Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

FAC

Please add comments to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Redshift. Thanks, --ScienceApologist 23:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Astronomical subjects

Please review Special:Contributions/Mlhooten and Special:Contributions/166.82.166.38. Uncle G 14:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Transit of Venus

Transit of Venus is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 17:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Definition of planet

Definition of planet is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 20:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Morning width

Hi, I wrote a short stub on morning width using a definition I found somewherew on the Internet. Could someone who actually knows sometihng about astronomy verify its correctness? Cheers, —Ruud 21:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a really obscure term that I have not encountered in professional astronomy. It would be the type of term used in archaeoastronomy. A web search truns up nothing. I am uncertain if this is a real term. You should at least reference the source of your information (or a source that you are certain did not copy Wikipedia) so that other people can check your information. George J. Bendo 22:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I got the definition from http://www.delorie.com/gnu/docs/gcal/gcal_90.html. I translated the term from German: "Besonderes Interesse verdienen auch zwei Texte über die morgenweite und die Bestimmiung des Azimuts aus der Höhe, weil in ihnen indische Formeln in geometrischem Gewand gegeben werden und es so aussieht als ob sie mit Hilfe eines Sinusquadranten berechnet wroden wären." The two texts mentioned here are 9th century Arabic treatises on astronomy. —Ruud 22:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Anon changing data

Hi, 80.121.98.214 (talk · contribs) has changed some values for physical data about stars. It looks suspicious, but I'm hoping for a second opinion about whether the changes are legitimate. Thanks, Wmahan. 19:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

He appears to be changing temperatures and radii. Note that the radius cannot be measured directly but can be derived using the luminosity and temperature. Therefore, 80.121.98.214 appears to be making changes purely related to updating the temperatures.

To be honest, the changes by 80.121.98.214 are not all that big. Changing 7000 K to 6600 K is not that big a deal, especially since the temperatures probably are not better defined anyway. However, someone should ask him to cite his references.

For that matter, all the data in the infoboxes should be referenced. For example, look at the Alpha Persei article (where the temperature and radius were recently modified by 80.121.98.214). Nothing in that infobox is referenced. Where did all of that data come from? One of the external links? SIMBAD? Someone's field guide of the night sky? Allen's Astrophysical Quantities? Scientific preprints? Who knows? It probably came from multiple sources, but we don't know which ones.

Infobox material can be referenced gracefully; for example, see the Sombrero Galaxy article. The infobox data for stars should also be referenced. GeorgeJBendo 21:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

John Dee

John Dee is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 21:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Black hole

Black hole is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 16:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Galaxy

This is one of those essential astronomy topics that I think deserves a FA-rated treatment. The current page is fairly decent already, but I think there's more to be done. (Particularly with regard to meeting the stringent reference requirements; a prerequisite of a GA article.) Could the members of this group suggest a to-do list to make this page meet the comprehensiveness standards required for an FA article? Thank you. — RJH (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

From the standpoint, here is what I see missing in terms of content:

• The introduction should spend more time describing the basic properties of galaxies (such as their typical sizes and masses). It also contains a lot of redundant information; it seems to describe the interstellar medium using several different synonyms. (I removed at least one synonym: "plasma".)

• The observational history section should mention the Shapley Kurtis debate. Information of the historical detections of galaxies at wavelengths other than radio wavelengths would be nice. The HST's contributions to extragalactic astronomy and the Hubble Deep Field are not described accurately.

• The "Types of galaxies" section missed a key point: many galaxies' basic properties are related to their Hubble type, including the basic character of the ISM, the star formation history, the AGN type, and the stellar dynamics. The "Active galaxies" subsection needs an overhaul.

• The "Large scale structure" section contains the same awkward descriptions of galaxy groups and clusters that is found throughout Wikipedia. (I think someone copied a lot of information from SEDS, which was written by a German person who sometimes used awkward English phrases.) The section needs some revisions. I tried revising the second paragraph, but I am not happy with what I wrote. (I also need to find good references for some of that information.)

• The "Galaxy formation and evolution" section makes no mention of mergers except for the cheesy discussion of the pending merger between the Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy. This is a glaring oversight that needs to be addressed. Changes in galaxy morphology over time also needs to be described.

• The "Galactic biology" section appears to be given too much weight. I recommend shrinking this section if possible.

• A "multiwavelength galaxies" section would be nice. (SINGS, a project that I have worked on, should have something somewhere.)

These are just brief comments for now. I will keep an eye on the page and make improvements when I can. Dr. Submillimeter 08:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, these are helpful. I took the liberty of summarizing these on the galaxy page's to-do list (which I just added to the talk page.) — RJH (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for transcribing my comments. (I also need to learn how to spell Curtis's name.) Dr. Submillimeter 18:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Astronomy versus Astrophysics

I just nominated Category:Astrophysicists for deletion today, as it appears to duplicate Category:Astronomers. The discussion on the nomination led into a discussion about whether "astrophysics" can be considered a subcategory of "astronomy". My immediate perception as a professional astronomer/astrophysicist is that the difference does not really exist, as most astronomers use physics in their analysis. When I do a Google search on "difference between astronomy and astrophysics", I get links to a bunch of "ask the experts" pages that seem to say the same thing. This led me to look at the astronomy and astrophysics articles in Wikipedia. Unsurprisingly, the two articles contain duplicate information. Additionally, some of the things described in astronomy are physics oriented, and some of the things in astrophysics are not physics intensive. Similar statements can be made for Category:Astronomy and Category:Astrophysics. In my opinion, it looks like all of this stuff should be merged together. What are other people's opinions? GeorgeJBendo 18:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I have had colleagues, astrometrists, who drew sharp distinction between astronomy and astrophysics, and put themselves firmly on the astronomer side. As they worked strictly with collection and analysis of positional data, I can see their point. Lord Rutherford's famous comment notwithstanding, one can be a solid practicing scientist doing fundamentally important work without being a physicist. BSVulturis 23:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Scientific citations

Would your WikiProject like to endorse Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines? If so, please let those editors at that guideline know. --ScienceApologist 19:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Merger with WikiProject Astronomical objects

A discussion has started at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects on merging these two WikiProjects. This project seems mostly inactive. However, if anyone here would like to comment on a potential merger, please do so at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects. Dr. Submillimeter 20:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Stellar classification - (LeDrew)

Migrated here from WP:AO

In the Stellar classification page, their are several sentences under the O-M class stars that have the (LeDrew) phrase. They been there for a while. I deleted the G star phrase and put citation for the phrase that (LeDrew) left. I think that the information if valid, but no citation is on it.

• [[1]] - is the date that I removed one of them.

Thanks, CarpD 09/12/06

Perhaps it was intended as a citation? But I don't see a reference by LeDrew at the bottom of the page. The revision was made 2/8/2006 by anonymous user 69.152.226.14, if that's any help. — RJH (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Supernova

This page has received a number of edits and inline citations over the past couple of months. It's just been given GA status and it's in the queue for SCotW. I think that now it's fairly complete, if not a tad bloated. I'd appreciate it if some subject matter experts from the Astronomy projects could give it a review and see if there is anything missing or erroneous. It would be good if the page can be brought up to FA, but I suspect they'll want the size reduced. To do that there would probably need to be separate pages for Type Ia and Type II supernovae. Any thoughts? Thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RJHall (talk • contribs) 21:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

I think separate articles on Type Ia, Ib, Ic, and II supernovae is warranted. Also, the article should describe more about the use of supernovae for distance measurements. Otherwise, it looked fine when I glanced over it. Dr. Submillimeter 22:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. — RJH (talk) 23:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Jupiter, Universe and Black hole AC&ID

FYI—These astronomy articles are up for an Article Creation and Improvement Drive nominations. — RJH (talk) 23:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Since this post includes a specific object (Jupiter), could you please cross-post this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects)? Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 10:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector is now FAC

Hi, I just nominated Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector to be a Featured article candidate. Hopefully, you all think that the article is excellent and can support it. ;) But if not, please offer constructive criticisms on how it might be improved, which will be much appreciated. Thanks very much for your help! Willow 10:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the Month

Supernova is the new Science Collaboration of the Month. Good work! NCurse _work 06:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Renaming astro-stub to astronomy-stub

I have proposed that Template:astro-stub be renamed to Template:astronomy-stub. Please comment at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/January/7. Thanks. Mike Peel 10:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Worklist

There's a draft worklist available for the project. I attempted to prioritize pages in a reasonable manner, but opinions will undoubtedly vary so it will require some alteration (and expansion). — RJH (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just been discussing with Dr. Submillimeter about setting up a system like Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Physics articles by quality for this project, and sub-projects. Is there sufficient interest in getting a system like that up and running here? Mike Peel 20:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be a lot of redundancy with Astronomy topics. Would you just adopt the Physics article ratings where they appear? I could imagine there may be some discrepancy in priorities. — RJH (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:WPAstronomy

I've set up Template:WPAstronomy, which can be placed on the talk pages of astronomy articles using {{WPAstronomy}}. An article can be marked as an astronomical object by using {{WPAstronomy|object=yes}}. Note that all articles marked as objects will appear as being part of WP Astronomy and WP Astronomical Objects, which I thought would be the best approach; if not, I can create a seperate template for astronomical objects. Ratings can be done as described at Template:WPAstronomy/usage.

Additionally, I've added an astrophysics parameter to the template, so that only one template is needed on pages covering astrophysics subjects, which currently fall under both WP:Astronomy and WP:Physics.

The following pages list the articles tagged with the template:

• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Astronomical Objects articles by quality, with log and statistics pages.
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Astronomy articles by quality, with log and statistics pages.

These pages will be automatically kept up to date by a bot (updating approx every 24 hours).

I operate a different bot, Peelbot, which should be able to do automated tagging of article talk pages with this new template, if people want. I need to put in two requests if people want me to do this; one to update the software I'm using so that it can support the object tag, and another to get approval to do the tagging using a bot. I would then need a list of categories and/or pages that need tagging. Mike Peel 22:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest simply tagging everything under Category:Astronomy (including the subcategories and their contents) with Template:WPAstronomy. That should be simple enough (hopefully). Dr. Submillimeter 02:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The Category:Astronomy is probably in need of some cleanup, with many of the pages being moved to appropriate sub-categories. Also the subcategories are sorted oddly. — RJH (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I do this occasionally. I still do not know what to do with some of the articles. Many discuss coordinate systems. I see that a lot of the Moon-related gobbledygook that irritates Lunokhod is also creeping into the category; I will attempt to diffuse that stuff. Dr. Submillimeter 22:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps an Astrometry sub-category would serve as a place to dump the coordinate systems articles, as well as topics like proper motion? — RJH (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have occasionally tried to make sense of Category:Spherical astronomy and its subcategories, but I get confused. I just want to dump everything into a "Category:Astronomical coordinate systems" and forget about it all. Dr. Submillimeter 23:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have started using this. I notice that this template does not include an importance field. Why? Dr. Submillimeter 13:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think it was needed. It's on the physics tag, but I've always been concerned that people will get upset if their pet pages are rated as low importance. If people want it, it's easy enough for me to add it. Mike Peel 14:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Priorities should probably be indicated through project pages. I am happy with leaving importance out of the template. Dr. Submillimeter 14:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Planet Infoboxes TfD's

Please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 11. Mike Peel 20:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Astronomy articles by quality

I've noticed that the article quality categories are getting populated by astronomy articles on individual objects. (I.e. within the domain of WP:Astronomical Objects.) In particular the Category:B-Class Astronomy articles category contains a number of individual galaxies and planets. So mayhap we need to reconsider a merge again? Also does anybody why are there duplicate columns in the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Astronomy articles by quality statistics table? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The table was designed to have different importance ratings across the top. As we don't (currently) use importance ratings, all articles have an importance of "None". Mike Peel 23:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Telescopes

I plan on merging Wikipedia:WikiProject Telescopes into this WikiProject in a week's time, as that project doesn't seem very active (apart from me), and it seems pointless to have it separate from this one. Please let me know if you have any objections to this. Thanks. Mike Peel 09:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. Dr. Submillimeter 14:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No objections here, other than a hope that the main WP page doesn't get too bloated. Perhaps there should be a link to sub-topic page to cover the telescope templates? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. There are still some links to WikiProject Telescopes around Wikipedia; I aim to remove these over the next few days. Mike Peel 14:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Astronomical templates

I've tried to collate all astronomical templates into three categories: Category:Astronomical templates and its' subcategories, Category:Astronomical infobox templates and Category:Astronomical navigation templates. I've also put together a list of all astronomical infoboxes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Space/Astronomy templates/Infoboxes. If I've missed any, please add them to the categories/lists. Thanks. Mike Peel 16:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Citation systems

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#Citation systems. This has major implications for everyone, including RJHall and his work on galaxy. Dr. Submillimeter 08:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright

Unfortunately, a site called Famous Astrophysicists have been copying Wikipedia articles in violation of the GFDL, Wikipedia's license. In fact, they haven't even cited Wikipedia as the source of their content. We've tried contacting them about this, but they've done nothing. I would be grateful if contributors to any of the astrophysics biographies at http://www.famous-astrophysicists.com/index.html (make sure you contributed before the article was copied) would help out with this. Only contributors to these articles can officially act. What I'd like you to do is send a DMCA notice to their ISP. There is contact information at Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Def#Famous-astrophysicists.com. If you have questions, please ask; this would really be quite helpful. Superm401 - Talk 04:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ugly format

Here we go again. The main project page looks plain hideous now. Did we reach a consensus on the appearance chance, or was it updated by fiat? — RJH (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That was me. I switched it to match the appearance of Portal:Astronomy. It can easily be modified; any suggestions? Mike Peel 17:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We need to relegate some of the information to subpages. The "pages needing attention" box, for example, looks too long, especially compared to the length of the rest of the page. Dr. Submillimeter 17:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I almost never visit the Portal:Astronomy, but I guess I would have the same issues there. My preference would be to just keep what's necessary and eliminate the boxes. When the browser is below a certain width the alignment pushes many of the more interesting boxes too far down the page, and the alignment looks positively hideous. (As does the drab, cool-hued colors.) I'd just like to see the frequently updated stuff near the top so I can check it at a glance. No offense intended. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll work on it some more. Would something more like Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics be better? Or are you really insistent on not wanting boxes? Mike Peel 18:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

As a suggestion, something like Portal:Science would be really nice, in both the aestetic sense and from the point of view of functionality. I.e. using tabs rather than multi-column display (for the most part). Would that be acceptible? — RJH (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be possible, but I would have thought we'd need a significant amount more stuff on the page to need something like that. As it stands, templates can easily be moved to another page; once the featured articles section builds up, so can that. Same with the list of members. Pages needing attention is now significantly smaller than it was, so I think that's fine on the main page. Mike Peel 19:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

At this point I've ceased to care. Bye. — RJH (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, would people have a use for a box like the "Current activity" one on Wikiproject Physics? Mike Peel 19:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

50000 Quaoar - GA work

I've nominated 50000 Quaoar as Good Article, and have received a review noting various things that should be done to bring it up to GA status. Help on improving it would be much appreciated. Thanks! - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 21:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Comet Hyakutake

Comet Hyakutake has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are hereJeffpw 09:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Jupiter

The suggested Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism for the slow shrinking is not mentioned in several papers about the formation of Jupiter! Is this a true statement or a hoax or something new?

• W. B. Hubbard (1977). "The Jovian surface condition and cooling rate". Icarus. 30 (2): 305–310. doi:10.1016/0019-1035(77)90164-6.
• S. S. Kumar (1974). "On the formation of Jupiter and Saturn". Astrophysics and Space Science. 28 (1): 173–176. doi:10.1007/BF00642246.
• H. C., Jr. Graboske, R. J. Olness, J. B. Pollack, and A. S. Grossman (1975). "The structure and evolution of Jupiter - The fluid contraction stage". The Astrophysical Journal. 199 (1): 265. doi:10.1086/153689.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• W.B. Hubbard, T. Guillot, M.S. Marley, A. Burrows, J.I. Lunine, D.S. Saumon (1998). "Comparative Evolution of Jupiter and Saturn". Astrophysics, abstract.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

--Stone 17:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Three of the above references are ancient; they predate the Voyager missions (and one of them predates me). I would not count on them to be reliable references on Jupiter, especially given the dramatic advances in technology since the mid-1970's.

Having said that, it appears that these articles are describing something similar to what is described in Wikipedia as the Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism, even if they do not mention it by that name. I could not find any references to a "Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism" in any of my books, although I did find a reference to a "Kelvin-Helmholtz time scale" that effectively describes the same phenomena.

The references that you are using are very specific modeling papers aimed at professionals who already have experience in the field and who do not need the Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism explained to them (or at least named as such). You may want to look up a few high-level undergraduate or graduate-level stellarastrophysics books instead; they will probably explain the phenomena in more pedagogical terms. Dr. Submillimeter 18:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The papers are quite good and if the "Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism" is a undergraduate model to describe a phenomenon, it is perfectly OK with me. The strange thing for me is that nobody mentiones it in any literature I have. If somebody with a specific astronomy knowledge knows what is written there the article is OK.--Stone 08:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Carl Sagan is a featured article candidate

Carl Sagan is also being reviewed as a featured article candidate. (I have now tagged the talk page with the WPAstronomy template so that people will think to talk to us about the article.) Dr. Submillimeter 00:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This message is incorrect - see below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Carl Sagan FAR

The message above is incorrect - Carl Sagan is not a featured article candidate.

Carl Sagan has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary

Might I suggest that one of the tasks for this WikiProject be to add definitions to Wiktionary? 70.55.85.124 11:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Astrobox templates

I have nominated the Astroboxes for deletion; please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 28. Thanks. Mike Peel 22:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible Astronomy Featured Topic

(This message copied to WP:Astronomical objects, WP:Space, and WP:Astronomy)

Hey! I was looking around for groups of articles to nominate as a Featured Topic, and I came across Upsilon Andromedae, b, c, and d. All four of these articles are GA class, and together fulfill every requirement of a FT, except that none of them are Featured Articles themselves. If one of them, preferably Upsilon Andromedae itself, was promoted to Featured Article, then the Topic as a whole would most likely pass FTC. So, if anyone wants to shoot for that, have at it! Also, if any members of this Wikiproject know of a group of articles that fits the criteria, then please nominate them! Thank you! --PresN 18:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Scientific peer review

It is nearly 11 months since we established this review process as a minimal process after we failed to reach consensus about a number of matters. During that time it has been largely left alone with nobody really keeping a close watch on it. A couple days ago I cleaned everything up. I archived old reviews, corrected the tags on talk pages and made minimal changes to the process based on what I had learnt. I also reviewed how it had operated. There were some reasonable reviews and some that attracted no interest what so ever, but I guess that is the case even with Wikipedia:Peer review. Some entries may have missed some attention since they were not properly formatted, or had no tag on the article's talk page and hence did not appear in the category. See Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review for my review and report on the clean up.

Of course, in hindsight, I wonder whether we, and particularly I, could have done better a year ago. In hindsight, does anyone have ideas how we progress this review process. To be worthwhile, it must attract reviews that perhaps would not go elsewhere such as Wikipedia:Peer review and it must attract expert reviewers to add to what might be achieved by the general Wikipedia:Peer review. If it can not do either, perhaps we should close it down and just encourage articles to go to Wikipedia:Peer review. Articles for review are listed on the science WikiProjects such as this one, but they are transcluded in so changes do not appear on watchlists. I have also added recent reviews to Wikipedia:Peer review in the same way that WikiProject reviews such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Peer review are added. In this way both review pages refer to the same page for the review discussion and hopefully more editors will be attracted. The key point is attracting expert reviewers who might look at Wikipedia:Scientific peer review but not look at Wikipedia:Peer review.

If you have any ideas on this, please add your views at Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review. --Bduke 02:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Andromeda-Milky Way collision nominated for deletion

Andromeda-Milky Way collision has been nominated for deletion. Please go comment. Dr. Submillimeter 23:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was keep.--mikeu 16:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

List of possible articles

I've tried to find any relevant redirects for my list of missing astronomy topics but could anyone have a look at it? - Skysmith 12:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Some of those proposed articles look like things that I would hesitate to include in Wikipedia. However, it is clear that some of the other items need articles. Are you open to the removal of items from your list? Also, I noticed several typos or capitalization problems (such as for Lick Observatory); I will fix these when I see them. Dr. Submillimeter 14:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that's what I'm asking. I'd like to remove the unsuitable topics myself to keep track of the progress but could you mark them? - Skysmith 16:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I corrected two of the entries under exoplanets which now point to existing wp articles. I can't find anything for "Ophiuchi 1622" - where did you see this mentioned?--mikeu 04:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There have been a number of papers written on planetary mass objects in the sigma orionis star cluster. In addition to S Ori 52 (on your list) there are also references to S Ori 56 and S Ori 60 [2]. Then there is S Ori 68 [3] and S Ori 70 [4]. Some astronomners dispute the planetary nature of these objects [5]. Since very little is known about these objects it might be better to create a subsection in Sigma Orionis until more is learned about them.--mikeu 16:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think mikeu misunderstood the question; Ophiuchi 1622 is not Sigma Orionis. I found some information on Ophiuchi 1622 at the ADS Abstract Service. Unfortunately, the only information on this exoplanet candidate appears to come from preprints, not refereed scinetific articles. Maybe we should wait on creating an article until one of the papers is published. Dr. Submillimeter 16:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm just working through Skysmith's list of exoplanets. My Sigma Orinis post was not related to Ophiuchi 1622.--mikeu 17:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not read the signatures closely enough. My mistake. Dr. Submillimeter 10:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Tatooine (exoplanet) entry on the list, this 'kinda-sorta' refers to HD 188753 Ab. But it is not even a nickname (and certainly not a proposed name.) There are some references [6] to HD 188753 Ab as being similar to the fictional namesake in that there would be three stars seen in the sky. There is a brief mention at Tatooine#Tatooine in Science which incorrectly inplies that this planet is named Tatooine.--mikeu 18:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I picked those names during a astronomy lecture of the latest exoplanet finds and (apparently mistakenly) assumed that the papers had already been published. The best course could be to wait until they are. - Skysmith 06:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Tatooine may be one to strike out of the list. Dr. Submillimeter 10:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The existence of HD 188753 Ab is now in dispute. See article. --mikeu 23:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Solar System

There is a request for Solar system to appear as a Today's featured article--mikeu 19:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

University of Illinois Observatory

Hi all. There is an article I am working on, and have been, the University of Illinois Astronomical Observatory, that I think could benefit from some input from this project, though it's probably only partially related. There is a lot of information in the article pertaining to stellar magnitude and photometry, while I maintain more than a passing interest in astronomy I simply lack the expertise to ensure that the text in the section: 'Astronomical Significance' and beyond is fully accurate, and correctly written (so as not to contradict itself). I was hoping someone(s) would be able to look at it from this project and help me out. I really appreciate it and thanks ahead of time. : ) A mcmurray 12:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Black hole

This vital article was demoted as a featured article in Nov. and failed a GA nom in Jan. It is now a candidate for Wikipedia:Article_Creation_and_Improvement_Drive#Black_hole and has nearly enough votes to place it at the top of the list...--mikeu 00:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Pulsar vs Rotation-powered pulsar (and X-ray pulsar)

Pulsar and Rotation-powered pulsar are a mess. Anyone interested in merging these properly? —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 03:21Z

They should not be merged, but properly separated. Pulsar should be a general overview article, as there are other types of pulsars besides rotation-powered pulsars... 70.51.8.217 06:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand that rotation-powered pulsars are a subset of pulsars, but the majority of the article Rotation-powered pulsar is a duplication of the Pulsar article, so after that duplication is removed there isn't much left. X-ray pulsar also is only a stub article. A single article addressing both kinds of pulsars would be much better organization. If the Pulsar article eventually grows too large, it would make sense to split it out again, but we're a long ways from that. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-28 06:01Z

There is no merge template on accretion powered pulsar, you should add that to the article if you wish to discuss that. As it stands, the suggestion is to merge rotation powered puslar with puslar, which is not a good idea, considering the existence of the x-ray pulsar article. Given that the article radio-pulsar/rotation-powered pulsar is fairly large and comprehensive, it should exist separately. If you wish to merge all the pulsar articles together, that's an altogether different proposal from what you initially suggested here. Please note that we have a magnetar article, and other pulsar classes/potential classes (RRAT, short duration GRB, etc) 70.55.84.248 05:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I have added the {{mergeto}} tag to X-ray pulsar. I am indeed now suggesting merging the two to Pulsar. Merge tags aren't somehow necessary to create an "official" merge proposal though - I've merged hundreds of articles without adding merge tags; we're not a bureaucracy here. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 07:05Z

Merge tags are mostly useless. Go ahead and merge the articles. Dr. Submillimeter 10:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge tags serve to inform people that you wish to merge things. Otherwise people would not know you want to merge things. For something the size of radio pulsar, a merge tag is certainly "A Good Thing"(tm). 70.51.8.30 05:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Aspects of Mars

Hi, I contested a prod on the Aspects of Mars page, and have asked for a discussion here, is this info worth saving? regards sbandrews 11:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ephemerides

Found these, several of them have been prodded. 70.51.8.30 06:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Aspects of Mars
• Aspects of 1 Ceres
• Aspects of 2 Pallas
• Aspects of 3 Juno
• Aspects of 4 Vesta
• Aspects of Jupiter
• Aspects of Saturn
• Aspects of Uranus
• Aspects of Neptune
• Aspects of Pluto

Exploded Planet Hypothesis

Exploded Planet Hypothesis has been AfD'd. 70.55.84.23 06:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Conversion templates

Hello! This is to announce that several templates for automatic convertion between metric and imperial units and for displaying consistently formatted output have been created: {{km to mi}}, {{mi to km}}, {{m to ft}}, {{ft to m}}, {{km2 to mi2}}, {{mi2 to km2}}, {{m2 to ft2}}, and {{ft2 to m2}}. Hopefully, they will be useful to the participants of this WikiProject. The templates are all documented, provide parameters to fine-tune the output, and can be substituted if necessary.

Any suggestions, requests for improvement/features, or bug reports are welcome.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Bastille Day event

During my work on Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Articles I came across this article. Obviously I'll do my best to improve it, but it could use some tender loving care from people who know more about the subject than I do. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Cassini–Huygens

I think it would be better if we split articles on spacecraft and their missions. For example this would mean that we would have an article on Cassini orbiter, Huygens probe (these two may be one article) and Cassini mission -- Cat ^chi? 15:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Most missions are performed by single spacecraft/landers/probes, so splitting the mission from the discussion on the spacecraft would make little sense. For example, it makes little sense to discuss the Voyager 2 spacecraft on a separate page from the Voyager 2 mission. Hence, such splits should not be applied to space missions in general.

In the case of the Cassini-Huygens Mission, however, detailed articles on the two spacecraft and an overview article of the mission would be warranted. The mission page should provide a higher-level overview of the mission as a whole including a broad, undetailed overviews of the technical aspects of each spacecraft component and the science performed by each component. The articles on the probe and the orbiter can discuss the technical aspects of the components and the specific science performed by each component in more detail. Note that Huygens probe already exists as a separate page. Cassini orbiter should be written with a similar level of detail. Dr. Submillimeter 16:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Dr. Submillimeter. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 21:57Z

Voyager 2 almost has no information on spacecrafts instruments. We do have a Voyager program which should have more info on the hardware of the spacecraft. Hence you have two mission articles and one hardware article. -- Cat ^chi? 19:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, Voyager 2 was a bad example. Stardust (spacecraft) is a better example of where the mission and the spacecraft should not be split into separate articles. Dr. Submillimeter 19:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, perhaps. Still my proposal is sane. Articles are often too large because of the jungle of info about the hardware and mission. -- Cat ^chi? 04:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be apprpriate to place information about specific instruments on separate pages. This is the way information on spacecraft and telescopes are organized by professionals as well. See, for example, the page on [WFPC2]], which is an instrument of the Hubble Space Telescope. Dr. Submillimeter 07:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Spacecraft names

(Also, should "probe" and "orbiter" begin with capital letters? Can someone check?) Dr. Submillimeter 16:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I checked: no one is consistent about it, not even NASA itself, which sometimes uses "(the) Huygens probe" and sometimes "Huygens Probe" in the same page (the official web page for the probe) [7]. I suppose, pedantically, there is "the probe" associated with the Cassini–Huygens mission, named after Mr. Huygens, so it's "the Huygens probe", just like if there is only one apple or only one famous apple associated with Newton one could say "the Newton apple" (not to be confused with the Apple Newton). But then the probe also happens to have the title-cased proper name "Huygens Probe". —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 22:04Z

Note that professional organizations capitalize the first letters in the words "observatory" and "telescope" (e.g. Spitzer Space Telescope). Maybe we should do the same for probes, spacecraft, and orbiters if the words "probe", "spacecraft", or "orbiter" are parts of the full official name. (Voyager 2, for example, may be referred to as such without the word "spacecraft".) Also, I have noticed that European astronomers do not capitalize some words as often as American astronomers. Is the same true for people who do or do not capitalize "probe" and "orbiter"? Dr. Submillimeter 22:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I just realized that the proper name seems to be "Huygens". My hypothesis is that the use of "probe" started as a real-world disambiguation suffix that gradually became widely used. For many spacecraft, disambiguation is necessary to distinguish from the name of the mission ("Magellan spacecraft"/"Magellan probe"/"Magellan orbiter" vs "Magellan mission"), from the eponym ("Huygens landed on Titan? I thought he died 300 years ago"), and other non-aerospace things. If the spacecraft has a number then it usually doesn't need disambiguation ("Voyager 2" is unambiguous). The Huygens probe article, which benefits from the use of italic type, also just uses "Huygens" throughout the article. How about Huygens (spacecraft)? Some articles are already disambiguated this way, e.g. Galileo (spacecraft), Genesis (spacecraft). Some mission articles could be renamed too, e.g. Viking program to Viking (space mission) or Viking (NASA program) etc. (To be my own devil's advocate, there's also the question of If everyone in the real world disambiguates "Huygens" to "Huygens probe", should we also? For Huygens, everyone uses the same disambiguation, though that's not true for other spacecraft and missions.) —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 23:54Z

Huygens should be called a "probe" and not a "spacecraft" because it landed on Titan. Similarly, things that land on other solid bodies and stay on those other bodies should also be referred to as "landers" or "probes" and not "spacecraft". Viking program should not be renamed as it consists of a program comprised of two missions. In general, Wikipedia should attempt to use the term most commonly used outside of Wikipedia; if Huygens is referred to as a probe, then "Huygens probe" should be used. Dr. Submillimeter 20:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It would make sense to have a redirect for every alternative way to referance the craft. -- Cat ^chi? 04:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm fine with the heuristic of naming the article "Huygens probe" because that's how most people disambiguate it in real life, but are you sure about the rule to name a spacecraft as "probe" iff it lands on another solid body and stays there? Pioneer 6, 7, 8 and 9 are described as "space probes" but haven't landed anywhere. Ulysses probe is not a probe by that definition. The space probe article defines it as "an unmanned, usually telerobotic space mission in which a spacecraft leaves Earth's orbit" -- nothing about having to land elsewhere. So I'm not sure there's a hard distinction in the use of the word "probe" vs "spacecraft", at least not one that's universally followed. Also that rule has the disadvantage of creating unstable names as the status could change after a spacecraft lands (perhaps crashes; and hypothetically if it ever leaves in the future). "Lander" is reasonable as a term for spacecraft that land somewhere, though sometimes "lander" seems to be used to refer to the component of a spacecraft responsible for landing, and using that criterion for naming the article may be goofier than just using the most common colloquial name. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-10 10:39Z

Category:Free astronomy software

I have proposed merging Category:Free astronomy software into Category:Astronomy software. Most of the software listed in Category:Astronomy software is also free, so the subdivision does not seem appropriate. Please go state any opinions you have at WP:CFD. Dr. Submillimeter 22:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please review "Black hole" article

I've completed pass 1 of the edit of Black hole discussed in Talk:Black_hole#Possible_restructure? Please check it for errors, inconsistencies and serious omissions. For comparison, the previous version of the article is at [8]Philcha. Talk:Black_hole#Please_review_the_recent_edits states the objectives of the edit.

I've also asked Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics and Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects to review Black hole, and I'm informing these projects that I've asked Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy to review Black hole.

Dr. Submillimeter commented that Black hole is too long, and I think that for each major "entry point" article WP needs a plan which defines how much detail goes where (Talk:Black_hole#Please_review_the_recent_edits).Philcha 22:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Awsome site

I just found this on Digg, totally badass star map site... wikisky.org I wonder if we can work out a partnership with them. -Ravedave 03:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Several editors held a discussion with the people promoting wikisky.org at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects. The wikisky.org people wanted to place links to their website within the infobox templates, which most people agreed was a bad idea for maintenance and stability reasons. However, a couple of compromises were discussed; the best compromise was to include links to wikisky.org in the "external links" sections of articles on individual objects, which is what is currently done for many objects.

Also, note that wikisky.org is not yet the perfect sky atlas website. For example, wikisky.org does not have images that cover the entire sky. For example, the website has no images of Messier 104. Dr. Submillimeter 06:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

aspects of asteroids

A whole lot of asteroids appear to have these ephemerides sections attached to them. See asteroids starting at #10, and continuing on and on and on. 132.205.44.134 21:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This has also been discussed for aspects of planets, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aspects of Pluto--mikeu 13:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

transits

Has anyone noticed the proliferation of articles about transits visible from planets other than earth? The Transit of Phobos from Mars is notable in that it has actually been observed. I'm not sure the same can be said for the transit of earth as seen from jupiter. What does everyone think?

{{transit visibility table}}

This at least seems to be presented better than the the ephemeris tables. Still, these seem like non-notable random alignments. Most of these (if not all of them) were created by User:Curps, who is inactive. Maybe we can prod these articles? Dr. Submillimeter 14:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually prodded one of the articles and then withdrew the prod, but for good reason. See Transit of Saturn from outer planets. Instead of just listing data, this actually discusses the phenomenon. I notice that the others also contain some discussion as well. Maybe these articles should just stay. Dr. Submillimeter 23:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

U V W Space velocities

Does anyone have a good reference for U V W Space velocities? See my entry at Talk:Celestial coordinate system --NealMcB 03:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Categorization of astronomers by religion

A few people have been categorizing astronomers by religion; see Category:Astronomers by religion. I have nominated the category tree for deletion. I personally think this is a bad idea, as religion has no influence on the careers of any astronomers that I know. Please go voice your opinion here. Dr. Submillimeter 09:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it occurred to me that the astronomers I have known at the Vatican Observatory are probably influenced by religion more than average, although they are exceptions. Still, for the vast majority of astronomers that I know, religion generally does not influence their careers. Dr. Submillimeter 10:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Greek and Roman astronomers

I just nominated Category:Greek and Roman astronomers to be renamed Category:Roman astronomers. Combining the Greeks and Romans together just seems confusing. Also note that Category:Greek astronomers already exists. Please go voice your opinion at WP:CFD. Dr. Submillimeter 00:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Astronomical units of length

Is there any object to a migration of the category Category:Astronomical units of length to a slightly broader group called "Category:Astronomical units". That would allow the inclusion of topics such as Angular diameter, Solar mass, Solar luminosity and so forth. — RJH (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Added CFR entry under Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_12#Category:Astronomical_units_of_length. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Meteoroid → Meteor

User:Smkolins has proposed that meteoroid be renamed meteor 132.205.44.134 22:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings → Apollo missions tracked by independent parties

Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings → Apollo missions tracked by independent parties- proposed by user:ScienceApologist. 132.205.44.134 23:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Pluto spacecraft, Template:Neptune spacecraft, Template:Uranus spacecraft

Template:Pluto spacecraft has been proposed for deletion at WP:TFD by user:Cop 633. 132.205.44.134 23:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Most wanted articles

There are currently 32 articles listed at WP:MWA#Observatories that might be of interest to this project. --Sapphic 20:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Planetary mass type

Anyone heard of the Planetary mass type classification? --mikeu 02:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard of it. A search on the term at the [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html ADS Abstract Service" turns up no articles that actually use the term. A Google search on "'planetary mass type' -Wikipedia" turns up no articles that use the term. I will nominate it for deletion momentarily. Dr. Submillimeter 07:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Planetary mass type is now nominated for deletion. Please go comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planetary mass type. Dr. Submillimeter 08:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Also note that subterrestrial has also been nominated for deletion. Please go comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subterrestrial. Dr. Submillimeter 10:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete that page, please. I see ideas from John W., Wilbur, and my ideas on a planetary classification. I left evidence on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planetary mass type. Thanks, CarpD 20/4/07

Proposal for merger Celestial Atlas into Uranography

Hi. Intrested to discuss? Then go HERE! Rursus 10:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Equinox

Equinox (astronomy), a redirect, has been proposed for deletion at WP:RFD. 70.51.11.38 03:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Micrometeoroid merge to meteoroid

User:Rsduhamel proposes that micrometeoroid be merged into meteoroid. 132.205.44.134 14:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with micrometeoroid, in that it confuses micrometeroid and micrometeorite. 132.205.44.134 15:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

stub-type planet-stub has been nominated for deletion

See WP:SFD, User:BlueEarth created the stub type template:planet-stub/category:planet stubs 132.205.44.134 23:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Anything started by BlueEarth may need to be looked at... Thanks, CarpD 20/4/07.
  • Hypoterrestrial // never heard of it & neither has Google.
  • Subterrestrial planet // talked about it on John's BBS. Also, the definition of that word is "below ground" [9].
  • Supergiant planet // It is a slang term, (using Google), also, I think it was mentioned in the Extrasolar Forum.

Supergiant planet is used in fiction and as slang, so it's not non-existent, unlike hypoterrestrial and subterrestrial. 132.205.44.134 15:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe a mention of it as a fictional/slang term in a Gas giant, thanks CarpD 20/4/07.

I've seen it in popular astronomy articles in various places (say USA Today), so it can merit an article. At any rate super-Jupiter superjovian superplanet and supergiant planet should probably exist as a (single) article (with redirects), IMHO. 132.205.44.134 20:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe all of these terms can be turned into redirects to gas giant? Dr. Submillimeter 21:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've already prodded hypoterrestrial 132.205.44.134 15:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that I turned supergiant planet into a redirect for gas giant, which seemed more appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 08:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

SIM PlanetQuest

I first expanded Space Interferometry Mission in November and spent a bunch of time expanding it today, I plan to take it to GA soon, maybe eventually FA. It needs copy edited which I haven't done myself yet but will, additional eyes will be needed. Any volunteers would assist greatly. Need help making sure jargon isn't used to much, I strived to keep it accesible to the layman, the sources were pretty dumbed down so it should be mostly good but may need some work at parts. Thanks in advance.IvoShandor 01:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have now copyedited this article twice. IvoShandor 08:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Extrasolar planets and Category:Planetary systems

Is anyone familiar with these categories? According to their descriptions, Category:Extrasolar planets is used for stars with one planet, while Category:Planetary systems is used for stars with multiple planets. In plain English, however, "planetary system" would usually refer to any star with a planet, and "extrasolar planet" would refer to planets (not stars). Would people object if I reorganized these articles following my above interpretation? Another option would be to rename one or both of the categories to more clearly indicate their contents. Dr. Submillimeter 20:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good to me, although "Stars with planetary systems" could also work as a sub-category of Category:Planetary systems. — RJH (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Big Bang FAR

Big Bang has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 14:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Miranda (moon)

There's a problem... someone changed the Miranda.jpg image to be some child actress. Every place where there's supposed to be an image of the moon, she appears. I don't know what to do in this circumstance -- should someone revert the Miranda.jpg image file? Kier07 22:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it has been reverted. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Constellations task force

Constellations need cleanup. Anyone interested in participating in a new Constellations Task Force?? Said: Rursus 21:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Artificial Satellite → (multiple possibilities)

Apparently "Satellite" was renamed Artificial Satellite at some point. 132.205.44.134 21:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Userbox

This user is a member of the Astronomy WikiProject.

• User:Icez/User Astronomy

I find it curious that WikiProject Astronomy looks like an ASTROLOGY wikiproject, due to the use of Saturn's astrological sign in the user box. 132.205.44.134 22:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I commented on this problem before. Can we get a different symbol? Maybe a diagram of an orbit? Dr. Submillimeter 22:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

commons:Category:Astro_icons has a lot. How about . —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-22 06:08Z

I think that one is used by WikiProject Space. Maybe one of the following:

I prefer the accretion disk myself. Dr. Submillimeter 09:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a picture of a telescope (e.g. the radio telescope) would be clearest to most folks. --NealMcB 03:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the radio-telescope might get confused with a telecommunications wikiproject. What about a grand design spiral galaxy, the Horsehead Nebula, or the Pleiades? 132.205.44.134 22:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the tricks is to choose a symbol that will not get confused with a symbol for Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects. I therefore avoided using images of astronomical objects. However, maybe using an astronomical object in the infobox is inevitable. Dr. Submillimeter 23:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that symbol is also the astronomical symbol for Saturn, so seems appropriate, and looks neat and tidy. Pulsar 14:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Although it is an actual astronomy symbol, it gives the appearance that the difference between astronomy and astrology is ambiguous. Can we use a less ambiguous symbol? Dr. Submillimeter 14:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well... there's the COBE image (the hamburger) or the WMAP image... Wikiproject Cosmology :)

What about a picture of the statue of Atlas with a starglobe that is a visual representation of the star atlas of Hipparcus?

132.205.44.134 01:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Those suggestions seem OK. Can you show some examples? Dr. Submillimeter 07:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, try google images and type in the word "Astronomy".

[10] [11]

Probably the best picture would be a collage of items. Ie. Saturn, star (distant pointy star), a comet, a galaxy, and a telescope. Considering that every individual item can represent a specific type of astronomy branch. Plus, the image is user friendly to non-astronomical oriented people. Thanks, CarpD 20/4/07.

The Template:WPAstronomy boxes use . Maybe we should just use that anyway. Dr. Submillimeter 19:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/cobe_images/COBE_15_e90-8910.gif - COBE hamburger is on the bottom. 132.205.44.134 22:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.phys.lsu.edu/farnese/images/JHAFarneseProofs_img_0.jpg is the Hipparcus star atlas rendered as a statue, but I'm not sure of the copyright status of this link. 132.205.44.134 22:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.phys.lsu.edu/farnese/ 132.205.44.134 22:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the HST image of the "Pillars of creation" would be most appropriate, and is arguably the best known image in the whole subject. I have to agree about the symbol, as it really only aught to be used sparingly to replace the full word Saturn where space is critical (eg. web icons, short hand &c.) The image should be available in the public domain being NASA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pulsar.co.nr (talk • contribs) 21:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Astronomy category consolidation

Now that the Category:Units of measure in astronomy discussion has resolved itself, I wanted to take a look at further organization of category:Astronomy. Categories along the lines of astronomical quantities and measurements seem to suggest themselves. Here are some tentative candidate lists:

• In the current Category:Astrometry: Angular distance - Fixed star - JPL Horizons On-Line Ephemeris System - Meridian circle - Morning width - Photometric parallax method - Radial velocity - Star transit - Uranography - Vertical circle
• In the current Category:Celestial mechanics: Culmination - Geocentric coordinates - International Celestial Reference Frame - International Celestial Reference System - Longitude of the ascending node - Lower culmination - Orbit determination - Upper culmination
• Under astronomical measurements: Angular diameter Circular polarization of starlight - Light curve - Mass distribution - Moving cluster method - Star count
• Under astronomical quantities: Astronomical constant - Brightness temperature - Effective temperature - Julian year (astronomy) - Metonic cycle - Noon - Oort Constants - Oort Limit

Any thoughts? Or perhaps a better approach? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am a little wary of placing some physics terms (such as effective temperature) in astronomy categories. However, this seems to happen frequently with some of these radiative transfer categories, so maybe a Category:Radiative transfer is needed?

I also do not understand why coordinate systems should be placed under Category:Celestial mechanics. I imagine that "cenestial mechanics" would contain articles on dynamics, such as orbital eccentricity and Lagrangian point. I would rather see all the coordinate information placed inside a Category:Astronomical coordinate systems or something with a similar (or better) name. (We also have a Category:Spherical astronomy that hurts my brain whenever I try to understand the rationale for its name.) Dr. Submillimeter 21:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a Category:Celestial coordinate system. Perhaps that could be used for the coordinate information? Also if Category:Spherical astronomy were renamed to Category:Celestial sphere (or made a sub-category), might that sharpen up it's purpose (by possibly excluding the lunar standstill, plane of reference, solstice and subsolar articles)? — RJH (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I would rather attempt to jam everything currently located in Category:Spherical astronomy into Category:Celestial coordinate system, but I am uncertain. I could picture equator and equinox being inside a Category:Celestial sphere. It might be worth making a list of all the articles and reviewing it to see what should go where. Also, have you ever heard of the term "horizontal coordiate system" as in Category:Horizontal coordinate system? I think I've usually heard this referred to as "altitude-azimuth" or "alt-az". Dr. Submillimeter 20:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes the name "horizontal coordiate system" seems odd. Many sites use "Horizon coordinate system", so perhaps that is what was intended? Also it makes some sense to merge most of Category:Spherical astronomy into Category:Celestial coordinate system. Or at least the redundant entries could be removed from the former, then see what's left over. Done: that thinned it out quite a bit. — RJH (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The category:astronomy has been thinned out. The remaining articles are primarily high-level topics that seem appropriate at this level. Thanks for the feedback. — RJH (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

CfD: Star formation

I suggested a deletion of Category:Star formation at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_6#Category:Star_formation. Please comment if you have an interest. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like there was enough opposition to this empty category that it will remain in existence. Shrug... it's no skin off my nose. — RJH (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Polar-ring galaxy

Can someone take a look at Polar-ring galaxy? It seems to require some work. 132.205.44.134 23:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Terrestrial planets

Category:Terrestrial planets - do we need this category? I wonder if we could confirm the composition of extrasolar planets that might be terrestrial anytime soon. 132.205.44.134 23:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth I'm neutral on the need for this. It's a fairly skimpy category, but it doesn't seem completely useless. — RJH (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Artistic impressions and Astronomy Image Review.

Hello All - there was a lengthy and exciting conversation at talk:Gliese 581 c about the appropriateness and encyclopedicity of a particular artistic representation of the planet, and artistic representations generally. The solution we came to was to set up an image review page as part of the project, in which contributors could request an illustration for an article, then artists would generate drafts, and once they met community consensus they would be put into the articles. There is a very successful precedent for this system at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review - take a look at that, and our initial version of Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Image Review and see if you like it - we're ready for comments/revisions/and image requests! Cheers, Debivort 01:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The first image is up for review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Image Review - weigh in if you like. Debivort 18:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Astronomy institutes to Category:Astronomical institutes and departments

Speedy category rename is listed for Category:Astronomy institutes. 132.205.44.134 16:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This has been moved to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 13 for an extended discussion. Dr. Submillimeter 09:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

For your consideration

WP:Vital_articles#Astronomy is a lean listing of selected articles that are considered "vital" by a group of wikipedians. I find it useful as a place to focus some editing energy. But for the purposes of this group, might it be beneficial to build a "Vital astronomy articles" tree (with, say, 3-4 branches of depth) of broad-topic articles that should be in every public astronomy encyclopedia? (And sign the names of the contributors.) Once the list has reached a consensus, then it could be linked as a sub-article from the above section. For example, "Wikipedia:Vital astronomy articles".

At least half the current list of vital astronomy articles is oriented toward the Solar System. The Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded#Astronomy list seems equally biased. (Not that there's anything wrong with articles on the Solar System, mind you, I just think that many other astronomy topics should be covered to an equal level of quality.)

There are online astronomy encyclopedias against which such a list could be compared. (C.f. Eric Weisstein's World of Astronomy.) There's also the Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Worklist, which would provide a useful starting point. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, no interest. — RJH (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Earth-Moon space Orbit comparison has been prodded

Earth-Moon space Orbit comparison was prodded by User:Swpb on May 14. 132.205.44.134 22:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The content appears mostly redundant with Delta-v budget, and the later does a better job of covering the topic. — RJH (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Zvezdno Obshtestvo Observatory

Up for AfD. — RJH (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD result was delete. — RJH (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

radio astronomy

Hello. The article radio astronomy is not listed with one of this project's tags. It seems to me that it should be listed. Also, the article may need some attention. Bubba73 (talk), 16:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Blue dwarf article at Articles for Deletion

The Blue dwarf article is up at AfD here. I think this is one that needs input (one way or another) from you good people. My personal thought is that some of the edits to the article have confused the issue. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 02:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This article reveals a problem with using common names for classes of stars. I have started a new discussion on the topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#Do star spectral class articles/categories need renaming?. Dr. Submillimeter 08:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Astronomer vs Amateur nominated for deletion

Wikipedia:Astronomer vs Amateur has been nominated for deletion. Please go express your opinion if you are interested. Dr. Submillimeter 15:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

a bunch of things were prodded because of transwiki to wiktionary on June 3rd

Chasma, Dorsum, Flexus, Flumen, Fluctus, Linea, Macula (planetary geology), Mensa (geology), Rupes, Tholus. Personally, I feel they should be redirected somewhere... 132.205.44.134 22:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Astronomy

Has anyone taken a look at Wiktionary? They seem to have a heirarchy for astronomy related words and names. 70.55.87.222 06:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Types of nebula

USer:Lofty created Template:Types of nebula. I generally do not like the idea of having a navigation template for "types" of nebulae. The major problem is that most nebulae cannot very easily be divided into one or a few types. A few objects, such as planetary nebulae, can be characterized as distinct objects, but most of the interstellar medium is diffuse. Moreover, a broad number of terms may be applied to different parts of the diffuse interstellar medium, including reflection nebula, emission nebula, HI region, HII region, molecular cloud, dark nebula, etc. Furthermore, classifying diffuse nebulae as "reflection", "emission", or "dark" nebulae is misleading, as many clouds may emit, reflect, and absorb optical light simultaneously.

I ultimately recommend deleting Template:Types of nebula simply because it looks too problematic. However, I would like other people's feedback first. (At the very least, the plural form of "nebula" should be used in the template name.) Dr. Submillimeter 09:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I can certainly see your point about it being difficult to categorize individual nebulae. But this template only appears to be transcluded into general articles on those nebula types, rather than specific nebulae. (C. f. Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Types_of_nebula.) Wouldn't a navigation template be preferable to a series of "See also" links? But that being said, I have no personal attachment to this template. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

For navigation, I think Category:Nebulae would be more appropriate than this navigation template. Too many things can be called "nebulae". If all of the things that could be called "nebulae" were listed in this template (which would be appropriate), it would be large and unweildly to use for navigation. Dr. Submillimeter 19:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Template nominated for deletion

I nominated Template:Types of nebula for deletion. You can comment at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 14#Template:Types of nebula. I really do not think that it is salvagable. Dr. Submillimeter 13:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Renaming Category:Historical astronomical instruments

I proposed renaming Category:Historical astronomical instruments as Category:Astronomical instruments, mainly because of the subjective issues with using the word "historical". Please go comment at WP:CFD. Dr. Submillimeter 15:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that historical implies any POV other than this was once used but no longer is. IvoShandor 17:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In this situation, "historical" could mean 50 years old, 100 years old, 500 years old, no longer used, obsoleted by other equipment, or featured in historical discussions on the topic. This is a common problem with many Wikipedia categories. See, for example, Category:Historical cats. Dr. Submillimeter 17:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In other words, Catgory:19th century astronomical instruments would be more appropriate if, one day, there were significant amounts of articles to populate said category? IvoShandor 17:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Dr. Submillimeter 19:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(undent)I have to say, Category:Historical cats is quite hilarious, albeit useless. IvoShandor 22:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait until you've seen Category:Animal deaths by year and Category:Animal births by year. Really... Are there enough articles for any category such as these? 132.205.44.134 03:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If you would like to see some very silly categories, look at User:Dr. Submillimeter/Humorous categories. Dr. Submillimeter 08:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary: wikiproject?

I think we should have a sister WikiProject at Wiktionary, looking at that link further up the talk page... and this worklist on Wiktionary... But Wiktionary doesn't have much detail on how they handle wikiprojects (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:WikiProject) 132.205.44.134 00:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Operation Moonwatch

Operation Moonwatch is up for deletion here [12]. It was a worldwide project of amateur astronomers and observatories improvised to track early satellite launches in 1957 and was the first to track Sputnik but somebody thinks it might be a hoax.... Nick mallory 23:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Merging astronomy and astrophysics

I'm currently engaged in a discussion with yet another user without a Ph.D. in the physical sciences who wants to list astrophysics as a subfield of astronomy. This discussion has ticked me off badly enough that I am now ready to push forward with merging the astronomy and astrophysics articles.

In reality, astronomy and astrophysics are really synonymous with each other. Hardly any professional astronomers make the distinction (although, in past discussions on Wikipedia, someone has mentioned some person somewhere who is observationally-oriented that would not be conisdered a physicist, but these people are rare). Virtually all professional astronomers have to take physics courses to earn degrees, and virtually all astronomical research in the past 100 years has involved the use of physics. Even the professional journals blur the lines between "astronomy" and "astrophysics" in their titles, as can be seen in the title of Astronomy & Astrophysics.

Making the distinction between "astronomy" and "astrophysics" in Wikipedia is impractical. The two articles need to be merged together.

What are other people's comments on this? Dr. Submillimeter 22:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The distinction is mainly historical falling along the subject distinctions you outline. Some of the great observational astronomers of the early part of the last century were not particularly keen on physics probably due to some holdover celestial idealism and distrust of the non-experimental nature of the field. I agree that there shouldn't be two articles, but a section in the merged article on the distinction between astronomy and astrophysics might be appropriate. I'm reminded of the joke: "What's the difference between an astronomer and an astrophysicist? I'm an astronomer when I want to talk to the person sitting next to me on a passenger jet and I'm an astrophysicist when I don't." --ScienceApologist 00:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. However, there are parts of astronomy that aren't astrophysics - mainly in terms of amateur astronomers who are taking pretty pictures of the sky, but are not interpreting them. Also, theoretical astrophysics is seperate from astronomy - although there is extensive give-and-take between the two. If the articles are merged, then those differences need to be made clear. Mike Peel 00:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The differences between the use of the terms "astronomy" and "astrophysics" could be described in a new introduction. Moreover, the amateur astronomer and pre-Newton discussions could emphasize that the fields were not physics-oriented. However, as a person who has worked on both theoretical and observational astronomical research, I know that it is not really appropriate to describe the two methods of research as separate fields. Although a few theorists do not interact too often with observers or observational data, most theorists work very closely with observers or observational data at least at some point during their careers. (For example, look up Bruce Draine or Aigen Li in the ADS Abstract Service.) Dr. Submillimeter 09:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the two articles should remain, as they are both somewhat large. A section should be developed in the Astronomy article, and a template:main linked off to the astrophysics article for a deeper treatment of the material. The history section can explain the evolution of mainstream astronomy from cartographic to astrophysics, etc, the development of cosmology... 132.205.44.134 02:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This does not seem like an appropriate route. See, for example, the "Observational astrophysics" section in astrophysics. That really seems like a discussion on what most people would call "astronomy" anyway (and the word "astronomy" is used multiple times in the section). It would be better to have subpages for the history of astronomy, theoretical astronomy, observational astronomy, etc. Dr. Submillimeter 09:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with a merge, since really the topics are just two sides of the same coin. But I would ask that: (1) somewhere in the resulting article it provides an explanation of the word "astrophysics", and (2) the article is maintained at a GA quality or better. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This is kind of like the question of whether "Physics" and "Modern Physics" should have separate articles, no? (Not that I'm putting them up as models.) Perhaps it would work to keep both articles, but let Astrophysics handle the more modern and technical topics so Astronomy can stay more general. Saying something to that effect in the leads would be a good idea. Certainly we should try not to repeat too much material in the articles. BTW, I hadn't heard the joke about the astro____ on the plane, but I'll certainly be repeating it. Gnixon 21:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Instead of this proposal, I would suggest redirecting astrophysics to astronomy and then having a separate article for "modern astronomy". What is considered to be modern astronomy, anyway? Is it astronomy that relies on photography (and thus relies on directly-recorded data)? Is it the form of astronomy that followed after the Shapley-Curtis debate and the discovery of the expansion of the universe? Or does the term refer to astronomy research as it is currently performed? (I heard the joke about "astronomer" versus "astrophysicist" quite a few years ago.) Dr. Submillimeter 21:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I should be clear that I'm not an expert on astronomy or its history. This link seems useful for the discussion. It points to a transition in the 19th century from identifying, locating, and classifying heavenly bodies to applying physics and geology to understand their composition. Since then, my understanding is that astronomers have relied more and more on nuclear physics, AMO, thermo- and hydrodynamics, and GR, to the extent that today virtually all astronomy is astrophysics. Still, Merriam-Webster recognizes a difference between astrophysics and astronomy, the latter of which is more general. I'm not sure what's the best way to handle the two topics (if they're indeed distinct), but I'm getting less comfortable with the idea of a merge. Just my 2 cents. Gnixon 16:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried just cutting material in Astrophysics that was redundant with Astronomy and not specifically about "astrophysics" in the sense I used it above. My hope was that what remains could grow into an article that supplements Astronomy instead of duplicating it. I didn't mean to short-circuit this discussion, and if my changes are counter-productive, please revert them with my apologies. Gnixon 01:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Gnixon's edits actually demonstrate the redundancy that existed between the two articles.

While I do not have any good printed references for the differences between "astronomy" and "astrophysics", I was going to start with the introduction to Frank Shu's The Physical Universe, which uses "astronony" when describing the subject in qualitative terms and "astrophysics" when describing the subject in quantitative terms. (Keep in mind that the book is an "introductory" astronomy or astrophysics book.)

Another point about the astronomy article: It needs to be written to focus on the study of astronomy. The enitre section under "Astronomical objects" seems to be giving a brief overview of astronomy. I would rather revise this to discuss the subjects that are studied within astronomy and how the subjects are studied. For example, rather than describing the Milky Way, I would want the galactic astronomy subsection to describe topics of research within galactic astronomy and the methods used to study the galaxy. Some science information can be kept, but it should be kept to a minimum. What do other people think? Dr. Submillimeter 16:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Additional note: see http://www.erie.psu.edu/academic/science/degrees/astronomy/astrophysics.htm . Dr. Submillimeter 16:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Draft paragraph for astronomy

Here is a draft paragraph that I wrote for astronomy:

Generally, either the term "astronomy" or "astrophysics" may be used to refer to this subject. Based on strict dictionary definitions, "astronomy" refers to "the study of objects and matter outside the earth's atmosphere and of their physical and chemical properties"and "astrophysics" refers to the branch of astronomy dealing with "the behavior, physical properties, and dynamic processes of celestial objects and phenomena". In some cases, as in the introduction of the introductory textbook The Physical Universe by Frank Shu, "astronomy" may be used to describe the qualitative study of the subject, whereas "astrophysics" is used to describe the physics-oriented version of the subject. However, since most mondern astronomical research deals with subjects related to physics, modern astronomy could actually be called astrophysics. Various department that research this subject may use "astronomy" and "astrophysics", partly depending on whether the department is historically affiliated with a physics department, and many professional astronomers actually have physics degrees. Even the names of the scientific journal Astronomy & Astrophysics reveals the ambiguity of the use of the term.

Comments would be appreciated.

I am moving this into the astronomy article. Dr. Submillimeter 12:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ready to turn astrophysics into a redirect

I have integrated the term "astrophysics" into the astronomy article and adding the paragraph explaining how "astrophysics" is more or less synonymous with "astronomy". Other users and I have incorporated most of the useful, non-duplicative material from astrophysics into astronomy. It looks like astrophysics could now be turned into a redirect to astronomy. I will do so on 25 Jun 2007 unless I receive strong objections. Dr. Submillimeter 13:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Until(1 == 2) 14:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I did this today. I am still reorganizing astronomy (which still tries to describe all of astronomy rather than the field of study itself). I also redirected astrophysicist to astronomer; astronomer was already written to refer to astrophysicist as a synonym. Dr. Submillimeter 14:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Types of nebula nominated for deletion (second try)

I have again nominated Template:Types of nebula for deletion. The first discussion closed with no other comments to keep or delete this template. I really think that this template is HARMFUL in that it suggests that nebulae can be divided into different "types" when no real classification system exists for nebulae. It was generated by a person with no college education who, while well-intentioned, had not thought of the problems that this template could cause. It should be destroyed.

Please comment at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 25. Dr. Submillimeter 10:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Poul Jensen (astronomer)

There are 100 red links to this guy on 66 pages. Someone wanna create the article? Im trying to get rid of red links, but am not into astronomy Willy turner 09:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

He's frequently listed because he has discovered so many asteroids at Brorfelde Observatory in Denmark. His name is listed on some "Minor Planet Circulars" and a couple of other publications on ADS. Other than that there just isn't enough information available to justify an article. — RJH (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Could/should the page be turned into a redirect to Brorfelde Observatory, then? Mike Peel 18:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

What would be wrong with writing a short article on him? Not all Wikipedia articles need to be long. Dr. Submillimeter 19:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that he has discovered so many asteroids makes him notable for inclusion, even if in a short article and who is to say that the definitive biographical source won't be published in two weeks or two years. IvoShandor 19:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It depends on whether the article can satisfy WP:N. One of the criteria is "significant coverage", which I interpret as coverage of the astronomer rather than the discoveries. If that can't be satisfied then the article may end up getting tossed via the AfD mechanism. Then again there are a boat-load of other such uninformative, sub-stub articles on "prolific discoverers of asteroids", so perhaps it's not really an issue. =) — RJH (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I would defend this article on the basis that the guy discovered a lot of asteroids. Dr. Submillimeter 19:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I did what I could with the available information. Unfortunately NASA ADS is showing multiple individuals as "Jensen, P.". — RJH (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Then again there are a boat-load of other such uninformative, sub-stub articles on "prolific discoverers of asteroids", so perhaps it's not really an issue. <-- If you take a look at the articles in that search you will find some 110 articles containing the phrase. Most of the articles that I checked on the first page of results only contained "(name) is a (nationality) astronomer" and "He is a prolific discoverer of asteroids" as the entire content of the article. Many of these articles were created by User:Curps, who is no longer active here, and many of these articles have not been expanded in 2-3 years. These should probably be checked for notability, and then either expanded or deleted. What kind of notability threshold should there be for someone who is only known for asteroid discoveries? I would say that there should be a reference such as this one.--mikeu 18:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Nary a reference either. IvoShandor 10:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Rather than seeing all of those pages deleted, a notion I had was to build a list-style page of people who discovered asteroids, showing their nationality, observatory (ID), operating period and possibly a count. List members with a page that satisfied WP:N can then be linked. — RJH (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea.--mikeu 22:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Change to Template:Starbox detail

There's a new article on Stellar rotation that was requested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Hot/S4. I modified the {{Starbox detail}} template so that the "Rotation" field is linked to this new article rather than Rotation. Please let me know if that is objectionable. I'm planning to add some more material to the article, so it's not quite up to snuff yet.

Another article requested on the hotlist of topics was Stellar magnetic field. The article has some content, but it's a big topic and there's plenty more that could be added. Please take a gander if you like. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

East-Asian Planet Search Network

Created this article, did not know what stubs needed to be added to it. Thanks, CarpD, 30/6/2007.

The generic "astronomy" stub works. However, it is not entirely clear where the information came from. I suggest adding inline citations to explicitly indicate the source of your information. Dr. Submillimeter 06:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

More work on astronomy article

I have a couple of additional questions on the material in astronomy where I would like some feedback:

• Currently, the article attempts to briefly describe everything in astronomy under headings such as "Solar astronomy", "Galactic astronomy", "Cosmology", etc. Rather than do this, I think it would be more appropriate to describe the study of the objects rather than the objects themselves. For example, the section on galactic astronomy would briefly describe how astronomers are studying stars, star formation, and the interstellar medium, and what types of questions they are asking in their research. This is subtlely different from trying to describe the objects themselves. What do other people think about doing this?
  • There's value in both types of information, but my sense is that most readers would come here to learn about our understanding of the universe through astronomy. To me that seems consistent with the approaches taken with other core science pages such as physics, chemistry, geology and biology. I.e. a primary focus on fundamental principles. — RJH (talk)
    • Actually, the physics article describes the subfields of physics rather than the actual physical concepts. For example, the article mentions classical mechanics as the study of forces and motion rather than trying to describe Newton's laws, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics, etc. Nonetheless, I will try to keep some introductory information in the sections. (Maybe an additional overview section is needed?) Dr. Submillimeter 07:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• I transcribed and expanded an "astronomy by waveband" section from the old astrophysics article, but now I see that this should be integrated into the "Astronomical observations" section. Are there any objections to this?

• The "Astronomy observations" section contains an astrometry and celestial mechanics section that seems awkwardly tacked on to the end of the section. What should be done with this?

Please let me know what your comments are on this, or else I will just change the article by myself. Dr. Submillimeter 13:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Help yourself. Most of the work I put in was just to get it up to GA status. But if you want to take it in a different direction then so be it. — RJH (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:UV Telescopes

Category:UV Telescopes has been nominated for renaming to Category:Ultraviolet telescopes at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 4. This seems so mundane and uncontroversial that I do not expect the rename to be a problem, but feel free to comment. Dr. Submillimeter 21:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Ultra-cool dwarfs name

I have been reading different AJ papers and seen the following. Ultra-cool dwarfs for the so called "Y dwarfs". But other papers mention Ultra-cool dwarfs as anything after M6.5, (the beginning of the brown dwarf regime), M-L, and even just L-T+. Can someone verify this for me, since I am not sure which. Because if the term means anything after M6.5, then the stellar classification page needs an update on the Y dwarf section and the removal of the name, "Ultra-cool dwarf". Thanks, CarpD, 3/7/07.

Yes it looks like Kirkpatrick et al (1997) gave a working definition of an ultracool dwarf as ≥ M7. Also, here's a web site by Kirkpatrick on the spectral characteristics of ultra-cool dwarfs. — RJH (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The lesson here is that some astronomers use some informal terms very loosely. As a result, different authors may use the same term for different things. One of my personal favorites is the phrase "cold dust", as this could refer to temperatures ranging from 5 K to 30 K.

For the stellar classification article, I suggest stating that the phrase "ultra-cool dwarf" could be used to refer to either stars cooler than M6.5 stars or Y-type stars while citing papers for each of these terms. Dr. Submillimeter 21:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

After searching, the term seems to be mostly used as any object that is M6 or later. Stars, Brown dwarfs, or even White Dwarfs (PDF link). Thanks, CarpD 6/7/07.

Suggesting that "Cool red and brown dwarf classes" on the Stellar classification page to be renamed to "Ultra-cool dwarfs". Though, not sure how to factor in M6 dwarfs above in the M class section. Not to mention that the white dwarfs on that PDF paper uses that term. What do you think? Thanks, CarpD 8/7/07.

Is there a source that includes M6 stars among "ultra-cool dwarfs"? That would seem to be an exception. — RJH (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Magnitude letterings U B V G R I J H K K_s L L₁ M N Q Z - questions & inconsistency

While researching the values in wave length, I came across some inconsistencies and incomplete values.

• U,B,V values on the UBV photometric system & Apparent magnitude pages. Note, the values are different.
  • U = 364 nm, 350 nm
  • B = 442 nm, 435 nm
  • V = 540 nm, 555 nm
• Uncertain about these, though, it is not listed. Probably recommend that UBV photometric system merge with a new page to include all spectrums. Afterwards, I can update the Brown dwarf page to include the infrared values. If theses values are in a range, then I have not found anything that mentions it.
• 2MASS & Sloan Digital Sky Survey have some values of the lower values. Very little information on SED page.
  • G = ?
  • R = ?
  • I = ?
  • J = 1.25 μm, 1.25 μm
  • H = 1.65 μm
  • K = 2.2 μm
  • K_s = 2.17 μm
  • L = 3.45 μm
  • L₁ = same as L'?
  • L' = 3.8 μm
  • M = ?
  • N = ?
  • Q = ?
  • Z = ?

Notes from the webaddress, Diane Dutkevitch's school notes. List UBVRIJKLL´MNQ. Thanks, CarpD 8/7/07.

Multiple filter systems have been created, including the Johnson system and the SDSS system. These systems, while similar, are not exactly identical. For example, the Johnson version of the R filter may not be the same as the SDSS version of the R filter (which I think is actually written with a lower-case r). The central wavelengths of each filter could vary from instrument to instrument.

For information and data on filters in general, I very strongly recommend using Allen's Astrophysical Quantities (Arthur N. Cox, editor). For information on the filter sets used by specific instruments (such as the cameras used in the SDSS), I recommend finding their webpages. I otherwise recommend rejecting all other references on the subject.

I also recommend that someone with professional astronomy experience should work on this. (Maybe I should do it.) Dr. Submillimeter 08:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, cool. I will be looking at papers on this from information from time to time. But most off it will probably be in the infrared section, since I have been mostly reading on Brown Dwarfs. And yes, the SDSS uses lower case letters on their settings. The SDSS pages seems to be correct. Thanks, CarpD 25/7/07.

Subdwarf deserve its own section in Stellar classification

After reading some papers, I think there needs to be a prefix section.

• g = giant (rarely used)
• sg = subgiant (rarely used)
• d = dwarf
• sd = subdwarf
• esd = extreme subdwarf
• D = white dwarf

paper, states that:

• d = solar metalicity
• sd = moderately low metalicity
  • SSSPM 1013-1356 (sdM9.5)
• esd = very low metalicity
  • 2MASS 1227-0447 (esdM7.5)

What do you think? Thanks, CarpD, 7/11/07.

This notation system does not match the standard classifications used for stars in the Hertzsprung-Russel diagram (which I have problems spelling). Do not add it to Wikipedia. It will just confuse people. (This is the kind of thing that I imagine will harm my students.) Dr. Submillimeter 00:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not plan to add anything other than maybe the two example sd & esd stars. Thanks, CarpD, 12/7/07.

Galileo Galilei FAR

Galileo Galilei has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Constellations in popular culture

Constellations in popular culture has been nominated for deletion. 132.205.44.5 19:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Cosmosophy prodded

User:Banno on July 12 2007 WP:PRODed cosmosophy. 132.205.44.5 18:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This term gets a few ghits, but it looks more like quasi-religious philosophy than actual science (as is claimed by the article). It may have originated with Rudolf Steiner during the 1920s.[13] — RJH (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like scientific mysticism, like the marxist dialectic, social darwinism, intelligent design, or scientism. 70.55.88.166 21:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

List of asteroids at AfD

List of asteroids was nominated for deletion at WP:AFD by user:Cerejota as listcruft: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of asteroids. 132.205.44.5 21:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Callisto

I requested peer review of Callisto (moon of Jupiter). Any comments are appreciated. Ruslik 16:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

proposed merger of Hypervelocity star and Runaway_star

discuss here --mikeu 13:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

List of astronomical topics

The List of astronomical topics has been nominated for deletion. This list is truly unmaintainable. Please go comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of astronomical topics (2nd nomination). Dr. Submillimeter 14:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The sizes of the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds

Hi, I've asked this in another area, but haven't had any success in getting an answer, anyway, the Large Magellanic Cloud and Small Magellanic Cloud articles are in need of some attention. Specifically, nobody seems to know how big they are. There's been several contradictory and probably erroneous figures put up (some by me), ranging from 5,000 to 35,000 LYs (for the LMC). Now, in going through a few Websites I've found various estimates for the LMC, this site [14] says 39,000 LYs, this site [15] says "about 30,000 LYs", this page mentions the LMC being "about 7 kiloparsecs" which is about 23,000 LYs, this NASA page [16] says "Spanning about 15,000 light-years or so", etc. The Celestia Astronomy programme I have says the LMC is 32,000 LYs in Diameter. As for the SMC, well this site (listed above again) [17] says it's "3 kpc" which is about 10,000 LYs, this page [18] also says 10,000 LYs, while Celestia says it's about 19,000 LYs big. This page (again listed above) [19] ambiguously says it's "under 20,000 lightyears in diameter". So, as you can see it's all quite confusing, can anyone clear things up? Does anybody know the diameters of the Magellanic Clouds? Or at-least where to get the information? Thanks. --Hibernian 15:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD on Comets in popular culture

Comets in popular culture has been nominated for deletion by user:Eyrian at 19:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC). The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comets in popular culture. 132.205.44.5 22:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

List of stars with confirmed extrasolar planets → List of published extrasolar planets

Chaos syndrome has proposed that List of stars with confirmed extrasolar planets be renamed as List of published extrasolar planets. (though there also happens to be a List of unconfirmed exoplanets, which contains published but unconfirmed planets...) . 70.51.8.214 07:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Solar nebula → Nebular hypothesis

Serendipodous suggests that Solar nebula be renamed Nebular hypothesis. 70.51.8.214 07:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion is here: Talk:Solar_nebula#Move_request — RJH (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:AFD on Astronomical names in popular culture

Astronomical names in popular culture has been nominated for deletion by user:Eyrian. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astronomical names in popular culture. 132.205.44.5 22:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:PROD on Superforce

Superforce has been prodded by user:Creelbm on 04:08, 31 July 2007. 132.205.44.5 22:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Superforce

Gravity

Electronuclear force

Color force

Electroweak force

Strong force

Weak force

Electromagnetism

Electric force

Magnetic force

WP:AFD on Speculation that Iapetus is artificial

Speculation that Iapetus is artificial has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speculation that Iapetus is artificial by User:Radiant!. 132.205.44.5 22:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CFD on Category:People with craters of the Moon named after them

User:RobertG has nominated Category:People with craters of the Moon named after them for conversion into the list List of people with craters of the Moon named after them. 132.205.44.5 23:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This is somewhat redundant with the sub-lists under List of craters on the Moon. The later is a complete concordance, whereas the former appears to be lacking a couple of thousand names. — RJH (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Telescopes

HI the main Hubble Space article is superb but the Telescope artice is quite poor indeed, Is there any way you could help write it professionally with references into a GA encyclopedia article. I came acrosss it just now expecting to see another great article and was quite disappointed with it compared to other work on astronomy on wikpiedia. It didn;t even had a history -I've added it - it just needs condensing and structuring and a great deal of work. Thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you?" Contribs} 17:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Extrasolar planets with unofficial names

Category:Extrasolar planets with unofficial names was created by user:Zazaban on 15 August 2007 and then nominated for deletion by user:ProveIt on 18 August 2007. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_18#Category:Extrasolar_planets_with_unofficial_names for the deletion discussion. 70.51.11.13 07:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Evolution of stars

This article has just been created. I left the message below on the creator's page

"Hi, I'm no expert, but the subject of this article would already seem to have been covered in Star and the daughter articles Stellar evolution, Star formation and Main sequence. The content in this article should probably be merged into the relevant sections in Star and appropiate daughter articles. Exxolon 19:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)"

Knowledgable editors may wish to look at this. Exxolon 19:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• On further investigation looks like a copy of [20]. Exxolon 19:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Great Comet of 1882

Great Comet of 1882 is currently under review at Wikipedia:Good article review. If any members would like help keep this a good article please see the comments on the Good article review page. T Rex | talk 19:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: 3 March 2007 lunar eclipse and 28 August 2007 lunar eclipse

Are individual lunar eclipses notable enough that they should have individual Wikipedia articles?

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/28 August 2007 lunar eclipse. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last five days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. Peter G Werner 22:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Not inducted?

Uhm, I just visited the article dealing with the Big Dipper/the Great Bear constellation and the article doesn't seem to be inducted into this project. How come? Lack of quality? Or is it simply overlooked? --Broadbandmink 19:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be under WP:ASTRO WikiProject Astronomical Objects, as WikiProject Constellations was merged into that WikiProject... 132.205.44.5 02:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Alot of articles are not tagged, tags and WikiProjects post-date many astronomy articles. 132.205.44.5 02:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

January 0 AfD

Your participation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 0 would be most welcome. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

AFD on List of extrasolar planet extremes

List of extrasolar planet extremes was nominated for deletion by Chaos Syndrome, and then delisted. The article has been greatly reworked though. 132.205.44.5 22:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Uranus

This article is currently a FA candidate. Please, participate. Comments can be left here.Ruslik 13:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

2006 definition of planet

2006 definition of planet has an ongoing renaming debate on the talk page, and several non-consensus renames over the weekend. 132.205.44.5 00:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

True mass

True mass is a relatively new article I created (and a couple other editors have contributed to). Any help on it would be appreciated, and I'm also wondering if it falls under the purview of this WikiProject. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Milky Way

A couple people have decided that the Milky Way is defined by a "hazy band of light" in the sky and that all the commentary about a galaxy should be subordinate to that or even moved to a seperate article. Could people take a look at Talk:Milky Way and try to foster common sense. I'm going back to my vacation, which I probably shouldn't have interrupted in the first place. Dragons flight 19:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The hazy band of light is appropriate for Milky Way, as the galaxy is the Milky Way Galaxy, the galaxy containing the Milky Way... 132.205.44.5 23:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, common sense doesn't seem to have prevailed.

The situation is now that we have the article Milky Way about the "hazy band" and a new article Milky Way Galaxy about the galaxy. Apparently, according to various people on the talk page, they're two different objects... I'm not convinced this was the right way to do things, but I'm not going to start an edit war. Richard B 15:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The current article seems like a complete and utter muddle. The relatively detailed content that was in there before is gone, apparently as a result of a redirect/remerge. It's sad to see, and looks like it was designed by a committee. The "The Milky Way Galaxy" section looks like an attempted partial merge, with the "main article" redirected back to "Milky Way". Personally I'd prefer a deep, deep revert. The GA status of this page should be challenged. — RJH (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A deep revert was done (back to the GA version), but that was reverted by the person who put forward the original request... I agree that it's a mess at the moment. Richard B 19:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Richard (and whomever else), can you make some suggestions for moving forward? Two of the editors in question have now altered the lead to state that the "Milky Way" primarily refers to the "hazy band of white light that is seen in the night sky, arching across the entire celestial sphere" when the primary topic is the Galaxy itself. They have also added the word "Galaxy" to every occurrence of "Milky Way" in the article, even though the relevant literature does not use the term in this way. I would prefer to revert the changes to the lead, as they are poorly written and confuse the issue, but I'm afraid this will devolve into an edit war. I would suggest that the best way forward is to rewrite and improve the article at every level, so that these types of problems can be fixed along the way. Perhaps this project could put together a team of the best astro editors to bring this article to FA-status. —Viriditas | Talk 09:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I've posted quite a lot of stuff on the talk page which seems to just have been ignored completely, or taken as a "yes, but....". I must say that I preferred the lead in the past, and I think it makes Wikipedia look a bit silly IMHO. I also am keen not to start an edit war, so I'm not sure what I can do myself alone - as every revert back to the GA-status article have just been reverted. I do like the idea of getting others involved for a push for FA-status. I think getting others involved would help point this article to the right focus - and if we can make it a FA article, then that'd be excellent! Right now, it would probably fail GA on stability grounds alone, let alone anything else. Richard B 16:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just asked the anonymous contributor to make his case here. —Viriditas | Talk 05:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what purpose is served by opening up a "second front" on a discussion that is already ongoing at Talk:Milky Way with the same cast of characters but I will repost a rational here. Please note full text and references are posted at Talk:Milky Way:

Rational

When a college level text book states: "Don’t be confused by terminology: the Milky Way itself is a band of light that we can see from the Earth, and the Milky Way Galaxy is composed of a hundred billion stars plus many different types of gas, dust, planets, etc. The Milky Way is that part of the Milky Way Galaxy that we can see with the naked eye in our night time sky". -- (Contemporary Astronomy - Second Edition, by Jay M. Pasachoff, P.414), that is a statement of nomenclature. Nomenclature, if it is established, is not to be ignored or discounted. Scientific Nomenclature is a primary way of determining articles titles and subjects (Wikipedia:Naming conflict). Any claims that nomenclature has changed need to be supported by reference. Nomenclature is not established via Googling (unless you come across articles that specifically deal with nomenclature). On line sources seem to be following this nomenclature, differentiating between one "thing", Milky Way, and a second "thing", Milky Way Galaxy [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] (please also refer to Talk:Milky Way#Additional Sources). Searches on Google Scholar are currently being used in a biased non-neutral interpretation (something that should be specifically avoided re:Wikipedia:Search engine test#Search engine tests and Wikipedia policies ---> Neutrality). The bias comes from failure to properly intemperate the results (in fact no interpretation is being used at all, the editors are simply doing a word count, counter to Wikipedia:Search engine test#Search engine tests and Wikipedia policies ---> Notability). This brings in a bias along the following lines:

• Failures to consider skew caused by what field of studies publish papers – astrophysics and cosmology are very large fields. Observational astronomy is not a scholarly pursuit and is practically non-existent as any kind of discipline; therefore very few papers about the visual phenomenon “Milky Way” will exist.
• Failure to consider how titles are worded. When you see an overwhelming number of papers titled "New York"[31] that refer to the city it is wrong to assume that New York State has ceased to exist as an entity. (BTW, New York City and New York is a good example of two articles that describe a thing and a portion of a thing that share the same name).

So far editors have expressed opinions that are just that, opinions, and not a basis for creating or structuring an article re: WP:V and WP:NPOV. Actual reference have to be cited, not opinion. The International Astronomical Union may be a definitive source on this but I can't find a reference. Sky feature nomenclature may fall outside their bailiwick of naming radiating and non-radiating bodies. Halfblue 16:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not an argument for renaming or moving the article, nor is it justfication for a standard nomenclature that is in wide use. Putting aside outdated textbooks and personal websites, I can find plenty of recently published, observational astronomy books that use the term "Milky Way" to refer to the Galaxy, such as Springer's Astronomy of the Milky Way (2004) by Mike Inglis and Cambridge University Press's Observing the Universe: A Guide to Observational Astronomy and Planetary Science (2004) by W. Alan Cooper and Andrew Norton. Then there are books that use both conventions to represent the galaxy, such as Cambridge University Press's Observational Astronomy (2006) by Birney et al. The article already appears at the most common name. This dispute has nothing to do with WP:V or WP:NPOV. You cannot continue to ignore what others have said on the issue and cherry pick and interpret sources. The current article welcomes your expansion of the "visual phenomenon of the Milky Way" and is broad enough to include it. If and when it grows too large to include your expected, forthcoming expansion, we can split your new material off to a new article, properly disambiguated. —Viriditas | Talk 21:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD for Stanley Dunin

An article is up for deletion where a key claim for notability is that this person might have been the first to "successfully calculate the way to inject a satellite into a geosynchronous orbit" Some expert opinions and reliable sources on the validity of this claim would be appreciated. Tim Vickers 01:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Callisto

I nominated Callisto to FAC. You can leave your comments here. Ruslik 12:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration with journals

Hi, this week Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals has selected Astronomische Nachrichten (aka Astronomical Notes) as our CotW. Perhaps members of this project would like to join in. Cheers, John Vandenberg 03:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Most_wanted_articles#Astronomy

Wikipedia:Most_wanted_articles#Astronomy has been updated using the 2007-09-08 data dump. --Sapphic 17:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll bet you a donut that they're all asteroid-spotting observatories. — RJH (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right. It should therefore be easy for somebody who knows about such things to create a summary/list article that groups together all of them and explains what an 'asteroid-spotting observatory' is, and to then create redirects for those observatories that would otherwise not be noteworthy. Since we have huge lists of asteroid spottings, it stands to reason that somebody might find it useful to have huge lists of asteroids spotted by individual observatories, and that such a summary page would be a good place for those lists. --Sapphic 00:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I can write a script to generate the (wikilinked) lists of asteroids discovered by each of the observatories listed in any of the huge lists of asteroids, if somebody else can write up a quick explanation of how asteroid spotting works and why some observatories have spotted so many. I've started researching it myself but this isn't really my area. I suggest starting a page at List of asteroid-spotting observatories or someplace else if that's not an appropriate name, and taking the list of observatories at Wikipedia:Most_wanted_articles#Astronomy and starting with that. I'll create the redirects as well, once a page is in place. --Sapphic 17:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Gamma ray burst

This article needs a rating or a good article review. I listed it at WP:GAC on September 16. Thanks. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Asteroid bot

Hi! Eagle 101 and I and created a bot that would create articles on every asteroid we don't have articles on. Please provide your support or objection to the proposal here. Daniel Bush 17:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose The overwhelming majority of these asteroids are not notable. There are plans underway to group together several asteroid-spotting observatories into a single summary/list page, since the observatories themselves apparently aren't notable enough to warrant individual pages. So certainly the asteroids discovered by these observatories don't each deserve a page. --Sapphic 18:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Dyson Sphere GA push

I recently nominated Dyson Sphere for GA status, and it was failed; however, it's close, and with some help we can get it there. In particular, the reviewers left suggestions on a few specific issues:

1. An infobox would be nice; I don't know which one would be most appropriate, but someone here might.
2. Needs additional copyediting (esp. per weasel words, redundancies)
3. Needs additional sources

Thanks for your help. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't seem to have an article about the concept of a Niven ring (it redirects to the fictional set of stories / novel Ringworld)... perhaps that should also exist, as a concept separate from the story? 132.205.44.5 02:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Trojan planet was prodded

Trojan planet was transwiki'd to wiktionary, and subsequently prodded by a bot. 132.205.44.5 02:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the prod and wiktionary tags. The article needs expansion, but clearly there is literature about the topic, and it could easily be an encyclopedic article. Debivort 03:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

category rename nominations

• Category:Asteroid discoverers has been proposed to be renamed to Category:Minor planet discoverers
• Category:Asteroid discoverers (observatories) has been proposed to be renamed to Category:Minor planet discoverers (observatories)

by user:Sapphic at 00:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

132.205.44.5 22:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

New page to add to project

I just created SN 2005ap. It needs a lot of work obviously, just thought I'd let you guys know. --LiamE 13:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Extrasolar planet illustrations

Hey all - not too many requests at Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Image Review recently. What fraction of extrasolar planet articles have illustrations? Do we want to get this to 100% If so, I'm ready to help.de Bivort 04:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Change to Manual of Style on measurement systems

The section on choosing measurement systems has been changed from:

• In scientific articles, SI units are the main units of measure, unless there are compelling historical or pragmatic reasons not to use them (for example, Hubble's constant should be quoted in its most common unit of (km/s)/Mpc rather than its SI unit of s⁻¹)

Into:

• In scientific articles, use the units employed in the current scientific literature on that topic. This will usually be SI, but not always. For example, natural units are often used: ångströms (or angstroms) are widely used in such fields as x-ray crystallography and structural chemistry, and Hubble's constant should be quoted in its most common unit of (km/s)/Mpc rather than its SI unit of s⁻¹.

Comments on this change are welcome at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Units_of_measurement. Thank you Tim Vickers 18:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

One editor is objecting strongly to this change, some feedback from people writing science articles would be very helpful. Tim Vickers 17:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

17/P Holmes

17P/Holmes is on the main page right now in the in the news section. Now is the time for any comet experts and or enthusiasts to come out and make the article shine. Just thought I would drop a note here. IvoShandor 15:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Gamma ray burst

Gamma ray burst is now a featured article candidate. We need help, especially expert help, so this high importance can pass. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

GCIRS 13E

How strong is the evidence for this being an intermediate-mass black hole? The article seems to start off stating straight out it is one, and then cites all the dispute about said status. Perhaps some more explicit hedging is indicated? Alai 02:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Various sources still seem to say it "may be" a IMBH. So I'd say it's a candidate, rather than being definitive. — RJH (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Astronomical changes

Until 26 July 2007 there used to be a "related changes" service which provided an up-to-date summary of every change made to an astronomical page on Wikipedia, and this represented the best tool available for combating vandalism on the Astronomy pages. Does anyone know what happened to this? On the deletion log it says "why not move it to the project that would have the most use for such a thing?"(see this), but I cannot find the related changes service on Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy. According to User:Sr13 the page was deleted on 26 July 2007. Does anyone know what has happened to the astronomical changes service (can it be found somewhere else on Wikipedia)?

Rnt20 14:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Notice of List articles

Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).

• List of basic astronomy topics

This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity 19:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

When I was your age, Pluto was a Planet at AfD

When I was your age, Pluto was a Planet has been sent for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/When I was your age, Pluto was a Planet. 132.205.99.122 20:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Scientific peer review

This Scientific Peer Review project can hardly be called successful. While there have been a steady but small flow of articles submitted for review, the actual reviews have been either non-existent or in no real way different from those done through the standard Wikipedia:Peer review process. Some editors will recall that the project was started with an enthusiastic discussion about identifying expert reviewers through an elected board. Unfortunately as time went by, it became clear there was no consensus on whether we had a board, or on how it was to be set up or on what it was supposed to do. There was also a lack of consensus on what "sciences" we were covering, and on many other aspects. In the end we sort of lapsed into a minimal review process which has staggered on for about 18 months. I think it is time we decided what to do about the project. Unless people can come up with a new way forward and enthusiastically implement it, I think we have to declare that this project be no longer active in any sense and that editors should ask for review at WP:PR. I am posting this on the talk pages of the major Science WikiProjects. Please feel free to publicize it elsewhere. Please add you comments at Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review#Is this inactive?. --Bduke 01:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It proved useful for the Xenon article, but that may have been because the PR was advertized on appropriate Wikiproject pages. Perhaps there needs to be an automated notification system? — RJH (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

All WP:SPR reviews are added automatically to some Science WikiProject pages. Glad to hear it was helpful, but was it also added to WP:PR? I think I was on wikibreak when it was added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bduke (talk • contribs) 03:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Denis Denisenko

Greetings! Can I bring this new article, Denis Denisenko, a Russian astronomer, to your attention please? He appears notable but the article clearly could do with some work (I have already attempted a cleanup). Thanks. --Malcolmxl5 05:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Dwarf planet

The article has been nominated for Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive.Nergaal (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Astrosociobiology at AFD

Astrosociobiology has been nominated for deletion. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Surface features of celestial bodies

categories of Surface features of celestial bodies has been nominated to rename from cat:X on Y to cat:X of Y. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 9#Surface features of celestial bodies 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Greenspun illustration project: requests now open

Dear Wikimedians,

This is a (belated) announcement that requests are now being taken for illustrations to be created for the Philip Greenspun illustration project (PGIP).

The aim of the project is to create and improve illustrations on Wikimedia projects. You can help by identifying which important articles or concepts are missing illustrations (diagrams) that could make them a lot easier to understand. Requests should be made on this page: Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project/Requests

If there's a topic area you know a lot about or are involved with as a Wikiproject, why not conduct a review to see which illustrations are missing and needed for that topic? Existing content can be checked by using Mayflower to search Wikimedia Commons, or use the Free Image Search Tool to quickly check for images of a given topic in other-language projects.

The community suggestions will be used to shape the final list, which will be finalised to 50 specific requests for Round 1, due to start in January. People will be able to make suggestions for the duration of the project, not just in the lead-up to Round 1.

• General information about the project: m:Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project
• Potential illustrators and others interested in the project should join the mailing list: mail:greenspun-illustrations

thanks, pfctdayelise (talk) 12:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC) (Project coordinator)

Royal College Astronomical Society

Royal College Astronomical Society needs cleanup.
In particular, it mentions "Comet Wilson 1987", which I can't track down. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Colour of F-class stars

I always read these were considered yellow-white. Someone has just changed Canopus and Procyon to say white instead - has something changed recently? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who changed it, but this page may shed some light on the topic:

• "The Colour of Stars". Australia Telescope Outreach and Education. December 21 2004. Retrieved 2007-09-26. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

There's apparently two different ways of viewing the color of a star. Human vision perceives the coloration one way because of how our eyes are built, while another approach uses an approximation to the black body curve based on how an extended gas disk would appear to an instrument. It is difficult to reconcile the two, and I'm not sure what the best approach is. If we got close enough to a star to see it as an extended disk, the luminosity would then saturate our eyes and wash out a lot of the color. My current approach to graphically representing a star, for example, is to saturate the middle section so it's nearly white and then add a hint of coloring along the limb that grows less saturated toward the edge. — RJH (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

OK then, is it possible to tell the difference in colour between a bright F and A class star at night with the naked eye or with binoculars? Hmm..maybe I'll check here tonight but I am in the middle of a city (Sydney) - at least Canopus is high up here though....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It's easier to see the coloration through a decent telescope. — RJH (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't that mean the Sun is green, if measured that way? 132.205.99.122 (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the Sun has enough luminosity in the other parts of the spectrum to appear white (or a pale orange) rather than green. I.e. the color is saturated to the point where the green doesn't show.—RJH (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, so should be develop a consensus here on F-class stars on what we should call them..i.e. white or yellow-white. I prefer the latter only in as much as it distinguishes them from A-class stars. Under how big a telescope do they actually look a different shade of 'white'? I was musing on this as I was looking at Canis Major last night in urban Sydney (i.e 2nd magnitude and lots of glare) and I reckoned G-class Wezen did look disticntly yellowish and a differnt shade to the others. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Venus FAR

Venus has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Serendi^podous 15:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for input re Science Super-Categories

There is a CFD discussion underway at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_December_15#Category:Physical_sciences regarding the relationship between, and possible merging of, two Categories: Category:Physical sciences and Category:Natural sciences. Thus far the discussion has attracted very few comments and it has been relisted. Two editors suggested asking for input from this Project, but as far as I can see there was no follow-through on that -- until now. So please give this some thought, and then share your thoughts at the CFD linked above. Thanks! --Bduke (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• I have just made a significant alternative proposal. Please take a look and add your comments to this important discussion. Cgingold (talk) 02:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Star articles and navboxes - an idea by White Cat

I propose a navigation template for various stars. They are currently hard to navigate.

Perhaps a 'constellation' navbox?

I just had this idea and its pretty raw.

-- Cat ^chi? 21:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Stars per se might be huge. Constellations, with 88 of 'em, is more manageable but still unwieldy. Theoretically the categories should help. Is it unreasonable to assume readers can flick through categories? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

See Template:Navconstel-all-open. You might also want to see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Astronomy/Constellations_Task_Force. --mikeu (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Massive categories are unnavigatable for me and navboxes are merely an alternative not a replacement to the categories. We can sort stars by constellation and by other astronomic means such as brightness or their location. Which method would be more useful to classify stars? We could create the navboxes based on who discovered the object in question. Galaxies can be clustered differently. I am no astronomer and merely want to provide technical help for the templates. -- Cat ^chi? 19:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

As for the constellations I drafted the following template ({{Virgo}}) -- Cat ^chi? 19:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I can add it to the articles linked with my bot so no need to do that manually until an agreement is reached. -- Cat ^chi? 19:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)