually (unless at some point the IAU did/will start using them officially). I've moved 4, possibly 5 pages, before noticing a systemic problem. I did this based on JPL's SBDB, which lists 7441 Laska without diacritics. The title of the IAU MPC's page is (7441) Laska = 1995 OZ = 4632 P-L = PLS4632 (also without diacritics). The 3rd line is the one that includes the "á": "(7441) Láska = 1995 OZ". "Laska" seems to be the official name on both databases, while "Láska" is an alternate name, which should be covered by a #redirect to Laska. The argument for using the official name is established above. What's your argument for using an alternate name as WP's title?  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  02:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The minor planet's formal designation is (7441) Láska and not (7441) Laska because the Minor Planet Circulars say so. More specifically MPC No. 30478, from 18 August 1997, says so here (page 170 of 184). Who cares whether DBs/websites have issues with character-sets and use a plain ASCII fallback instead? Please reconsider your endeavour, but if you really have to then you should start with the lower numbered bodies, such as 369 Aëria (JPL) and 2867 Šteins (JPL) to trigger some immediate reactions from other editors... Good luck,  R fassbind  – talk   10:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You're right. The MPC circular uses diacritics, which is the most convincing argument (it would've been best to lead with that), and 's link reaffirms that. All I want to do is accurately represent the facts, whatever they are. When the facts seem cloudy, I come here. I'm glad we're both moving in the same direction again (and that there're fewer systematic errors).  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * When there's a conflict between JPL and the IAU list, use the IAU. They're the ones who get to decide. The second name on the list at contains the 'correct' name, which can include diacritics (the first one is for use when only ASCII characters are available). If you're comparing WP to JPL you'll make a lot of mistakes - instead compare WP to the IAU. The IAU is the definitive source. Modest Genius talk 13:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

NGC
I noticed, that some NGC pages that are on the list of NGC objects on Wikipedia say that they haven't been created. Should I start making them? OwenJiang (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Be careful: I've found that many of those objects are non-notable, according to WP:GNG. But there's a list here of NGC objects that are probably suitable for non-stub articles. You should be able to find enough scholarly source material to build decent articles. Praemonitus (talk) 04:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Solar system task force
I propose that WikiProject Solar System be made into a task force of WikiProject Astronomical objects. Wikiproject solar system is semi-active and everything covered by it is also covered by this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinZ02 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That would only seem to make sense if doing so would provide some tangible benefit to WikiProject Solar System. Otherwise it's an unnecessary change. Praemonitus (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be easier for the members of the two wikiprojects to collaborate if they belonged to the same wikiproject. MartinZ02 (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it would have the opposite effect. Those interested in Solar System objects would need to spend extra time checking through the messages about other astronomical objects. Praemonitus (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that makes total sense. There are many non-astronomy topics dealing with the Solar System, such as non-astronomy spaceflight (colonizing the Moon/Mars, asteroid/comet trajectory redirection, proposed comet/asteroid destroying bombs, etc) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per 70.51.46.39 & Praemonitus. Talk page indicates the project is plenty active enough for my tastes. DanHobley (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

MPC link on List of minor planets pages and other changes
In the near future, I'd like to add a link to the IAU MPC for each entry in this family of pages. Since no one has responded there for ~a month and a half, I thought it prudent to bring it up here for visibility, in case anyone has additional opinions or objections (though it is a straightforward addition).

What's less-straightforward is the discontinuity in the MP name format from List of minor planets: 199001–200000 to List of minor planets: 200001–201000. The most obvious is the use of a "–" or "-" (it varies) to designate an unnamed MP >= 200 001, and to simply list the number if <= 200 000, omitting " –". I favor the latter, simpler format, and can remove " –" (and all hyphen variants) from unnamed MPs as I go through adding links to each entry, if there's consensus. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 21:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it's a good idea to link to MPC for each entry, but I don't know how WP:LINKFARM might cause problems or editpatrol/administrator action on that -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 07:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that guideline. From WP:LINKFARM I got to WP:EL, which seems to be the most relevant section. I believe the addition of MPC links is in line with this guideline because the new links will comprise 1/6 of the list content, and not the entirety (nor close to it) of the list. They are simply there for ease of navigation to the source, if the reader wants much more detailed information.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Addition of centaurs to File:Euler diagram of solar system bodies.svg
There are ~44,000 centaurs (per the article), so they definitely deserve a place on this diagram, if possible. Here is my interpretation of where centaurs belong, based on the article. What does everyone else think? Pinging the creator, translator, and others involved for input,, , and. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 19:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The green dwarf planets box should probably exclude centaurs, though, unless Mike Brown's interpretation is used. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 19:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

So possible options include:


 * 1) Version 1: Centaurs excluded from dwarf planets box
 * 2) Version 2: Centaurs included in dwarf planets box (à la Mike Brown)
 * 3) Version 3: Centaurs included in dwarf planets box (à la Mike Brown), but with a dotted line
 * 4) Version 4: Stricter JPL interpretation
 * 5) Version 5: JPL + Satellites + no TNOs + dotted dwarf planets

~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 22:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * All of these diagrams have centaurs overlapping with TNOs, which contradicts the lead definition (JPL's) on Centaur (minor planet). There are several definitions of "centaur", and trying to put more than one on the diagram makes it too complicated. Interpretting Chiron as a DP would also mean that you should overlap Comet with DP. A satellite of a TNO can be a TNO (according to the diagram), so is a satellite of a centaur also a centaur? Because "centaur" does not have a consensus definition, I think it's best left off the diagram. Tbayboy (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Excellent point about JPL. I've modified the diagram accordingly, in Version 4 above. If we find many centaurs to possess satellites, then it should indeed extend into the satellite portion, though that doesn't appear to be the case at the moment with my cursory reading.


 * A solid line on the diagram should then indicate the most conservative, yet official, description, which we can modify if and/or when the definition changes. If a dotted line representing non-official, yet "popular" usage is too nuanced, we can simply omit that portion. The term centaur is being used by JPL and important astronomers in the field, so our preference should be to describe the facts clearly and concisely to the reader. Of course, if we here can't come to an agreement, or if due to lack of interest on this topic, nothing will be changed.


 * Regarding your mention of 2060 Chiron: there will always be exceptions to classifications. The spirit of the diagram is to cover the majority of cases, not to catch all exceptions. That said, if centaurs are not capable of being described in any majority sort of way, then they should indeed be left out.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  04:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Centaurs (aaN) should not overlap. There are a few centaurs that could turn out to be dwarf planets, and there is no reason in general that centaurs could not be dwarf planets, so these should actually overlap. Also, we can be fairly certain that centaurs and satellites should overlap: Chariklo and Chiron have rings, both of which are tightly confined, which requires shepherd moon(s). --JorisvS (talk) 08:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I've added these considerations to Version 5 above with the following liberties, hopefully accurately portraying your comments. 1) Since the largest centaurs have a diameter ~$1/7$ that of the largest TNOs, their ability to retain satellites is drastically diminished, so the centaur box doesn't extend as far as TNOs do into the satellites region (I'd rather compare mass, but the masses of 10199 Chariklo, 2060 Chiron, and 54598 Bienor are not yet known). 2) DP-centaurs are dotted since only(?) Mike Brown has acknowledged these 3 largest centaurs as possible DPs.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thinking about it a bit more, what's bugging me about including centaurs here is "what makes centaurs special?". There are lots of them, but there are lots of main belt objects (including a DP), as well as the other large groups -- Jupiter trojans, Apollos, ... The TNOs group was added to discern plutoids, but there's no reason for centaurs that does not also apply the other groups. The diagram is about the general types of objects, but "centaurs" is a specific group (I'm using ad hoc terminology here, with "types" and "groups", but I think the distinction is clear). "TNOs" could be dropped, as well, and maybe even "plutoids" since that term was rejected by one IAU group and hasn't otherwise caught on. A separate diagram of the major groups would be nice (if it doesn't already exist!). Tbayboy (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, a separate diagram of how the different groups & families relate to each other (an asteroid family tree of sorts) would be nice, through probably crowded.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

This is my first time editing SVGs and using Inkscape. I obviously don't know what I'm doing, since my changes are visible to me both in the upload preview AND in the file history but NOT in the finished product. Does anyone know what I'm doing wrong? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, it was indeed display lag.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox planet
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox planet. There are two discussions about adding parameters to Infobox planet, a template that is within the scope of this WikiProject. Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 21:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC) --Ahecht (<span style="color:#FFF;background:#00f;display:inline-block;padding:1px 1px 0;vertical-align:-0.3em;line-height:1;font-size:50%;text-align:center;">TALK PAGE ) 21:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * FYI, we need more than 1 yes-vote (other than myself) to add mean_motion and/or tisserand to Infobox planet. Please & thank you!  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks like of no action is taken most Exoplanet articles WILL BE DELETED!
This is sort of a panic post as I am getting a lot of pings and I'm still not 100% what is going on here but I want to inform everyone in WP:AST to deal with this because I can't deal with all this by myself. Several exoplanet related articles have been up for deletion because the only reason why these articles exist is because they assume that some exoplanets are potentially habitable (imo the key word that these editors missed is potentially), apparently a few editors believe that this falls into WP:OR and have been going around removing tables and deleting articles such as:


 * The mid priority article List of potentially habitable exoplanets
 * List of Potentially Habitable Exoplanets Kepler Candidates
 * List of potentially habitable moons (which I said should be repurposed to solar system moons or redirected to the ESI page)
 * and even the possible desison of deletion of the redirect Easy scale (See here)

I'm concerned that this could go around to deleting pages regarding actual exoplanets which it probably has, but I want to know if this is ok and its just me freaking out about these proposed deletions? To me these proposed deletions seem obscene. <font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#000000;">Davidbuddy9 <font style="color:#000000;background:#FFFFFF;"> Talk 02:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * EDIT: User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc has removed citations from PHL/HEC calling them OR and then opening an AfD which I find interesting. Also this user claims that "This ESI score is based on original research and does not belong in Wikipedia." On the Template:ESIScore TfD found here <font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#000000;">Davidbuddy9 <font style="color:#000000;background:#FFFFFF;"> Talk 02:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * To claim that most Exoplanet articles will be deleted is hyperbole to the extreme. exoplanet, astrobiology, habitable zone, list of exoplanets, etc. etc., etc. are all better and more appropriate articles.


 * The big problem is the uncritical use of the ESI score, an idea that is not cited in WP:MAINSTREAM academic literature. This means that its notability is derived from its mention in the popular press. The fact that there is a self-published website is not good enough to justify using such a page as a sole resource at Wikipedia. We have guidelines that explicitly warn us about this.


 * jps (talk) 05:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

List of nearby galaxy groups
This web page lists the number of galaxy groups within 100 million light years as 148, so it seems like a reasonable criteria for a Wikipedia list article. Praemonitus (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * All right, I'll throw together a draft. Praemonitus (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * After looking at it, I'm not 100% convinced that the tabulated data is accurate. It would require many independent sources to confirm everything. This may take a while... Praemonitus (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Infobox planet's inner margins
While updating MP articles with JPL data, I've noticed a fair amount of pages (a relatively small, but non-trivial %) which used. This has the nice effect of tightening up the inner margins of the infobox, decreasing the whitespace between parameter names on the left and parameter values on the right, and decreasing the height of the IB.

However, this is probably better used on a static display-parameter like discovered, so that the desired spacing doesn't change when the value gets updated. Furthermore, html s and unicode  s can be alternated to give the same effect while decreasing wikimarkup length (consecutive and ending unicode  s are ignored for some reason). I've made 2 before-and-after examples here, for convenience. The terms most often affected are aphelion, perihelion, and semimajor. I wouldn't be changing the IB's width, only minimizing the inner margins. I'd like to include this going forward, so I'm wondering if there's any support for it, since this a non-standard-type change. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * My knowledge of template syntax and wikitable alignment is limited, but it's surely preferable to modify the infobox template itself so it produces well-aligned output regardless of the input, rather than fudging things with  padding. Even a separate parameter should be unnecessary if the template behaves sensibly - the infobox template should handle the alignment, without the need to fiddle with the input. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I concur. If the IB is not displaying properly, the IB should suitably altered. You've found an interesting workaround, but it's not sustainable in the long run (for the various reasons you mentioned already). Primefac (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * This probably won't be able to be applied exclusively to Infobox planet, since the template only uses simple wiki-functions (this change requires more sophisticated programming). Infobox planet does call Infobox, however, which then calls the much more capable Module:Infobox. So a change like this would likely need to affect all infoboxes, and only after approval is granted from many other (all?) non-astronomy WikiProjects (I'm not familiar with Wikipedia-wide changes except when it comes to WP:CS1/WP:CS2). That's the reason for the astronomy-specific work-around.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  20:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I suggest you bring this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes. There may be an existing solution, a better workaround for infobox planet, or someone who knows how to adjust the whole infobox system. Any of those are surely preferable to a kludge used in a single project. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Posted at WT:WikiProject Infoboxes.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What you're doing,, is to alter the default balance between the two columns (labels and data). In your examples, the infobox is about 239px wide (22em); the label column is 119px; and the data column is 107px. With the padding, the label col is 99px and the data col is 127px. If those are suitable values for all uses of infobox planet, then it's simple and clean to add the width:9em; parameter to it, which sets the width of the label column to 9em ~= 99px. I've done that at Template:Infobox planet/sandbox and dropped an example on the talk page of your sandbox, as I don't like editing your normal userspace without an invitation. Hope that's OK and that it helps. --RexxS (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a very elegant solution! I'll post an edit request at Infobox planet to incorporate it.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not optimal. I went and checked it at Mercury which already has a narrow label column (because the composition by volume data is big and widens the data column automatically). I've now set max-width:9em; in the Template:Infobox planet/sandbox and that fixes the problem by allowing the labels to be narrower than 9em, but not wider. --RexxS (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And while I think about it, it's relatively simple to add something like a lblwidth parameter to Infobox planet, that would allow the maximum label width to be set on a per-article basis or omitted to use a 9em default. I'll knock that up in Template:Infobox planet/sandbox for comment. --RexxS (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not optimal. I went and checked it at Mercury which already has a narrow label column (because the composition by volume data is big and widens the data column automatically). I've now set max-width:9em; in the Template:Infobox planet/sandbox and that fixes the problem by allowing the labels to be narrower than 9em, but not wider. --RexxS (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And while I think about it, it's relatively simple to add something like a lblwidth parameter to Infobox planet, that would allow the maximum label width to be set on a per-article basis or omitted to use a 9em default. I'll knock that up in Template:Infobox planet/sandbox for comment. --RexxS (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks ! Before I submit an edit request (either this weekend or sooner, if nearly-unanimous with many votes), we should all decide on the default label_width (I renamed it from lblwidth to match the other param names). There are now examples of 11, 10, 9, and 8em  at User talk:Tom.Reding/sandbox. 11em matches my original nbsp-padded proposal. 11em and 10em both keep "Geometric albedo" on 1 line, and 8em seems too compact, so I prefer 10, 11/9, and 8em, in that order. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 19:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that 1em is about 10.5px (on my monobook skin anyway), so 9.5em, etc. is equally valid. You might want to try some tests on Mercury as well (just edit and preview without saving is quickest) to see how it behaves on an infobox that's packed full. I'm also a template editor, so I'd be happy to implement whatever consensus you can find whenever you're ready. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that 1em is about 10.5px (on my monobook skin anyway), so 9.5em, etc. is equally valid. You might want to try some tests on Mercury as well (just edit and preview without saving is quickest) to see how it behaves on an infobox that's packed full. I'm also a template editor, so I'd be happy to implement whatever consensus you can find whenever you're ready. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Added Mercury (planet) normal infobox & 11, 10, 9, and 8em versions to User talk:Tom.Reding/sandbox.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Side-by-side comparison image.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Since 11 is the default default, that there is already support for at the start of this thread, what I'm really asking for now is if anyone wants that to be changed. Pending no response, I'll submit an edit request for 11em in a few days.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Edit request submitted.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Please vote on the new Infobox planet parameter, physical_ref
To compliment the other 4 sections that have their own  parameter: Please yea/nay/discuss so that I may submit a (hopefully) consensus edit request. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)   -> discovery_ref,
 * 2)   -> orbit_ref,
 * 3)   -> p_orbit_ref,
 * 4)   -> atmosphere_ref,
 * 5)   -> physical_ref (proposed).
 * Support*. It's a fairly straightforward change (and that parameter could use proper refs). Primefac (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. Saves everyone time. Primefac (talk) 01:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support all 5... <font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#000000;">Davidbuddy9 <font style="color:#000000;background:#FFFFFF;"> Talk  02:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

19 UMa
There is an entry for 19 Ursa Majoris in the Stars of Ursa Major template. However, it isn't recognized by Simbad, and I can't find anything recent about that star in Google—the last entry was from 1906, prior to the modern constellation boundaries being established. Presumably then it is one of the stars that has been transferred to a neighboring constellation? If so, is there a way that can be verified? There are no references listed on the template page. Praemonitus (talk) 20:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Orbital parameters
My understanding was that orbital parameters don't need to be kept highly precise because (1) orbits change due to perturbation, and (2) this is an encyclopedia, not a NASA tracking station. I attempted to rectify this by reverting the Mars article edits of W like wiki, but this was reverted without a suitable explanation. It looks like this user has done the same to the other planet wikipages. Praemonitus (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the mentioned user has self-reverted his edit on Mars, everything is OK now, isn't it? Yes, I agree, overly exact figures are just embarrassing. This should be everybody's understanding. Another example from the archive is a given period of 1401.6485411 days. This is probably just a sloppy copy-paste artifact. As a rule of thumb, rounding to 5 significant figures (as you did) seems to be a perfectly fine level of precision to me. Although there are exceptions (i.e. when an error-margin is given on the original figure), too much precision is also distracting and makes the article harder to read. Can you post any other edits that need to be checked?  R fassbind  – talk   09:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You can see the list on the user's contributions page. Praemonitus (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately those are multi-edits with an intrinsic diff, sourced as  inside the infobox, with no epoch, date and access-date at all. I'll revert and ask  to join the conversation here.   R fassbind  – talk


 * I am not sufficiently an expert to be explicit about the magnitude of expectable perturbations in the given parameters within a certain multiple of a human's lifetime, but my understanding is that an encyclopedia is exactly the place for utmost known, sensible precision, especially if this seems reliably sourced, without changing its raison d'etre to being a NASA tracking station.


 * Perhaps, one could consider to place numbers with more than, say, 6 digits in a table, outside of running text, to improve readability, if this happens, say, more than 6 times within the text, but to rely on some personal understanding does not justify reverting the, imho valuable, edits in Mercury (planet) within(!) such a table.


 * I am not sufficiently interested to revert the reversion myself, but would greatly prefer to see such edits brought to desired bureaucratic standards, instead of simply reverted. Purgy (talk) 06:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

It could be useful to have a page of astronomy article guidelines to capture the consensus on such matters: use of units, significant digits, unique notation, et cetera. Praemonitus (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Minor issue at Metis
There was a brief bit of confusion by an editor at Metis (moon), I think I've cleared it up but there are content issues which could possibly use a second opinion. The discussion is here. Primefac (talk) 02:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

101955 Bennu
The 101955 Bennu article could perhaps use some TLC due to the pending OSIRIS-REx mission launch this Thursday. It is almost completely lacking in any discussion of its physical properties. Praemonitus (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship
Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:


 * Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Funnily enough, BLP issues don't come up very often in articles on astronomical objects. But thanks for spamming the exact same message on dozens of Wikiproject talk pages. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

CfD for Category:GJ 1214
I nominated Category:GJ 1214 here at CfD, per WP:SMALLCAT. Praemonitus (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Elsevier access?
Does anybody here happen to have Elsevier access? It looks like Cvetković and Ninković (2008) published updated orbital elements for Nu Geminorum (WDS J06290+2013), but the paper appears to be behind a pay wall. If not, it's okay – I'll just use the older elements. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * see Mike s (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Praemonitus (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages
Greetings Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, — Delivered: 17:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Infobox open cluster proposed merge with Infobox astronomical object
@ Templates for discussion/Log/2016 December 25. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

NGC 17 or NGC 34?
I clicked on a NGC17 link in a navbox, expecting to be taken to NGC 17. However, the target redirects to NGC 34, with little explanations on the page itself, and the page contains a lot of references to NGC 17.

Doing some digging it seems that this object is refered to NGC 17 in most references (~253) and seldom as NGC 34 (~2).

So what gives? Should this be at NGC 17 instead? Why the dual name in the same catalogue? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * NGC 17 and NGC 34 refers to the same object. —MartinZ02 (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on it appears that two different people saw the same object, gave them different names, and then a third person proved they were the same object. Not sure how reliable that source is, but it might be worth chucking it in there as the reason why two NGC objects have the same designation. Primefac (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * SIMBAD and NED both confirm that the two designations refer to the same object, as does the second edition of the Index Catalogue (, page 186), so there doesn't seem to be any reason to doubt that website. The entry for NGC 34 further down the page Primefac linked to explains things nicely. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 22:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, this should be explained in the article. The next question is should this be located at NGC 17 or NGC 34? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , based on the research/search numbers it would appear that the COMMONNAME is NGC 17. I would have no opposition to that move. Primefac (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed on both points. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Moved and updated. Primefac (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Caldwell, really?
What is this Caldwell stuff? This "Caldwell" what astronomical/astrophysical measurements did he do to erect a new catalogue? (Sarcasm) Patrick Moore is admirable for his popularization work, and may deserve some crater named after him here and there in the Solar System, but he did not make an astronomical table, he borrowed from other tables, so that amateur astronomers can make contests of observations, so far so good, but there is nothing official with this Caldwell catalogue. I propose that this Caldwell stuff is toned down, and put in a section "Amateur observation" in each article, it is misleading to list the Caldwell number in the lede. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 18:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I assume this is in reference to Caldwell catalogue? What brings about this sudden hatred? The article has been there for years, as has the inclusion of the Caldwell # on many pages (a random sampling showed the # being included at least two years ago). Primefac (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes it is a reference to Caldwell catalogue. For the rest: those are invalid arguments, false star names were in Wikipedia for many years too, they were removed: User:Rursus/star name desinformation. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 07:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Caldwell numbers are hardly 'false star names'. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That catalogue is one of the pointers in the WP:NASTCRIT list, so that may a reason why it is being mentioned. Praemonitus (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * My reasons are encyclopedic: the reader should get an objective balanced view on how names are used in other contexts outside Wikipedia. I don't propose removing the Caldwell numbers, I propose moving them to an amateur observation section. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 07:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't really see what's to be gained in treating Caldwell numbers any differently than say Messier numbers. Do you have a specific example at hand? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Are you complaining about the existence of the Caldwell catalogue article, the wording of WP:NASTCRIT, the inclusion of Caldwell numbers as 'other designations' in various infoboxes, or something else? I can't work out what we're discussing here. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Gamma Circini
I made an attempt to improve the Gamma Circini article by adding references and such. However, I found it pretty confusing going in large part because the various references either seem to mix up the two components or listed contradictory findings. If somebody knowledgeable would be willing to give the article a perusal and do a little fact checking, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science promotion
T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 10:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Redirect checking
A user has recently created some redirects of a questionable nature, some of which are in this project's purview. Please join in the conversation here. Primefac (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Redirects for deletion
I've submitted a number of redirects of star designations to be deleted. I should think they would be obvious to any astronomer, but maybe confusing to others. Typically these are things like A1 Capricorni → alpha1 Capricorni and U Booetis → Upsilon Boötis. See Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 11 and Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 14. Many of these things were deleted in the past. There may be more, but I think I got the worst offenders. Lithopsian (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

ESA media open access announcement
The ESA announced today that it plans to release its media under a CC-BY-SA license, which is a Wikipedia-approved free license!! Note that according to their new usage policy, this only applies "where explicitly so stated", but they apparently plan to state it in many places in the near future. If there are any ESA images that you know of that were removed for copyright reasons, keep an eye on them in the coming days to see if their licenses change. It might help to do a reverse Google image search to see if ESA is hosting them in a new place under the CC-BY-SA license. Also, if you know of any ESA images that are currently being used on a fair use basis, check to see if they have the new license, and if so, upload them to Commons, delete the local copy, and use them as widely as you want! It's a great day for space articles! A2soup (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's very good news. Praemonitus (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Starbox character
How do we get this template to display UK English spelling "colour" instead of US English "color"? --John (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You put in a bunch of #if statements wherein if (for example) yes it adds a "u" to "colo(u)r". Of course, the more important question is "why do you want to do this?" Primefac (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. WP:ENGVAR. --John (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That hasn't worked for me. Can you take a look at Sirius for me and see what I am doing wrong? --John (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's because the template doesn't currently have that functionality. In the interest of not having an edit war break out over template wording, why don't you ask for consensus to be determined about whether a generic template (used in thousands of places) should have an option for a choice of language? Primefac (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't be necessary or appropriate. We already have WP:ENGVAR in place for that. This template needs to have that functionality, especially if it is used in thousands of places. Are you able to make the change? I don't have the technical skill to edit template syntax, or I would have just made the change myself. --John (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It kind of is. The article title is color index. While colour index redirects there, how many of the 3000 articles we have actually use British English? Does WP:AST feel that we need to strictly follow ENGVAR?
 * As I said before, I have no issues making this edit, I just don't want to be reverted by someone who hasn't yet seen this discussion and thinks that what you're asking is completely unnecessary. It's not like it has to be done today.
 * And, as a third point, there's a notice at the top of the template requesting that all proposed changes be discussed here first. Primefac (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with your last point. This is why I am here discussing it. I don't think a project can unilaterally withdraw from project-wide guidelines like ENGVAR. While in a way there is no deadline, one consequence of this being left hanging for a prolonged period would be for any articles like this one with mixed language to lose FA status. MoS compliance is a Featured Article criterion. I haven't systematically looked to see how many articles would be affected. It's probably easier to just fix the template. --John (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I created Template:Starbox character B to accommodate ENGVAR in this template's use. This will patch things up for now but obviously there should be a more elegant solution possible in the long term. --John (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see an issue here. It's a pretty simple and straightforward change. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, supporting the ENGVAR of the surrounding article is clearly necessary and should be uncontroversial. Rather than a forked template, it would be simpler to maintain (and clearer to use) if it was a simple parameter in the template call. Something like engvar=bre or use-bre=yes would work. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Aye, I'll get on it later today. Primefac (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Split up List of exoplanets
I have asked to split up List of exoplanets into sublists, for the discussion, see talk: List of exoplanets#Split apart -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

(2060) 95P/Chiron (1977 UB)
Does anyone have photos for Chiron? Commons doesn't have that, and neither does our article 2060 Chiron (there's an artist's impression in the infobox)

I seem to recall it was photographed by HST before, but I can't find those.

-- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 09:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Upsilon2 Ceti
The star designation Upsilon2 Ceti does not appear to be widely used, if at all. I'd like to rename it 56 Ceti, which at least gets search hits in Google. Any objection? Praemonitus (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added it to WP:RMT. Praemonitus (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Upsilon2 Ceti should be the correct designation over the Flamsteed number, but it seems upsilon 2 Cet in SIMBAD doesn't recognise it. (No annotation.) The basis is Uranometria Argentina by Gould, but he doesn't mention upsilon 2 at all. Upsilon Cet is 59 Cet. Good ahead and change it, because in this case 56 Cet is correct.Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:CHEMISTRY/WP:CHEMICALS shorcut updated
Note that per this RFC, the shortcuts to WP:CHEMISTRY/WP:CHEMICALS have been updated.


 * WP:CHEM now refer to WP:CHEMISTRY
 * WP:CHEMS now refer to WP:CHEMICALS
 * WP:CHM is deprecated

Old discussions have had their shortcuts updated already. If I have made a mistake during an update, feel free to revert. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

PGC objects
Hi. I'm user from another wiki and I'd like to add list of PGC objects to my wiki. I have 2 versions of file with the list. Both of them have more than 983000 rows but catalog includes ~73000 objects. Can you help me with that? I can send you both version by wikimail. --Artificial123 (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Which wiki are you from? In any case though, I'd recommend improving/adding to the list of NGC objects, which are more notable, and more likely to be used by others. A list of PGC objects would be extremely large and not really practical. Loooke (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Belarusian wiki. We have almost all NGC objects. --Artificial123 (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Banner
Why doesn't this project have its own banner? Most other WikiProjects have their on banners. —MartinZ (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , this project uses Astronomy with yes. Primefac (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I know, but most projects have their own banners, with are independent from other projects banners. Why doesn't this project have its own, independent, banner, like other projects? —MartinZ (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Because it's a subproject of WP:AST. Primefac (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Eclipses is also a subproject of WP:AST, they have their own banner—and according to WP:SCIENCE, WP:AST seems to be their subproject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinZ (talk • contribs) 17:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Because... who cares? Praemonitus (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't change it, as it will make life more difficult for those that tag pages for the project. This subproject is not very independent from the parent anyway. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * works perfectly well. The assessment criteria come from the parent project anyway. WP:NBDF applies. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 09:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, will post at /Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of. We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
 * The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
 * The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
 * The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to for his original, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Black holes
Can any of you edumacated people please help out the plebs (OK, me) at Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions. Thanks --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

WASP-56 at AfD
WASP-56 is at AfD but has been relisted as not enough people commented. Please contribute at Articles for deletion/WASP-56. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Beta Andromedae
The image under the Properties section of the Beta Andromedae article doesn't make any sense to me. I guess the 3.000 - 4.000 relates to the mass and the orange disk is supposed to represent the star? The caption doesn't match what I'm seeing. Perhaps it's just not showing up correctly in my browser? Praemonitus (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you're definitely seeing File:BetaAnd SIZE.png correctly. I thought it might have been a pie chart gone awry, but it's an image. I've removed it for now as being rather useless. Primefac (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Meaningless image with a nonsensical caption. The same user created File:AlphaAnd SIZE.png and the even more useless File:GammaAnd SIZE.png. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Alpha Andromedae includes the picture. Remove it there as well? The white circle on the white background is not really visible. --mfb (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Removed. Didn't notice the fact that the star was white (I thought B was just a lot smaller and I wasn't noticing it at that resolution). Primefac (talk) 13:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Reference to dead link
I'm finding a lot of star articles that have been expanded based on a reference that no longer exists. An example is the Delta Piscium article, which references a reference at a site called www.astrostudio.org. I did find a copy of the base address on the Wayback Machine. It seems to be a site belonging to the Ashland Astronomy Studio, which is a graphic arts studio in Oregon. Unfortunately, the original reference can't be retrieved. There doesn't seem to be any way to validate this information. Praemonitus (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The information is trivial and unnecessary regardless of the cite. My rough calculations suggest it is both inaccurate and wrong. I've therefore deleted it. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This doesn't address my concern. All you've done is unhelpfully "fix" the one article I was using as an example. Praemonitus (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It's debatable whether the information is trivial, but the information appears to come from the XHIP catalogue. The kinematics data were calculated from proper motion, radial velocity, etc. Here's the citation if anybody wants a more reliable source, or just wants to read through the calculation process:
 * Loooke (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been using Bailer-Jones (2015) for close approach information, but that is only useful in selected cases. Praemonitus (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay, I found out one can reference the archived version from the Wayback machine by using a URL like this:


 * https://web.archive.org/web/20140414170303/http://www.astrostudio.org/xhip.php?hip=3786


 * using the appropriate Hipparcos identifier. Unfortunately, that doesn't provide any reassurance about the accuracy of the galactic orbital data. Praemonitus (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * "It's debatable whether the information is trivial,..." Sorry, no it is not debatable. Close approaches must have some significance, but in this case there is little to remark on. If it were, say, Alpha Centauri or Sirius, well it is useful, but for a star 300-odd ly. away it is irrelevant to the ordinary reader. Frankly you either adopt this information for all stars or not at all.
 * Yes it partly depends on the proximity of the star, but also whether the galactic orbit is particularly unique. See runaway stars for example. I don't see a need for this on every article, but certainly the information may be of interest to some inquisitive readers. If it can be properly cited, then I don't see a need to remove it just because WP:IDL. For myself, I'd be more interested in knowing about the star's population than the orbit. Praemonitus (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * "I'd be more interested in knowing about the star's population than the orbit." The orbit is not unique nor is its Population class. As for saying : "If it can be properly cited, then I don't see a need to remove it just because WP:IDL." Just because it is cite-able doesn't make it relevant nor important. Moreover, if you don't like the IDL 'rules', it is not my problem, however much you disagree. Finally, to quote you in your first post here "There doesn't seem to be any way to validate this information." Well I spent sometime looking too. Clearly if it can't be validated quickly, than that tells you it is likely not important. Again all uncited or unvalidated info can be immediately deleted at anytime by any user - unless it has been gained by consensus. End of story. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I see other problems here. The web document from the Astrostudio link is quoted almost word for word in the article here, and is easily construed as direct plagiarism. I.e.
 * "Its projected Galactic orbit carries it between 21,700 and 26,100 light years from the center of the Galaxy. It came closest to the Sun 1.0 million years ago when it had brightened to magnitude 3.96 from a distance of 249 light years."
 * "Its projected Galactic orbit carries it between 21,700 and 26,100 light years from the center of the Galaxy. Delta Piscium came closest to the Sun 1.0 million years ago when it had brightened to magnitude 3.96 from a distance of 249 light years."
 * As for the values, they are manipulations of the XHIP data, which is obtainable through the CDS Data service 'ViZieR" here, and can be found imputing XHIP, then using the prompt on the subsequent page by adding target 'HIP 3786'.
 * Other than this, there is no other cite for this star except the obtuse Astrostudio.
 * As for saying "All you've done is unhelpfully "fix" the one article I was using as an example.". That's not the point. All articles are subject to Wiki rules, and any proper uncited material says it can be deleted. That is what I've done.
 * No. Reread my introductory message. If the solution was to fix that one article then I'm perfectly capable of doing it myself. All your action did was remove the symptom so that it was more difficult for other viewers here to see. Your action was in no way helpful to the more general issue here. Praemonitus (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Now to your actual question. If you cannot readily find any or good verifiable sources, then by all rights it should be deleted. If you can quickly update the referenced cite, then do so, else question it on the talkpage, or removed the text and cite as unverifiable. Lastly, assess the significance of the text, which as in this case, is mostly irrelevant. Thanks for the comments, though. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Best practice is if the material is potentially interesting then worth looking a Peer-reviewed source, but concede that uncitable stuff the default is remove. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

6070 Rheinland
Minor planet is currently redirected to a list article, but it could be converted into a notable article if somebody has an interest. &c. Praemonitus (talk) 02:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I might take a stab at it. By the way, I edited your post slightly to make it a non-redirecting link (mainly to avoid being shoved down into the middle of the huge table). Primefac (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't know you could do that. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, -r is a great little template. Primefac (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Category for Renaming
I proposed that Category:Objects named with variable star designations be renamed to Category:Objects with variable star designations. Proposal at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_August_11. Lithopsian (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

71 Cancri
I have listed 71 Cancri at articles for deletion. I have had one reply, suggesting a merge. In a few days it may be deleted as unopposed, so I wanted to get a few more eyeballs on it. It is a remarkably unobtrusive star, well below naked-eye visibility, about as faint a Flamsteed star as there is, essentially zero scientific or popular coverage, but it is in places like Template:Stars_of_Cancer and List of stars in Cancer so maybe I'm missing something? Lithopsian (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Usually, for a notable star, I can at least find a few scholarly GHITs by searching on the HD or HIP identifier. The only item of note I found was in Wagman (1987), which includes it in a list of Flamsteed's missing stars. To me, the long list of stars in those constellation templates is just an invitation to create articles about non-notable stars. Praemonitus (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Deja vu
Category:Gliese 581 has been renamed and redirected to Category:Gliese 581 system, in what appears to be aa direct reversal of a previous CfD decision: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_30. There are also a whole bunch of associated page edits and over-categorisation. Is this normal practice? Laying low for six months and then just doing the opposite of what everyone else agreed seems a bit off to me, even if it is as innocent as a lapse of memory. Lithopsian (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This should be be undone. Ping the category mover? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Lithopsian (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with : the naming of Category:Gliese 581 system doesn't fit in with the rest of Category:Wikipedia categories named after stars. Loooke (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, category lists are already much too bloated: just take a look at the Albert Einstein article. The category names should be as short as possible, but no shorter than necessary. Praemonitus (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh ffs. You cannot just ignore something from six months ago. I'd say some action needs to be taken, as this is bordering on disruptive editing. I've reverted the category move, but all of his other edits pertaining to G581 need to be looked over. Primefac (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty sound to me. The articles are largely as they were before this began.  Some intermediate anonymous edits were aimed at "fixing" some of the recent changes so probably don't need to be propagated.  Lithopsian (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, the contents of the article Gliese 581 were mostly moved to Gliese 581 planetary system. I disagree with having an article titled "planetary system", much like Category:Gliese 581 planetary system. Loooke (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , I see what you mean (and I agree). Given that it was a straight SPLIT I'd be fine (with consensus here of course) simply merging it all back to the original article. I think by now "reverting contentious change" is kind of the standard edit summary for these set of pages... at least for me. Primefac (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The split did happen back in March, so not really covered by the CfD although certain opinions about it were voiced there. I also noticed that Gliese 581 is a good article, although currently without three quarters of its content split away.  Gliese 581 planetary system has been a good article candidate since April with no takers.  My opinion would be that the whole thing was fine before the split: Gliese 581 system is implicit and a redirect to Gliese 581 and Gliese 581 planetary system is unnecessary but can also be a redirect.  We probably need more discussion at some point about the format and structure of such articles: the starbox isn't helpful as a star system infobox and the planetary system "table-boxes" in star articles aren't great.  Lithopsian (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)