Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Archive 3

Exoplanet-stub
This could be the stub for exoplanets. All we need to do is to make Category:Exoplanet stubs. &mdash; Hurricane Devon  (  Talk  ) 14:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You can add the Category:Exoplanet stubs to the template, all articles with that template will be automatically added to the category. See Template:California-stub for an example. - Ganeshk 21:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As a member of the Stub Sorting project, I have a few comments about this stub. The first is that we prefer to have stub categories have names that match their parents. Since the main category is, it would have been preferable for the stub category to be  instead of .  The second is that you've generally placed brief information about exoplanets in the article about their star.  Indeed it would seem to me that it would be better given the scant information available about most exoplanets to do so with a redirect from the planet name to the star name until there is enough information for a separate non-stub article. That would suggest that stub articles about only an exosolar planet shouldn't exist. I've proposed on the Stub Sorting Discoveries page the possibility of a planetary systems stub instead for articles about such stars which would help reduce the size of  which is current larger than we like for a stub category to be. This would also enable the identification of articles containing information about exoplanets that need expansion.  Since your Wikiproject is the one most likely to turn such stubs into articles, I would of course appreciate feedback before formally proposing any changes on the Stub Sorting Proposals page. Caerwine Caerwhine  16:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Improvement drive
Asteroid deflection strategies is currently nominated on WP:IDRIVE. Support the article with your vote if you would like to see it improved on the article improvement drive!--Fenice 18:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Planet
I see there is an infobox template for the planets, but can't find any reason why the planet articles use individual "Planet Infobox/name" templates (Special:Allpages/Template:Planet). Are they waiting to be converted or were they split out for some reason. Anyone have insight? -- Netoholic @ 21:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because the Planet template wasn't a superset of the others? The Planet Infobox/Mars template has more information and a different color scheme, for example. &mdash; RJH 20:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Virgo Stellar Stream
Should I be adding a galaxy infobox? I'm not sure enough is known to fill in many of the boxes.

Other comments welcome. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say "yes", even so not much info can be filled in. Since it seems to be clearly classified as a "galaxy remnant," we should do the decent thing and give it a "farewell" worthy of a galaxy :-) Awolf002 15:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks to WilliamKF who did it for me. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Galaxy groups
Galaxy cluster

I made this to explain groups, clusters, clouds, and superclusters in it's artical. I've put it in some articals already. &mdash; Hurricane Devon  (  Talk  ) 02:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "Articles"? For the distance field you might want to add a Mpc afterward so that people know the proper scale to use. Otherwise you might end up with z values or light years or kilometers or ... &mdash; RJH 20:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Similarities and contrasts
It appears to me that numerous articles on TNOs lack comparisons with similar (or dissimilar) objects. Such comparisons would in my opinion help the reader (it helps me as contributor) to get some 'grasp' about who’s who and highlight the perplexing diversity of these objects. As example, what Quaoar, Varuna and some stubby have in common (or otherwise). Smaller, less known objects could be compared to the larger/more notorious very early in the lead. Many referred papers include such statements while wikipedia articles are too often austere and leave to the user the effort of 'inferring' such comparisons. I've timidly started added such one-statement (often just a bracket) comparisons but I would like your comments on the usefulness of the approach. Eurocommuter 21:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Graphs
New joiner, I’ve been working in the obscure area (outside Neptune), adding some orbits’ distribution diagrams to the Kuiper belt, scattered disk etc. As I intend to progress slowly toward the light (centaurs,..?) I would appreciate your comments on how to improve them. Thank you. Eurocommuter 22:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I tried to figure out the meaning of the various axes in your pictures, and it seems way too hard to do that. Please, add labels to all of them, as well as explain what the size of the circles mean. Awolf002 20:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. I will. Thanks Eurocommuter 21:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I added the missing labels and detailed descriptions to the updated graphs for centaurs, plutinos, cubewanos and SDO/ESDOs. Others will follow. Regards Eurocommuter 22:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Kuiper belt
I would like to get rid of / replace the leading artist’s picture Kuiper belt which appears IMHO archaic today and clashes with the updated content of the TNO related articles. Namely: Could anybody find (or draw) a contemporary picture, please? Regards Eurocommuter 15:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It presents Kuiper belt as flat disk which is not
 * Does not picture the scattered disk
 * An obscure and banal (today!) cubewano is plotted; it was news back then, of course…The article(s) never refer to this object
 * The hypothetical Ooort cloud (0 objects known for sure) is plotted together with NTOs (>1000 objects discovered) in a way that is misleading in my opinion, confusing the limit between fact and conjecture.

Request for Help
I have made some comments on the talk page of list of nearest stars, but I just noticed that there are unresolved issues as far back as March 2005 (DENIS 1048-39 a.k.a. (?) DENIS 1048-3956), so I'm not sure that the list is being maintained or the talk page is being monitored by something like this WikiProject. Thanks, Ardric47 23:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Did you look at the history? The page is getting regular updates. &mdash; RJH 21:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Deep sky object naming convention
I don't know if this has been discussed before, so I put this here:

Current naming of deep sky objects is quite a mess. Most deep sky object articles are named in the style "Globular Cluster M107"; the object is called by its designation M(essier) 107, "Globular Cluster M107" is not its name. I think these articles should be renamed, because
 * 1) They don't follow Wikipedia article naming convention: Article names include unnecessary capital letters, and the definition is before the name
 * 2) Article names, although informative, are too long; needed information can be found in the article

Therefore I suggest that we rename them accordingly:
 * Messier objects: Spiral Galaxy M100 -> Messier 100 (M100 is obviously ambiguous); how about M100 (galaxy)?
 * NGC objects: Lenticular Galaxy NGC 5078 -> NGC 5078
 * IC objects: Irregular Galaxy IC 10 -> IC 10 (or IC 10 (galaxy) if the name is ambiguous)
 * Other catalogs: two or more letters -> only initials (e.g. ESO 269-57, HE0450-2958); designation that includes only one name/word should be shown with full name (e.g. Abell 2218, Gliese 229).

Other problems with names:
 * Notice also the article naming style of proper name galaxies: Is Sagittarius Dwarf Irregular Galaxy right or should it be Sagittarius dwarf irregular galaxy (like Kuiper belt, not Kuiper Belt).
 * Some names have 'galaxy' in their names, some not: Pegasus Dwarf Irregular Galaxy, Ursa Major Dwarf. I support the latter style, unless there are galaxies with the same name (e.g. Pegasus dwarf irregular galaxy, Pegasus dwarf spheroidal galaxy).
 * There is also a lot of discrepancy with galaxy cluster names (for example Virgo Cluster, Sculptor group).
 * When a nickname should be used instead of designation? Example: Andromeda galaxy is obvious, Sunflower galaxy is quite popular, Google search finds only a few hits for the Fried Egg Galaxy (NGC 7742).

My examples cover only galaxies, but same is true for star clusters and nebulae. --Jyril 20:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I was also confused by the current naming when I looked for Messier objects. I think, having an object under its standard designation like Messier 15 or NGC 7742 makes a lot of sense! We should be able to accomodate common names like Andromeda Galaxy or Eagle Nebula with having redirs, there. Awolf002 16:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with this, except even things like Messier objects shouldn't be disambiguated unless they need to be. Galaxies should never be Spiral Galaxy XYZ, they should be XYZ or XYZ (galaxy) if they need disambiguation. The Spiral Galaxy prefix is part of the description, no the name.
 * As for Messier, NGC and IC objects, I think the naming convention Messier xxx, NGC xxx, and IC xxx should be followed. Mxxx should redirect unless it needs a disambiguation (a lot of them do).
 * Things like Pegasus dwarf irregular/spherical galaxy, I think they should be named by their catalogue designation, and have redirects. I'm not too sure though, there's a lot of them, and a lot of possibilities for disambiguation.
 * -- JamesHoadley 03:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Problem with the names of many small Local Group galaxies is that many of them have only obscure designations.--Jyril 18:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you give an example? And also, why could a redir at the less "obscure" name not be an acceptable solution? Awolf002 18:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure. NED lists for example Pegasus dwarf [irregular] following designations: PegDIG, PEGASUS DWARF, UGC 12613, A2326+14, DDO 216, A2326, CGCG 431-072, PGC 071538, CGCG 2326.0+1427, UZC J232835.2+144435, MCG +02-59-046. Ursa Major dwarf galaxy doesn't even have a catalog designation. Of these, UGC catalog designations might be notable enough, but considering how much more the common names are, I suggest we use them (or alternatively abbreviations like SagDEG, SagDIG, Ursa Major dSph etc.)--Jyril 21:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

There is an international standard when it comes to naming, and that is SIMBAD. Note that if you read the small print on NED it simply says that it uses SIMBAD to translate whatever name you type into a standard form (so NED just follows the SIMBAD standard). Unfortunately the first name picked by SIMBAD is rarely the most famous, but we should at least make sure that the designation used in Wikipedia is at least recognised by SIMBAD (and hence by astronomers and astronomical software). Rnt20 08:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As the naming for Messier objects is contentious (between Messier xx and Mxx), why not use the equivalent NGC entry? For most things, there is not a notable difference in frequency of usage (ofcourse for some there are, but many of those have a more common name, like the Whirlpool Galaxy) 132.205.45.148 18:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project
Hi, I'm a member of the Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? We would like to have a complete set of the nine planets + the Moon + the Sun - do you think they would all be publishable? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Walkerma 03:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps somebody should take the planetary pages through for peer review? The asteroid and geology of the Moon articles seem pretty decent. &mdash; RJH 20:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Some of the articles are FAs, like Sun and Venus. However, they are frequently vandalised so another peer review would be a good thing. Awolf002 20:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Venus is probably a good candidate for FARCing, to be honest. It was promoted a long time ago and I wouldn't think it's up to current FA standards.  I would like all the planets to have FA-standard articles and intend to work on them all over the next few weeks, as I am trying to prepare a WikiReader on the solar system.  All the articles have plenty of content, they just need a lot of polishing and formatting.  Worldtraveller 20:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Still it is probably the best of the planet articles. Especially the Mars article is quite horrible really.--Jyril 19:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The best articles aren't necessarily the most appropriate articles. I think you definitely need Nebula (with a few articles under that class), Star cluster (Globular cluster, Open cluster), Galaxy (spiral/barred and elliptical galaxy), and then larger scale stuff (clusters, supercluster) and cosmological stuff (Big Bang, Hubble Constant). That list is probably too big, but anyway, a lot of those articles are backwaters. For instance, Nebula is adequate as an article (Start to B-Class), but there is a lot of cross over in the sub-articles and some of the most important articles (like Diffuse nebula) are stubs. Galaxy articles are a lot better, same with Star cluster articles, but none are above B-class except Open cluster (FA).
 * I guess we should aim to make Nebula, Star cluster and Galaxy A-class and major sub-articles B-class, but it's not like that right now.
 * You're asking what articles fit a quality framework, but it's probably more important to have the right articles to explain the field, otherwise you'll have an encyclopedia with (for example) an Elliptical galaxy article, but no Galaxy article, which would be weird.
 * -- JamesHoadley 03:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I’m surprised by Walkerma’s suggestion to limit the cover of the Solar System to 9 planets. Arguably, my comment should be dismissed as I’ve been one of the recent contributors to the articles on TNOs, but I would like you to consider trans-Neptunian objects, Kuiper Belt and related articles, including a few major objects. I believe limiting the Solar System content to 9 planets would hurt Wikipedia's credibility. A few reasons to consider TNOs, IMHO:
 * TNOs change the traditional vision of 9 planet system and challenge theories of the origin of the Solar System; the subject is rich in recent developments (both: observation and theory)
 * The subject is highly mediatized (maybe for wrong reasons: ...is Pluto a planet?, ...is bigger?) this generated a wide public interest
 * The subject includes refreshingly new, puzzling objects (e.g. ).
 * There are very few widely available, popular sources related to the subject as opposed to scores of 9 planets-related sources. Wikipedia has an opportunity to become one the most respected popular sources on the subject.
 * Most articles are well-referenced and follow the research up the preprint level!

Of course, the related articles are work in progress and require a substantial editing effort. Any critical comments are welcome. Regards Eurocommuter 14:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. We should at least have everything mentioned in this:


 * and all other main astronomical object articles, like Globular cluster, Galaxy, Star, Comet and so on. I wonder how WP-1.0 will handle left-over redlinks? There might be quite a few. Awolf002 18:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I would thing the red links problem would affect all areas, and it'll be pretty easy to do something about it.
 * We still don't know if Walkerma wants a list of articles of good quality or a list that should be included in a smaller edition of WP. We're telling him the most important articles, but not which ones are FA, A- class, B-class, Start and Stubs.
 * -- JamesHoadley 03:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the excellent discussion! As well as finding out about your best articles, we are indeed looking for the major topics. We will almost certainly be contacting all the WikiProjects in the spring asking for lists of "core topics" for each subject area. I suggested the 9 planets just because these are what I considered to be some of your most important articles - I realise that there's a whole lot more (I'd like to see Titan (moon) in there, myself!). The initial 1.0 trial release (WP:0.5?) will probably be quite small, so we may be quite limited in what goes in. However IMHO the full release should include more than just the 11 articles I mentioned. Regarding a request to review Venus, can I suggest nominating it for review here, and people from this group should probably give their (expert) comments there.

It's clear that this project is active and well-coordinated, can I suggest that you consider creating a worklist like the ones at Military history or Chemicals? (There are about a dozen worklists now in use) I've been involved with the worklist at WP:Chem for almost a year now and it's a great place to list all of your most important articles and keep track of how they are progressing. At WP:Chem the list is integrated with the goals of the project - we are aiming to get all 380 or so articles up to A-Class (about equivalent to GA standard). If you create a similar list, we will use that when compiling articles for WP:1.0. If not, we'll be tracking your articles in our own list (which I'll probably get filled out tomorrow). Thank you very much for your help, Walkerma 07:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea, but it would have to stick to the most important topics. The potential list of pages is, well, astronomical. :) &mdash; RJH 03:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I propose to (ab)use the article Astronomical object by setting up a list of "grades" for each of its entries in the talk page and go from there. Awolf002 15:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I would suggest to grade separately Separate grades would make easier to choose the articles to be fixed if we think that they deserve to be fixed more than others. The next step would be to set up a list of no-nonsense criteria for grading…. And the rules for voting? We refrain from voting on the articles we personally contributed to? Please bear with a new joiner, I’m ignorant of the usual rules… Eurocommuter 16:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Perceived importance (how badly the full picture will be affected if the article does not make it into the edition)
 * Content (e.g. exhaustive, up to date coverage of the subject, solid and varied references…)
 * Form (e.g. readability, attractiveness, graphics, pictures, accessibility to wider public...)


 * As I understand it, this is guidance for the Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, so we can discuss to achieve consensus but voting is not really applicable. Awolf002 18:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Great to see you working on this, thanks. We've usually used consensus, and if someone doesn't like an assessment they usually just edit it - or if there's general grade inflation we list the articles on the talk page and come to a consensus there. You can try more complicated grading schemes, but in my experience something simple works best - so everyone can get the idea. We use this system -we've sometimes debated adding a C-Class between B and Start, but generally it works very well. A-Class approximates to GA. But use whatever works for you, different subjects can have different needs. I agree that you have to limit it to the most important topics, at least to begin with. Be sure to let us know if you start a worklist, or if you have an agreed list of "core articles" (even without assessments}. Regarding the previous comment - yes, the list is guidance for us, but I think this project would benefit immensely from it too.  Thanks again, Walkerma 06:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * A "bare bones" list is now available at Talk:Astronomical_object. It's time to prioritize and assess. Awolf002 18:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks like a pretty good start. (I was bold and added in a few more.) But I don't think it's a good idea to have articles on individual spectral categories (O-class, B-class, &c.) These can be covered by the already-existing categories. I'd like to suggest that the mass of asteroid articles be grouped in their own section. Note that beyond this list there are many thousands of other articles that could potentially be included: stars; clusters; Messier objects, craters, individual asteroids, &c. &c. &mdash; RJH 16:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Navigational maps
I would like your opinion on using, for instance, the graphic illustrating trans-Neptunian objects as a navigational map, in addition to its day job. I’ll spare you the technical details but wiki does not support SVG links, does not support HTML maps and suggest a kludge instead, used for navigational maps in some articles. In spite of poor technology I believe maps like this could be used in the navigators (TNO model for example), smaller navigable illustration for the notable objects, size comparison etc. Please have a look on my user page where I included a test, using the graphic from the trans-Neptunian object and adding a few links. I’d be also grateful for any technical comments as well. Regards Eurocommuter 22:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's an excellent idea, and it would be neat to have that sort of map for a wide variety of topics. Of course, text-based navigation should not be neglected. Ardric47 23:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Extrasolar planets with unknown semimajor axes
Some extrasolar planets do not have a known semimajor axis, this includes objects detected by imaging (e.g. 2M1207b) or microlensing (e.g. OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb). Instead for these planets we have a projected distance on the sky, which is not the same as the semimajor axis. Since there are now several planets for which this consideration applies, either the current extrasolar planets template needs modification (though I am not sure if it is possible to conditonally include a table row based on presence or absence of a parameter) or a new template may be necessary. Chaos syndrome 10:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Move to wikisource
I invite everyone involved with this project to come discuss moving it to wikisource at Village pump (miscellaneous). Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 11:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

NGC objects
I'd like to revive discussion on naming conventions. There are many articles whose titles begin with the type of object, such as Lenticular Galaxy M86, Spiral Galaxy NGC 1300, etc. My opinion is that ObjectType Name should be a redirect to Name. As far as I know, the usage ObjectType Name has no major equivalent outside of astronomy-related pages. "Rules" and examples are:


 * There are no articles Operating System Windows XP, Philosopher Plato, Religion Christianity, Court Case Brown v. Board of Education, Mood Subjunctive, House Monticello, etc.
 * Sometimes, titles of that form do exist, but they seem to normally be redirects: King Henry III of England -> Henry III of England.
 * Sometimes, to avoid ambiguity, the type of thing that the article is about is needed in the title, but then it goes at the end in parentheses, e.g. John Smith (dentist) or Jazz (Queen album).
 * There are a few exceptions, such as Popes.
 * Even within the subject of astronomy, there are not articles such as Star Gamma Orionis, Planet OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb, etc. Ardric47 22:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the redirect you suggest. People are much more likely to search on "NGC 1300" than "Spiral Galaxy NGC 1300". If it is for disambiguation, it usually ends up as something like "NGC 1300 (galaxy)". &mdash; RJH 18:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Know that I think about it, it being called NGC not Spiral Galaxy NGC would sound cool. In short, you got my support all the way. &mdash;  Hurricane  Devon  @ 11:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I completely agree that article titles do not need to include the object type. Worldtraveller 20:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * While I like the format type of object NGC xxxx, just NGC xxxx would work for me as well.--Kalsermar 21:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Messier objects
My opinion is that ObjectType Name should be a redirect to Name not just for NGC objects (i.e. Messier objects). I think we should insted of calling it Spiral Galaxy M109 (M109, if we do ↑) into Messier 109. Because most astronomers call it the full name and no. and not just the abbr. (i.e. they prefer to call it Messier 109 insted of M109). &mdash;  Hurricane Devon  @ 11:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I gave it a test with Messier 99. The talk should explain. &mdash;  Hurricane  Devon  @ 00:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As above - agree completely with this suggestion. Worldtraveller 20:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Messier XX looks fine to me too.--Kalsermar 21:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, this makes a lot of sense! Awolf002 21:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Star-stub, due for a split
It's been proposed that star-stub be split into a number of sub-types. Opening bid was to do this by constellation, which would tend to produce a large number of very small categories, which isn't the best of ideas according to the stub-sorting rules of thumb. I'm not sure it's the more natural for astronomers -- are there "constellation specialists"? I'd have thought that by spectral type, or probably better, by luminosity class would be preferable. At any rate, if anyone has any brights ideas... Alai 02:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * First, at least separate stubs pertaining to a single star from those about star clusters (and then, probably separate open and globular clusters). Ardric47 02:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Good points. Would anyone have an idea about how many of the existing (1000+) articles are on clusters, of one or other sort?  Alai 03:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not sure that sorting by spectral type or even luminosity class would work well, because sources tend to disagree on them. Ardric47 03:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Some possibilities: giants; main sequence; stellar remnants/exotic (white dwarf, pulsar, black hole); multi-star systems; stars with known planets; naked-eye visible (apparent mag. > 6)/bayer name/flamsteed ID, known variable, &c. &mdash; RJH 17:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that the first two would be very large, and some of the rest seem to cut across the others. If we stick with the HR diagram based approach, we might re-split MS by spectral type, and giants into Ia, Ib, II, III and IV, if those are all sensibly sized.  Alai 02:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the logical way to split up the star-stub is by constellation with a 'master constellation page' with pointers to constellation pages that contain all the star-stubs assigned to that constellation. It would split the star-stub up into managable chunks (that we might get through before the next millinium ;) ).


 * That works for me as well. I was also going to suggest splitting up by R.A. or Dec., but with constellation stubs the stars can be linked from the category. :) &mdash; RJH 18:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out, by constellation is not in general going to be feasible, on size grounds. Alai 02:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well you could group by constellation: Northern, southern, zodiacal, circumpolar. Or you could group by first letter A-const, B-const, ... Alternately the star coordinates are the most readily available data, so you could sub-divide by RA or Dec. E.g. RA01hour, RA02hour, ... &mdash; RJH 20:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Spectroscopic binary template?
I'd like to find out what everybody thinks of this table as a "starbox specbin" template as a supplement for the other starbox templates? Thank you. :) &mdash; RJH 18:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice work, though the Eighth Catalog of the Orbital Elements of Spectroscopic Binary Systems lists the longitude of periastron as one of the parameters. In addition, a reference to which component it is the companion of might be useful in cases of multiple systems. Chaos syndrome 23:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Further point, eclipsing spectroscopic binaries have known inclination. We should probably handle that too. I've also edited the link in the table - we probably don't need a discussion of theological matters in the template ;-) Chaos syndrome 00:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * We could add the epoch of Periastron (T) as well as to the longitude (q). &mdash; RJH 18:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Binary stars
I made this for star articals like Gliese 777 (with the binary star in a seperate section). Is this a good idea, because it might not be. &mdash;  Hurricane Devon  @ 01:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Mmm, we already have a Starbox visbin template. I'm not sure why you need to do a manual format. &mdash; RJH 18:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I know think it's a bad idea. &mdash;  Hurricane Devon  @ 11:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do you think the Starbox visbin template is a bad idea? &mdash; RJH 20:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Extrasolar Visions and speculative data
It seems that some of the extrasolar planets infoboxes are being filled with radius and temperature values from the speculative website Extrasolar Visions. Personally I think this is misleading, since for most planets we do not have temperature and radius values. Putting these values in gives the impression that these are real data. Furthermore, EV is not really an authority on extrasolar planets - the literature does not cite this website.

Another point is that the assumptions behind the "guesstimate" values may be wrong - the planets may have a massive core like HD 149026 b which would result in a much smaller radius than predicted by the model used on EV, and we cannot be sure of the atmospheric properties which would have a significant effect on temperature.

Since these values keep getting put into infoboxes, I'd like to know some views on this matter as to whether they should be kept. Chaos syndrome 17:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we should put this information in the artical, since when is any exoplanet info 100% correct. Pritty much everything about exos are estimated, shouldn't we delete all exo info.


 * But not to confuse best guessed data & estimated, we should put a * nexted to the estimated data. It should be in the artical, it's the best anyone can get to that thing. &mdash;  Hurricane  Dev  o  n  @ 00:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thing is, we should be dealing with the state of knowledge about the planets. While the parameters are not 100% certain, at least with data such as the period and mass of the planet the quantities have been measured, which is a crucial difference. For the majority of planets, properties like radius and temperature have only been calculated using simplifying assumptions, and are not linked to the observational data. Chaos syndrome 10:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Temperatures should not be added unless they're mentioned in a proper scientific article. Quick calculations a la Extrasolar Visions are too speculative and misleading.--Jyril 19:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, apologies if this is the wrong forum for this, but I seem to have let this matter degenerate into something approximating an edit war with another user. I have been removing the values as misleading speculation and the other user has been equally persistent in putting them back. I'm calling a stop to it now. I have explained my viewpoint on this matter above. Can we have some kind of formal vote on the issue of whether to keep the values or remove them? I will make no edits to the Extrasolar Visions radius/temperature calculations until we have some kind of consensus on this. Chaos syndrome 23:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I am informally stating (meaning that I don't consider myself to have thought or read about the issue enough to "vote") that the speculative data should be removed. I would even go as far as saying that speculative data in other types of articles, such as estimated or derived mass/luminosity/etc. data on stars should be removed, also. Ardric47 01:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I have been examining the values for extrasolar planet radii and temperatures on Extrasolar Visions and have noticed these points:

$$T_p = T_S \left(1-A\right)^{\frac{1}{4}} \left(\frac {R_S} {2a} \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$ John Whatmough said he was using this calculation in this post on his messageboard. However, I have calculated this using the data given on the site for several planets in the Extrasolar Visions database and there are often significant deviations from the value. Again, something seems to be going wrong in the back-end code on Extrasolar Visions.
 * The planet radius model used is the one from Burrows et al., for which there is a web-based calculator. This calculator produces the same internal temperature values as displayed on the Extrasolar Visions planet pages, but when the radius output by the calculator is divided by Jupiter's radius (71492 km), the values don't match up with the values from Extrasolar Visions. After a bit of investigation, I found that dividing by 74192 km (swapping the 4 and the 1) reproduces the values. This looks like a typo in John Whatmough's code. The values being outputted are incorrect even according to the theoretical model.
 * The planet radius model used gives a radius for Jupiter (1 Jupiter mass, 4.6 Gyr) of 1.035 Jupiter radii. The model cannot be tested for Saturn as the mass range doesn't extend down that far. The model doesn't reproduce Jupiter, and can only be tested for Jupiter - not very good.
 * The website gives the parameters star radius (RS), star temperature (TS), planet distance (a), estimated planet albedo (A). Using these parameters, the effective temperature of a planet (T) can be calculated using the formula:
 * We don't actually have any measurement of the albedo, only a prediction from a theoretical model which relies on knowledge of the planet's temperature and composition (paper). We haven't measured either the temperature or the composition for most planets, and having the predicted temperature depend on an unknown value which depends on the temperature puts the result on rather dodgy ground.
 * Extrasolar Visions lists effective temperature values for solar system planets which differ significantly from the values on NASA's planetary fact sheets. Again, the Extrasolar Visions values cannot be reproduced by the formula claimed to be used to generate them.
 * Effective temperatures are often very different from the actual temperature anyway (e.g. Venus, effective temperature ~230 K, surface temperature ~740 K - data from NASA's Venus fact sheet.

Therefore Extrasolar Visions is not implementing its theoretical models correctly, and the theoretical models don't compare very well with the real observations either. I personally think these are good grounds to remove the values from the articles. Chaos syndrome 19:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Some issues involving binary stars
I've noticed that the unit of the semimajor axis for visual binaries in Template:Starbox visbin was changed recently from arcseconds to AU, and now it seems that some pages (e.g. Alpha Centauri) are using AU whereas others (e.g. Xi Ursae Majoris) still have values in arcseconds, which means the information being presented is wrong. Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Starbox visbin has the list of pages which include the template. Do we want to continue using AU or go back to arcseconds?


 * I would recommend always using arc seconds. The A.U. is based on the parallax estimates, which are imprecise. So any time a new parallax measurement was made, the A.U. distances would need to be updated as well. With arcseconds it is measured directly and is independent of parallax. (The A.U. distances can always be listed in the text.) &mdash; RJH


 * Looks like only three articles need to be changed if it is put back. Not sure what to do about Delta Trianguli, it's a spectroscopic binary so it shouldn't really be using the template for visual binaries. Also, it might be useful to put what the orbit is relative to in the template, to handle multiple systems. Not sure if that's a good idea though. Chaos syndrome 23:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, Delta Trianguli also has a listing as a visual binary, so it seems ok for now. Chaos syndrome 23:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should change the title of the visbin template to just "Binary" or "Binary orbit", since good orbital parameters are now available for some spectroscopic binaries? :) &mdash; RJH 18:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, a template for binaries with non-determined orbits would be useful, it would need properties such as separation (preferably in units consistent with whatever is being used for visbins) and position angle. I'm not sure how to go about making templates though. Chaos syndrome 21:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What would you do for systems that have multiple separation/position angle measurements taken over a period of time? &mdash; RJH 22:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, good point. The starbox syntax does allow for repeated sections however (i.e. you could use or whatever you want to call it multiple times), so maybe attach some kind of JD value to the box. In principle the same issue exists where several different orbital solutions have been derived for the same binary. If needs be, several values could be repeated, though this would probably end up really ugly. Chaos syndrome 22:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Why don't the templates include sensible links
Every single astronomical object outside the solar system has one (or two) standard webpage(s) which describe all the details of the object, list every single paper about that object, give links to standard survey images etc. Why don't the wikipedia astronomical objects templates automatically link to these pages (on SIMBAD and NED)? It would be a huge improvement if this were included in the infobox so that lists of links to all the references about any astronomical objects were immediately available by clicking on a link in the infobox. The link can be generated automatically from either the object name or coordinates.

The international databases where all the webpages about astronomical objects are kept are:
 * 1) SIMBAD for survey images of the 3.7 million most discussed astronomical objects, with links to every article about each of these objects since 1983 etc.
 * 2) NED for spectral energy distributions of 9.3 million extragalactic objects

Standard links can be URLs to the coordinates (like with Google Maps) or pointing to the object names, e.g. for NGC 4151:


 * Data and links about NGC4151 from SIMBAD (including links to 1914 research articles about NGC 4151!)
 * Spectral Energy Distribution of NGC4151 from NED (i.e. what it emits)

Everyone in astronomy uses these databases every day, so why doesn't Wikipedia use them? Rnt20 08:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * By convention the references go down in their own section, rather than being included in a template. The template entries could then be tagged with appropriate references. &mdash; RJH 18:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * But I do like how the SIMBAD link has been applied to some of the star infobox table titles. Hopefully that link won't rot. :) &mdash; RJH 21:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Extrasolar planet template sequence
I'd like to propose the following template sequence for dealing with extrasolar planets:

planetbox begin
 * name

planetbox image
 * image
 * caption

planetbox orbit planetbox observe planetbox microlens planetbox character planetbox discovery planetbox end This has the advantage of being able to cope with the various discovery methods - at present, planets detected by imaging or microlensing are poorly served by the current template. It also can be extended if other categories of properties are thought necessary.
 * Orbital parameters (for objects whose orbits have been determined - radial velocity and astrometric orbits would go here)
 * Semi-major axis (a)
 * Eccentricity (e)
 * Orbital period (P)
 * Inclination (i)
 * Argument of periastron (&omega;)
 * Time of periastron (&tau;)
 * Observed position (for objects detected by imaging whose orbital parameters are largely unknown, e.g. 2M1207b)
 * Observed separation (d)
 * Microlensing parameters (for objects detected by microlensing, e.g. OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb)
 * Observed separation (d) (optionally specify in terms of Einstein radius or AU)
 * Mass ratio (q)
 * Normalised impact parameter (u0)
 * Einstein ring radius crossing time (tE)
 * Time of closest approach (t0)
 * Angle of source motion (&theta;)
 * Physical characteristics
 * Mass (optionally specify Jupiter or Earth masses)
 * Radius (optionally specify Jupiter or Earth radii)
 * Density
 * Temperature
 * Discovery
 * Discovery date
 * Detection method(s)
 * Discoverer(s)

Another issue to consider is that some quantities may be expressed in different units (e.g. days/years, Jupiter masses/Earth masses), and the present template leaves question marks if one of the units isn't used, even though the data is present. Perhaps this calls for esoteric template features, or maybe not having specified units for these quantities.

Any thoughts or suggestions? Chaos syndrome 17:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've made a mockup of this with all sections in (in practice this is an unlikely setup - most likely only one of orbit/position/microlens will be used). This is based on the starbox template sequence. One of my concerns here is the colour scheme - the links in the headers is blue on blue, if they are visited then purple on blue, neither of which is very visible. Probably to get around this may need a change of colour scheme. Any comments? Chaos syndrome 20:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've got a test of this at OGLE 2003-BLG-235L Chaos syndrome 17:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I like this new box. &mdash;  Hurricane Dev  o  n  @ 18:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be nice if you could include somehow in the discovery section a link to the reference paper on arxiv.org — Nicholas (reply) @


 * Ideally, that should be done in the references section of the page. The problem would be trying to get this to work with Cite.php, especially if the article also references the same source, in which case you'd have to handle the situation of already having a defined name or having to define a name in the template, which could get tricky. Chaos syndrome 18:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Enceladus Peer Review
The article for Enceladus (moon) is currently undergoing peer review before a push for Featured Article Status. The article underwent a peer review in February prior to a set of articles in the journal Science on discoveries made by Cassini at Enceladus. If this peer review is successful, I hope to make the Enceladus article a Featured Article Candidate next week. --Volcanopele 17:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Naming convention for DSOs?
Is there a set naming convention regarding Deep Sky Objects? I have seen the titles of articles all over the place without a clear pattern and some of them have recently changed title without clear reasoning (often by User:Hurricane Devon. I've seen Messier objects renamed to obscure so called proper names and now Messier 60 is at Arp 116! (I'll change this one back though.) What exactly is the naming convention here? I myself propose either type-number like in Open Cluster M35 or simply number like in NGC 3132 unless there is a clear and well established proper name like in Crab Nebula.--Kalsermar 18:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have just been made aware that there is already a discussion regarding naming further up this talk page. I do maintain that a strict policy is in order and that proper names should only be used when they are widely known throughout the astronomical community.--Kalsermar 21:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Planetbox classification
Template:Planetbox classification has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Chaos syndrome 11:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

New look for box headers
I've always thought the object name floating outside a lot of the infoboxes used in astronomy articles looks odd. I just edited starbox begin to try out a new look, which I think is an improvement (though I'm not sure whether the increased font size is really necessary). What does anyone think of it? If other people like it, the other infoboxes could be converted to the same style. Worldtraveller 17:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The style was different from the standard form being used for the other AO templates. I believe a consensus is needed before such arbitrary style changes are imposed. For now I've reverted it. The suggested look is here:, which changes the font style and includes the name within the table box. Note that this may have a negative impact on the appearance of some of the other templates. Thanks. &mdash; RJH 18:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I believe consensus is needed too, hence my request for opinions, you see. Please elaborate on what negative impacts there might be.  Worldtraveller 19:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Enlarged font format may look fine in one browser but lousy in another, particularly if the name is overly long and expands the table excessively. There can be aesthetic issues with the color format of the other table rows, as well as cases where there is an image at the top. Finally the caption format is a widely accepted form for HTML tables, when it is included at all. (Personally I'd be all for getting rid of the name field altogether as it is redundant with the page title and text.) Thanks. :) &mdash; RJH 18:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, like I say, the font enlarging was just an idea - the main point was to not have the object name outside the table it's supposed to be the header of. Not sure what you mean about caption format?  I'd also be in favour of dropping the name at the top of the table as well - I can't think of any examples of where it wouldn't be redundant either with a section title or the page title.  Worldtraveller 18:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I had a look through the other WikiProjects to see how they are handling the same issue with their Infoboxes. The convention seems to be to include the title within the borders, in bold font (not enlarged), and using the color background theme of the box. &mdash; RJH

Something comparable to this: ...moved below under Style #2


 * Not bad so far. Let's have a full set of examples so we can discuss this further.
 * Urhixidur 14:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'd prefer the current style, and I think other templates do have the title outside the box, eg, Template:Infobox Organization. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JamesHoadley (talk • contribs) 15:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC).


 * I like this style, having a large heading row is distracting. I don't have a particular visual preference for having the title inside or outside the box, but I'm not entirely sure using the caption as a title outputs semantic HTML (I'd suspect table header cells are more correct for this purpose). Chaos syndrome 15:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC).


 * I would assume that the new style would also apply to Minor Planet. The Name inside the infobox (in bold, standard font) makes sense and looks good to me. To make the boxes more homogenous (and avoid a direct background colour clash) I would suggest taking the category row up, under the name, as you do for other AO below, with colour-coded categories (to be agreed, e.g. Main Belt, Plutino, Scattered etc).Eurocommuter 16:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC) Could someone provide such a modified Minor Planet example, please?. I tried but while I can read HTML I haven’t got a handle on the 'wiki dialect' yet. )

What needs to happen is a threefold process:
 * 1) Decide whether we even need these extraneous headers. The page already has a H1 element of the same name. This is just a duplication of that data and provides no additional information. (Though on pages with multiple boxes maybe this would not be true)
 * 2) Once that's done, and if its decided that it be kept, decide whether a TH cell with an all-column scope is a good idea. it goes against my gut instincts of what a TABLE should contain, but CAPTION is definitely the wrong markup (CAPTION should be a terse prose description of the table).
 * 3) Only then can we faf around with what colours to make it. IMHO the Eros box looks good with a yellow top, but the Orion Nebula box didn't look good with a red top. The nebula box doesn't look good at all to be frank.

I would say that the tables shouldn't have a header at all, since the H1 element of the page provides that. Thus points 2 and 3 don't apply anyway. — Nicholas (reply) @ 02:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Going by the Help:Infobox content, it looks like having a name of some sort is accepted practice, even though it's redundant and can seem a little silly (IMO). But I suppose the title at least has the benefit of clarifying any potential ambiguity if additional tables are added later. The examples in the List of infoboxes are all over the map in terms of header format (including borders, coloration, cell spacing, &c) with style #2 below being somewhat more common. &mdash; RJH 16:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think repeating the article's topic is not breaking any "rules". Remember, that the title is repeated at the beginning of the text in bold. I would prefer to keep the header, and I agree that it looks better "inside" the box. I disagree with having a color background "just because". Where it does make sense to me is when tying together the top and lower part of a section with a larger image as the center. For instance for Eros, having the name on top and the caption with the same bgcolor (even if its grey) looks good to me. However, I feel that is just what I am most used to, not an objective design decision. It does certainly look bad, if there is nothing "in between" but filler space or the color changes (See both style #2 examples), though!! Awolf002 17:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Quick opinions: either of the new styles is better than the current setup, but I think the name looks too plain in Style #1, and it blends in too much in Style #2. Ardric47 00:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't like the centred properties (e.g. Discoverer, Discovery date in the asteroid template), it looks messy. I'll agree that the heading is not prominent enough on the #2 style. Style #1 is ok (though it would be best to preview these in the context of an article to get an idea of how they interact with the page elements), though I think there is too much of a gap between the title text and the top border. Chaos syndrome 18:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Star-planetbox primary
Template:Star-planetbox primary has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Also nominated are Star-planetbox secondary, Star-planetbox end which are members of the same template sequence. Chaos syndrome 14:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)