Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 25

Check bibcodes
Category:CS1 errors: bibcode now exists to keep track of bad bibcode ids. If you could help clean up the (relatively small) mess, that would be grand. Most errors are because bibcodes are missing the final character ('.' in the case of unknown authors, or the 1st author's last name's first letter [E.g. Smith, HJ would be have a final S]), but other types of error exists as well. The trick is to check the ADSABS database (the links will often work), and copy-paste the correct bibcode. If the links don't work, searching by DOI usually works, but if you don't have it searching by last name + Year will often usually give small list of results which makes it easy to find the citation in question.

A minority of these errors are false-positives and are being resolved, so if everything checks out, assume it's a false positive. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks to everyone who helped. The category is now empty (as of writing) of bad bibcodes. The ones currently present (~47 pages) are false positives. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Astronomic units and quantities
It looks like IAU did not organise the units and quantities issue well. See Template_talk:Convert (esp this sub). -DePiep (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Quality improvement....
FWIW, Lynx (constellation) is at FAC (see Featured article candidates/Lynx (constellation)/archive1)....cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Is today "Write a biography stub day?"
See User:AlexNewArtBot/AstroSearchResult. Loads of biographies about astronomers and physicists (and maybe others) written by new editors. They appear for the most part to be legitimate. Did I miss the memo? Is there some special event going on? Lithopsian (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It looks like most new articles are about female astronomers and physicists, Perhaps there is a diversity drive. If so, good for them. --Mark viking (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. It is a great idea. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This is my fault! :) Wiki Edu and I ran a super successful edit-a-thon at the AAS annual meeting (something like 50 astronomers showed up!!) and we wrote a ton of new articles. Keilana (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Someone should go an tag them with relevant Wikiproject banners, lest they get deleted without anyone noticing. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * They're probably safe. The first one I looked at was a bit of a slab of text about someone I hadn't heard of, but turned out to be quite well-published.  Several others were more structured and about people I knew.  They're mostly short, but more than stubs and appropriately cited and categorised.  I approved a few, but they could do with being assessed.  The biography banners are a bit intimidating for me :) Lithopsian (talk) 10:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 'lest' probably being the wrong word. I meant if someone PRODs them or something, we'd want to be notified of it. If they aren't tagged, they'd could slip by. Not 'if they aren't tagged, someone will PROD them'. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * All bios on that page up to now tagged with WikiProject Astronomy, WikiProject Biography, and, if applicable, WikiProject Women scientists.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that! --Mark viking (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Going a step farther, I found that ~1/2 of the astronomers listed at List of astronomers were missing the WP:AST tag, and a few missing WP:BIO, so I placed them too.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  00:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of nonsense at Blueshift
An IP editor keeps inserting unrelated blockquotes and word salad nonsense at Blueshift. I've reverted three times now. The whole article needs work, but it doesn't need added pseudo-scientific babble. - Parejkoj (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an eye on it, and if necessary request page protection. Primefac (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks like you could delete any random sentence and improve the article :) I non-randomly removed some stuff that should probably have been reverted when it was first put in.  Lithopsian (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Nice job. Thanks. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

External links to DSO Browser
I've recently added external links in many popular Deep-sky object pages such as Orion Nebula or Andromeda Galaxy, pointing to their matching [DSO Browser] page. For example, the [Orion Nebula page] in that website.

Since I'm the main contributor to the site, my edits were reverted saying that I was lacking WP:NPOV and I was accused of WP:PROMOTION.

I honestly believe the external links I added provide useful information otherwise not available in Wikipedia - such as being able to identify the altitude of DSOs for any location on Earth at any time of year, finding the best time of year to see them, find nearby objects, see amateur astrophotography of those objects, etc. - in short, useful information for anyone researching on those objects.

I understand I am not to re-add those links because of my WP:COI so I was directed here to seek consensus on whether my changes are welcome on Wikipedia or not. You can see 3 examples of my changes here, here and here. Sebagr (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest taking a look at WP:EXT and see if your site passes the recommendations, as well as WP:ELNO. Praemonitus (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Having read those, I believe the links are ok to be added as external links. However, other editors explained to me that given the existing WP:COI, I should look for consensus here on whether those links add value to Wikipedia or not, to conform to WP:NPOV.
 * What do you think? Here you have an example of an external link I added to the Orion Nebula article, showing altitude charts, nearby objects, amateur astrophotography, etc.: Orion Nebula data sheet, altitude charts, sky map and related objects Sebagr (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, this website is well put together I will admit, and I think that it would be useful to include as an external link to appropriate articles (that are directly related etc). However (as pointed out by other editors) I have concerns about WP:PROMOTION. Davidbuddy9 Talk 00:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No offense, but it's just more clutter on already over-cluttered External Links sections. On both pages, you mention, Orion Nebula and Andromeda Galaxy, that section is severely over-crowded and needs to be severely trimmed. External Links sections should only include the most significant and critical links, and for example the Andromeda page contains random APOD links, news articles, links to videos and images, etc. We don't need more, we need less. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose. Firstly, a lengthy discussion on this issue appears User talk:Sebagr, which the User should have linked here. Saying "I was accused of WP:PROMOTION." is wrong, as this actually was proven, as these edits clearly violate by "attracting notice" just to one solitary website. Also saying "I honestly believe the external links I added provide useful information.." sounds like WP:PEA, and is no justification for allowing this.
 * This site in neither unique nor meets the criteria of WP:Notability the linked site does not adds to the deep-sky object articles in question. I.e. The first edit M10. How about these websites? If I need to find culmination times or best time to observe you download the free Stellarium 14.3  - here you get an image and hitting the 'Observability button' get rise, set, culmination; including the best time of the year set for your location. If you want to find images of M10, just do a Google search, and look under images.
 * As I also wrote on the COIN noticeboard, there was a link on Deep-sky object, which was embedded in the page by a anonymous unregistered user five year ago. This was likely placed to lure people to this site, likely for WP:PROMOTION. Things like this have been done before, and are explained in articles like "The Art Of SEO For Wikipedia & 16 Tips To Gain Respect", and many more like it , adequately explain. I feel that agreeing to these multiple links just promotes this site, targeting all the brightest deep-sky objects in the sky. There is also still a suspicion that this site is likely a commercial enterprise. Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Arianewiki1, I believe your points were properly discussed in my talk page not only by us two but other editors which showed me far more respect than you and guided me politely to solve the problem. I've been instructed to disclose my WP:COI on my talk page (which I did), discuss this in this Astronomy page (that's what this section is for) and to refrain from adding those links again myself (which I did). You are not adding any astronomy insight with your words and personal matters have already been discussed on my talk page. Now, kindly let other editors decide if these links are useful or not. Whatever the result, I won't add those links myself again, as per WP:COI rules. Sebagr (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Conditional Support It is definitely a service to the reader to have some kind of link to the best time & date for observation (I'm used to using JSkyCalc, but it's not for the average reader, and it certainly doesn't conveniently email you once/year like DSOB says it doescool, as long as my email doesn't get sold to anyone). I'm not sure what the other options are that we are (or aren't) using, so, in the absence of any alternatives, I support it.
 * It would be a good idea for WT:AST to decide on an "official" one we could put into the external links, OR have 2 or 3 we can put into a template somewhere (like in a portal template, if they can be made compact, similar to how we have doi, bibcode, pmid, and arXiv links in a ref, or maybe somewhere in the various infoboxes?).  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  03:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

UAO-DLR or Uppsala-DLR?
I left messages at Talk:UAO-DLR Asteroid Survey & Talk:Uppsala–DLR Trojan Survey 11 days ago but no bites.

The discrepancy is that UAO-DLR Asteroid Survey & Uppsala–DLR Trojan Survey (and their corresponding named-categories) should be either: since they both use the Uppsala Astronomical Observatory (UAO). What does everyone else think? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 21:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) UAO-DLR Asteroid Survey & UAO–DLR Trojan Survey, or
 * 2)  (currently a #REDIRECT) & Uppsala–DLR Trojan Survey,
 * My !vote would be for option 2, since it gives the name of the observatory and isn't just one big acronym. Primefac (talk) 02:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I like option 2 too.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, the MPC also uses "Uppsala-DLR Asteroid Survey" and "Uppsala-DLR Trojan Survey" ( and ). I suggest to move UAO-DLR Asteroid Survey to (dashed version, currently a redlink, so no swapping needed) and adjust things correspondingly. R fassbind – talk   18:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Just be sure to mention 'UAO–DLR' in the lead paragraph of Uppsala-DLR Asteroid Survey. Urhixidur (talk) 13:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Minor planet occultation records
In terms of satisfying WP:GNG for a minor planet, the Worldwide Asteroidal Occultation Observations and Resources site could be a useful resource for certain cases. Presumably though we'd want to limit it to entries where there are multiple successful observations during an event with at least a couple of intersecting chords and a published asteroid profile. What do you think? Perhaps an editor wants to put together a table template for listing useful details about an asteroid occultation? (Date, time, total observers, # insersecting chords, image link, &c) Praemonitus (talk) 00:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Asteroids by source of name migration to Category:Minor planets by source of name
In an attempt to reconcile Category:Minor planets named for rivers with the Category:Asteroids by source of name tree (which contains asteroids named: from literature, for people, for places, of unknown origin), and to generalize Category:Asteroids by source of name, I'm thinking about migrating this category and its subcats to the Category:Minor planets by source of name tree, and leaving category redirects to the new corresponding MP cats. Does anyone see a problem with this? Pinging the relevant cats' creators &. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 19:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I have not an objection but a caution. Do you realise there are 10,563 pages in Category:Asteroids named for people that will need to be edited? Is there a bot for this? jnestorius(talk) 08:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I will perform the migration properly, as I have done in the past.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes Tom, plz do the changes. Unfortunately, some years ago when many articles, lists and categories were changed from "asteroid" to the broader "minor planet" classification term, nobody seems to have raised a word of caution how much work this would actually cause. Now, we (still) struggle with this "often-but-not-always" redundant double term. So thanks for tackling these challenging issues! In addition:
 * I would also add Category:Minor planets named from mythology with its subcategories to the tree of Category:Minor planets by source of name.
 * There are still minor planets (MPs) that are not named after people, places/rives or mythology. (My best guess is about 500 out of a total of 20,000 named MPs). These MPs are mostly named after organizations, clubs, foundations and societies. So a Category:Minor planets named for organizations would seem reasonably to me.
 * However, there are also MPs named after supercomputers, operating system, observatories and other entities. Would it make sense to have a "left-over" category for these rather exotic names that don't fall into one of the mentioned categories above (otherwise they would reside in the root of the classification tree, or not being classified at all)? What about a Category:Minor planets miscellaneously named?
 * Sorry, but I can't resist to point out (once again) that I'm not happy with Category:Numbered minor planets since it's de facto a category of minor planet articles. We need to change that.
 * Since the Category:Asteroids named for people contains more than 10,000 entries, I plan to create some significant subcategories (there are currently no subcats with a significant amount of members). A category such as Category:Minor planets named for astronomers comes to my mind.
 * Again, thx Tom,  R fassbind  – talk   19:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Responses:
 * Absolutely; I will include it in the migration.
 * Category:Minor planets named for organizations seems fine.
 * Category:Minor planets named for things (?) (supercomputers, OSs, etc.) + Category:Minor planets named for observatories + Category:Minor planets named for miscellany as the catch-all
 * I originally wanted this too, but there was no support for it 6 months ago (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Category maintenance 1). There was support against this actually. You're of course welcome to argue again for it.
 * Sounds good to me!  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  00:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Will start this today probably.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Bulk completed 12 hrs ago and finishing touches recently.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  03:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Well done. There must have been thousands of edits. Let's talk about the potential new categories (above) somewhere else, since this does not seem to be of any concern to other editors at the moment. R fassbind – talk   18:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

MinorPlanetNameMeaningsDisclaimer tweak
There's additional text after MinorPlanetNameMeaningsDisclaimer that I see in all but 22 21 of the 459 Meanings of minor planet names pages, "Minor planets not yet given a name have not been included in this list.". All of the 22 21 are in the <=10,000-range, with the exception of 43001–44000 :

• # Meanings of minor planet names: 1–500

• # Meanings of minor planet names: 501–1000

• # Meanings of minor planet names: 1001–1500

• # Meanings of minor planet names: 2001–2500

• # Meanings of minor planet names: 2501–3000

• # Meanings of minor planet names: 3001–3500

• # Meanings of minor planet names: 3501–4000

• # Meanings of minor planet names: 4001–4500

• # Meanings of minor planet names: 4501–5000

• # Meanings of minor planet names: 5001–5500

• # Meanings of minor planet names: 5501–6000

• # Meanings of minor planet names: 1–1000

• # Meanings of minor planet names: 1001–2000

• # Meanings of minor planet names: 2001–3000

• # Meanings of minor planet names: 3001–4000

• # Meanings of minor planet names: 4001–5000

• # Meanings of minor planet names: 5001–6000

• # Meanings of minor planet names: 6001–7000

• # Meanings of minor planet names: 7001–8000

• # Meanings of minor planet names: 8001–9000

• # Meanings of minor planet names: 9001–10000

• # Meanings of minor planet names: 43001–44000

Since this sentence seems like a good one to include in the disclaimer template, my questions are:
 * 1) Is/was someone using this sentence for tracking purposes, removing it from pages when they have been checked for name-completeness? (I have not doubled-checked)
 * 2) If so, would using incomplete list, or similar, be a better alternative?
 * 3) If so, I can add the sentence to MinorPlanetNameMeaningsDisclaimer and replace it on existing pages with incomplete list (at the top of the page).
 * 4) If not, do nothing.
 * 5) If not, I can add the sentence to MinorPlanetNameMeaningsDisclaimer and remove it from existing pages (all of which have the disclaimer template).

I was originally going to post this at the disclaimer template's talk page, but its traffic history is quite barren (aside from yesterday).

Pinging, , , , , , & , whom I've seen contribute a great deal to these pages. Apologies if I missed anyone else as prolific. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Do what you think is best Tom, I have no dog in this fight. ;) w.carter -Talk  18:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Checking is easy: just count the lines in the Meanings table. As minor planet states, "As of June 2016, the lowest-numbered unnamed minor planet is (3708) 1974 FV1", which explains 9 of the 22 cases you've found. The pages in the 6001 to 10,000 range do not have any unnumbered unnamed minor planets, which explains another number of cases. The remaining lower-numbered cases occur because the unnamed minor planets are included in the lists (with entries consisting of just an em-dash). Starting with 10 000, the unnamed minor planets became too frequent, so they were excluded from the lists altogether, hence the additional disclaimer. 43001–44000 is a mistake on your part: the text does appear on it. Urhixidur (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I didn't see it on 43001–44000 due to the added emphasis (that I've now standardized).
 * Also, the unnamed ones have entries with an en dash instead of an em dash.
 * So, in short, option 1.1.2 (do nothing) sounds like the right choice.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I only made minor changes to the table formatting and the addition of a nav box. Please feel free to continue as you see fit. Jodosma (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Good team work, everybody! Is this issue closed now? Urhixidur (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Citing papers as references to spectral types - is it in violation of WP:OR?
Some editors feel as though listing spectral types based on a paper is in violation of WP:NOR (for example, see this edit on Kepler-1229). Frankly, I don't really see a problem with this as it would only be in violation if it was unsourced, or taken from an unreliable source. In these cases, this reference, this one (at bottom of paper), are considered reliable. This one could also be in the batch as it seems more reliable (and more recent, as proven when I put that url into the Wayback Machine - it was created sometime in 2008). I would like to hear from some of the editors here to see how they feel about this. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between citing a paper that says "Kepler 12345 is a K0V star" and finding one that lists its temperature, running to another source that matches temperatures with spectral types, and connecting the dots. Reyk  YO!  19:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Pretty much as Reyk said. WP:CALC allows routine calculation, which is what allows the infobox to convert parallax to distance. But interpreting spectra should be left to the experts. Praemonitus (talk) 02:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * BTW, the 'b-v' color value lies between what one could expect for an M2 to M3 class star. Praemonitus (talk)
 * "Citing papers" is fine, but if you were Looking up a spectral type based on a temperaure as the other editor claims, that does fall under WP:OR and WP:SYN. Once it is challenged you need source that directly supports the claim without interpretation. That can suck when adding good information, but consider the flip side. We need that rule to be strong to firmly terminate any argument when someone tries to add bad info. We do not open the quagmire of arguing who's right. Alsee (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Something came up on the Italian Wikipedia when I was checking a star page, it listed the spectral type for Kepler-419 as F7V based on some file listed as a reference, yet the only parameters we know of Kepler-419 is that it is an F-type main sequence star. The user reverted my edit and left this message on my talk page, which i translated to:

"About this: First of changes on en-wiki talk here, and in Italian, and second thing if you do not know calculate the site PHL brightness honestly it's not my problem (it is actually the first computer), plus coincidentally the brightness is the same, partly because OA source of en.wiki is always taken by the PHL, and we 2.64 against 2.65, then zero problems. Who is not allowed to use the source of Mamajek to extract the spectral type is your opinion, at least 2 years I had spoken with another person while you are here you have not talked about anything"


 * The key word in the Mamajek reference is "mean". Just because you know the average temperature of K7 stars, doesn't mean that a star of that temperature has a K7 spectral type.  Spectral types should be derived from a spectrum :)  If a progessional astronomer publishes a spectral type derived in some other ways then so be it we';ll quote them, but we shouldn't be doing that sort of non-trivial non-precise calculation ourselves.  Even if we think we "know" the spectral type, WP:NOTTRUTH applies.  As for Italian Wikipedia, well I imagine they do whatever they can get away with just like everyone else :) Lithopsian (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok, yeah I don't think the Italian Wikipedia has as much ground rules as the major one (English) has, so I think we're the luckier ones :D --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 21:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The PHL calculator was only broken on my end since I was using windows 10 so thats not an issue anymore, but the spectral type issue is still valid. How is the Italian Wikipedia allowed to cite spectral type files as references to determine the spectral type? --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Minor planets named for members of The Beatles has been nominated for discussion
Category:Minor planets named for members of The Beatles, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * But not Category:Minor planets named for members of Monty Python? Praemonitus (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Another editor raised concerns about that category in the discussion too. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Category:Minor planets named for members of Monty Python now at CfD here.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Lynx (constellation)
Lynx (constellation) is going very slowly at FAC (see Featured article candidates/Lynx (constellation)/archive1) anyone with an interest in astronomy is urged to come vet it.....sigh Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The article has been promoted. Congratulations. Praemonitus (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

UGC 10 proposed for deletion.
Just realised that the deletion proposal for UGC 10 may not have been seen by astro-folks since the article is unassessed. Lithopsian (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on a tool on Visual Editor to add open license text from other sources
Hi all

I'm designing a tool for Visual Editor to make it easy for people to add open license text from other sources, there are a huge number of open license sources compatible with Wikipedia including around 9000 journals. I can see a very large opportunity to easily create a high volume of good quality articles quickly. I have done a small project with open license text from UNESCO as a proof of concept, any thoughts, feedback or endorsements (on the Meta page) would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Solar radii vs radiuses
There's a discussion at the talk page regarding the plural of radius. Currently (and in my humble opinion somewhat absurdly), the template is giving us radiuses rather than the etymologically correct radii. Apparently, Webster lists radiuses as an acceptable alternative. Be that as it may, I'm pretty sure that radii is the more common plural especially amongst educated people (the more likely audience of articles on astronomy). Perhaps it's an ENVAR issue, though, maybe radiuses is used in American English. So, the viable options are the following (in order of my preference). What thoughts have ye? Jimp 03:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Change the pluralisation from radiuses to radii.
 * 2) Make the default pluralisation radii with radiuses as an option.
 * 3) Leave the pluralisation as radiuses.


 * I'm the one who originally raised the question, so probably no surprise that I'd like a change. Out of the choices, I'd go for the first one, but I have no objection to giving people the option to have the alternate plural form.  There might be contexts where solar radiuses is the normal usage and I wouldn't want to impose a blanket ban on that form.  Lithopsian (talk) 12:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * To me, 'radiuses' sounds like a colloquialism, but apparently it's a valid usage. I've always seen 'radii' used in the scientific context, and generally prefer it. Praemonitus (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * +1 for radii. I never heard radiuses used in any half-decent written piece, and especially not in scientific writing (at all levels). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Although technically using anglicized plural forms of words of latin origin is acceptable, in this case google ngram is quit unambiguous about what the most common usage in English is. PS. if you ever see somebody use "casi" as the plural of "casus" please make fun of them.TR 19:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * ... or bi for buses ... Jimp 23:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Mostly from what I've seen on Wikipedia is radii and not 'radiuses'. I think all uses of 'radiuses' should be changed to radii for consistency purposes as it appears to be more commonly used both in Wikipedia and scientific literature. Davidbuddy9 Talk 21:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree with TR, while both uses are valid, Google Ngrams shows that one is heavily favored and thus should be our standard here. A2soup (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The issue has been settled and convert now uses "solar radii" for the plural name. Johnuniq (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Astronomy Newsletter Q2 2016
Davidbuddy9 Talk 01:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

UGC 10 notability
Is an actual galaxy automatically notable? I am thinking that it is - however I am not sure how this project views such matters. UGC 10 is currently at AfD,. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not automatically, and not even if it has a name. Notability (astronomical objects) has the answers. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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


 * Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

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

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

MP #R cleanup
There are some improvements to implement and inconsistencies to iron out in the sea of MP #Rs that and I have been talking about that have built up enough for another run. I'll summarize them here from my talk page for further discussion/FYI: ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Remove uses of Redr: Only affects a small % of MP #Rs; convert to list of  templates, which are easier to search for, add, and remove than their Redr counterparts.
 * 2) NASTRO comment: Replace the original, hard-coded  comment with the much nicer, much more obvious, much easier to change NASTRO comment, per WP:NASTRO. (applicable to ~98–99% of MP #Rs)
 * 3) Cat-Renaming Asteroid→Minor planet: Not in this run; much broader scope than intended here.
 * 4) Add an empty line after : Per all examples on WP:Redirect, WP:REDCAT, Redr, R to list entry, R to anchor, etc., etc. Not sure why, but it is a standard. (for readability) (unknown % of MP #Rs, but guessing >= 50%)
 * 5) Finer anchors (increment by #10 or by #1?): Incrementing anchors by #100 MPs is a bit too coarse, and is a relic from when 100-entry subpages existed. Now that each page has 1000 entries, anchors incremented by #10 seems like a good compromise between what exists and adding more text to the List of minor planets pages. I'd like to hear what more people think about #1 vs. #10, both in terms of page size increase, and in terms of which is more natural/easy to see/aesthetically pleasing/etc. As for page size increases:
 * 6) #1 anchors (,  ,  , etc.) add: , or 0.86% of the current list-page size of ~675 kB. Also easier/more straight-forward to implement/check/etc. .   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC) ✅.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) #10 anchors (,  ,  , etc.) add: , or 0.07% of the current list-page size of ~675 kB. ❌.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Add #R templates/replace redundant #R templates:
 * 9) R to anchor auto-populates R unprintworthy; ensure the former exists but not the latter, via fix #2.
 * 10) Now would be a good time to add any others. 'Default' templates can be added at any time to NASTRO comment (fix #2).


 * For point 4, it is just a recommended style. From WP:REDCAT, For clarity, all category links should be added at the end of the page, after the redirect statement and rcat(s). Use of blank lines between these promotes readability of the code. --Mark viking (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Thx Tom for the introduction/summary:
 * 1) no Redr-templates. Agreed. However, I'll make an alternative proposal below.
 * 2) new NASTRO-comment template: the recently revised template has now a clickable link to WP:NASTRO. Maybe there are some more improvements to make? E.g for those ~2,000 newly created #R, the text passage "before reverting this redirect" does not make a lot of sense.
 * 3) category-rename: this is a big one. There are many categories with an unfortunate naming. E.g "Discoverers of asteroids" and "Discoverers of minor planets" (not used in MP#Rs) both make sense but bite each other: what about an astronomer that discovered both main-belt asteroids and trans-Neptunian objects? What about an astronomer that discovered 327 minor planets; who's going to verify each and every item to make sure that all are asteroids?
 * 4) Anchors in LOMP (list of minor planets). I'm fine with 1-step rather than 10-step anchors. I've come to the conclusion, that my initial 10-er proposal is unpractical for several reasons... I was simply wrong. Maybe there is an elegant way to set staggered anchors in the LOMP-table, so that the referred table row is not at the uppermost edge of the screen... ? As to the empty 2nd line, the Redr template states "please leave this line blank for emphasis and ease of reading by editors", which makes sense to me.

Proposal, yesterday I was thinking about an integrated NASTRO-comment template (see not so serious example in the sandbox). I feel like we should only have one single template for all MP#Rs, with some additional parameters, so future changes would be much simpler. Of course this somehow might complicate an easy search.. but it would make things so much easier, wouldn't it?! R fassbind – talk   17:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * For #2, I changed NASTRO comment's  to   (it feels so good having templates around).
 * As for an all-inclusive NASTRO/MP#R template, that's an interesting idea worth considering. I'm not familiar enough with template recursion to know what the problems may be. Hopefully others can chime in.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * For the NASTRO comment, instead of a hardcoded, we could use a dynamically displayed   (see example for recent MP#R ). As for the proposed all-in-one NASTRO-template, I don't know if it's feasible, either ("recursion"), but since you're an template-editor, I'm confident you'll figure it out soon.   R fassbind  – talk   09:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No problems found recursing.
 * An all-in-one template would have the 2 'default' R templates (R to list entry & R to anchor). While first going through the MP#Rs there was an incredible amount of inconsistency, and one of those inconsistencies was a missing anchor. We and others have cleaned that up, but I'm worried (albeit a small worry) that pages including the all-in-one template may omit the anchor (i.e. by an editor not familiar with the template or simply careless) leading to miscategorized pages. This can apply to any of the templates we deem 'default'. In other words, having the individual R templates visible makes it easier to see & check the page, but harder to manage (editing many, many pages instead of just 1). If this isn't a concern for you or anyone else, or the pros outweight the cons, then I'll incorporate it into the run.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say an incredible amount of inconsistencies, since we both have invested so much time and energy in the last, say 8 months, to considerably improve minor planet redirects (MP#Rs) and related things (categories and #R-target pages). There are indeed some changes we both have made in the process (such as the usage of the unprintworthy, the anchor, and now the NASTRO-comment template). This is exactly why such an all-in-one template (AIO-tpl) would be of great help, since every time we make up our mind for a better solution we wouldn't need to update 20 thousand redirects.


 * However an AIO-tpl should also include about 2000+ avoided double redirects (moved from provisional, title without diacritical marks, incorrect name, alternative spelling) with the corresponding  and an additional name-parameter for the correct name. I think it is not that difficult to create such an AIO-tpl, but we need to agree on that first.   R fassbind  – talk   20:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree for adding a parameter for the 'avoid double redirect' comment, perhaps yes or yes? This would then replace the usual NASTRO comment with the "don't cat" one (I like the one you made in the sandbox).
 * I don't agree on having another parameter which accepts the correct name, for 2 reasons:
 * The correct name should already exist in the appropriate R template (avoided double redirect, incorrect name, etc.), so including it somewhere else is another, and unnecessary, source of error.
 * I wouldn't want to include those secondary R templates (avoided double redirect, incorrect name, etc.) in the AIO-tpl (which might otherwise be seen as the next appropriate thing to do), since those are in the minority, and doing so doesn't make managing any easier (i.e. each page still needs to be edited/checked individually for either the R template or for the correct R-template-parameter).
 * ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, let's forget about an all-in-one template, that's fine with me. I see you already implemented all missing anchors, well done. If you want me to file a bot-request or adjust the example at WP:DWMP, just let me know. Thx  R fassbind  – talk   12:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm starting this today so no need.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ 21,484 MP #Rs updated, 2924 MP articles skipped.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Opinions needed about the list of exoplanets
I have started a discussion about information contained in the List of exoplanets and its necessity in the article. Your input on the subject is appreciated. Primefac (talk) 01:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Extrasolar atmosphere vs Extraterrestrial atmospheres RfC
You are invited to discuss this issue in the relevant RfC located here. Davidbuddy9 Talk 05:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Crater start/stub classifications
When removing stub tags from start-or-higher-class articles, I noticed a lot of very short articles classified as start. All of these are < 100 words, but most/all are very well referenced. I just want to make sure their start-class is deserving. If not, I'll put back the stub tags. Here they are:  <font face="arial" color="#000000">70 start-class crater articles with < 100 words • # Abetti (crater)

• # Al-Bakri (crater)

• # Al-Marrakushi (crater)

• # Aloha (crater)

• # Ameghino (crater)

• # Amontons (crater)

• # Artemis (crater)

• # Artsimovich (crater)

• # Babakin (lunar crater)

• # Balandin (crater)

• # Balmer (crater)

• # Bancroft (crater)

• # Beketov (crater)

• # Benedict (crater)

• # Blagg (crater)

• # Bobillier (crater)

• # Bobone (crater)

• # Boethius (lunar crater)

• # Bombelli (crater)

• # Borda (crater)

• # Borel (crater)

• # Bowen (crater)

• # Brackett (crater)

• # Cameron (crater)

• # Carrillo (crater)

• # Cartan (crater)

• # Courtney (crater)

• # Curtis (crater)

• # Daly (lunar crater)

• # Dechen (crater)

• # Deseilligny (crater)

• # Elmer (crater)

• # Finsch (crater)

• # Florensky (crater)

• # Foucault (crater)

• # Freud (crater)

• # Golgi (crater)

• # Huxley (lunar crater)

• # Knox-Shaw (crater)

• # Krogh (crater)

• # Kundt (crater)

• # Kuo Shou Ching (crater)

• # Lamèch (crater)

• # Landsteiner (crater)

• # Lebesgue (crater)

• # Lehmann (lunar crater)

• # Lewis (crater)

• # Lippershey (crater)

• # Lohse (lunar crater)

• # McDonald (crater)

• # Menzel (crater)

• # Monge (crater)

• # Peters (crater)

• # Pupin (crater)

• # Ritchey (lunar crater)

• # Sabatier (crater)

• # Sampson (crater)

• # Scheele (crater)

• # Smithson (crater)

• # Spurr (crater)

• # Stewart (crater)

• # Talbot (crater)

• # Theiler (crater)

• # Van Biesbroeck (crater)

• # Very (lunar crater)

• # Wildt (crater)

• # Winkler (crater)

• # Winthrop (crater)

• # Wróblewski (crater)

• # Zasyadko (crater) ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 00:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Since they have a stack of external links, text, infobox and a picture, they would be beyond a stub. However note that the external links for these articles looks to be all the same, and I suspect that there are just passing mentions in these linked stuff.  There is a lack of referencing to say where the information came from. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Some caution here. They have a stack of references because they used to have an infobox that included a stack of generic references about the moon.  After that template was revised, each article now has those references directly (not cited inline) whether they are relevant or not.  Looks impressive, but is almost completely useless.   The infoboxes are basic catalogue entries, possibly mass-produced, although most of the articles do have an image of the actual crater.  I would base the classification largely on the body of the article, which varies from stub to start in the articles I looked at.  The first one (Abetti) is one of the shorter ones - I would rate it stub, but it contains more than a definition and you can make a case that it should be start (after all, how much can you say about a ghost crater on the moon?).  Consistency might be more important than having an absolutist argument about shades of grey.  See crater stubs.  Lithopsian (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Exoplanet
I have nominated Exoplanet for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKay (talk) 08:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm done with my leg of this race. Anyone else want to pick up the batton? Most of DrKay's original concerns still need addressing (except the bit about citations).  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  00:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Members of the Yamaneko Group of Comet Observers has been nominated for discussion
Category:Members of the Yamaneko Group of Comet Observers, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Minor issue at Metis
There was a brief bit of confusion by an editor at Metis (moon), I think I've cleared it up but there are content issues which could possibly use a second opinion. The discussion is here. Primefac (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Asteroids named as an award has been nominated for discussion
Category:Asteroids named as an award, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It has been relisted here.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  02:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

GAR for Tycho Brahe
Tycho Brahe, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. More details are available on the re-assessment page. Please ping me if you need anything as my watchlist is already quite large and I'd prefer not to add seven or eight more wikiprojects to my watchlist on top of the ones that I already have. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Natural Satellites (Moons) Article is Critically Flawed
I don't know where else to put this. Searching for moons redirects to natural satellites. When you get to the page, it says natural satellites 'otherwise known as moons'...and then explains that the Earth counts as a natural satellite. If you read the article however, the vast majority of the facts contained (there are 173 natural satellites in our solar system, Titan is the only one with a dense atmosphere, on and on) are only true if 'natural satellites' do not include planets and other orbiting bodies. It seems very clear to me that the 'moons' article was simply renamed 'natural satellites'. If it's actually a truth in Astronomy that 'natural satellite' means moon, then the line explaining that the Earth is a natural satellite needs to go. If the truth is rather that natural satellites include all solid bodies orbiting a smaller body (planets, moons, dwarf planets and so on), then the entire article needs to be re-written because huge chunks of it are false. This would also mean the redirect of 'moons' to the Natural Satellites article should go away, and that moons should have their own article again (just like planets, dwarf planets, and every other kind of 'natural satellite' on this defintiion does). Obviously rewriting a moon article is the least desirable option, since we have a perfectly good article about moons already- it just happens to be called 'natural satellites' for some reason.

Please be aware also that the article for the moon Titan states that it is the only natural satellite in our solar system that has a dense atmosphere. If 'natural satellites' includes planets, this is obviously absurd.

Agkistro (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Did you catch the article at an unfortunate time while it was effectively being vandalised? Cutting through the current edit war, the last sentence of the definition states that planets are generally excluded, and that's how the rest of the article reads. Lithopsian (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm the 'vandal' trying to fix your messed up article. "generally excluding planets" isn't nearly good enough to fix this mess, because that implies that things like dwarf planets, minor planets, asteroids and so on are all still included since they orbit a larger body. The paragraph immediately after your 'generally excludes planets' quote states that there are 174 natural satellites in the solar system, which is only true if you include moons and only moons- there are 200 dwarf planets alone, for example.  There is a 'list of natural satellites' article, and that list includes moons and only moons. If the definition of 'natural satellite' is the one I keep deleting- any natural object in orbit around a larger body, it also makes no sense to open with 'also called moons', or to redirect searches for 'moons' to this page. Planets, Dwarf planets, asteroids, minor planets, comets and so on all get their own article, why don't moons get their own article? Answer: this used to be that article.

Agkistro (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that natural satellites are astronomical objects that orbit another such object and that moons are natural satellites that orbit a planet or smaller object. Planets are natural satellites of the Sun but are not generally referred to as such because the concept of planet generally incorporates the fact that it orbits the Sun. Good luck finding a citable reference! Though as the current definition in the article is not cited, I don't see why you can't change it and make consequential amendments; though I suggest you raise the proposal on the article's talk page first - there seems to be some dispute on this subject! Cuddlyopedia (talk) 07:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:The Altar
FYI. Not sure where The Altar originally redirected, but there's a request to put the album back at (album). In ictu oculi (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , WP:AST has nothing to do with this article. I suggest you try WT:ALBUM or WT:R&B. Primefac (talk) 22:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The constellation is at Ara (constellation), and as far as I can tell no-one is suggesting to change that. Nor should they. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Some changes to vital articles
Please comment here. 21:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In the off chance your browser doesn't forward to the proper section, it's 10.1.1 in the TOC. Primefac (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Cite APOD & APOD are up for merging
@ Templates for discussion/Log/2016 September 17. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Named minor planets tree
Category to be created & subcats populated soon with both MP articles and MP #Rs, based on suggestion from & discussion, barring any objections.

hildren include, but aren't limited to: ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Category:Named near-Earth objects with subcats for Apollo, Amor and Aten
 * Category:Named Mars-crossers
 * Category:Named main-belt asteroids
 * Category:Named Jupiter-trojans
 * Category:Named centaurs
 * Category:Named trans-Neptunian objects


 * Suggestion Category:Stars with proper names tends to be stars visible with the naked eye from Earth (or at least stars from constellations that have some stars visible from Earth). For Wikipedia readers who are--let's face it--mostly on Earth, that might aid navigation. I'm not clear on how named centaurs are physically different than the ones with numbers assigned to them. You don't need my permission to create categories of course, but it might be worth seeing how the discussions (above and below) turn out if creating these would be time consuming. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * , at least we can agree that 'Named minor planets' is a significant category. To make that category more tractable, since it will contain ~20,000 entries, it would be useful to subdivide it into its major components. What determines a "major" component, however, I'll leave up to others.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  20:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * On further inspection and on second thought, since Category:Numbered minor planets & Category:Unnumbered minor planets (the categories which Category:Named minor planets is meant to compliment) aren't themselves further subdivided, I'm much less inclined to do so. Doing so would require more input and interest than is present here, since it would be departing from convention. Doing so would also result in duplicate category trees, be susceptible to drift, and require an additional level of maintenance.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ - 19,980 named MPs categorized.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  03:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thx compared to the existing 20,071 named minor planets, there is a gap of 91 (0.5%) missing items. I'll try to narrow it down.  R fassbind  – talk   14:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Update (for posterity): as of 15 September 2016, Category:Named minor planets includes all 20,244 named MPs per MPC's 4 September 2016's Minor Planet Names: Alphabetical List.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  02:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded
I've proposed to add Gravitational wave to the list of vital astronomy articles. Please comment. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The level 4 VA list is a waste of time. It's better to focus on improving the content of the higher-rated importance articles in the WikiProject Astronomy/Article ratings listing. Praemonitus (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * If you feel that way, then ignore it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I will endeavor to do so. Praemonitus (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Is there a list of astronomy VAs, or is it synonymous with Category:Top-importance Astronomy articles?  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The VA list is arbitrarily constrained to a fixed total number across all subjects (1,000), so it is not 100% representative of the Top priority astronomy articles. Praemonitus (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh. I just want to see the other astronomy VAs to get a feel for what the inclusion criteria are, if any. There seems to be some fundamental misunderstanding, unawareness, or lack of that criteria (the first Oppose vote, for example).  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The inclusion criteria mostly seems to be whatever people can agree upon. WP:VA is probably the best list in the set for being sufficiently broad yet well focused. The astronomy section lists 26 articles. Praemonitus (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Bingo! Thanks.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Lua version of Template:LoMP
I have created a Lua version of the above template, and would appreciate someone else looking at it. The thread for it is here: Template talk:LoMP.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 00:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I looked at the output, which appeared OK. I did not look at the source code. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC on importing Wikidata information into Wikipedia observatory infoboxes
Please see the RfC Template talk:Infobox observatory Jc3s5h (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Template Display Question
Okay, so I've recently finished making all of the lists/deleting the templates brought up at this TFD. However, while doing so I noticed that nearest star systems shows all four five-year templates. The only thing the parameters do is change what is collapsed. I know this is a bit esoteric, but should (where X is a number from 1-4) show the individual templates such as Star systems within 0–5 light-years, or should it continue to show the entire thing? As a note, if there is no number given, the entire template is shown with everything collapsed. Primefac (talk) 03:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As a note, there are zero direct transclusions of the individual templates; they are all called via the combined template. Primefac (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We should TFD the combined template IMO since it's not intuitive to new users, as well as the >20ly templates (per the TFD). --Izno (talk) 11:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I think the template itself is a good idea; it's easier to type than to remember Star systems within 0–5 light-years. I just think that if you want the second set of stars, you should only get the second set. If there's no objection to this idea, there's really no need for TFD. Primefac (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Defining inner and outer main-belt asteroids on wikipedia
I plan to colorize the List of minor planets (example). As far as I know, we do not clearly define the terms "inner" and "outer" main-belt asteroid (MBA) on wikipedia. There are several alternatives mentioned in, which all differ from the given definitions at LCDB and JPL (see an incomplete summary above). Also, the definition of a Mars-crosser (MCA) varies (while on JPL, for example, MCAs and MBAs are mutually exclusive, here on wikipedia, an asteroid can be a near-Earth object, a Mars-crosser and a main-belt asteroid all at once).

I suggest to thoroughly discuss, whether or not we should define the usage of these orbital classifications on wikipedia. Otherwise there will be no guideline and this post will serve as justification to classify an asteroid whichever way seems to fit best. R fassbind – talk   13:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Why not use asteroid zones? Praemonitus (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of using color to add extra dimensions to the list. I can't see the difference between the MBA color & the iMBA color  though.
 * As for Mars-crossers, I've seen some of JPL's MCAs identified by the MPC as main-belt (one more inconsistency to add to the list). I'm reluctant to support large-scale changes based on a potentially unstable/non-standard taxonomy, but I don't know how pervasive this discrepancy is. If it only affects a small minority, say, < 10% of what either JPL or MPC call MCAs, that's fine, since there are hardly any outlier-free orbit classifications. If it's a significant fraction, though, that's too ambiguous for an encyclopedia imo.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * You do realize that minor planets can change their orbital category over time as a result of perturbations by the rest of the solar system? Urhixidur (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Changes are not a problem as the 470,000 entries in the list of minor planets are not updated manually. Changes in orbital classification are rather insignificant compared to other changes such as the monthly update of newly named minor planets, the linkage due to the redirection/creation of articles, or the re-assignment of discovery credits by the MPC.  R fassbind  – talk   01:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

✅ I implemented a simple 8-color scheme for the partial List of minor planets as described in Minor planet color code legend, rather than using a more detailed 20+ color-scheme by Zones as suggested by. This would have been perfectly feasible as well, but I think the simpler version is more appropriate as it gives us more options for future improvements we might undertake in the list of minor planets. R fassbind – talk  12:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

2011 FW62 recovered as 2015 AJ281 (member of Haumea family)
I was just reviewing some lost asteroids in the hopes of precovering them, and it turns out with the Pan-STARRS TNO rush that just a few months ago ,2011 FW62 (a "possible" dwarf planet on Wikipedia) was recovered by Pan-STARRS, bringing an observation arc from less than 2 months to just over four years. Although the H was pretty consistent (4.9342 +/- 0.283 verus 5.0 +/- 0.3) the orbit has became refined enough to determine that it's most likely a member of the high-albedo Haumea family (a=43.58 versus 43.34, i=26.81 versus 28.20, and e=0.13 versus 0.19) Assuming an albedo of 0.7 +/- 0.1, this gives its diameter as 130-200 km across, putting it firmly in the in the range of not-a-dwarf-planet.

I'm currently busy with some outside projects at the moment, so would it be possible for anyone to update 2011 FW62's page to reflect this new data? And would this perhaps warrant a removal from the possible dwarf planet template? exoplanetaryscience (talk) 00:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't have time to do this myself, but I've put a copy of these comments on the article talk page where they're more likely to be acted upon. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Astronomy Newsletter Q3 2016
<span style="border:2px solid #090E0E;font-family:Gill Sans Nova,Palatino;"><font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#000000;">Davidbuddy9 <font style="color:#000000;background:#FFFFFF;">Talk 00:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Mesosphere
Is the Mesosphere really "the coldest naturally occurring place on Earth"? Surely it's not actually on Earth? --108.171.128.169 (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well that's pretty darn cold, and it's below the Kármán line. But I tagged the claim as needing a citation. Praemonitus (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Mesopause also claims to be the coldest place on Earth, so regardless of what actually is the coldest region of the atmosphere, one of them needs to be modified. Primefac (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

False claims of eclipsing binaries
This is just a note about a potential concern. I've run into a couple of instances now of star articles making claims of being Algol-like eclipsing binaries. The latest was Tau4 Eridani, which I've since rewritten. The author was Richontaban, who has not edited under that name since 2009. The two stars did indeed prove to be likely binaries, but they have no orbital elements published and I could find nothing to confirm their supposed eclipsing nature. Praemonitus (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I did a check through of a large sample of his astronomy contributions. Most of the articles seemed to be in okay shape, so it's probably not a pervasive issue. Praemonitus (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Page merger in "Meanings of minor planet names"
The Meanings of minor planet names consists of partial list with different number ranges, containing up to 500 and 1000 entries, respectively. For the sake of consistency, I'm going to merge all 500s pages into 1000s pages. This will also result in a working page navigation for all partial lists. Existing links to 500s-pages will still work after the merger. R fassbind – talk  12:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * After the merger, the MoMP entries will get individual anchors similar to the LoMPs. And, to facilitate navigation between the LoMP & MoMP pages, using these new anchors, a 'meanings' link will be added to the 'ref' column (as opposed to a mostly-empty separate column) on the LoMP pages like at List of minor planets: 200001–201000, or whatever we decide looks best, via .  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

✅: the merger of the partial lists in the number range of 1 to 10,000 has been completed. R fassbind – talk  21:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ with follow-up edits to the LoMP & MoMP pages. I think all that's left is to update List of minor planets/See also, which I'll do in the next few days.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  04:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅!  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Mark Welser, astronomer?
I recently translated the article on Mark Welser from the Italian version. In the original, it describes him as an astronomer, so I have maintained that description. But there's not much in the article to justify it, at least not if "astronomer" means that you do original work. He was at least interested in astronomy.

Anyway, it seems to me the article is of possible interest to this project, if anyone is minded to take a look. --Trovatore (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It should probably say something like 'academic patron' instead. Praemonitus (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If all he did was pass along a note about sunspots to Galileo, then neither term should be in the lead. He was a banker and politician who happened to have astronomer acquaintances. Primefac (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The article states, "Welser, a patron of academics...". Praemonitus (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

RFCs on citations templates and the flagging free-to-read sources
See Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Village pump (proposals)
 * Village pump (proposals)


 * I'll mention in particular, that under debate is the option of having articles freely-available in ADSABS flagged as free, and with the possibility of automatically-linking the title of such articles in those cases. AKA instead of something like


 * we could have (with autolinking), something like
 * without having to manually set the url to be "http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=2014A%26A...566A..51T&link_type=ARTICLE". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * without having to manually set the url to be "http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=2014A%26A...566A..51T&link_type=ARTICLE". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

WR 31a
I'm stuck again. My diplomacy skills are insufficient to the task. In the hope of preventing a further edit war, perhaps someone else could take a look at WR 31a? Lithopsian (talk) 11:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I replaced "Type II" with Type Ib and Ic supernovae, to be consistent with 1st sentence in Wolf–Rayet star (see edit) I don't know if this is correct, but if not, then the main article "Wolf–Rayet star" should be amended, not a particular "object article" (WR 31a in this case). To me, this seems to be a no-brainer.  R fassbind  – talk  13:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To me at least, Figure 1 in Smith (2014) suggests the fate may depend on the metallicity. (There's a nice table (#1) at the end of the paper that could be a useful addition to the supernova article.) Praemonitus (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * See also table 2 in Groh et al 2013. I might suggest that it isn't 100% clear-cut what type of supernova WR 31a will produce. It is not a classical hydrogen-free Wolf-Rayet (yet), but a younger potentially LBV star. Nobody in the business will put down on paper what is going to happen to this specific star, so perhaps we shouldn't speculate. Lithopsian (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that saying it will do this or that, if the sources don't specifically say so or the data is inconclusive, falls afoul of original research, yes? This is not a simple math computation. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In it says: "Wolf–Rayet stars are expected to experience core collapse... and [the] resulting supernova explosions would be of type Ib or Ic.". No? In addition, the above comment saying that WR 31a is not a classical hydrogen-free Wolf-Rayet (yet), but a younger potentially LBV star, should go into the lead. No? Currently, "hydrogen features" and luminous blue variable are mentioned or linked at the end of the article, respectively. I do like the article.   R fassbind  – talk  23:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added a sentence to the lead which hopefully prompts that this is not an ordinary WR star. Feel free to modify it if it still isn't clear. I don't always spell out things that I'm very familiar with. So yes, it is obvious that WR stars go bang as type Ib/c and my guess would be this one will too eventually, but it is not typical and arguably might do something different. Lithopsian (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that very high mass stars can also collapse directly to black holes without undergoing a supernova explosion. So there is more than one possible scenario. Praemonitus (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, at sufficiently high mass or sufficiently low metallicity. See Supernova. Doesn't look likely for WR 31a, but it would be pushing the boundaries for us to state that as fact. Lithopsian (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Coordinator
Do you think we should have a project coordinator just like WikiProject Military history? —MartinZ02 (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, if we had the 1000+ page watchers that WP:MIL has (using that as a proxy for active members), but we're only at ~1/4 of that.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I concur. The active people are clearly active (see any of the above posts with comments), so I'm not sure the point of making any of them "official" helpers. Primefac (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * But they have fourteen coordinators, if our size is ~1/4 of their size, should we not have ~1/4 the amount of coordinators they have? —MartinZ02 (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the next question (besides 'what does a coordinator do, specifically?') is what's the lowest watched WikiProject with a coordinator?  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Dito. What does a coordinator do? (Link please)  R fassbind  – talk  00:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is what they do in WP:MIL. —MartinZ02 (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Help on B3 1715+425
This object was reported just a few days ago, and it seems to interest me. Here:

http://www.astronomy.com/news/2016/11/nearly-naked-supermassive-black-hole

It is possibly a hypercompact stellar system, or an ultracompact dwarf in my opinion. I do not have much time to make it up so I hope you might expand it even more.

Here are references:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.04067

https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/objsearch?objname=B3+1715%2B425&extend=no&hconst=67.6&omegam=0.268&omegav=0.683&corr_z=1&out_csys=Equatorial&out_equinox=J2000.0&obj_sort=RA+or+Longitude&of=pre_text&zv_breaker=30000.0&list_limit=5&img_stamp=YES

Thanks! Your help will be appreciated! SkyFlubbler (talk) 11:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I created a draft for it. Here at User:SkyFlubbler/B3_1715%2B425.

SkyFlubbler (talk) 11:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just two thoughts going forward. First, it's a preprint, so I would suggest waiting until it gets published in the Astrophysical Journal. The massive amount of "popular" media coverage is probably because they sent out a press release (almost every story I've read contains pretty much the same information). Second (and partially due to part one) you should not claim anything the scientists don't claim. If they say it's possibly a hypercompact stellar system or ultracompact dwarf, then you're fine. I know you know the OR rules, but I thought I'd mention it anyway.
 * Also, Caltech's security certificate is out of date, so at the moment that page is out of order. Primefac (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You can certainly upgrade the draft to be properly referenced. Then probably wait until the paper is formally published. I tend to put references in once they've been accepted for publication, but in this case it is essentially your only reference so it needs to be pretty solid. Lithopsian (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)