Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Archive 28

Category:BL Lac objects has been nominated for discussion
Category:BL Lac objects has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Lithopsian (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Planetbox deprecation
There is a discussion taking placed at Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_November_18 about whether to deprecate the use of the Planetbox template series in favor of Infobox planet. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Durchmusterung designation format
I have historically, and that means going back a number of decades, used the format BD+99°1234 for Bonner Durchmusterung designations, and similar layouts for the other Durchmusterungs. I applied this within WP for several years, then it was suggested to me that a space was preferred to the degree symbol. Usage in WP was and is inconsistent, including a number of cases with both a degree symbol and a space which is just wrong. I don't remember exactly what I looked at back then, but I decided that the space was really the preferred format. Simbad shows their preferred format as a space, not a degree symbol, but doesn't really offer any good reason why this should be so. Simbad does tend to abandon "proper" formatting for layouts that are computer-friendly or just unique. so they aren't a guarantee of correctness. Recently, I was going though some more BD articles and looked again for a definitive description of the correct format, no joy. However, I did notice that usage in printed journals is overwhelmingly with the degree symbol, possibly with a recent trend towards using the space (eg. in some exoplanet papers).

So, where now? WP is a mess with article names all over the place, not to mention the BD designations in thousands of starboxes. I'd like to come up with a preferred format before changing everything to the "wrong" format, preferably something that will stand up in court. Lithopsian (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * This is a difficult one. I always thought the correct version included the degree symbol. The CDS Dictionary of Nomenclature (and thus SIMBAD) uses a space, as do the examples in the README for the electronic version of the catalogue . However, the convention of including a degree symbol was established in the astronomical literature a century before those electronic resources were created in the 1990s. I suspect the difference was just because ° is not in ASCII. Argelander himself included the degree symbol , as did his contemporaries , but they also used the acronym DM rather than BD... I can't find a scan of the original catalogue. Publication of the final version was in 1903, and within a few years the community usage seems to be BD and degree symbol . Including the degree symbol remains common in the peer-reviewed literature, but certainly not universal. The official IAU guidelines  say "When existing designations are used in listings, they should never be altered", but then gives examples of BD with a space not degree symbol, which is inconsistent. At this point I suspect either version is acceptable, like whether or not there's a space before the 'b' in exoplanet names. That's not a particularly satisfying answer, but I think we need to allow both and follow WP:COMMONNAME on a star-by-star basis. Modest Genius talk 16:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Starbox Infobox
Howdy all. I'm looking at converting Starbox begin and the rest of the series to use Infobox. My plan is combine it to be one template, instead of a series of multiple templates. Other than that, the template will look the same, use the same parameters, etc. Any thoughts? -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Such a template will need to be able to branch format based on the number of components in the system, and what type of data is available for each component. Could get messy. Praemonitus (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * how do you mean "branch format"? it would render just like the series templates, only without needing to render multiple different templates. Could you perhaps give me an example or two of the conflict you have in mind? Want to make sure I understand the issue you're talking about. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * For example, it needs to work with: Tau Ceti, Alpha Centauri, Delta Cephei, Polaris, Nu Scorpii, 36 Ophiuchi, and p Eridani. Having separate starbox templates makes it very flexible, so somehow you'll have to handle that. Praemonitus (talk) 04:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * there isn't a problem with that. You fill out the parameters you need, and omit the ones that you don't. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * for example, take a look at how Infobox settlement works. Most pages only use a few sections, you're not required to use all of them, but they are all available. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The main issue, which was talking about with a series of examples, is that Starbox begin, or a future infobox, would deal with a variable number of elements, from the lonely star Tau Ceti to the Nu Scorpii system who is made of 7 different stars. Starbox begin have the advantage to divide the informations per topic, and not per object, effectively reducing the use of parameters, and not increasing them like someone could think. Besides, any of the templates inside Starbox begin can be dropped anytime if not used (for example Starbox orbit if the star is isolated). The Infobox settlement works well on a single entity, but for more than one? This is the main question to answer before making a move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyluke (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for the follow up. Sounds like this is definitely a rabbit hole. Probably not worth venturing down at this point. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Possibly there's a way to make a template of templates? Dunno. Praemonitus (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

So this absolutely is dooable. The question is not whether it is technically possible but whether the Project would support it. So essentially what I would do is make all the "sub templates" child infoboxes. So you would do something like the following (this is pseudocode):

So what we would have is a parent Infobox that contains the bulk of the fields that are commonly used across most stars. Then we would have the ability to pass in sub-templates that replicate the functionality of each of the starbox series templates. You can add as many as you want. This is complicated concept to explain so not sure if I'm doing the best job... If it helps, I could do a proof of concept? What I'd do is mock up each of the templates with 2-3 of the fields in each one to demonstrate how this would all work. My concern is that I don't want to go to far down that road without support from the project. Obviously don't need any sort of commitment from the start, but would like to at least know that the project is supportive of the idea in general before I start work. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This could be an interesting workaround. How would be the appearance of the final result? Is there any other template that uses this structure? Psyluke (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * the appearance would be almost identical. Since it would use Infobox as a base, there would be a few minor changes but these all conform to WP:ACCESS and is the largest motivator for the change. As for another template using this layout, I recently did a proof of concept for converting Chembox which uses much of the same methodology as the Starbox templates. Take a look at Infobox chemical. Particularly look at the testcases. These will give you a sense of the change in layout. Obviously Starbox is different so it will look and behave a bit differently, but this will give you some idea of what I'm talking about. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

New version of Infobox star, requests for comments and discussion!
Hey there! I've created a brand new version of Infobox star that attempts to address the issues with both the Starbox begin series and the previous version of. I hope to see this template further improved with comments and discussion on what can be added, removed, or changed to make it a worthy successor to the Starbox series! Be sure to check it out and drop a line on Template talk:Infobox star! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 18:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There are far too many useful parameters missing. I wouldn't use it in its present form. Praemonitus (talk)
 * Besides just saying far too many useful parameters missing could you outline what those parameters are and build on the discussion? -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You already have access to the starbox series of templates, so no need for me to repeat them all. But I'll pick just one: the new template has a rotation field, which is rarely available, but not a rotational velocity field, which is much more readily available. Praemonitus (talk) 03:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * the point of the process is to gather feedback on what fields are still necessary. If all you are going to do is sit there and talk in generalities, then you aren't helping anything. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I don't think we need: Starbox astrometry: Total velocity. I'm not sure if this is used: Starbox detail:habitable_inner and Starbox detail:habitable_outer. Otherwise, I can see a use for most of the remainder. If you're here to prune stuff, then a lot of that has already happened. Praemonitus (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

M77
This NASA image of M77 shows pretty clearly a barred spiral galaxy, and it says as much in the text. However, NED (via de Vaucouleurs [1991]) gives a class of (R)SA(rs)b and SIMBAD (via Ann et al [2015]) shows SAb; both are non-barred spirals. How do I resolve this? Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * NASA press releases are notoriously inaccurate. Try going to some primary sources and seeing what they say.  I took a quick look at a few papers and none of them mention this as a barred spiral.  I suspect one of the NASA PR guys took a look at one photo and jumped to the same conclusion as you.  Or maybe a deeper search will turn up something.  Lithopsian (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah... numerous recent primary sources list it as a barred spiral, but it looks like that was revealed via infrared observations. Praemonitus (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Exoplanet
There's a discussion that I have a feeling is going to require some additional input (just based on the edits that have occurred there in the last few days). In short, it's about whether to put amateur astronomy into the Exoplanet article (and if so, where to put it, and how much to include). Primefac (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Help with adding proper motion to template:infobox open cluster and template:infobox globular cluster
can someone more experienced in template editing than me implement a net proper motion RA/DEC thing like in starbox astrometry? exoplanetaryscience (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Courtesy links added. Will look into this if I remember. Primefac (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , not quite sure what you're wanting - proper motion in Starbox astrometry is just input by two params (prop_mo_ra and prop_mo_dec). Primefac (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was guessing that's what he wanted; net PM would require a bunch of math calls and coordinate conversion. Praemonitus (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Messier_object
There is a discussion about merging Messier object with the List of Messier objects. Please comment. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Starbox observe is almost always wrong
So now that I've got your attention, this is just another boring rant about ICRS. Currently the starbox observe series of templates display the epoch and equinox of the positions shown in the starbox. The epoch is J2000 or J2000.0 99% (99.99%?) of the time, and this is generally correct. The equinox is also J2000 about 99% of the time, and this is nearly always wrong. The vast majority of star articles in Wikipedia show Hipparcos positions, which are wrt ICRS reference frame. Gaia also uses ICRS and is likely to be the source of almost all star astrometry for a good many years.

The equinox displayed by starbox observe defaults to the same value as the epoch if it is not specified. It is possible to put ICRS into the equinox field explicitly, with or without a wikilink. It is also possible, "for convenience", to put "J2000.0 (ICRS)" in the epoch field, which will result in special output of "J2000.0" for the epoch and "J2000.0 (ICRS)" for the equinox. This is so unintuitive that I only just found out about it as I was about to change the code. Note that starbox short has slightly different behaviour: it defaults the epoch to J2000.0 and uses the special starbox observe value to default the equinox to "J2000.0 (ICRS)".

Given that the special case is there, deliberately, I thought it best to ask again: what on earth do we want to be in that starbox for ICRS coordinates. The current display seems misleading to me: the equinox is not J2000.0, although ICRS is close and intended to be close. It isn't even an equinox really, and perhaps should just say ICRS instead of equinox, with no value. The special way to make it display ICRS is bewildering, apparently more complex than just putting in the same value manually, and hence very rarely used. I would suggest that now, and for the next few decades, the template should just default to ICRS in whatever format we decide is best. It will instantly be correct for nearly every star, ironically probably only wrong for those that have specified an equinox. Lithopsian (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I second that suggestion, no more words to say. Psyluke (talk) 11:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Dumb question: why do we need to list both Epoch and Equinox? Isn't Epoch sufficient? Praemonitus (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, but just remember - you did ask! Epoch is easy: it is the date (and potentially time) when an observation or calculation applies.  This is obviously critical for nearby objects like solar system planets because they move relatively quickly.  However, even stars move (I know you know this, but it is important) and quickly enough that the position varies quite measurably year to year.  So the epoch, applied to a position, means the celestial coordinates of the object at that epoch.  Next is the equinox.  Any position obviously must be given in a coordinate system.  Traditionally, the celestial coordinate system is defined by the celestial poles and equator, with the declination zero point at the equator and the right ascension zero point at the vernal equinox (position, not time).  The vernal equinox is the point (position/direction) at which the equinox crosses the celestial equator.  And it moves!  So when specifying which celestial coordinate system you're using, you pick a date for the equinox you are going to use as your zero point.  This is often, very often for stars, the same as the epoch, but it doesn't have to be the same.  When considering the movement of objects, it is often simpler to use one equinox and then different epochs for the observations or calculated positions.  So far, so good, we really do need to give both the epoch and equinox, or at least we should.  Towards the end of the 20th century, it became obvious that a celestial coordinate system that moved as the Earth precessed (and other smaller movements) was not fit for purpose in an age of immense precision and satellite observations, so the IAU decided to define a fixed celestial coordinate system (not only fixed, but barycentric).  The International Celestial Reference System (ICRS) is defined to be close to equinox J2000.0, although it isn't exactly the same.  Coordinates specified using ICRS obviously don't have or need an equinox, so to answer the original question we don't need an equinox at all when giving Hipparcos or Gaia coordinates, just some annotation to indicate they are ICRS coordinates.  Lithopsian (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, what if we make the default behavior of the starbox observe-like templates be to set the 'equinox' field to the 'epoch' value with the 'ICRS' in parentheses, as was done on 8 Draconis? That can then get overridden if you enter an 'equinox' value. Praemonitus (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what is wrong with the current starboxes. If the coordinates are ICRS coordinates then there is no equinox value.  The ICRS coordinate system is defined without reference to an equinox.  To use 8 Draconis as an example, the coordinates are from Gaia reported against ICRS.  Look in Simbad, its says ICRS but there is no equinox.  I think the word equinox should not even appear, just the letters ICRS somewhere, probably wikilinked.  An interesting issue which we haven't really confronted is that Gaia reports to an epoch of 2015.5.  Simbad converts this to coordinates with an epoch of J2000 (and also J1950 if you were interested).  So our showing the J2000 coordinates and claiming Gaia as the source is slightly misleading.  On the other hand, Hipparcos actually produced coordinates at epoch 1991.25, and again Simbad extrapolates them.  Lithopsian (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, to implement your proposal, we could not set the equinox parameter by default, instead adding an ICRS link to the typical epoch parameter output. Something like this: "ICRS coordinates (Epoch J2000.0)". If the equinox parameter is supplied, then we use the current format. Or we just get rid of equinox altogether and use some other parameter for non-default coordinates. I'm just trying to think of a way to implement this without requiring modification of 1,000s of star articles. Praemonitus (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, to make things automatically "right" for most stars, the default would need to be ICRS, however we might decide to display that. The epoch is almost always specified, but there are a number of cases with the special value in that would have to be accounted for.  Or edited, if there aren't very many.  Those sorts of defaults do leave us open to problems down the line, but that's a long way down the line and there are always bots.  A small number of cases may be incorrect with that default, although I can't think of any off the top of my head.  Anything I've dealt with that hasn't had a Hipparcos position has had a Tycho position and that's ICRS too.  Lithopsian (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Some of the novae and other variable star articles might have data that needs updating. CP Lacertae, for example, uses 2MASS data from 2003. Is that ICRS? Dunno. Praemonitus (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 2MASS is ICRS. Lithopsian (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

"Gaia also uses ICRS and is likely to be the source of almost all star astrometry for a good many years." Saying this is utter tosh and is plainly wrong. Gaia data is set at 2015.5, where "star astrometry" means what? There is no absolute astrometry anyway e.g. binary stars, variable stars, etc. Worst the six-diminsional space coordinates is not dictated by ICRS (International Celestial Reference System), where framework is fixed by distant objects not the barycenter of the Solar System. As ICRS-Gaia is still under preparation (as this is still questionable because astrometry from radio interferometry is much more accurate than even Gaia) changing results is unacceptable practice. As usual, Lithopsian (and some others) reports GAIA a some ultimate solution to supplant everything previous made, when the results and errors are still being assessed. Even when DR3 is finally released, there will remain problems with the matching the ICRS framework. Till then HIP2 is sufficiently adequate. GAIA results are not the final panacea of stellar astrometry (yet) and does not necessarily replace HIP2. (As repeatably and wrongly said by Lithopsian in some of their edits.) Really. If you want to change something, don't make misleading statements as now clearly shown above. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a general rant, or did you want to make a point relevant to this discussion? Lithopsian (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Eh? Your statement said "Gaia also uses ICRS and is likely to be the source of almost all star astrometry for a good many years." This is plainly wrong. Gaia doesn't use ICRS, it uses Gaia celestial reference frame (Gaia-CRF2), actually, using about 500,000 quasars. No rant, but fact, as I've explained. ICRF3 is still in prototype. Deflecting or dismissing other's comments like just done above just weakens your own position. We may only assume the proponent of this proposal has limited knowledge or understanding towards such issues. It fools no editor here. (Reading "Gaia Data Release 2 ; The Celestial reference frame (Gaia-CRF2)" (2018) |[1]  and "Gaia Data Release 2 : Summary of the contents and survey properties" |[2] just confirms this.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are you pinging me? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * To set the record straight and avoid expanding wrong unfounded info. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Feedback at Kuiper belt
Your feedback would be welcome at Talk:Kuiper belt to discuss improvements to the first sentence at this Featured article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Please block User:UU
He vandalised many interwikis about Planet X or Planet beyond Neptune. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2D8:E290:9990:0:0:BA48:AF02 (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: the Special:Contributions/UU list doesn't confirm this. Praemonitus (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Naming convention
Prompted by discussions over the title of 2014 MU69 / Ultima Thule, several users have pointed out that our naming convention guideline WP:NCASTRO is inconsistent both with itself and the policy WP:AT regarding unofficial nicknames. I've made a proposal which I think would resolve the issue, but would welcome feedback from project members. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (astronomical objects). Modest Genius talk 16:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

61 Cygni FAC
The 61 Cygni article is undergoing WP:FAC treatment here. I have a number of concerns and think it could really use more experienced critiquing, so if you could take a look I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Bot Beta
Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. Praemonitus (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: I believe this is in reference to the User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Astronomical objects page.
 * Good news: we now have more Start class articles than Stub articles. Maybe the latter can be driven down to zero? Praemonitus (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

NGC 6882 and NGC 6885
Should NGC 6882 and NGC 6885 be described in one article? They overlap each other and are frequently discussed together in the literature. Some even consider that NGC 6885 might not be a real cluster. Praemonitus (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Either way. There doesn't seem to be sufficient material for even one article at the moment.  There are precedents for treating multiple NGC objects in one article.  If the article ever gets beyond a full page or so and there is enough material that could apply to them individually, perhaps consider a split at that time.  Lithopsian (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Rigel
Ok folks - can everyone please offer a comment and why at the above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've chimed in, but that's probably not what's needed. A wider set of viewpoints would be really helpful.  Even if you're not sure what's "right", just to know how more people use these names and what forms are best-understood.  Lithopsian (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

poll to select name for OR10
FYI, the discoverers of OR10 have started an online poll here to choose between 3 proposed names: Chinese Gonggong, German Holle (we have a duplicate article at Holda) and Norse Vili. The proposed names were chosen for relevance (red, water ice, etc.) plus having associated names as possibilities for the moon. Voting until May 10, at which point they'll submit the winner to the IAU. — kwami (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Orten isn't an option? Hmm. Praemonitus (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's what I always called it, but I've looked in vain for any mythological figure with that name! — kwami (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Review FA status of Ceres (dwarf planet)?
Ceres made FA well before the Dawn mission. I just noticed in the 'internal structure' section that the article has not been updated with the Dawn results. Some findings have been tacked on to the ends of sections, but after obsolete pre-Dawn info that was left in. I partly rewrote the 'internal structure' section, but I don't know what I'm doing. Anyway, as it stands, the article is no longer seems to be FA quality. Does anyone want to take a shot at rewriting it? If not, I'll request FA review. I figure if the star gets revoked, someone will be motivated to bring it back up to FA quality. — kwami (talk) 02:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Herbig–Haro object at FAC
Currently in the early stages of review, if you have an interest. Praemonitus (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciations of astronomers' names when things are named after them
For those of you in the know, this is something that is not easily looked up. Even if you just added 'stress on the x' or 'rhymes with y', that would help.

For Barnard's Star, Teegarden's Star and Innes' Star, I think I've got it -- BAR-nardz, TEE-gardnz, IN-iss.

For Scholz's Star, Van Biesbroeck's Star and Van Maanen's Star, I'm more stuck. There's a prize named after Van Biesbroeck, so it should be familiar to some people.

If you don't want to add these yourself but are willing to describe them here, ping me and I'll add them to the articles. — kwami (talk) 05:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Scholz is German and the name is German as well so I expect German pronunciation: It is similar to what you would do in English ("sch" is "sh"). Like "shorts" but with "l" instead of "r". The two Dutch names have IPA transcription in the articles. --mfb (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for Template:Starbox begin
I don't want to mess with this, but with the IAU now formally naming stars, I think it's appropriate to include the names at the top of the infobox even if we don't move the article there. When the article is at the designation, I've been adding a line break in the 'name' field of 'Starbox begin' and then adding the name in parentheses, but even if we do move the article to the name (e.g. Spica), I think it would be a good idea to keep the designation there too.

So, I propose we add a parameter to Starbox begin, "IAUname", with the default param being used for the designation. (Don't know if it would be worth calling it that and having a bot change them over, but that's not relevant for this request.) I don't know if we'd always want one or the other on top, or have them at different sizes, or one in parentheses, but IMO they should both be there if the IAU has approved the a name. Because there's so much confusion and misinformation around, I think we should restrict ourselves to IAU names, or we're going to end up with a lot of garbage from Allen (1899), with the exception of a very few stars named after astronomers where the names are in common use.

— kwami (talk) 07:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I added a link to the template. No other changes. Primefac (talk) 13:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

FAR for Ceres
I have nominated Ceres (dwarf planet) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — kwami (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of List of minor planets: 500001–501000 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of minor planets: 500001–501000 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor planets: 500001–501000 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –dlthewave ☎ 18:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of all 542 lists of Meanings of minor planet names for deletion
From Meanings of minor planet names: 1–1000 to Meanings of minor planet names: 541001–542000 @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meanings of minor planet names: 500001–501000. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * There is a debate as to the scope of the AfD.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * There is no debate. The nomination says one thing ("Delete these ten or so empty articles") and the above canvassy notice says something completely different. Tom's having repeatedly edited the nomination to say the latter is irrelevant. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Rewriting Meanings of minor planet names
There is need to rewrite much Meanings of minor planet names given the fact much of it has be coped from the Minor Planet Circulars(note JPL copies from the Minor Planet Circulars) I think Wikipedia should only have the "who" or "what"(i.e, actor, actress,place,poet, discoverer, science fair winner,etc..) examples on what should be done"Baton Rouge, Louisiana". ·, Ernst Pepping (1901–1981), German composer. ·, Jarryd Brandon Levine, ISEF awardee in 2003 · In reality for most name citations there only there reliable sources, the Minor Planet Circulars, JPL,  Schmadel, Lutz D. (2003). Dictionary of Minor Planet Names (note they are all copies of each other). I thing would be best in most cases to use the MPC for the Ref because JPL copes from the Minor Planet Circulars, (note we could use both). In fact some the "Meanings of minor planet names" page use the MPC for the Ref. We start the rewriting sooner rather than later. -- Bayoustarwatch (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

WPSS vs. WPAstronomy
I'm finding quite a few astronomy topic articles with WPSS templates but no WPAstronomy. For example, Talk:16P/Brooks, Talk:23P/Brorsen–Metcalf, and Talk:30P/Reinmuth. It seems like the templates could be merged so we have better tracking. Praemonitus (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Should articles have an etymology section?
Pages like 2019 OK have an etymology section which is useful but somewhat redundant to just linking "provisional designation". Should articles have this section in them?  Nixinova  T  C  07:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course articles on objects should describe their etymology; we want them to be complete. However, if it is a one-liner, perhaps it doesn't merit an entire section.  2019 OK seems to me like quite a well-constructed article.  If that sentence was not in a sub-section, it could get lost.  Perhaps the section could be merged and then summarised in the lead?  Lithopsian (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe use efn after its name in the lead? Eg 2019 OK<sup title="Provisional designation whether 2019 stands for etc etc." style='color:blue'>[a] . I've changed 2019 OK to use EFN instead the one-sentence section isnt really needed .<b style=background:#0800aa;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>Nixinova</b> </b><b style=background:#006eff;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>T</b> </b><b style=background:#00a1ff;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>C</b> </b> 04:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Moon for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Moon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Moon until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 19:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Solar System for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Solar System is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Solar System until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 19:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Mars for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Mars is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Mars (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 19:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Fair use of images of surface of Venus
Discuss at Media copyright questions. A2soup (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on Category:Stars of constellation templates
A discussion regarding the use of red links and redirects on the navigation boxes of constellations is currently being held at Template talk:Andromeda (constellation). Feel free to share your opinion on the matter! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 14:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In addition to the question of whether redlinks and redirects for notable objects without articles should be included in the navboxes:
 * Should non-stellar objects be added to the templates. This ship probably sailed long ago: clusters and nebulae were added to the first couple of templates years ago, but the idea was then dropped until quite recently.  The templates have since been renamed from, for example Stars of Apus to Apus.  Or like Andromeda (constellation) when necessary.  Although the addition of deep-sky objects seems largely accepted, it has contributed to the problem of excessive (I'm looking at you, NGC) redlinks, particularly in constellations along the galactic plane or with galaxy clusters.  See Sagittarius (constellation).
 * Should we stick with the long-standing approach of listing stars preferentially by their Bayer, Flamsteed, variable star, HR, HD, or other designations regardless of the article title. For example, should an article title HD 133002 be included in the template as "HR 5596" or as "HD 13302", and should the article HD 88366 be included in the template as "S Carinae" or "HD 88366" (S Carinae is a set index, for technical reasons).
 * Should the groups and sub-groups be standardised, or somewhat standardised. Or should groups with very limited content be merged on a constellation by constellation basis.  For example, if subgroup HR contains only one entry, should that subgroup be dropped and the HR entry be placed in "other".  Or see this edit where various star cluster types are merged because there are only a small number of each type.
 * Should set index and various other list articles be placed at the top of the navbox: see Template:Apus. The legacy (when the templates contained only stars) was to have a wikilink to the list of stars at the bottom of the navbox (see Ursa Minor).  More recent versions linked the list in the "stars" subsection on the left.
 * How should exoplanets be included: for example under their host star, in a separate group, grouped when there are multiple articles about one system, or not at all.
 * Lithopsian (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

New Constellation navbox template
Hey there! A brand new template intended for use by constellation navboxes has been created – Constellation navbox! This was created via a suggestion made in the discussion linked in the previous entry on this talk page. Feel free to check out this new template and voice your opinions or suggestions for improvement at Template talk:Constellation navbox! Please don't directly reply to this message though, since it'll unlikely be seen... – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 03:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on navbox wikilinks for Bayer designations
A proposal to change how Bayer designations are presented in navbox wikilinks is being discussed at Template talk:Constellation navbox. Feel free to join in on the discussion! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 06:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Ap star
For some reason, Category:Ap star is singular whereas all of the star categories are plural. Is there a reason for this? It's a minor thing, I know. Praemonitus (talk) 02:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a minor thing. Category names must be consistent. It's good that you have noticed this issue. There can't possibly be a reason for the category name being singular, because obviously there are many Ap stars. The category must be renamed to "Category:Ap stars". — UnladenSwallow (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've listed it at WP:CFDS for speedy renaming. Primefac (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

NR Canis Majoris in Gaia DR2?
The NR Canis Majoris entry in SIMBAD doesn't have a Gaia DR2 identifier listed. This seems odd for a naked eye star. Any thoughts? Praemonitus (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Its a double star and both components have Gaia DR2 entries. Simbad might have got a in a tizz about what goes with what.  Lithopsian (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, it looks that way. I did already try the components link for said information, but it just points back to the original article. Normally there's a link to the children information in such cases. Praemonitus (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I tracked it down via a Search query on the Gaia Archive site. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a VizieR table also, very easy to query a particular object, but usually you need to narrow down the default search circle a lot. Also Bailer-Jones et al. (2018), which gives more statistically correct distances based on the Gaia DR2 parallaxes.  Much-underused in Wikipedia, partly because the starbox automatically converts the given parallax to a distance although in a somewhat cruder way.  Lithopsian (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Potentially we could take a look at using Lua to compute upper and lower bounds on the parallax. There's a request process. Praemonitus (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

infobox:Stellar association
I think we need an infobox for unbound moving groups & stellar associations, to include data such as estimated age, net mass, mean distance, physical span, radial velocity, number of members, OB stars, baseline U0/V0/W0 values, subgroups, alternate identifiers, & discovery details. The infobox cluster template doesn't quite fit the bill. Any interest? Praemonitus (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * *crickets* Okay I put together a draft template: Infobox stellar association. I was thinking about adding a 'type' field; would that be useful? If there's no objection I'm going to start adding it in. Praemonitus (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Other designations
Infoboxes in a few articles such as NGC 5466 have unhelpful wikilinks on the abbreviations of catalogues without articles (GCl, H, h, etc.) Is there a good target for these? If not then would anyone mind if I unlink them? Certes (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There is List of astronomical catalogues. Many catalogues are already in it and you can pipe or redirect to the list.  And if there are catalogues not in the list, they should probably be added.  Lithopsian (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I'm wondering whether there should be one link to the list rather than a redirect to the same article for every designation.  Also, it's not obvious to the reader (or to me) which of the many "H" catalogues is referred to, or what GCl is. Certes (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you look up the object in Simbad, you can usually click on the designator for a rundown on what it means, why, where from, and all sorts of synonyms. Lithopsian (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should link "Other designations" to that page? Praemonitus (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That might be a useful change to the infobox templates if the astronomers agree. Certes (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Updated - usefull pages
Greetings, For "Astronomical objects" WP, I added wikilink to "Quality operations" daily log. JoeNMLC (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

And if anyone cares....
Anyone have a hankering to work on any one of them? and I are working on Canopus but it's heaving going. Given Lithopsian's love of supergiants, I reckon Deneb...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No promises, but I could use something new to work on. Primefac (talk) 02:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What star would you be most enthusiastic about? I have a soft spot for Acrux as it was the first star I split visually through a telescope, but its nomenclature is a nightmare. otherwise starting from top to bottom. Alpha Centauri has been a bit vexed as well.....Arcturus? Procyon....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Fomalhaut seems like an interesting candidate, given the dust cloud issue. If I can I'll take a look. Primefac (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * TBH I'd be happy to work on any of them, so anyone that tickles anyone else's enthusiasm is cool by me Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Spica looks intriguing. There's a lot going on that could be covered in more detail, and the system promises to get interesting as the primary evolves. Praemonitus (talk) 03:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay - Spica, Fomalhaut and Deneb then. Sorting out the weight of conflicting studies on Fomalhaut B would be great then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

NGC 2363
According to notes by H. G. Corwin Jr. (2004), the cataloged object NGC 2363 refers to the galaxy UGC 3847, while the original object observed by Herschel is the H II region Mrk 71, designated NGC 2363A in Simbad. The Wikipedia page conflates the two, listing the galaxy data in the infobox galaxy template, but then discussing the H II region in the article. How do we handle this? Do we make the NGC 2363 article a disambiguation page and explain the apparent conflict? The galaxy itself doesn't appear that notable, as published papers on NGC 2363 are about the H II region. Praemonitus (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Crickets. Okay I added a note and tagged the article as needing help. Praemonitus (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

FAR of Earth
I have nominated Earth for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Backhouse designations
I just came across a series of unusual designations in List of stars in Camelopardalis (eg. "M Camelopardalis") and replaced them with the title of the star article (edit war pending, I suspect). These designations are from Backhouse. Simbad doesn't mention them, neither does any other major source or cross-reference I can find. They do appear on a few websites. They don't appear in most of the star articles themselves. Are there any more in other constellation lists? The lists tend to be a bit of a grab-bag of uncited material, but usually in the star article at least. Lithopsian (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Position of lunar features
The Spanish version of Wikipedia has a nice infobox feature that shows the coordinate position of the target on a Clementine map. Here's an example:
 * https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacus_Mortis

A similar feature is used on the Italian-language version:
 * https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacus_Mortis

Praemonitus (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

minimum and maximum speeds of planets
I was asked by User Izno to cross-post here my request to have " " and " " added to " ." The relevant discussion can be reviewed at " ." This is a hopefully uncontroversial and helpful addition to the template, but any input is welcome. Nicole Sharp (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Caelum Supercluster
I have launched a discussion right now regarding the Caelum Supercluster. Please see the talk page of the article if you want to join. Thank you and any thoughts would be appreciated. SkyFlubbler (talk) 08:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

TOI 1338
Hi - I recently protected TOI 1338, which was being disrupted because of some popular media interest in the object. The article currently contains the sentence "The planet's colors and patterns resemble the album cover for her album Oil of Every Pearl's Un-Insides." This is obviously bogus, it's just an artist's impression, I think we need to reflect this more accurately but since I've protected the page, I don't feel comfortable making the change myself. Anybody want to take a look? Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether) 11:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That single sentence was added back in Feb by an IP and is pretty much the only substantial change since that section was added. In other words, I've removed it with no loss of real information. Primefac (talk) 12:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:Astronomical objects articles needing expert attention has been nominated for discussion
Category:Astronomical objects articles needing expert attention has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 05:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding central star characteristics to
I propose that we extend with a new section containing central star characteristics. The proposal can be read and discussed here:. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:Starbox observe 3s
For multiple star systems, we don't necessarily need to display the coordinates of close-orbiting companions in the Starbox observe 3s template. Cf. Polaris. I'd like to request that the second and third set of coordinates be optional. Otherwise they just take up extra space and possibly make the reader wonder why they are blank. Praemonitus (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Henyey track
The Henyey track page is our highest rated stub article. It could use some TLC from those interested in the subject matter. (Or perhaps the importance should be lowered?) Thank you! Praemonitus (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Redirects to List of geological features on Venus
FYI, a mass deletion of redirects to the list article List of geological features on Venus has been proposed at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 28 -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

GAR notification
Proxima Centauri b has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Notability for things like genes, gene/protein/rna families, cell lines, species etc
This discussion on the notability of RNA motifs over at WP:MolBio has expanded to be the broader question of notability for sets of topics like genes, gene/protein/rna families, cell lines, etc. Since ppl in this group will have had to grapple with similar questions on stars, galaxies, exoplanets etc, I'd be interested in your input. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 10:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Skathi (Saturn's Moon)
Am I the only one who doubts this? I mean, why does this relatively uninteresting moon, nowhere in the mainstream media headlines, with no significant coverage, get 2 million views last month?

That is ten times more than the artcle for the Solar System. That is absolute nuts.

I mean, I would understand it if NASA were to land a probe in it or something (like 67/P comet that had a lot of views during the Rosetta approach). But it does not. A quick Google search will find you nothing but puny results.

I checked the edits made just before the apperent surge of views (prob. Nov. 2020), but there doesn't seem to be any malicious edits (which may be an evidence of a bot spamming this article with views).

Or maybe I am just an idiot, and maybe this moon is significant and popular, just behind the scenes? I hope anybody can answer this. SkyFlubbler (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Strange. The pageviews have been increasing steadily all year, but they far exceed those for Saturn itself.  It is a relatively new discovery, but still.  I think it is a safe bet to blame social media :)  Lithopsian (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * This is already under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy. Please add comments there instead. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to put the archive link here in case anyone wanted to read this discussion later on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy/Archive_33#Extremely_weird_pageviews Patr2016 (talk) 07:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The discussion petered out but the puzzle remains. Here's the page views in 2021 . It's still getting 40k hits/day, which is ridiculous for such an obscure topic. The bug report hasn't been commented on since April. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Template: Databox star system
FYI, Databox star system has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Do these pages have any merit?
I indefblocked a vandal, (see user talk page for context). I am not able to judge the merit of some star articles created by this user, could you have a look at it and tag them with if they are not ok?

Thanks! Geschichte (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * HE 0020-1741
 * HE 1219-0312
 * HE 0107-5240

Position of star location chart within the starbox
The vast majority of star articles that include a chart showing the star position place it in a starbox image template at the top of the starbox. In the interests of full disclosure, I created a fair proportion of them. Recently, a considerable number of location charts have been created in a starbox image template at the end of the starbox. It would probably be good to be consistent. Where seems best? Lithopsian (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * At the top before the more arcane location data would probably be best as it is more accessible to most readers. Praemonitus (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Starbox templates
In accord with the Astro talk template placed on the Starbox series of templates, there are two discussions that have resulted from edit requests that may need attention from AO interested editors. Your help and guidance would be appreciated very much!  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 23:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * See the discussions at Template talk:Starbox begin. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, SG, and apologies for not linking. The specific two talks are:
 * Template-protected edit request on 1 April 2022
 * Template-protected edit request on 3 April 2022
 *  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 02:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

90377 Sedna - featured article review
I have nominated 90377 Sedna for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Renerpho (talk) 05:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Solar system
I have nominated Solar System for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.<b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 15:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Solar System
There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Solar System/archive2. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Galaxybox nominated for deletion
FYI, the galaxybox template system has been nominated for deletion; see Templates for discussion/Log/2022 August 23 -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 04:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Cite Gaia DR3 template
I have created Cite Gaia DR3, similar to Cite Gaia EDR3. It is fully functional, but the actual citation contents are a work in progress pending publication of the associated papers. Lithopsian (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I've updated this to point to the online-early version of the main DR3 paper. It will still need updating when final bibliographic information is available. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

RFC on American or British English at Ceres (dwarf planet)
There is a discussion as to what variety of english should be enforced at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ceres_(dwarf_planet)#RfC:_Shall_this_article_be_deemed_American_English_or_British_English_only? Talk:Ceres (dwarf_planet)] Please help form consensus by joining in the discussion party :) Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Great Attractor
Great Attractor describes itself as a Gravitational anomaly. Could someone verify that this is correct, and that the intention was not Gravity anomaly? - CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I actually don't think it's either; the former is related to quantum mechanics and the latter is related to gravity on Earth and how it's not uniform. If it's not specifically called that in the references, it might be worth removing that qualifier. Primefac (talk) 07:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: none of the sources use that term, so while reading "gravitational anomaly" makes sense from a linguistic perspective, the link is incorrect so I have removed it. No issues is someone has a better linked target or wording. Primefac (talk) 07:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's appropriate to describe it as a large scale flow toward a location in space. A mass concentration is the purported cause. Praemonitus (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! - CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Martian craters discussion
There is a discussion at that could use additional input from this project. Primefac (talk) 10:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Molecular layer/MOLsphere
A number of articles reference the molecular layer of a star (I also see the terms MOLsphere or molecular shell used). For example, S Persei, Betelgeuse, Mira variable, S Orionis, Talk:Antares, Aldebaran, and the lists of stars with resolved images and largest known stars.

Is anyone up to stubbing this article out? I'm out of my league, I think. Note that the dab Molecular layer only references anatomy at the moment.

Alternately, something could be added at Stellar atmosphere.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Reference: Takashi Tsuji, Infrared Spectra and Visibilities as Probes of the Outer Atmospheres of Red Supergiant Stars, The Astrophysical Journal (2006)
 * CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Having only done a little bit of digging, I don't see much being said about it (other than mainly debating whether it either exists or certain stars have one). I think adding it to Stellar atmosphere would be a good start; it can be expanded into an article later if there's more useful information that a sentence or two cannot provide. Primefac (talk) 10:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Short descriptions
I don't know much about short descriptions on articles, except that they should be short, but at least one editor has been spending a lot of time adding or editing them so I thought it might be worth asking if there might be a preferred consistent format. Or even if they should be just synced with wikidata. A typical short description on a star is something like "Star in the constellation Cygnus", or perhaps "Wolf-Rayet star in the constellation Carina". I was thinking that perhaps the type of star, when well-known and concise, is helpful but reading WP:SHORTDESC, it may not be desirable and would tend to make the description too long? Should we maybe be saying what type of star, but not the constellation? Or maybe "star in constellation" is ideal? Lithopsian (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "A short description is not a definition and should not attempt to define the article's subject nor to summarise the lead." I think the shorter and less technical the better. Other than that, people seem to spend more effort on short descriptions than they're really worth. Praemonitus (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Mysterious pageview history
The rather unremarkble star XX Pyxidis received a steady increase in pageviews through the second half of 2022, peaking at 1748 pageviews on December 10, before suddenly dropping after December 11. It currently receives about 75 pageviews/day, about 2 orders of magnitude above the historical baseline and comparable to the constellation it's in (Pyxis). But why did it have this odd profile? –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 07:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Skathi effect? |XX_Pyxidis Pageviews on a log scale. --mfb (talk) 08:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it could be a much less extreme version of the Skathi situation - see archived discussion. That mysteriously resolved itself in October 2022 for no obvious reason. Possibly some mobile app that was loading the page then was updated. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Widespread circular redirects in exoplanet-related articles
There seems to be an epidemic of circular redirects on exoplanet-related articles, which is annoying for readers in this topic area. I haven't done a systematic query for redirects on on exoplanet-related articles, but I have identified the following types of redirects which often appear as circular links, many of which can be cleaned by an automated process: –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 14:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirects from planets to their host stars, e.g. HD 63454 b &rarr; HD 63454: I suggest delinking these on the star's article, in the constellation's navbox, and in navboxes about specific exoplanetary systems.
 * Redirects from stars to their planets, e.g. COROT-9 &rarr; COROT-9b: If there is only one planet with an article, I suggest delinking all of these on the star's article, and including only the planet in the constellation's navbox. One star with two planets that have articles (Kepler-277 &rarr; Kepler-277b when there is also Kepler-277c) is at RfD under Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_January_22, and if there is another instance like this it should be remediated according to the outcome of that RfD.
 * Redirects to lists of exoplanets, e.g. K2-301b &rarr; List of exoplanets observed during Kepler's K2 mission: Unsure, possibly delete because they may be listed in multiple places; see Redirects_for_discussion for the exoplanets by discovery date. In all cases, I'd recommend that all list entries should link only those planets that have their own articles, or which redirect to a non-list such as its host star.


 * I have no objection to you unlinking anything that redirects back to the same page or the same section of a list, just follow WP:SELFRED. There's no reason to delete the redirects though. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you think that this process can be easily handled using WP:AWB? I'd think so because of the highly systematic naming convention used for exoplanets, which consists of the star's name plus a lowercase Latin letter from b to z. Most stars have a starbox begin template, and most exoplanets have a infobox planet template. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 15:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, I thought about it, and have filed a request at WP:AWBREQ. False negatives should be few in number, and any false positives will be other types of circular link. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 11:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Theta Muscae and the Universe Guide
Can someone assess this one? I am surprised that this is in the list of most luminous stars to be at ~6 million L⨀.

The reference provided in the article here is from the website "Universe Guide" which is very poorly written and has lots of questionable details. It looks more like a farce blog website than a reputable source. I actually think that this website should be blacklisted and not be used for Wikipedia at all. SkyFlubbler (talk) 06:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * There was another source about a purported optical companion that failed verification. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 13:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Accoudring to Special:Linksearch, this source is used at Saturn (as a web archive for an old indexing) for a statement about its atmospheric composition. It was also used twice at Delphinus for a distance to Epsilon Delphini and several statements about (presumably) non-notable stars, but since the target was a search page, I have removed it anyway. Here are all other uses on enwiki in articles:
 * 6
 * 28 Andromedae
 * 32 Ophiuchi
 * 6 Aurigae
 * Carleton B. Moore
 * F-type main-sequence star
 * HAT-P-50b
 * HD 129445 b
 * HD 155233 b
 * HD 158259
 * HD 191806 b
 * HD 76151
 * HD 85512
 * James Webb Space Telescope
 * K2-141b
 * K2-66b
 * Kepler-1638
 * Kepler-737
 * Kepler-737b
 * Launch and commissioning of the James Webb Space Telescope
 * Leoben Conoy
 * List of directly imaged exoplanets
 * List of most luminous stars
 * List of star systems within 75–80 light-years
 * List of stars in Cancer
 * Maria Zuber
 * NGC 474
 * NGC 7767
 * NGC 7812
 * Pi Leonis
 * Qatar-3
 * Qatar-4b
 * Qatar-5b
 * Rho Cassiopeiae
 * Tau5 Serpentis
 * Theta Muscae
 * UY Scuti
 * V378 Normae
 * Waltraut Seitter
 * If this source is unreliable, I'd definitely recommend blacklisting it. WP:RSN will be notified shortly. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 13:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * A user at the RSN notice,, has confirmed that this source is unreliable. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 07:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Theta Muscae cleaned up a little. It can probably still be improved if I find time to hunt down some sources.  Surprisingly little published for such a bright exotic binary.  Lithopsian (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Moving template documentation to documentation subpages
Specifically on Template:Orbitbox planet, Template:Orbitbox planet begin, Template:OrbitboxPlanet disk and Template:OrbitboxPlanet hypothetical. I've already done so on Template:OrbitboxPlanet short but the others say to discuss first. I think it's easier to read both in read and edit mode if the documentation is on its own subpage. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Support This is standard practice. There is no reason to question this standard practice. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 00:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, standard. You don't have to ask for permission, or wait for further feedback, just go ahead. Mathglot (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Did most of this, but as I saw on Hamal and Template:Orbitbox planet there is no clean way to get that weird noinclude/includeonly thing out of the templates. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Most galaxy sizes are just wrong
This is a concern after I have checked the NASA/IPAC Database entries of the Large Magellanic Cloud and the Sombrero Galaxy, both of which I realized that the sizes stated in their articles have underestimated them by as much as 50%. I have corrected it by now based on their respective D25 diameters as stated in NED, but I do realize that this is a bigger and more endemic problem than I thought, which affects so many galaxy articles, as their sizes are based on unofficial astronomy sources or manual calculations of apparent diameters with unknown methods as to how they are obtained. In the case of both LMC and Sombrero the former was a dubious claim from Britannica while the latter cites to SIMBAD, which does not even have data for galaxy diameters.

Maybe we should create a task force to correct galaxy diameters all over the Wiki and make them align with a respectable source, perhaps? SkyFlubbler (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I've mentioned this to you before, but you shouldn't use NED as a general catalog for statistics like this: the values in it come from a whole range of different surveys, and are not thoroughly vetted. There is no single source for a statistic like "galaxy size", since even if you were to use a single photometric survey, you would have to correct the sizes in the measured band for their effective wavelength at the source redshift. - Parejkoj (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this is not really much of a concern for nearby galaxies, which comprise a majority of articles here. These galaxies are too close for their redshifts to have any noticeable effect on their wavelength. What I am after however are random, uncited claims that differ a whole lot from those being stated in surveys, and might just be numbers made out of thin air. SkyFlubbler (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's fair. For large apparent size, nearby galaxies, NED probably isn't too bad (probably). Otherwise, though, there be dragons. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit request at Template talk:Starbox begin
See Template talk:Starbox begin Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)