Astronomy Project‑class
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36

Merged from old talk Old WikiProject Telescopes talk Topical archives Asteroid redirection 1 Category maintenance 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

I'm thinking about creating a "Navigation Template" for the late stages of stellar evolution (AGB Star, Planetary Nebula, White Dwarf, Supernova, etc) that would be analogous to the existing Star formation template. I've never created something like that on Wikipedia, and I don't want to anger people by not following rules that I am unaware of. Is it standard protocol to get permission from some group within Wikiproject Astronomy to do something like that? If I make a template, and then star modifying existing articles to use that template, will that be bad form? If there is some agreed upon procedure to do this, where can I learn the rules? PopePompus (talk) 02:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per this page, the count of stub astronomy articles rated of medium importance is now down to 369. If these articles really are of medium importance, they likely deserve to be brought up to Start status. Otherwise, they should probably be de-prioritized with a Low rating. If this mini project interests you, please consider contributing. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Down to 152 now. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I've noticed a number of new articles about stars cropping up in the WP:NPP feed. A typical example would be NGC 1240. As a non-expert, I find it difficult to determine, from the sources provided, whether it would pass WP:NASTRO - my gut is telling me 'probably not', but I'm not sure where the 'HR Catalogue identifier' would be (if it existed) on those pages, or where to check to see whether it's on one of the relevant catalogues. I'm going to ping 1Muskmelon, as the articles' author, as any reply would probably be helpful for them. Thanks in advance for any guidance, GirthSummit _(blether) 12:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit, One good resource is the Simbad database. It has options for looking at the academic literature on various astronomical objects. In this case there is nothing to be found on NGC 1240 so I would argue that you're right about non-notability. Reyk _YO! 12:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reyk, thanks for that. I'll check the others, and I guess make a visit to AfD. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 12:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit and Reyk Ok got it, thanks for your help. By the please look at my recent draft Draft:NGC 788 and tell me if its need improvement Thanks 1Muskmelon (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1Muskmelon, as I said on your talk, I don't see the source for the assertion about when, and by whom, it was discovered - where are you getting that from? GirthSummit _(blether) 12:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was a fairly recent discussion and NGC stars that decided to redirect them all somewhere, but I can't find it now. Perhaps individual AfD discussions? I do know that WP:NASTRO was recently modified so that it no longer declares all NGC catalog entries as inherently notable. One-liners with no significant coverage should be redirected to the NGC list. See Wikipedia talk:Notability (astronomical objects)#Notability of NGC objects. Lithopsian (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go, archived. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 31#NGC stars. Lithopsian (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good, I'm glad you found it while I faffed about with archive headers... I've redirected 1240 to its related list per that discussion. Primefac (talk) 13:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) NGC 1240 is a one-sentence sub-stub. Articles that short are completely useless to anyone, regardless of whether the subject is notable. In this case it isn't notable either - SIMBAD, NED and ADS show no sources whatsoever, and googling just brings up Wikipedia mirrors and non-RS catalogue entries. Modest Genius ^talk 13:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As part of the move away from adhering to only the IAU's definition of 'planet', I've mentioned at terrestrial planet that planetary geologists accept the Moon and sometimes Io and Europa as terrestrials. Lakadawalla counts Io, and I've seen illustrations that include Europa as well, I just forget where. Anyone know offhand? — kwami (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Special:Diff/985126560, undone due to lack of refs. Other edits from 24 Oct may need to be evaluated. Primefac (talk) 09:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added some refs. This may not be important enough a POV to be in the lead, but we should have somewhere that there's variation in whether the terrestrials are defined as the inner planets or as the rocky planets, as you see both approaches. (I've even seen Ceres included, though it's hard for me to see how Ceres is terrestrial in the geological sense.) — kwami (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the ecliptic coordinates of the pole of 7 Iris, but don't know how to calc the axial tilt from that. There is some commentary about what the axial tilt means for seasonal temp fluctuations. Could someone fix? — kwami (talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to calculate the axial tilt, you first need to determine elliptical coordinates of the orbital pole. The angle between the orbital and rotational axes will be the axial tilt. Ruslik_Zero 20:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just nominated Mass dimension one fermions for deletion. I figure some of the editors from the Astronomy project may wish to weigh in, as this is now linked from Dark Matter. - Parejkoj (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does someone know how to get the WayBack Machine at https://web.archive.org/ to take an archive of the risk-listed asteroid at https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/sentry/details.html#?des=2020%20VV -- Kheider (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kheider, I tried but couldn't figure out how myself. It seems the wayback machine ignores the stuff past "details.html" when you enter the link. The internet archive captures the entire table though so you should be able to click on that specific object after archiving the main link [1] (see e.g. [2]). Sam-2727 (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trying. Is there another internet archive site that you recommend? -- Kheider (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I initiated a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Solar_System#Merging_WP_templates to propose merging the {{WikiProject Solar System}} template into {{WikiProject Astronomy}}. Please comment if you have an opinion. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some debate about the Wow! signal, which has spilled from the talk page to a discussion at DRN. Input from this project would be appreciated. Primefac (talk) 12:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With my non-functionary hat on, it looks like all of the references given (in both locations) are based off the one arxiv source. Wait until other sources verify? Primefac (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's now a request for arbitration. Looks to be rapidly heading into WP:LAME territory. Modest Genius ^talk 11:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. In my last email reply to them, I said that DR could potentially take a while; I definitely wasn't implying that they should go for the process that would take even longer! Primefac (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! Seems like that whole trainwreck was unnecessary. Lithopsian (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New articles are currently being created under the auspices of the WikiProject Women in Red about women astronomers who had worked over a century ago at the Mount Wilson Observatory that have been previously been ignored by history. It would be very helpful if persons with a background in astronomy can help improve the scientific contribution sections in these new articles since most of us editors have not taken enough astronomy courses to determine what the subject's key contributions to astronomy were really were by just look at the person's publication list. Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Early_20th_century_Mount_Wilson_Observatory_human_computers for more information. Thanks. -- 68.50.32.85 (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An exciting opportunity to run an exciting and topical TFA, but all four articles need updating to be considered: see TFA discussion here about this event. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this push SandyGeorgia, sounds like a great idea. I would like to help, but I have to confess I have trouble understanding the somewhat baroque TFA system. What updating needs to happen for them to be considered? They're all featured articles and I don't see any open discussions on problems with the pages (except this I guess), so what TFA conditions do they not satisfy? I'll be happy to pitch in once I understand what the need is. - Astrophobe (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once I catch up on some other pages, I will run through each of the four articles and put lists on each article talk page. Generally, though, to start meanwhile, make sure everything is cited, and nothing is outdated. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, it's just a general cleanup issue. Gotcha! Thanks for explaining. - Astrophobe (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting in at Jupiter now ... will leave notes there which will give you an idea of things to look at on the other three. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Talk:Jupiter#FA criteria SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Talk:Saturn#FA criteria SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Talk:Ganymede (moon)#WP:URFA/2020 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Titan (moon) has all of the same-- the images are out of control. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]