Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 10

Big Bang RfC (Part II)
The latest RfC (administratively closed on 18 March) confirmed that there should be a presence of a brief "religious and philosophical implications" section in the Big Bang article. Which draft should be selected to appear in the section? Please participate in the RfC if you feel called to do so. With regards, AnupamTalk 00:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Plasma cosmology linking
(Cross-posted from WT:PHYS.)

User has been adding links to Plasma cosmology to several astronomy-related articles. Vetting of the additions would be handy, as I feel that in most cases this gives undue weight to the model. I'm not prepared to put in the time required myself (on semi-sabbatical).

Be warned that plasma cosmology has come up at arbcom in the past (it was one of the main dispute areas that prompted WP:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, per the "findings of fact" heading on that page). So, there's a nonzero chance of spirited debate occurring. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing this out. We certainly shouldn't be adding fringe theories to the See Also sections of articles like Radio galaxy. I've removed a few, but don't have much time for more. Another pair of eyes would be helpful. Modest Genius talk 09:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

More editors weighing in with their thoughts on this topic would be helpful, as Aarghdvaark has been arguing on both my talk page and MG's that it shouldn't be considered "fringe". So far he's resisted attempts to steer him towards this page for centralized discussion, instead preferring to debate with individual editors. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 04:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to chase him around on other people's talk pages, but I can say something on Talk:Plasma cosmology if you like. I agree with your stance. If he wants to provide more modern citations to justify that Plasma Cosmology is not fringe, he is welcome to do so. But it should not be linked from other astronomy articles, unless there has been some actual new work done since the early 90s. I've not seen any evidence of that. - Parejkoj (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Responses here (this thread) are all I was looking for. If there's consensus that this is fringe and doesn't belong in most articles, then I want to be able to point to a discussion (presumably this one) that establishes that consensus. If there's significant disagreement about it, that's important for me to know too. Either way, location of the thread is less important than participation in it. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that it is reasonable to add links to the article in the body of articles where relevant. From the looks of what already links to plasma cosmology, it seems that that has already been done. The links to plasma cosmology that were added to "See also" sections do not appear to have been relevant, and I support their removal. James McBride (talk) 02:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've now found this page, Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC). I've not been resisting "attempts to steer him [me] towards this page for centralized discussion", as there was no mention that the discussion should be moved here. It is also cross-posted, which doesn't help to keep it in one place. I discussed with the users concerned why they had removed the links, and whilst that discussion is ongoing I have not re-inserted the links. Modest Genius removed links and gave as the reason the links were "not relevant". I think his reason was wrong, as discussed on his talk page, and it appears the actual reason should have been that he believes plasma cosmology is fringe science.


 * Christopher Thomas removed a link and started this discussion here (though he didn't notify me that he had started this discussion, which is kind of rude). He gave as his reason "not notable", which is fair enough, the reason being that he too believes plasma cosmology is fringe science. He has thought about what constitutes fringe science and has developed criteria for distinguishing between 'fringe science' and 'non-mainstream but respected science'. I used his criteria to show that, on his criteria, plasma cosmology was not fringe science (see User talk:Christopher Thomas). Which is when he pointed me to this discussion. His argument currently rests, I think, on saying that the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science is not a respectable peer-reviewed journal, an argument which is clearly untenable. So, where I think we are at the moment is that the reason the links were removed is because it was thought that plasma cosmology is fringe science, and that Christopher Thomas has failed to demonstrate that plasma cosmology is fringe science following his own criteria.


 * I would in particular dispute the removal of the link from Galaxy rotation curve as not being relevant, because plasma cosmology specifically claims to explain flat rotation curves for spiral galaxies, as is observed and is problematic for other theories. Note, all these disputed links were in "See Also" sections rather than in the main body because I accept that plasma cosmology is not mainstream. Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the general policy on wikipedia is to try to integrate "See also" links in to the body. For stubby articles, they can be okay, but as an article is developed, the links should be integrated in to the text of the article. So if plasma cosmology merits a mention in the "Alternatives to dark matter", then the link should be there. If plasma cosmology does not merit mention there, then I do not think it should be linked at all. My own gut feeling is that it should not be mentioned, in large part because there does not appear to have been any work on it in over a decade. Given how much our understanding of cosmology has changed in that time, such as the discovery of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, and the lack of work, it seems that there is no one currently in the field who thinks plasma cosmology is a viable alternative to Big Bang cosmology. So, I guess I see this as 'historical non-mainstream science'. If that is not correct, and there is recent work on plasma cosmology that provides explanations for observations such as the accelerating expansion, I think it would have a better case for inclusion. James McBride (talk) 06:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is any recent work suggesting plasma cosmology is an alternative to the big bang. I would like to have put that stronger, but obviously I can't speak for what people think. I don't think nowadays plasma cosmology is about being an alternative to the big bang; you may be thinking of Alfvén-Klein cosmology which is an old plasma cosmology theory? What plasma cosmology claims nowadays is that "Ionized gases, or plasmas, play the central part in plasma cosmology's explanation for the development of the universe, which is thus dominated largely by electrodynamic forces rather than gravitational forces". That's not exactly what I believe, but no matter. So it claims to explain things like the flat rotation curves of spiral galaxies, but does not claim things about the accelerating expansion of the universe (as yet, obviously plasma cosmologists would love to do that). Aarghdvaark (talk) 09:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"Plasma cosmology" is pretty vaguely defined, but big chunks of the material and ideas that are often attributed to it are unquestionably fringe science. Certainly that's the case for much of what's in the current wiki article. I'm not aware of a single paper on plasma cosmology published in a respectable astrophysical journal, at least not in the last 20-30 years (not that a single paper would make it notable anyway). It should not be mentioned in any article on mainstream astrophysics or cosmology, as such a mention would clearly violate WP:RSUW.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 13:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In reply to the "not in the last 20-30 years", there was e.g. a special edition on Space and Cosmic Plasma in IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Aug 2007, and a previous special issue in 2003. So, no we're not talking about a single paper. Aarghdvaark (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That's not a "respectable astrophysics journal". It's not an astrophysics journal at all, or even a physics journal, it's  engineering.  Their own description is "Subject: Engineered Materials, Dielectrics & Plasmas ;  Power, Energy, & Industry Applications ;  Signal Processing & Analysis".  As I said, I am not aware of a single paper on this topic published in a respectable astrophysical journal, at least not in the last 20-30 years.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 16:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It does what it says on the tin: plasmas. You need to very careful with comments about IEEE Transactions, they are top peer-reviewed journals. You are almost making the argument: "Theory A is correct and theory B is wrong. Therefore any journal which publishes on theory B must lack credibility. No credible journal publishes on theory B. Therefore theory B is wrong. QED." Ironically of course, this would establish mainstream cosmology as pseudo-science since it could not be falsified. On a similar vein, I came across [this] which might be of interest. It's a peer-reviewed article on "over-competitive research funding" which claims to empirically test how one theory can obtain a monopoly position. It uses as a case study three main theories of cosmology: the Big Bang, Steady State and Plasma Universe! Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I said "I'm not aware of a single paper on plasma cosmology published in a respectable astrophysical journal". You brought up the this journal as if it were an example of such.  It is not. It is not even an astrophysics journal, let alone a respectable one.


 * You are almost making the argument: "Theory A is correct and theory B is wrong. Therefore any journal which publishes on theory B must lack credibility. No credible journal publishes on theory B. Therefore theory B is wrong. QED." I made no such argument.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 04:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I did say almost. But you are trying to disallow a perfectly respectable journal on plasmas from being considered as a journal allowed or qualified to do creditable research into plasma cosmology. I think science should be open to everyone who follows the scientific method and should be open to challenges to orthodoxy. Because otherwise whatever you are doing it is not science.


 * This discussion started out on whether plasma cosmology is fringe science. I think I've done enough above to show that it isn't fringe science on the criteria developed by Christopher Thomas. Anyway, 'fringe science' is not a good term to use since it means different things to different people. I think the term coined by James McBride above: 'historical non-mainstream science' is appropriate, with the caveat that there are still a few scientists researching in the field. BTW I am not one of them. Aarghdvaark (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The fact that a supposed theory of cosmology isn't being published in any journals which specialise in cosmology is a pretty big indication that it's a fringe theory. I agree it's not mainstream and therefore irrelevant, which was the whole point in removing the links in the first place. Plasma cosmology should rightly have it's own article and be discussed in its historical context. But it shouldn't be linked to unrelated topics. Modest Genius talk 11:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Fringe seems to be a very problematic word. There is an article on fringe theory and an article on fringe science. Fringe theory doesn't seem to be self-consistent, in that the diagram says fringe means "Treated with scientific method" but the introduction says "Examples include ideas that purport to be scientific theories". Obviously something is either done scientifically or it isn't. Fringe science at least recognizes the different meanings, saying it means either "Fringe science is scientific inquiry ... that departs significantly from mainstream ... and is classified in the "fringes" of a credible mainstream academic discipline", or the term "covers everything from novel hypotheses that can be tested via scientific method to wild ad hoc theories and "New Age mumbo jumbo" with the dominance of the latter resulting in the tendency to dismiss all fringe science as the domain of pseudoscientists, hobbyists, or quacks". That's why I think we should not use the term (unless we define what we are talking about before), and I suggest the choice should be between non-mainstream and pseudoscience.


 * "not mainstream and therefore irrelevant" - non-mainstream and irrelevant are not synonyms. The articles on fringe keep quoting continental drift as an example of a theory that was for a long time considered a fringe theory. Clearly not irrelevant. Aarghdvaark (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The theory of continental drift was irrelevant to encyclopaedia articles on tangentially-related topics (e.g. palaeontology, biodiversity), up until scientific thinking evolved and it became mainstream. Besides, I'm not sure what you're arguing about now, other than dictionary definitions of what exactly 'fringe theory' and 'fringe science' mean. I don't see how the precise definitions change whether or not plasma cosmology should be linked to from articles to which it is not relevant. Modest Genius talk 09:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Defining fringe science is important, because we might be arguing at cross purposes as fringe science covers a multitude of things and has differing definitions. I think the conclusion of all the above is that whilst plasma cosmology is fringe science, it is fringe science in the narrow sense of the term, i.e. valid but non-mainstream science, rather than fruit-loopery. But you again make non-mainstream synonymous with irrelevant, I'm sorry but I seem to have missed a step there. Aarghdvaark (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * p.s. I've mentioned this discussion at Talk:Plasma cosmology. Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Edits to dark matter could use vetting
has recently received significant edits from. Vetting would be handy, as significant amounts of material have been "condensed" (per edit summaries) or outright removed. The user appears to be acting in good faith, but eyes on this from people who have kept up with the field would definitely be welcome. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I looked over the edits. He/she removed a couple of paragraphs that were rambling and probably redundant. The result looks a bit better to my eyes. - Parejkoj (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Original research by IP user
Please take a look at Conversion between Julian and Gregorian calendars. An IP user is inserting original research and inserting erroneous statements, such as there being no such thing as a year 0, even in a context where years like "-500" are used. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on the talk page is going no where so I have referred this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Eagle Nebula/Pillars of Creation merger
I've suggested a merger of Eagle Nebula and Pillars of Creation. Join the discussion if you are so inclined. James McBride (talk) 07:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Table of stellar masses vs substances ejected and remnant core?
While reading articles on stellar evolution, processes of element synthesis, and how stars end up, I've been looking for some kind of overview of the connections between: I'm thinking of a table of stellar mass on the left (solar masses), and the other properties in various partly overlapping coloumns. Is there such a table or overview in any existing article, or could it be made? Eddi (Talk) 00:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Initial stellar mass, size, core temperature/pressure and surface temperature
 * Time spent on the main series, and size/mass when leaving the main series
 * Typical requirements (mass/temperature/pressure etc.) for ignition of various fuels, their time of burning, processes involved and substances produced
 * Results in terms of type of explosive event (if any), substances ejected and remnant core, if any (e.g. black hole, white dwarf)
 * Notes on how initial composition (metallicity etc.) or lifetime events (e.g. collisions, accretion) influence evolution
 * Hello Eddi. We've got an article on main sequence stars that covers some of these topics at a high level. There's also a forked article on stellar mass that I'm planning on expanding. But I don't think it would hurt to include such a table, or perhaps create a list article that the others could link to. It would need to be reliably sourced, of course, which may be a challenge. Unsourced information is subject to removal over time. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the links, those articles are very interesting :) Although I'm tempted to compose some kind of table or list on this subject, if only for my own interest, I think I'd fail in sourcing it reliably since I'm not educated in astronomy.  Of course I could make a note on where I found each piece of information, typically some paragraph in some Wikipedia article on some date.  Would that be somewhat reliable? Eddi (Talk) 00:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The references just need to satisfy Reliable sources. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Since I'm not familiar with the appropriate secondary sources (astrophysical journals etc), I cannot publish such a table or overview, so I'll probably not write it. Thanks anyway.  Eddi (Talk) 23:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Chapter 10 of Stars and Stellar Evolution by de Boer and Seggewiss (2008) may have a lot of the information you need. At least it looks pretty good to me. If you can find a copy in a library somewhere, that may serve as a starting point. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Constellation
Hello all, I know that the Constellations task force is dead, but I was wondering if anyone was interested in collaborating on improving the constellation articles. They're in abysmal shape - the only one of decent quality is Andromeda (constellation), which was only promoted to GA a few days ago. Please do let me know if you're interested! :) Keilana | Parlez ici 16:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a handful of constellation articles that are in semi-decent shape. C.f. Vital_articles/Expanded/Physical_sciences. I've been trying to get Taurus (constellation) up to snuff, but I ran out of ideas. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's still a lot of start-class articles though. :( Taurus looks good, have you considered submitting it for GAN? Keilana | Parlez ici 17:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * True, but many of those constellations are pretty minor. It might be more efficient to focus on the top 10–20 best known ones. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is true. Keilana | Parlez ici 20:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Updating Template:Stars of Centaurus
Quoting from the template's talk page, since i got no answer there for a while:


 * -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. A comparable addition has been made to the Stars of Taurus template, which you could use as an example. The "R Centauri" is a variable star designation while the other is an X-ray source. They could be placed into an "Other" row. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * TY. That would work out great IMO, already implemented it. :D -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Astronomy related RM needs expert input
This RM Talk:Gliese 370 needs expert input on star naming to ensure an informed title decision can be made. Thanks -- Mike Cline (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Monthly Astronomy Today's Featured Articles
I'd like to have one astronomy article be featured on the main page each month. However, there are only five left which have not been featured on the main page. Which means that we will run out in about 5 months. Five months is a long time, so there is plenty of time to promote more articles to FA status. If you can make at least one per month, then we can keep pace. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally I'm taking a long break from pushing astronomy articles through the FA process. Not sure if anybody else is working on bringing articles to FA any more, so you may have to do it yourself. Alternatively you could shoot for a more realistic 'once per quarter'. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why exactly do you want an arbitrary rate of one per month? Modest Genius talk 22:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The TFA rules prefer to have a subject featured on the main page once a month. So there will be one Astronomy article featured for roughly the next five months. If we can make one new FA per month, then we can keep pace. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you may be misinterpreting the "rules" as such. The WP:TFAR guidelines are intended to prevent a specific theme from dominating the front page. Hence, it applies point penalties if another article on a similar topic appeared within the past month. This means that the rate should be no more than once per month; not that it should be exactly one per month.
 * In fact, some editors may not want certain articles to appear on the front page, and the FA team respects that. You might want to check with the primary editors to see if they have a problem with this activity. Regards, RJH (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no preference whatsoever for having a topic appear once a month expressed anywhere in the TFA and TFAR pages. Indeed, TFAR gives higher preference to topics which have NOT recently appeared on the Main Page. The only relevance of the one month period is that's the first point at which articles are not actually penalised. There's nothing wrong with promoting astronomy articles of course, but if the pool is emptying then the flow should be reduced accordingly. Modest Genius talk 11:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Harizotoh9's point is to increase the flow into the pool so that the rate of one per month can be sustained. This seems like a nice idea, be great to see at least moral support for it.  He has mine. Rich Farmbrough, 16:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC).


 * Mmm... yes I think we got that part. As the saying goes, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. Have you noticed the significant decline in the number of technology and hard science articles making their way through the FAC lately? I think there's an underlying problem with the way the current process works because, to me, it primarily appeals to topics in the humanities and entertainment. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the decline's more due to the sheer amount of work necessary to get a sci/tech article up to FAC standard. Unless one does a little-known astronomer or an irregular satellite etc., there's a huge quantity of material to synthesise. And non-specialist reviewers often feel intimidated about commenting on a sci/tech article, which doesn't seem to happen with the humanities. But there's always a steady stream of bio articles on lesser-known species! Iridia (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it can be long, tedious process to progress an article from GA to FA, and to me it doesn't seem all that rewarding. There's a lot of little details that need to be corrected and obscure grammatical issues to resolve. Plus the reviews can be brutal and demotivating. It was very enlightening to go through the process, but I've come to feel that bringing articles up to GA quality is the more enjoyable part of the task. regards, RJH (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On the 27th, the article Kuiper Belt has been selected to run. No one nominated it. It was selected by the people who run TFA. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreement between NASA and Worldbook has expired
Quite a few science articles have used the NASA Worldbook web pages as references or external links. Unfortunately that agreement has expired, so those sources are no longer directly available. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:DEADLINK seems to apply here. Tag them with dead link and/or add an archive link and move on. Modest Genius talk 10:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * True. Thanks. RJH (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: S Pegasi
Rescued from the dustbin, needs help from an expert. V602 Carinae still Prod'ed, unable to find any online source. Dru of Id (talk) 09:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Plenty of sources on V602 Car, but I don't know if any of them cover it in sufficient detail to pass WP:NASTRO. Modest Genius talk 10:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Posted your search at Talk:V602 Carinae; de-Prod'ed with 'Online sources posted to Talk:V602 Carinae; on List of largest stars, valid discrete search term deserves discussion if Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects) can be met or Merged/Redirected.'

Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact sources and images
Yes, it's me again, asking about the article "Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact." I was wondering if anyone here has access to the numerous non-free sources available for this article, as there are very few free ones left. I would like whoever has such access to then add material to the article, as this would give a broader set of views to the article. In particular, not only would I like general sources, but sources related to robotic contact with extraterrestrial intelligence (as happened in 2001: A Space Odyssey, for example).

In addition, I would like to request images for the article, since Image Requests appears to be long dead. Wer900 talkessay on the definition of consensus 00:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Wer900. I'd just like to make an observation that the Ecological section seems a little one-sided in its perspective. How likely is it that a pathogen that evolved for an entirely different ecosystem would have a negative impact on our own? Could the article could clarify the point that pathogens are usually highly adapted for their hosts and environments, and therefore are not necessarily malicious to terrestrial life forms? Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly. I had mentioned that they may be ill-suited, but I should give it more weight. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 21:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's impossible to say for certain, of course. Regards, RJH (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. But would you be able to find anyone to follow through on my original request? Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 20:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I sure can't, sorry. Some alumni associations give you access to the university libraries and online journal databases, if that is applicable. In fact I'm tempted to rejoin mine because they provide access to the EBSCO database. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I've recently lost access to everything except free sources and MNRAS. Which doesn't help much. Modest Genius talk 22:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Andromeda (constellation) is at WP:FAC

 * Andromeda (constellation) is at WP:FAC– Ling.Nut3 (talk) 05:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * W00t. Keilana | Parlez ici 21:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Observing the Moon
has been requested to be renamed. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Discussion here. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion has closed without producing a clear consensus. I would be grateful if this project's members would review the discussion, consider the points raised and propose any appropriate action. Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be any strong preference for one particular action, although an upmerge was proposed by several participants. Personally I suggest just leaving it alone for now. The category name serves its purpose and there are better things to spend time on. Regards, RJH (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

PROD of Quadrant (astronomy)‎
Based on a failure to find any corroborating sources, I added a PROD tag to the Quadrant (astronomy)‎ article. The article creator was notified and I expect he may de-PROD it, after which I'll take it through AfD. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I de-prodded it. It's a perfectly reasonable technical term, albeit rather antiquated and rarely used these days. Sources:   etc., for hundreds more run an ADS search for 'galactic quadrant'. I would support a merge to galactic quadrant though. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 21:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, well the validity of galactic quadrant wasn't in question, which all of your sources use. Do you know of any sources that support the use of quadrants based upon the equatorial coordinate system, which is how this article uses the term? I couldn't find any. If not, then a simple redirect should suffice, followed by removal of the link and field from constellation infobox. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I may have misunderstood. You're right, I can't find any references to an Earth-centred equatorial quadrant system (though I did spot a couple for other solar-system bodies). So please consider my objection withdrawn. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. Perhaps it's not a completely unreasonable notion, but unfortunately it appears to be OR as best I can tell. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

AfD listed at Articles for deletion/Quadrant (astronomy). Dru of Id (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Transit of Venus
Transit of Venus will be "today's featured article" on the main page on June 5 (it will be the second article to have appeared twice on the main page). Please have a look at the article and the related articles that it links to (like Transit of Venus, 2012), and monitor them during the transit when they will receive a lot of attention. Johnuniq (talk) 10:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

AfD: "Changes of the length of day"
I nominated the article "Changes of the length of day" because it is redundant with "Solar time" and "Earth's rotation". Jc3s5h (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification. I've added the topic to the science deletion sorting list, which tends to draw useful responses for these types of articles. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Lmp
template:Lmp has been nominated for deletion. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Mu Canis Majoris
AfD. Dru of Id (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Considering the state of the article when the creator built it, do we need to inspect the many astronomy articles that has touched to check for errors in terminology? (A, AB, AC, AD in star naming, for instance). *UPDATE* Arggh, it seems like his habit for these things (AE, AD, etc)  Without having a separate B component... AND many more typographical errors such as this exceedingly large HR number... "HR 102897"70.24.251.208 (talk) 07:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * After conversing with Benkenobi18 (see user talk: Benkenobi18) he doesn't seem amenable to going through his own creations to fix the obvious errors that crop up in his work that have been shown with the activity at Mu CMa, and will leave fixing them to others. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 03:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:TNO dwarf planet candidates
has been nominated for deletion. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 07:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Infobox questions
Hello all, I was wondering what the "Bayer/Flamsteed stars" and "main stars" parameters mean in the constellation infobox. I sort of assumed the latter referred to stars that were a part of the "figure", but I'm not sure. (This was asked at the FAC for Andromeda). Thanks for your help! Keilana | Parlez ici 16:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * My impression was that "Bayer/Flamsteed stars" is supposed to be the number of stars in the constellation that have a Bayer or Flamsteed designation, given as e.g. "14/26". I've no idea what "main stars" is for. There's some previous discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_constellation. Actual usage appears to be inconsistent. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 22:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, ok. Are there any reliable sources for that, or are we supposed to bust out an atlas and count them ourselves? I'm tempted to remove "main stars" as no one seems to know or use it the same way. Keilana | Parlez ici 01:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think "main stars" is the number of stars that make up the asterism (star pattern)? Or that's the impression it gives me. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, we could (semi-arbitrarily) define them as the minimum number of stars connected by lines on the IAU constellation charts. Regards, RJH (talk) 04:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Works for me. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm good with that. I'll make sure that's the case for whatever I'm working on. Keilana | Parlez ici 05:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * So... should I update the template documentation with our consensus that main stars means the stars that make up the star pattern? 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems like a good idea. Keilana | Parlez ici 06:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I added a comment to Template:Infobox_constellation/doc. Hope that's okay. Several of the other fields could do with definitions. Regards, RJH (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Article Request: List of astronomical phenomena visible from Earth
Today's transit of Venus got me wondering what other astronomical phenomenon are coming up in the next few years. I looked to see if we had such an article, but apparently we don't. I'm therefore requesting a List of astronomical phenomena visible from Earth article. I realize that such a list might be unwieldy, but not if we get the inclusion criteria right. Off the top of my head, I suggest the following as a starting point: My hope is to have an article that would be of interest to the average person who would find such information helpful. Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Must be visible from Earth with the naked eye.
 * 2) Must be notable on its own.


 * So we're talking eclipses, transits (are Mercury transits visible with the naked eye?), occultations of naked-eye stars, maybe some comets? I like it, and I'll attempt to help. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The word phenomenon is singular. The word phenomena is plural.  Please see phenomenon and phenomena.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the correction. I have fixed the error above.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Would this include theoretically visible events? Or those that have actual recorded evidence that they were seen at the time? (several astronomic explosions come to mind that were theoretically visible...) 70.24.251.208 (talk) 06:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd think they would have to be recorded as being visible, to confirm it being visible to the naked eye. But this is a great idea! Keilana | Parlez ici 15:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * We should have a heirarchy of lists, like for astronomical objects (ie. List of astronomical objects leads to other lists), so a list of astronomical phenomena or list of astronomical events would lead to the list of visible ones. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Maps of astronomical bodies
Category:Maps of astronomical bodies has been nominated for deletion. Do we have any articles on various maps? (The only notable ones I can think of are for Mars, or 17th century ones of the Moon... but I don't know if we have articles on them) -- 70.24.251.208 (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Selenography is the only one I'm aware of. It looks like the Areography link just points to the Geography of Mars article. There's a good potential to write a stand-alone article on Mars mapping, although it is somewhat covered by History of Mars observation. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Images in categories
There are three random images in Category:Sun. Is that acceptable to the members of this WikiProject. I have instigated a RfC at about image in categories at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the problem. That category should contain only fair-use images; all free-use images belong on Commons. All three of those are PD-gov and I'm moving them to Commons now. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Moved. I believe the issue is no longer very relevant to this Wikiproject. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think that content categories should categorize images. There have been several attempts through the years to categorize images in a separate image tree, and as subcategories of content categories, but at CFD some of these have been deleted as being small and then upmerged into content categories, so it's just a mess. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

it.wiki
While fixing Mu Canis Majoris, Kheider noticed that the Italian article was dealing with the wrong star (MU Canis Majoris instead of &mu; Canis Majoris), can someone ask Italian Wikipedia to fix that? 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It probably didn't help that a SIMBAD query for Mu Canis Majoris returns the results for MU Canis Majoris. Regards, RJH (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Using lower case avoids this problem (which makes sense, since it's a lower case &mu; not the upper case &Mu;). Anyway, my Italian isn't good enough. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll have to keep that in mind. (Maybe SIMBAD needs to have disambiguation pages? ) Regards, RJH (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Renaming the Italian article to MU will atleast place that article at the correct name for its star. Creating a stub for mu should be simple enough :

mu Canis Majoris è una stella situata nella costellazione del Cane Maggiore.


 * -- 70.24.251.208 (talk) 06:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone has renamed the Italian article. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll rename the article to "&mu; Canis Majoris" to avoid the naming ambiguity. The redirect will remain but the MU vs. μ conflict will be resolved. I can't do that. Silly me. Wer900 • <sup style="position:relative">talk • coordination<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-16ex;*left:-25ex;">consensus defined 21:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Strange Venus Transit image.
Quick question for solar photographers here: the image File:2012 Transit of Venus from Shelby Township.jpg was recently added to Transit of Venus, 2012, but the composition seems very odd to me. The solar disc itself is warped with dark edges, but there's a very prominent corona also visible. None of the other transit pics have anything like this. Is this two images merged, something photoshopped, or completely normal? — Huntster (t @ c) 06:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In my personal opinion, it looks photoshopped, the corona must be a separate image, since it can't be that bright with the disc of the Sun visible. The Sun even looks like it's shadowed, which is impossible, since the entire surface is a light source, and that limb of the Sun is darker than sunspots. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 06:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Photoshop. -- Kheider (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * And badly at that. Good call on the removal. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The image is currently up for deletion discussion on Commons. The uploader states the photo is "100% real", no photoshopping, and has mentioned some details of equipment used. Informed feedback is welcome at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:2012 Transit of Venus from Shelby Township.jpg -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, Infrogmation, it completely slipped my mind. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The sun is a nearly-perfect sphere. The image... really, really isn't. It's not even elliptical (as you might get from phone photos of some projection scheme). They're going to need a better cut-and-paste job before any "100% real" or "it's a new filter!" claim is plausible. They claim that their image is approved by everyone and their kid brother and has an award and yadda yadda, but there is a suspicious lack of verifiability in those claims. --Christopher Thomas (talk)


 * Yadda Yadda Yadda! Excuse Me! This is real! I say that some of you are either jealous or just a bunch of trolls. This is a new customized filter that my astronomy club were working with and this is from an iPod, not a professional camera. This is the first you've seen something like this. Trust me, you'll see more in the upcoming years or maybe even months. I did absolutely nothing to edit this picture. I CAN'T AFFORD PHOTOSHOP. I don't have money to just spend like that. Im not a professional photographer. I wouldn't even call my self amateur. Wikipedia is a free site that anyone can edit. Like I said, I don't have tons of knowledge on the sun or photography. I just don't appreciate that you are intimidating an noob like me. — Bugattijoe (@) 04:10 June 18, 2012 (UTC)--Bugattijoe (talk) 04:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please use simple and direct text (about the issue), without commentary. You are saying the picture is unretouched and its unique appearance is due to some new technology—wouldn't that be sufficient to explain why other editors do not find the image helpful as it is unique (an outlier). If the other editors are wrong it is because the image is unique, not because they are trolls. I accept what you are saying but the explanation suggests the image is not suitable for Wikipedia because there is no way to verify how it was taken or why it shows significantly different features when compared with other images. Johnuniq (talk) 04:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "photoshopped" does not mean you used Adobe Photoshop, it means the images was modified using photomanipulation techniques popularized with Photoshop. You could easily have used GIMP or some other software package, or did it in a photolab the old fashion way with film printers and celluloid overlays. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If it is real, you are going to have to prove it (as required by WP:V), as several editors have expressed serious doubts about it. If the Warren Astronomy Society gave it some form of recognition, as you claim, then link to the appropriate public forum describing that (at present your image is nowhere to be found on their site). Right now, you've been making many claims, but have not given any means of confirming those claims. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Update, for others' benefit: I've found the image, but can't provide a link due to WP:OUTING (they left a fair bit of direct identity information with it). Revealing the link is left to User:Bugattijoe's discretion. My concerns with the image stand, to put it mildly. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Metadata indicates the image has been photoshopped. See the deletion page for my analysis. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't even know what all this gimp-shop stuff is. I already told you, I know the bare minimum about photography. All I know is that I put my iPod to the eyepiece and snapped the picture. You are taking this too seriously. Do some sort of FBI test on it or whatever. I did nothing to this picture. — Bugattijoe (@) 04:10 June 18, 2012 (UTC)--Bugattijoe (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Good catch, Pi; that gives a pretty strong indication that this user has been editing in bad faith. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Christopher Thomas emailed the Warren Astronomical Society to ask for "official" comment on the image, so here it is. (Semi-official, since I am just a member and the webmaster of the club.) I can confirm that the photographer was at our transit observing event at Stony Creek Metropark and that he did in fact take a photo with his iPod touch through a Televue 85 telescope with a 60mm Coronado SolarMax Hα filter. The metadata shows that the photo was taken with an iPod touch - though it also, troublingly, shows that it was edited in Photoshop CS6. Joe, it might help everyone understand why it says that if you described how you moved the photo onto your computer and uploaded it around the web.

In any case, it is clearly not an actual photograph of the sun's corona, but Joe has not claimed that it is. It seems unlikely that a lens flare or internal reflection would look so similar to the corona, but who knows. I saw some pretty amazing internal reflections with my cell phone and h-alpha scope. We don't have any formal "photo of the year" award, and we do not normally do photoshop forensics, so I assume that was just the personal opinion of somebody else in the club.--Jonathan.kade (talk) 07:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I see that Joe did mention the corona, but only after another user did. --Jonathan.kade (talk) 07:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information, but this matter has been discussed enough and unless someone has something new and pertinent to add it is reasonable to conclude that there is no support for an addition of the picture. Whether the image was manipulated (as more or less proven by the metadata) is not relevant since there is no encyclopedic benefit from adding an outlier with no verifiable explanation. Wikipedia is not the place to publish such unique material. Johnuniq (talk) 07:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, it does matter, as it affects the degree of scrutiny applied to future contributions from User:Bugattijoe, and whether their actions (and edit-warring) at the Venus transit article are treated as being unintentionally or intentionally disruptive (makes a big difference for the response to any future perceived disruption).


 * If they can do a sufficiently good job of pleading ignorance, that'll help them, so I'm willing to listen to the explanation Jonathan.kade asked for. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It turns out that the image was edited. I was puzzled when the metadata said it was edited on Photoshop because I don't even own Photoshop. So I did my own little investigation to figure out why this is. I found out that when I went to my grandparents house, my cousin was playing with my iPod. (which had my pictures of the transit) He liked them, so he put some of them on his laptop without telling me. He's like amateur photographer and has Photoshop CS6. It's one of the pictures I took with my iPod and he merged it with one of the pictures from a solar eclipse to get the corona. Then played with the colors to get the yellowish look. He then put the picture back on my iPod with all my other pictures. I didn't know any better and I thought I took that picture. I should have noticed that it looked different than all the rest. So I thought it looked good and I thought people would like it, so I wanted to put it on Wikipedia. So I would like to say I'm sorry because I honestly didn't know. So I would like to conclude this discussion and put this all behind everybody. — Bugattijoe (@) 17:40 June 18, 2012 (UTC)--Bugattijoe (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Image has been deleted on Commons. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

New transit image
Bugattijoe has uploaded a new version, without the aberrant corona File:2012 transit of venus from shelby twp.JPG. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That looks exactly like what I'd expect from an iTouch through a 4" scope with a visible light filter (not H-alpha). The limb darkening is pretty awful, but I'm fairly certain that's a result of the mediocre camera. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. I noticed it several days ago, and checked the group's gallery for comparisons. It resembles, but isn't identical to, several of the photos others took, consistent with it being taken through the same telescope at about the same time. Some of the images in the society's gallery have been flipped horizontally (possibly due to display or projection methods), but B's upload seems to match the other ones in the wiki article's gallery. Long story short, it looks fine as far as I can tell. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The edge darkening could also be from spherical aberration with the Sun being slightly off center in the instrument. But yes it seems fine. Regards, RJH (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Aries (constellation) passed GA....impromptu Peer Review helpful
Okay, I passed Aries (constellation) as GA - more input on buffing for FAC I am sure Keilana would appreciate. (comments there not here...) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs)
 * The article is presently undergoing FAC review. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Question on new articles
Hi, I've recently created the Thin disk and Thick disk articles and I'd like to add to both of them the Astronomy banner. What I don't know is how the importance and class parameters are assigned? Should I request some kind of review before putting the banner up? Regards, Gaba p (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, you can use the code below on the talk page. As of now, you can add in the class and importance parameters yourself, under good faith. A formal review is only needed for assigning a class of "GA" or above. Cheers,  S Pat   talk 17:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks SPat. Could you explain a bit what should/could I put in the class, importance, object, attention, infobox & needs-image parameters? Where do I find such information? Thanks. Gaba p (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Documentation is available on the WikiProject Astronomy page. WikiProject Astronomy/Importance ratings is linked from the above template. It provides a model for assigning importance ratings to astronomy articles. Ymmv, of course. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Done, thank you both! Gaba p (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not agree that these two articles meet "B"-class quality, they both look like "Start"-class articles. Indeed, I'm inclined to think that "thin disk" is stub-class. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * GraemeBartlett agrees with my opinion that these are start-class. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 10:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Very Long Baseline Array
One of the principal contributors to Very Long Baseline Array is also a science editor, and author of materials about the subject. These writings are subject to copyright, and efforts to obtain a free license are tied up in bureaucracy. Because of similarities of writing style, it happens that the content of the article sometimes looks similar to materials which are subject to copyright. If other editors, such as members of this project, were to pitch in and help expand the article, it is likely that the writing styles would be different and thus avoid the perception that materials under copyright are being used. I offered to make this plea to this Wikiproject; is this the best place to do it, or is there a better page?-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  12:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're in the right place, but you should also mention this on the talk page. And who is this principal contributor? Wer900 • <sup style="position:relative">talk • coordination<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-16ex;*left:-25ex;">consensus defined 21:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * NRAOEPO-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  17:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

History of Mars observation
History of Mars observation is up for FAC here. Not much feedback thus far; it probably won't have a big audience. Regards, RJH (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Betelgeuse redux
Hi all, I was hoping that some folks who were good with astrophysics can look over Betelgeuse and see if they are happy with it. has flagged an interest in getting this over the final hurdle of FAC, and I'm hoping will resume some activity. It's a monster of an article so would be good to have a few opinions. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If I may suggest as much, this article should also be taken through WP:PR. Just looking at the lead, I'm finding a number of issues that would be brought up in an FAC:
 * "Betelgeuse is currently thought to lie around...", "It is thought to be a runaway star..." look to be WP:WEASEL.
 * Discuss In studying the documentation on weasel words, I decided to keep "Betelgeuse is currently thought to lie around..." as this statement is a concise yet accurate characterization of the ongoing dynamic surrounding the star's distance estimates in addition to being explained at length in the Parallax section. The second reference of  "It is thought to be a runaway star..." has been modified.  Any thoughts?--Sadalsuud (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "There is even evidence...", "To complicate matters further", "...which also includes the late...": here, the words 'even', 'further' and 'also' are redundant. See User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.
 * Done Took a crack at it. Tying the two sentences under one theme pulls it together better. In addition, the phrase "huge plumes of gas" was deleted, as it made the sentence unwieldy and the concept is better explained below. Any thoughts?--Sadalsuud (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Absolute magnitude (MV) –6.05": To me the footnote explanation for this is insufficient. It needs a reliable source, if only to show the extinction value.
 * Need to research This is a tricky one, which will require more research. I'll see what I can come up with.--Sadalsuud (talk) 08:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Discuss Did a quick search at ADS with the strings "Betelgeuse magnitude" and "Alpha Ori magnitude". Result?  The most recent article I could find relating to "absolute magnitude" was published in 1997 yielding a result of -5.24.  But the Harper article from which we have the now current distance estimate of 197 ± 45 pc (hence AbsMag value) was published in 2008.  I perused the article for any mention of absolute magnitude, but found none, although there is a discussion of "extinction".  The only other article I could find that might answer this question was from Sigismondi 2011.  Being so recent, I don't have access to the article, and frankly, because I'm no astrophysicist, it's all beyond my ability to decipher anyway.  Any suggestions here?  We could add the Harper article] as an additional footnote, if you think that makes sense.--Sadalsuud (talk) 09:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The Harper 2008 paper gives the bolometric flux and luminosity in section 3.2. That could easily be converted into a bolometric absolute magnitude. Getting a visual or V band one would be more difficult - you could calculate it from the apparent V=0.5 from the Bright Star Catalogue, the distance of 197pc from Harper, and the upper limit of A_V < 0.22 also from Harper. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick reply to this question. Unfortunately, never having studied astronomy, I must rely on information in the Luminosity article to help me understand what you are pointing to.  If I understand you correctly, the Absolute Magnitude for Betelgeuse would be -7.99, based on the following formula:


 * $$M_{bol_{\rm star}} - M_{bol_{\rm sun}} = -2.5 \log_{10} {\frac{L_{\rm star}}{L_{\odot}}}$$


 * If this is the right formula, then it's a question of inserting the right variables. So, turning to 1) Harper Section 5.2,Stellar Properties, for info on Betelgeuse and 2) Basic Astronomical Data for the Sun, it appears that:


 * $$ \log_{10} {\frac{L_{\rm star}}{L_{\odot}}}= 5.10 $$


 * If this is correct, then:


 * $$M_{bol_{\rm star}} = -2.5 \log_{10} {\frac{L_{\rm star}}{L_{\odot}}} + M_{bol_{\rm sun}}$$


 * $$M_{bol_{\rm star}} = (-2.5)    (5.10)    +    4.7554    =    -7.99$$


 * Is this correct or do I have the math all wrong? Thanks again for your help on this.--Sadalsuud (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks reasonable to me, assuming your input numbers are correct. I also should have thought of this before: Wolfram Alpha lists visual absolute magnitudes, which gives $$M_{\rm visual}=-6.02$$. Remember though that this is a variable star whose with variations > one magnitude, so I wouldn't list any of these to more than 2 significant figures. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done OK. I think we're done here, unless RJH has some final thoughts on the matter.  Thanks for the Wolfram Alpha ref.  I have now added it as a reference to the Starbox Absmag value.  I'm still somewhat puzzled however.  The above calculation which yields an AbsMag = -7.99 is vastly different than the published -6.02.  The larger number suggests that Betelgeuse is roughly 15 times brighter (i.e 2.5^3) than what we are reporting in the article.  So I suppose my math is off or there is something about these computational methods that can yield wildly different results.  Any insights here would be much appreciated.  Thanks again.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your calculation is the bolometric magnitude, i.e. over all wavelengths. Wolfram Alpha gave the visual magnitude, which is just over the relatively narrow range of wavelengths which are detectable by the human eye. As a relatively cool star, Betelgeuse emits most of its light at infrared wavelengths which are invisible to the human eye. The numerical difference is about what I would expect for this kind of star. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Very interesting, and thanks again for your quick reply. Two observations: 1) In the final paragraph of the Visibility section, a statement is made that only 13% of the star's radiant energy is emitted in the visible, a reference from Burnham (1978).  If the above calculation is indeed more accurate, it appears that only 6% of the star's energy is emitted in the visible (1/(2.512^3).  If this roughly correct, should we update the Visibility section? 2) I'm a little mystified I didn't catch the distinction between absolute and bolometric magnitudes.  Looking to the Luminosity article, I notice it's been flagged as needing a better lead section.  I'll be taking a crack at that soon, so this distinction jumps off the page for average readers like myself.  Thanks again for your help in getting this article through FAC.--Sadalsuud (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Stick with the cited source, which is a) verifiable and b) probably has a better treatment of reddening. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "Current estimates of the star's apparent diameter...": WP:DATED
 * Done Altered this section to read: "Studies since 1990 have produced an apparent diameter that ranges from 0.043 to 0.056 arcseconds, an incongruity largely caused by the star's tendency to change shape periodically." The original language I had employed, (i.e. "a moving target"}, seemed a little too folksy, so I changed that too.  The word "incongruity" I think works well, in light of the Cambridge definition as it suggests "out of step with the norm" which is a dominant theme for Betelgeuse. Any thoughts?--Sadalsuud (talk) 07:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "...huge plumes of gas...": huge is WP:VAGUE. It might be okay in the lead, but the core article is equally vague ("...vast plumes of gas..."). Is it huge as in truckloads worth or huge as is in a significant fraction of a solar mass?
 * Done As noted below, the word "huge" now appears only once in the article. I did a global search of the word "plume" and tried to vary the adjectives that are used to avoid redundancy.  In terms of vagueness, the second occurrence of the word "plume" occurs in Recent studies, and is indeed accompanied by the word "vast" but is then defined as 30AU.  I think this is what Kervella means by the term "vast".  Similarly, other usages of the word plume are later defined as "six stellar radii" and "the orbit of Neptune (photo).  So are we OK here, or are we still walking on thin ice?--Sadalsuud (talk) 08:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * On a related note, my global search for the word "plume" shows that it is employed 10 times in the article. I've contemplated various synonyms for the word (i.e. "feather"), but that's risky, as the word "plume" has taken on a specific meaning as defined by Kervella.  Any suggestions?--Sadalsuud (talk) 08:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, "plume" has a specific meaning it is very hard to find synonyms for - "jet" is about the only one I can think of. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In an astrophysical context, 'jet' and 'plume' are NOT synonyms. Don't mix them up. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Regards, RJH (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think maybe focussing this in one place is good. Ok, once we've sifted through these and Iridia's suggestions, we might place it at Peer Review. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Overall though, the editors have done an excellent job of turning this article around. I remember when it seemed like a meandering unsourced mess. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your insightful remarks. I did a global search for the words "huge", "vast", "enormous" etc.  Results? Huge (4), Vast (6), Enormous (1).  Where these words come from typically is source material, i.e. ESO subtitle, but given its redundancy and vagueness, we'll do what we can to make appropriate changes.  I'll post changes here for final consideration.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done OK. Results: huge (1), vast (1) in keeping with ESO's description of the gas plume, enormous (1), immense (1), gigantic (2), one of which occurs in an ESO pic, mirroring ESO's usage of the word. So unless you think otherwise, the redundancy issue I believe is behind us with respect to these particular words.  I will keep a lookout for other redundancies in the article and give thought to instances of vagueness in the article.  Any other insights will be promptly acted upon.--Sadalsuud (talk) 06:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Mmm, well my concern had more to do with WP:VAGUE than redundancy. For example, I remember I got an enormous blister on the back of my heel once from mountain hiking, so I had to apply a huge bandaid. It was at least a three centimeters across. I know one could deduce something about vague descriptions based upon the context, but it's usually better to provide values or ranges. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't this whole conversation be moved to Talk:Betelgeuse? <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. There's a discussion underway there already. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Link = Review for FAC readiness--Sadalsuud (talk) 10:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Luminosity of Deneb
found this paper which gives some interesting values on the luminosity of Deneb. It'd be good if some more experienced folks could look at the discussion and comment on the paper and state of knowledge about Deneb at Talk:Deneb Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Templates RA and dec
The templates 0:0:0 and 0° aren't producing proper output. For instance 1:2:3.4 is supposed to be rendered 1h 02m 03s.4 in standard astronomical practice, although with the s above the decimal point. I left some comments on their talk pages. Tfr000 (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Convenience links: Template talk:RA, Template talk:DEC. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well... if we handle Tfr000's issues (leading zero, decimals) and the other issue about putting minus signs into the output instead of whatever people input, this will make both templates intricate, and expand both templates a great deal. (see the talk pages) -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 08:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it needs to be implemented by a dedicated bot then, rather than via a change to the templates? Regards, 17:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think a bot will be needed to roll it out. The intricate coding I came up with should be compatible with currently implemented proper uses. (If the template is being used improperly, it'll dump some error message, once the intricate code is implemented). But with intricate coding, we can expand error checking as well. Do we want to do range checking, to check if the values in the parameters are in range? If a parameter is wrong, we can make it implement a cleanup category, say Category:RADEC transclusions with improper parameters ; We can also make it optionally display "Declination", "dec", "Right Ascension", "RA" and link it as well (say |abbr=yes |abbr=no |display=yes |capitalize=yes |display=no |link=yes |link=no ) such as how convert can do that. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Some articles with many template run in to a limit, and after the limit is reached, the remaining templates are displayed as-is. I don't know if the intricate features under discussion will trigger the limit, but there is a potential for an article to have many right ascensions and declinations. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, we may run into that problem with articles such as List of nearest stars or List of nearest bright stars. In that case, something we might be able to do with the RA and DEC templates is add a fourth data field and use that for the decimal part of the seconds/arcseconds. The leading zeroes we can fix manually. Regards, RJH (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Per RJH, here's a sample of the 4th param version: ;  ;  ; minus signs and leading zeroes and decimal points are manually entered. (I can make decimal points generated automatically, like the degree sign or minute) -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems like that would do the job, at least in terms of formatting. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The sandboxes have been updated to autogenerate decimal points. ;  ;  -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 02:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Oort and dark matter
There's a discussion at Talk:Dark matter regarding who should be credited with observations that implied missing mass in the Milky Way galaxy. Additional eyes on this would be helpful (I seem to recall it coming up at least once before). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Transition-region.jpg
has been nominated for deletion -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Universe Today at AfD
Universe Today is at AfD. Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Recognized content
The "Recognized content" section of this project's main page is getting rather large. It is fairly static information, while the more frequently updated information is way down toward the bottom. I think the page should focus more on current activities than what has happened in the past. Alternatively, a project with a pretty nice layout is WikiProject Film; they use a navigation menu to get to the various pages. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We could always move it to a subpage, and link to it from the tabbar/menubar -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Or a collapsible box? The tab bar is already rather busy. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, that tab bar is crowded. I think I'd rather see a sidebar like they use on some of the other projects. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I inserted a draft sidebar on the main page. If everybody is happy with it, I can start de-cluttering the page. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea to me. James McBride (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Helmi stream
Category:Helmi stream has been nominated for deletion -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 02:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Free-floating objects
Category:Free-floating objects has been requested to be renamed, to match its tree "substellar objects". Further, I've commented that it be rescoped to exclude brown dwarfs. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 02:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

"Andromeda"
The usage of Andromeda is under discussion, see Talk:Andromeda (mythology) -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

List of astronomy websites AfD
List of astronomy websites is up for AfD here. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Oddball edits by apparent sock puppet of blocked account
Anon. user Special:Contributions/99.64.168.136 has been making some relatively non-constructive edits of astronomy articles, such as inserting obscure words like swiftlier, froward, yester, and faring, not to mention removing formatting recommended by the MoS. This is a suspected sock puppet of a blocked account who has been repeatedly warned about this behavior. Regards, RJH (talk) 06:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've issued warnings given your observations, so that if this is moved up the line, the process will have been observed (warn then block) -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 07:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This IP address is a static IP, so another longterm ban would be in order -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've just finished skimming the talk page (and glancing at the various SPI-related pages). The IP has just come off of a year-long block, and is repeating the same actions that got them blocked. They'd made multiple unblock requests, which were declined as they'd demonstrated a complete failure to understand that they'd done anything wrong. It looks like it's time to head to WP:AIV and ask for an indef, as that seems to be the only thing that IP has been used for, based on its contribution history. Further warnings aren't needed; they've received plenty. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I put an entry on the queue. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * A new 1year block has been enacted. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This user, /, has made an exclaimation that she will edit from an alternate IP address to get around the block. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 11:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it appears that her goal is to draw an audience into a debate on ground of her own choosing—grammar—by applying arcane wording and pedantic grammatical rules to articles. It seems useless to try and resolve through discussion; her activity is essentially disruptive and intended to prove a point. I guess all we can do is follow the whack-a-mole approach. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Heck, this may even get to ArbCom someday... Wer900 • <sup style="position:relative">talk • coordination<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-16ex;*left:-25ex;">consensus defined 03:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've never been involved with cases against this editor, but after seeing this discussion here, I've been reviewing their edit history and discussions about their behaviour for the past couple of hours. I don't believe I've ever encountered another editor as pedantic and self-absorbed as they are...to quote: "I deserve to take over by virtue of having the resources and abilities." and "You think I've made a mistake when it is mankind which made the mistake, and I know better."
 * To be brief: Lysdexia has been indeffed, and if folks will point them out, I'm more than happy to block any IP or account which Lysdexia is behind. There is no room for such behaviour on this site. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Huntster. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Plasma cosmology
I've been looking for help at plasma cosmology.

Could someone who is familiar with cosmology and astrophysics take a look at section 3 of plasma cosmology and maybe look at my contributions on Talk:Plasma cosmology?

I started a Talk:Plasma_cosmology since it was difficult to get input. Goodsheard1 (talk) 02:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This again? Last time it came up the discussion rapidly devolved into defining exactly what does and doesn't constitute 'fringe' science, and other semantics. I don't mind the article existing so long as a) it makes it clear that this is a theory with essentially no support and b) it doesn't spill over into other articles (which was the problem last time). <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Corona Australis
I've asked for a peer review - all input appreciated. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

SWEEPS J175853.92−291120.6
Can you help wikify this article? It seems to be lifted and then machine translated from the Russian Wikipedia article, SWEEPS J175853.92-291120.6 (see this version). Although I was able to fix some of the data, I lack the expertise on Astronomy to finish it. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * thanks guys.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 03:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I did a copyedit and wikified it to the best of my ability. Hope this helps! Best, Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 03:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Great job so far everyone, now it only needs the sky coordinates and it's all set.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 03:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I added some templates, data and citations. Not sure if there is more that can be done; the information seems pretty sparse. Regards, RJH (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

John Paul Wild
FYI, John Paul Wild was substantially rewritten just now, adding 75k to the article, from its stubby previous existence. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 09:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a LOT of peacock terms, needless editorialising, and promotion of the subject. I had a go at tidying up the lead and infobox, but the rest of the article needs sorting. Simply state the facts and let the reader make their own assessment of his significance. Also, I don't think the fair-use rationales for the pictures are up to scratch. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 09:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Capricorn
The usage of "Capricorn" is under discussion, see Talk:Capricorn -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 02:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Possible editor problem
User:Crazy17wer has been making some questionable edits to astronomy articles; creating articles with no sources, inserting OR, replacing cited data with unsourced information, and so forth. A couple of examples are the Gamma Equulei and Zeta Equulei articles. This is the same editor who created the SWEEPS J175853.92−291120.6 that needed a lot of cleaning up. I hope this isn't a CarloscomB sock puppet, or the like. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree that this user has been doing more harm than good. Sure, creating articles that are notable is nice, but not when those articles are incredibly poorly formatted and have absolutely no sources. Seeing the user is sort of new, and hasn't had much warning, I'm inclined to give them one more chance to "get it right" with an article. However, one more problem article, and something will have to be done, IMHO. StringTheory11 00:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This user create Zeta Equulei at that name. But according to alcyone, "zeta" is only used in a few early sources. SIMBAD uses "3 Equulei" instead. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 06:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was the one that moved it. He started it at 3 Equulei, and I moved it to Zeta Equulei when I noticed it. I usually work more on elements articles, and I was under the impression wikipedia always uses greek bayer designations if they exist. If I am misinformed, feel free to move it. StringTheory11 14:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that is indeed the naming convention that was established at WP:STARNAMES. Should we revisit it? Regards, RJH (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think we need to revisit it, since WP:UCN overrides STARNAMES, so in event of any conflict, we can fall back to the basic policy. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. RJH (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

As a general suggestion, WP:AST / WP:ASTRO might want to write something similar to WP:JWG. It's been immensely helpful for us and newbies that want to create or improve articles. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had some thoughts along those lines. That would be especially helpful for targeting specific types of astronomical objects. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Spectrograph is stubby!
I just noticed that the spectrograph article, rated High importance, is barely start class. It could stand to be expanded with discussion of some of the other types of spectrographs (e.g. fiber-fed, long-slit, grism, non-optical). Alternately, it could be merged with spectrometer, from which it appears most of its information was drawn. There's also Astronomical spectroscopy, which covers similar topics but is more of a broad overview. Although they're all part of the WikiProject_Spectroscopy, there should be a number of people here who can contribute to this. Thoughts on how to proceed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parejkoj (talk • contribs) 02:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

"Supermassive Black Hole"
The usage of is under discussion, see Talk:Supermassive Black Hole (song) -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 02:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

file:ESO-L. Calçada - Pluto (by).jpg
This artifical image of how the surface of Pluto might look is confusing me. 1) Why is the horizon so constantly bright? I assume, the sun is the only source of light, hence the bright light should be not that bright. 2) On the left side one can see a planet (moon?). What is that? Thx a lot, --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Sun as seen at Pluto is still 398 times as bright as the Full Moon as seen from Earth, so it wouldn't exactly be pitch black during the day. The light along the horizon is probably meant to depict the thin atmosphere. But I have no idea whether it would actually look that way with dark-adjusted vision. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The spherical moon Charon would the "planet" in the sky. If nothing else, long-exposure photography could make the scene that bright. -- Kheider (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Nutation
See Talk:Nutation where a discussion on nutate and nutation is going on. -- 70.50.151.36 (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Indexing

 * There is discussion taking place here at the talk page of Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society that may or may not interest project members.  Steve Quinn (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)