Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Naming conventions of stellar objects

There is a concern of what naming convention should be used for the article's name of certain stellar objects. In specific, the concern is in relation to asteroids, messier objects and certain small stars (not galaxies nor planets). For example, NASA uses the convention Asteroid Number Name to name asteroids on their website: [1] [2] [3]. However, it doesn't use the same naming convention for messier objects: [4] [5] [6].

IMHO, we should use the convention Type_of_object Number Name, but there are other concerns regarding this convention. Obviously, for objects like galaxies, planets or moons, stating the name is sufficient (like Earth, Moon, Jupiter, etc).

--Maio 21:07, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that we should use the simplest and shortest reasonable name, when no change of cofusion exists. It's just that simple.

Hence the articles in question in the dispute between me and Maio should be 4769 Castalia and M13. Articles should be titled so as to aid in "accidential" linking; I can't ever imagine someone linking to asteroid 4769 Castalia or globular cluster M13; that's not intuitive. Furthermore, the "type" of the object is often in debate (and therefore cannot be assigned reliably). Descriptors in article titles also tend to be contentious (recall September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks vs. September 11, 2001 attacks) since they oversimply the often lively and contentious debate over the nature of things. Not to mention that this would go against our conventions in any other number of fields. We wouldn't (I hope) title an article "Aircraft Boeing 747" or "Firearm AK-47."

Let article titles be simple and straightforward -- call things what they are, with no superfluous description. -- Seth Ilys 22:41, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've moved them back. Maio's argumentation doesn't make much sense to me. — Timwi 23:21, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
NASA [7], Scott Hudson [8] (scanned Asteroid 4769 Castalia) and Steve Ostro [9] (discovery team of Asteroid 1998 KY26) use the convention Asteroid Number Name. Why should we use Number Name and make it more difficulty for those who are not astronomy-oriented? I'm sorry, I utterly fail to see your reasoning. How can 1998 KY26 be more attractive than Asteroid 1998 KY26 for a 7th grader who is looking for information about the asteroid? Again, I utterly fail to see your reasoning. You see, when search engines link to pages they use the page title, in this case, having the word 'asteroid' on it implies that no confusion whatsoever will be created for those who are not familiar with astronomers naming conventions. This is the same reason why we never, ever, use an acronym for an article's title. Again, I utterly fail to see your reasoning. Just try to convince me please, I'm here to help in the project.
For a web user it is much more intuitive to click something named Asteroid 4769 Castalia than 4769 Castalia. In the example that you stated, everyone calls them 747, however we use the naming convention Boeing 747.
Let me give you an excellent example of my reasoning. When you describe automobiles in papers, you never state something like Celica 2004 GT, you always use the convention Toyota Celica 2004 GT. Toyota is redundant, as they are the only manufacturers of the Celica, however you always state the manufacturer. The same thing happens with guns (don't have an example right now, sorry).
--Maio 02:20, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)
But we do use acronyms as the titles for some articles, most notably NASA, because it's overwhelming known by only its acronym. :) -- Seth Ilys 03:48, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Forgot to add (sorry had a phone call) that obviously no one uses the term Firearm AK-47, however all military personel and news reporter always use the term AK-47 rifle although it is obvious to them that an AK-47 is a rifle. This is not a matter of being superflous or simple, it is a matter of providing a detailed and precise link to visitors who are not familiarized with the subject at hand. Obviously, for you it is not intuitive to state Asteroid 4769 Castalia as you are fammiliar with the subject and state 4769 Castalia instintively, neither it is normal for me to write something like C++ programming language, however I must do so when I'm writing a paper. --Maio 02:36, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Seth Ilys, only when the most straight forward name isn't possible (isn't there a M13 highway in Britain) we have to find an alternative. andy 23:25, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Maio has also created Asteroid 1620 Geographos - Seth Ilys 23:44, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I also created Asteroid 1998 KY26, Asteroid 2063 Bacchus, and Asteroid 4179 Toutatis in case you didn't notice. --Maio 02:20, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

I think the Messier number is sufficient, as most searching for these articles would put in the shorter title, or could find it if they didn't see it at the longer title. However, I have an additional concern: when do we call Messier objects by name, and when by number? Why is M13 the article and not Hercules Globular Cluster, when Crab Nebula is the article and not M1? If we decide to do it based upon how well known the name is only, then we should make corrections to the links in the table of Messier objects. It could also be helpful to create a list of asteroids page. --zandperl 01:05, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I think that articles should use the most "human-readable" name possible that doesn't result in ambiguity; when I see a link to "M1" I have no idea what is being referred to, but call it "Crab Nebula" and I immediately remember. As for the list of asteroids, there's already List of asteroids in our Solar System (the "Solar System" qualifier being useful for when the first extrasolar asteroids are discovered in July of 2074 :) Bryan 02:28, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There's another possible alternative, which seems to me to bridge the gap between the desire for putting the designation first and the desire for "human-readable" article titles: label the pages as if there were disambiguations, e.g. M13 (globular cluster) or 4179 Toutatis (asteroid). This, too, has its drawbacks, but at least it's another option to consider. -- Seth Ilys 02:16, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A small point - but in the template for the factfile table: if "radius" is wikified, then surely "mean" should be as well, does anyone object to this? Ed g2s 02:13, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Bryan 05:26, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Seth - I think you ought to stick by your guns here. I find Asteroid 4179 Toutatis entirely too clunky, and while 4179 Toutatis (asteroid) is a step in the right direction, it is still a totally non-intuitive title from the amateur astronomer's persepctive. Moreover, I feel we ought to assume some level of competence in a user's ability to use a search engine effectively, and some basic understanding of naming conventions. For instance, there is an article on Phalaenopsis. If I stumbled across it and I were not an orchidhound, this title would give me no information at all about the contents of the article. However, that should not be a concern, given that my arrival at this page was essentially a random act. On the other hand, if I were looking for info about orchids, I might have arrived here either by a Google search for 'phalaenopsis', or by a Google search for 'orchid', which then directed me here. The ability to carry out a purposeful search on the presumption of adequate forwarding links removes, I feel, any need to pre-digest title info for users. I also worry about dumbing-down things to the point where no one can find anything for the flashing neon arrows (your info here your info here your info here). While I appreciate Maio's concern that information should be as easy to locate as possible, I also believe that article titles should be as consistent as possible, and if there is a naming convention already in place, it be used, with disambig articles as necessary, M1 for instance. Denni 18:25, 2004 Mar 16 (UTC)

We should also note that not all objects are well known - some end up double numbered like Comet 95P/Asteroid (2060) Chiron. Or is it Asteroid (2060) Chiron/Comet 95P? Another reason not to add "type" prefixes to objects. Rmhermen 05:42, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

Minor planets

Asteroid Physical Properties

User:Michaelbusch: I've noticed some confusing and at times inaccurate estimates of the properties of various asteroids. A case in point is 99942 Apophis. I've worked on this object and I can say that we do not know the mass to anything better than a factor of ten. Would it be useful to construct an article discussing the how various properties are estimated and the uncertainties in each? If there is interest, I can post such an article.

Fully agree! The same potential confusion applies to TNOs (and subcategories). Rare, more precise data are quoted occasionally but a casual reader may be confused about what is currently known and what is simply assumed. IMHO, an article about the methods for determining/constraining physical parameters would be most welcome! Eurocommuter 13:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The predominant style for naming Wikipedia articles about minor planets right now seems to be minor planet number followed by name, e.g. 1 Ceres. The predominant convention I'm seeing in general astronomical works, both on-line and off-line, follows this standard, but additionally puts the number in parentheses, e.g. (1) Ceres. My personal preference would be to see us move toward the latter style. —LarryGilbert 19:30, 2004 May 12 (UTC)

The convention of 1 Ceres as opposed to (1) Ceres was already in place when I started, I'm not sure how it was decided.
Parentheses are better for numbered-but-unnamed asteroids, such as (66391) 1999 KW4, to avoid confusion with the year. But for numbered-and-named asteroids it's less important. I've seen both styles used; for instance, http://www.hohmanntransfer.com/ omits the parentheses. Perhaps people omit the parentheses because they're lazy to type them, and the form with parentheses is more correct. The Spanish wikipedia uses parentheses, for instance http://es.wiki.x.io/wiki/(1)_Ceres , while the German wikipedia refers to (1) Ceres in the article text although the article itself uses the naming convention http://de.wiki.x.io/wiki/Ceres_(Asteroid)
If your personal preference is strong enough to actually do the drudge work of adding the parentheses and moving and editing all the pages involved, go for it. It's a lot of work and I'm not sure it's worth the trouble.
-- Curps 09:36, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

I've designed a true template for minor planets over on the French wikipedia (fr:Modèle:Planète mineure), and I'll probably import it into here soon. On the subject of names, I've also dug deep into the IAU conventions and offer the following insights:

  • Names always include the number, ideally in parentheses. Dropping the parentheses for named asteroids lightens the text (e.g. 1 Ceres instead of (1) Ceres).
  • Temporary designations ending with a number are written as indices: (15760) 1992 QB1, for example.
  • Diacriticals are part of the official name but are omitted on some of the reference web pages for technological reasons. An exhaustive list of "diacritical-ed" names is found at fr:Discuter:Désignation des astéroïdes.
Yes, in theory, it should be "1992 QB1". However, this is mostly theoretical... in practice, the subscripting is not done. The popular astronomy magazines don't use it Astronomy.com, the MPECs don's use it (they just use plain ASCII), Hohmann Transfer, etc. So adding it only adds confusion.
I propose that 1992 QB1 should be reverted to not use subscripts, and we should make non-subscripting the Wikipedia standard. -- Curps 16:25, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Here are two web sources that provide official designations, with diacriticals.
Notice how they do include the subscripting of asteroid temporary designation sequence numbers. The fact that popular (american) astronomy magazines don't bother with it is obviously because they feed off of the ASCII sources. That doesn't make it "right", although I'll admit it isn't "wrong" either. Should Wikipedia use subscripting? I say yes, mostly because I do not feel it introduces any confusion at all.
Urhixidur 21:20, 2004 Jul 18 (UTC)

It's not just American magazines, but French magazines ("2001 RX 76") [10] and German ones "2001 CP 20" [11] also.

And all of these (American, French, German) are print magazines, not just websites, so they can easy do things "properly" if they wanted to.

Even scholarly journals don't seem to use subscripts: [12], [13] [14] and other examples.

I think there is no point for us to try to be "more correct" than the rest of the astronomical world. The de facto standard is, subscripts are not used.

-- Curps 22:05, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The question of the naming of minor planets has cropped up on both Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) because of a recent WP:RM vote:

Talk:657 Gunlöd#Suggested moves to add diacritics: a multiple page-move vote at WP:RM results in diacritics being applied to names of minor planets, following the International Astronomical Union's recommendations.

As this is an exception to the long running dispute on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) over diacritics (or "accent marks"), I think is is probably best if this is incorporated into this guideline if the people who specalise in this area think that it should be a general rule. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Input from the members of this Wikiproject would certainly be welcome! See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Diacritics in minor planet names and several sections of Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English). In summary, it is a controversial issue in general, and while there seems consensus over the specific names involved in the move, there seems a great deal of reluctance to make this a clear and accessible guideline. My guess is that some fear that it will give ammunition to the promoters of more widespread use of diacritics. Andrewa 14:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
You might find Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Norse mythology) interesting and instructive. It was developed during October/November 2005. Archive 3 shows (yet again) how the community is split on the issue of diacritics. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

infobox meanings?

Some meanings are not so obvious, for example Rotation period is the sidereal day and is usually wiki-linked correctly, but Escape velocity and Gravity could be more rigourously defined.

Should there be a link in the infobox to a What are these? definition of the terms? Otherwise users will click on, for example, Escape velocity, and get very confused by the explanation they find (try it!). By contrast Axial tilt is an excellent example of explaining a term.

Escape velocity appears to be the polar escape velocity, calculated from the polar radius, and this too seems to be correct in wikipedia (I've been checking each entry from Earth to Neptune using my escape velocity calculator).

NASA's datasheets define Surface gravity (m/s2) as: Equatorial gravitational acceleration at the surface of the body or the 1 bar level, not including the effects of rotation, in meters/(second^2) and Surface acceleration (m/s2) as Effective equatorial gravitational acceleration at the surface of the body or the 1 bar level, including the effects of rotation, in meters/(second^2)

Surface gravity seems relevant to orbiting bodies, while surface acceleration is relevant to people or things on the surface, or rocket launches.

I'm not sure if I would prefer Polar gravity and Equatorial gravity, as there are often differences, especially large differences for Jupiter and Saturn.

I've rambled enough. -Wikibob | Talk 23:23, 2004 Mar 21 (UTC)

The new "Category" feature

Just to let everyone know who's interested in this wikiproject, I've started pondering how to go about categorizing astronomical objects over on Category talk:Solar System]. Bryan 15:19, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Database value retrieval proposal

I believe the wikipedia project is in error to attempt to record on each page data about bodies such as mass and eccentricity, when these data would be better pulled from a database of some sort. Such a database should be under the administration of a recognised authority (IAU, NASA, whoever), allowing increased dependability, decreased chance of error and a centralised system for data storage.

It doesn't just have to be limited to numerical data, images could also be indexed and presented as thumbnails, for example. Does wikipedia currently have the facilities to generate requests to other servers, parse resultant data and present the output?

I envisage something like the following:

  • User requests entry for NGC 3472
  • Wikipedia retrieves prose discussion from internal source
  • Wikipedia formulates query, asks SIMBAD for data, parses resultant XML and generates info box
  • Wikipedia requests index of images from 2MMASS (or wherever), appends list
  • Wikipedia returns page to user

Comments, suggestions?

I'd love it if it could be made to work.
Urhixidur 04:49, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
The external dependancies worry me. If one of those sources becomes unavailable, bits of Wikipedia disappear. Also, what of the licencing? I think it would be better to import the data, and perhaps have some sort of "maintenance" bot that can update the figures in Wikipedia if the authoritative source changes its mind. Bryan 06:13, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If a source should become unavailable (temporarily) then fallback servers could be used. If a database should go permanently offline, the lookup mechanism could be quickly changed to use another one. Perhaps alternatives could be catered for ahead of time. Honestly, I think it far more likely that the wikipedia would be down than ADS or SIMBAD :) [[User:Nickshanks|Nick | ✎]]
While dumping huge piles of data into Wikipedia makes me nervous too, I think on-the-fly retrieval and incorporation would be a bad idea. Wikipedia is inescapably about caching knowledge from elsewhere - in particular, reconciling data from multiple sources if there isn't a single authoritative source (and there usually isn't) - and provided data doesn't have to be updated every five minutes it falls into that category.
However, I think a link from each instance of (e.g.) Template:Star to an appropriate lookup on something like SIMBAD would be a good idea; that way people can check for more up-to-date data without Wikipedia having to keep bang up to date.
JTN 17:49, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps the templates can auto-generate links to a specific database, say from the GSC number or something. [[User:Nickshanks|Nick | ✎]]
Perhaps someone can use Rambot as an example? Ardric47 01:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Planetary Orbits

Angular data, I feel, are better reported in decimal degrees. Anyone who has had to manipulate the data (in a spreadsheet or otherwise) knows what I mean. Degrees, minutes and seconds should be parenthetical.

Although it seems logical at first to group the Argument of perihelion right next to the Perihelion, closer inspection reveals trouble brewing. First off, it breaks the more natural sequence of mean radius - eccentricity - perihelion - aphelion (values which are closely related to each other, as every one will agree, I'm sure). Next, in terms of orienting the orbit in space, it seems more natural to first describe the orbit's size and shape [mean radius, eccentricity], then tilt it away from the (default) ecliptic [inclination], then rotate its line of apsides [longitude of the ascending node] and only then to finally rotate it (within its own plane) into proper place [argument of perihelion]. This "natural order" is reflected in the oft-used longitude progression, such as the data on the JPL pages: Longitude of Ascending Node, then Longitude of Perihelion, then Mean Longitude. Each one is the partial sum of its predecessors (i.e. the longitude of perihelion is the longitude of the ascending node plus the argument of perihelion, and the mean longitude is the sum of the longitude of perihelion with the mean anomaly).

Am I making sense?

Urhixidur 04:49, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

Perfect sense. I've updated all of the arguments of perihelion and longitudes of ascending node. I also added the Epoch to the top of the orbital data box.

Edsanville 16:48, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Supernova

I think the supernovae info box is missing a vital piece of data: the date of the supernova (maybe when it hit maximum brightness) Ed Sanville 15:29, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The only reliable date is the date of discovery. I'll add that.


Could we use two tables, one for the supernova and one for the remnant. Its just that for old SN we don't really have info on the progenitor, but we've could put stuff like their size, surface brightness and SNR type (I've added SNR type to the table) - Shell, Filled centre or composite. Only problem is how to not duplicate things such as position. Suggestions? --Sillylizard 09:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category umbrella for astronomical objects

We have the hierarchy found at the astronomical objects article (Category:Astronomical objects) or the one used with Category:Celestial bodies. Which one to use? how do we clean the articles? which one is more intuitive? which one is easier to use? any other options?

Btw, could someone change Category:Sol System planets to Category:Planets in the solar system por favor? —Joseph | Talk 06:55, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

You mean Category:Planets in the Solar System, don't you? 132.205.15.4 04:23, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Stars & Category:Galaxies

There is a need to subcategorize stars. Currently the stars are categorized under Category:Stars. However that will lead to a massive page and not duly help navigation. I made an attempt to clean up this by moving articles on individual stars to Category:List of stars, so that the main category page is not so cluttered, since individual stars would have the preponderance of entries. This is meant as a temporary solution until people actually categorize these things properly. An administrator advised me to stop. Discussions on the issue are at: Category talk:Stars#Category:List of stars. As most star articles are very stubby, relying on article content to categorize will not be possible in most cases.132.205.15.43 04:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Can someone build a skeletal Star categorization scheme and wikipedia category pages in any case? 132.205.15.43 04:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • should there be a list of stars in general such as - Category talk:Genera? 132.205.15.43 04:12, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • WP:CFD Category:List of Stars and Category:List of Galaxies are currently up for vote. 132.205.45.110 16:17, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not sure I see the benefit of having all articles on individual stars listed on one single page (what if we had articles on several thousand stars?), but I suppose some might. I would suggest one of the following:

  1. Categorize articles about individual stars only under one or more subcategories of Category:Stars. Nothing else goes in those subcategories. The non-individual-star articles go in another category. No one page lists all stars, but everything's easy to find.
  2. Use the List of stars and related pages to list all stars. The benefit of using a list here is that you can include more information about stars, such as alternate designations.
  3. If all we really care about is having a list of all stars, we could add Template:Star to each star page (probably want to think about exactly what template we want to use before doing this). If someone wants to find all star articles, they check "What links here" for the template. This approach would also have the advantage of making our star pages more uniform.

JYolkowski 21:31, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Template:Star requires alot of data to fill in. In fulfilling the purpose of listing all stars, I've created a template Template:List of stars that can be added to each star article, simply and directly. 132.205.15.43 03:43, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Someone speedily deleted the template. It contained just : [[Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:List of stars|list of stars]] Perhaps the name is the problem, trying Template:Listing of all stars 132.205.15.43 03:54, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
revised it into a box format 132.205.45.148 16:39, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
box renamed to Template:Star listings 132.205.15.43 03:50, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
box for galaxies Template:Galaxy listings 132.205.15.43 04:03, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An update: Both the "List of galaxies" and the "List of stars" categories are going to be deleted. Note that, in the future, there should be a way to view the contents of all sub-categories of a parent. (At least, we hope there will.) That would provide an easy way to get at the contents of Category:Stars without having to list everything any it.

Here's what I think would be useful:

My goal is to have something fairly unambiguous and easy in place so that I (and others, but I figure it'll be mostly me) can move articles out of the "List of" categories and into a scheme that is more useful. I can do the moving out without the moving in, but if I'm going to be editing all of the articles anway...-Aranel ("Sarah") 15:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Should also move stars out of Category:Stars and into the subcats. (only about half the stars are in Category:List of stars, the other half are still languishing in Category:Stars) 132.205.15.43 03:43, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Having just emptied Category:List of stars, I have the following suggestions:
  • Most stars can easily be categorized under Category:Stars by spectral type. (However, a couple of the types are redundant with other specifications.)
  • Category:Variable stars is often relevant, as is Category:Star systems.
  • Category:Hertzsprung-Russell classifications is currently not in any condition to be helpful to laypeople. The distinctions seem to be somewhat vague. Different groups might be more useful (in particular, a category for red dwarfs, which seem to come up an awful lot).
  • If a specific type or a spectral type cannot be determined based on the article, it should probably go in the parent Category:Stars. (I'm afraid that stars listed in Category:Constellations sub-categories only will be "lost".) I found maybe half a dozen in the list category that were like this. If they clutter up the category, that should motivate folks to research them. -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:50, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Star template

Do we really need a massive template for each page that describes a star? I'd like to suggest having at least two separate templates. The first would have the absolute minimum information that would appear in a standard stellar catalog. (I.e. Name(s)/Identifiers, RA, Dec, Mv, and Stellar Classification -- including variability). The second would be a detailed template for those stars that are of special interest.

Alternatively we could have 2-3 templates: a main template for the upper right that gives the basic observational data; a characteristics template for listing the more detailed information (which could go down near the bottom of the page?), and one or more orbital parameter templates for multi-star systems and/or systems with planets. — RJH 23:47, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that we should have one small template with minimal information, and other, more detailed templates. I feel that one of the reasons the existing templates aren't being used is because it's hard to fill them out in their entirety. Having a small template would help resolve this problem. JYolkowski 15:29, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • So I'd like to suggest modifying Template:Star to just display the basic observational data applicable to every star, and add a Template:Stellar template for the more detailed template. (The two templates to have a similar appearance for consistency, at least in the first few rows.) — RJH 18:54, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Okay a Template:Stellar is on the WP:AO page. If there is no objection I'll go ahead and trim Template:Star. Thanks. — RJH 15:36, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • The templates should probably be split up like in the "Tree of Life" WikiProject, with a header portion, several middle portions, and a footer portion. 132.205.45.148 16:45, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Since all the NAME portions of all the boxes are the same, being bold, I've created Template:Astrobox_begin, Template:Astrobox_begin2, Template:Astrobox_end. The observational data can be split out the same way, with ancillary boxes for field specific to the astronomical object class (galaxy/star/cluster...) Template:Astrobox_observe Template:Astrobox_observegal Template:Astrobox_observeclust Template:Astrobox_observetar. This is how the Tree of Life project works, and it seems to work well enough. 132.205.15.43 03:19, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • Templates are more fine-grained in ToL though. 132.205.15.43 03:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • So for stars, at least, would the following arrangement make sense? — RJH 19:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          1. Template 1 — Star name; basic observational data' (RA, Dec., Spectrum, Visual Magnitude)
          2. Template 2 — Astrometry (radial v, proper motion, position angle of motion, parallax with error, derived distance, derived absolute magnitude), color/characteristics (B-V, U-B, V-R, R-I, rotation, oscillation, notable features), and catalog information.
          3. Template 3 — Visible companion information (perior, ellipticity, &c.)
          4. Template 4 — Spectroscopic companion information.
          5. Template 4 — Close table.
I have added several new Template:Astrobox_begin templates which automatically link to astronomical databases. See e.g. 3C279 for an example of their use. The templates are Template:Astrobox_begin3, Template:Astrobox_begin4 and Template:Astrobox_begin5 Rnt20 20:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Splitting Lists of asteroids for size

A couple of months ago I posted a comment on Talk:List of asteroids about dealing with the fact that all of the 1000-asteroid pages were around 90-100K in size, and would need to be split into three or four parts to go under the Wikipedia size guidelines. This was around the time that we split the Meanings of asteroid names pages into 500's for similar reasons. The List of asteroids pages are longer because they have more data. We could reduce the data on the actual lists pages, moving more of it onto individual asteroid pages(when we make more of them), and maybe only cut them in half. Thoughts? Alfvaen 18:25, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

If you reduce the length of each list sufficiently, there is no longer any advantage to having separate articles for names and meanings: as it is now there are no lateral links between the two. It would probably be worthwhile splitting the lists down to 200 or even 100 and merging the meanings back into the main articles. --Phil | Talk 15:26, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Astronomy COTW?

It seems to me that there are lots of astronomy articles which are currently quite short and stubby, which could easily be developed into featured articles - for example Orion Nebula,globular cluster, open cluster - a wealth of images are available, and these are important and well-studied objects. So, I was thinking that maybe an astronomy collaboration of the week could be started. Not sure at all how one goes about setting up a COTW, or whether there would be enough interest in an astronomy one to justify it, so I thought I would float the idea here. Any thoughts or suggestions, anyone? Worldtraveller 11:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am looking at going through some of the Messier Objects and putting together some readable articles. I like the current list of facts, but would like to at least add a more narrative portion. However, I am worried about copyright issues. In particular there is some great stuff on the SED Site but it seems we can't even cite it here? Even paraphrasing their material might be awkward, as there is so much of it. I can dig up sources and reference them at the end of the article...but don't have the time to match SED's compilation. I've been thru the Wikipedia's copyright FAQ's and am still unsure. I may just go ahead and put in an article as a proposal. Anyone with experience on this? --John Norris 8 July 2005 05:30 (UTC)

  • I'd be game for an Astronomy COTW. But perhaps the scope slightly to include aerospace topics? Maybe an "Outer Space" COTW? — RJH

Extrasolar Planets

As there is a discrepancy in the naming of extrasolar planets, what should they be? The HIP# as the primary name? HD#? Some Bayer or Flamsteed designation? Proper name of the star? Or the pet names for the planets that the discoverers come up with? (ie Osiris (planet)). I've put up move requests into WP:RM of the concerned planets. 132.205.15.43 05:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think following sequence is the best: Proper name -> Bayer designation -> Flamsteed designation -> HD number -> other. For example: Edasich b, ι Draconis b, 12 Draconis b, HD 137759 b etc. Bayer designation should precede the proper name if the name is too obscure. The planet letter (b in this case) should always be lower case to make it more distinct from binary components, although there is not any official designation convention. --Jyril 09:12, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the "pet name" since that's the easiest to use in conversation and linking. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) has some things to say on this which I believe are relevant. Bryan 05:13, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, you are correct about the usability of nicknames, but they are not very widely used, especially with the case of "Goldilocks" (70 Virginis b). There is also a possibility that a casual reader may think they are widely accepted names. --Jyril 09:12, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
While I see the point about common names, I am very much in favour of using the official designation as the article title for extrasolar planets. These nicknames are virtually never used in the scientific literature (I found one reference to Osiris and nothing else), and they're not even much used popularly. I just did a search on BBC news, and found one mention of Osiris, and none for Methuselah or Bellerophon.
Just for comparison, the Cat's Eye Nebula is a semi-unofficial nickname for NGC 6543, but is widely used by astronomers (e.g. me! [15]) and in the press. In that case it makes sense to me to have the article at the easy-to-remember name. But for the planets, the most common name is still the official designation. Worldtraveller 12:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Stellar template sequence

I'd like to propose the following series of templates for use when describing a star:

{{Starbox begin}}

  • Name

{{Starbox image}}

  • Image
  • Caption

{{starbox observe}}

{{starbox character}}

...

{{starbox detail}}

  • (Highly-detailed continuation of {{starbox character}} template?)
    • Age -- billion years
    • Metallicity -- % Sun
    • Mass -- Msun
    • Diameter -- Rsun
    • Rotation period
    • Bolometric luminosity -- Lsun

{{starbox astrometry}}

...

For visual binaries:
{{starbox visbin}}

  • Companion
    • Period (P)
    • Epoch (T)
    • Semimajor axis (a)
    • Eccentricity (e)
    • Inclination (i)
    • Longitude (ω)
    • Position angle (Ω)
    • Ephemerides (2000)

For spectroscopic binary (or possibly astrometric planet):
{{starbox astrobin}}

  • Companion
    • Period
    • Distance
    • Mass
...

{{starbox catalog}}

...

{{starbox end}}

The minimum would be the stellar_base and stellar_end. Most stars would include the star catalog template. The stellar_astrometry is for use with nearby stars. Any thoughts or suggestions? Should the catalog information instead be placed in one of those panel-width templates at the end of the star page? Thanks. — RJH 20:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What would the advantage of this series of templates be over the existing {{Star}}? Some of the information you propose is not currently included in that, and I think it would certainly be good to include the astrometric information where known, and the Bayer, Flamsteed and HD designations, but might it not be easier to just change Template:Star to include them? Worldtraveller 10:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If it's all in one template, then all stars would have to have all of those sections displayed even if there was no information to put in them. Having multiple templates like that allows for more customization of the template, keeping it small for stars we don't have a lot of information for in here. However, I'm wondering if perhaps it might be better to put it all in one template anyway, since I imagine most of that information can be looked up fairly easily and should be added to articles it's not already in. Bryan 00:37, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Current star template is not expandible or extensible, but still needs a lot of information before it can be included on a star page. If we have a minimum star table that can be expanded later, it will be easier to set up on most of the star pages. All you'd need at first would be coordinates and magnitude. Also the star template does not include much astrometry information, binary orbit information, catalog information, &c. RJH 19:50, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If this template reorganization does go ahead, though, I suggest creating {{starbox planet}} to add to the stars with known extrasolar planets. This template could have simple stats like period and approximate mass, and could be added multiple times if there's more than one planet known to orbit that star. Bryan 00:37, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would like to suggest the alternative naming scheme starbox ... to be more uniform with infobox ... and taxobox ... already in use elsewhere. --Phil | Talk 15:38, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Works for me. — RJH

Starbox conversion

Starbox templates are being steadily added to the various star pages. The following have been completed:

Note: binary stars were merged on the same table by separating data with a slash (/). — RJH 19:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

A request from WP:Stub sorting

Hi - We over at the Stub sorting Wikiproject have a small problem: we have a template called {{star-stub}}, to add stub messages to small articles on stars. You have a template {{star stub}}, a smaller version of {{starbox}}. Would it be possible for you to change the name of your template to something like {{starbox-small}}? Otherwise the names are too close and likely to cause confusion. If you are willing to change it, I'd be only too happy to do some of the work involved in changing things over. Grutness|hello? 06:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't object to that. Doesn't look like a huge amount of work to do to change it over. Worldtraveller 07:01, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
No objections here. — RJH 21:54, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Thak you for creating the new name for the template. Would there be any objection if I replaced the old name with the new one on the articles where it appears and sent the old name to tfd? Or is that going too far? Grutness...wha? 00:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I was bold and moved the template. I'm limping through the links list replacing the old template: any help you have time for would be good. --Phil | Talk 11:44, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
Sure - over at WP:WSS replacing templates is what we do best! :) Grutness...wha? 11:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Many hands make light work - job done! Worldtraveller 12:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I'll take {{star stub}} over to tfd to get rid of the name now. Many WikiThanks for your cooperation on this :)! Grutness...wha? 12:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

Now that the Starbox templates are set up, I'm going to request that the redundant {{Star}} template be deleted. I removed that template from the one page where it was in use. Are there any objections? :) — RJH 30 June 2005 16:02 (UTC)

No objections, so I put in a request for a speedy delete. — RJH 15:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Deleted and cleaned up. — RJH 21:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal of "colour" and "mass" from galaxy templates/infoboxes

I have been recently adding to galaxy articles and noticed that a very small amount of galaxies have their colour or mass recorded (atleast anywhere I look). If anybody knows how to change templates, consider removing these 2 from the galaxy template. It doesn't look good to have 2 "unknowns" or blanks in many observational tables. The few galaxies that do have this information available can have the informtaion listed in the article. Uber nemo 01:00, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • 4 is not enough, I changed it and added a constellation tag. I could use some help adding infoboxes to articles. Uber nemo 15:37, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • I probably would have put the constellation up in the observation data section, since it's from our perspective. *shrug* — RJH 15:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
      • you can if you want, I put it near noticeable features because thats where the constellation name used to be listed, if we took away everything about the galaxy that was from our standpoint the chart would have only 3 entries on the bottom: radius, absolute magnitude, and notable features (other designations would not belong). Of course you could move "type" down to physical charcteristics, If anyone has any bright ideas of what we can rename the two sections and keep everything else, that be good, if we just rearange the template, all the articles with that templates will be messed up. Uber nemo 16:30, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • changing all the templates in each article is going to take too long and look really sloppy, I'll just move "constellation" up. Uber nemo

Some space on the left of the "planets and moons" table?

What about adding some space to the left of the "planets and moons" table? Otherwise there's no room between the article text and the table (see Charon (moon) for example) and the text is unnecessarily harder to read that way. Just a style="margin-left: 1em" at the top of the table would do the trick. What do you think? If we decide to implement it, then it will certainly be quite a lot of work to do, as it is unfortunately not a transcluded template. — Pt (T) 18:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't that make an already bloated table take up even more room? Maybe something slightly smaller such as 3px? :) — RJH 16:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. But I personally really don't have enough time to go through all the articles using the table... Perhaps a bot would be useful? — Pt (T) 18:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Proteus

I've done what I can with the template on the Proteus (moon) page. The template is quite short really given the lack of figures for the moon... very little is known about it.

If anyone can add to it, please do. - Burwellian 18:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Category:Galaxies by constellation

The category has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 9#Galaxies by constellation. It's been raised that input from this WikiProject in the discussion would be quite desirable. siafu 05:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I nominated that one, and listed it incorrectly. Right now that category's empty. And all the galaxies are already in their individual constellation category, which are subcategories of Category:Constellations, so galaxies can already be found by going through the constellation's category, which are pretty small so it shouldn't be too hard. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 15:57, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Category:Galaxies by constellation - were deleted via CfD, because they were disused and empty. 132.205.94.34 01:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

some problems with Spiral Galaxy M100

Hello, there seems to be an error in Template:Galaxy listings (it refers to whatlinks there), and also, there is a better image of M100 on Image:Improvement in Hubble images after SMM1.jpg. Samohyl Jan 20:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Units for astronomical distances

Hello. The anonymous user editing from IP address 67.85.2.175 has been adding distances in miles, for instance, this edit added the fact that the Spiral Galaxy M61 is 352.4 quintillion miles away. I'm not into astronomy, but I would be surprised if astronomical distances were in fact measured in miles. Please have a look at his/her contributions and revert if necessary. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that the Astronomy community has standardized on the metric system, so I'd support such a revert. Besides, distances to galaxies are usually given in megaparsecs, light years or their redshift factor. — RJH 19:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Star Charts

Some objects have and observation section that tells where to look for and what kind of instrument can have a look at the said object. This is great because amateur astronomers can use Wikipedia to build watch plans. Many of those "observation sections" would benefit from a mini start chart showing the plain constellation the object is in and the object highlighted. While this sounds great, there are caveats. I know no way to specify what should be on a star chart that works across multiple tools.

To help the users, all those mini charts should look the same. What should be a dimmest magnitude shown? Real colors of black stars on white background? What size? 640x480 with a thumbnail on the article page sounds reasonable to me. Should the charts show the star names? Should the charts show the constellations lines ?

Kstars is Free Software and can produce the said charts but its scripting abilities are limited. Anyone know a better tool that is widely available? --Yannick Gingras 17:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • This is just my opinion: I think most of your questions depend on what you are trying to illustrate and at what scale. I'd go for the cleanest look that still shows what you are trying to illustrate. I.e. a constellation map would probably have a magnitude scale that would show the stars well on the thumbnail scale, but not too faint a magnitude or the data can get lost in the detail. If the constellation is important to the illustration then I'd include the lines. Otherwise not. I personally prefer dark stars on a white background because it shows up better on the monitor, as well as in low lighting conditions. Showing star colors may or may not be too much information. Again it depends on what you're trying to illustrate. :) Thanks. — RJH 20:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

b:Astronomy Wikibook Cleanup

I am looking for some people who are interested in perhaps a larger challenge than the usual fare here on Wikipedia. (not that you aren't doing good work here as well. Thanks for the effort to make high quality articles!)

I've been doing some cleanup on Wikibooks, and looked at the Astronomy Wikibook in terms of overall quality. It is frankly a mess and something that largely duplicates what is being done here on Wikipedia anyway, so I've nominated it for a VfD on Wikibooks. I do think a high quality textbook about astronomy would be very useful, and indeed is something that we actually need on Wikibooks. I've read a few astrophysics textbooks myself and as this Wikibook is currently written is far from useful for anything that could be used in a classroom setting.

I guess what I'm asking is that this Wikiproject also "adopt" this Wikibook to help in its cleanup, and try to put it on a much better standing both academically and make it something that a professor would want to use for an Astronomy 101 class. We don't need an encyclopedia of Astronomy here, but a real book that discusses Astrophysics in depth. This Wikiproject has perhaps the best collection of people who are interested in this subject, which is why I'm posting this comment here. I'll try to do what I can, but I'm mainly a very interested amature astronomer who loves the subject and likes writing Wikibooks as well. --Robert Horning 14:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Galaxy template "reform"

Hey, firstly I've added an image variable to Template:Galaxy. Unfortunately it does not fail gracefully if an image is not supplied, it shows {{{image}}}, so perhaps someone can fix the template. I tried to make it work with Template:If, but to no avail.

I've also incorporated this thing: 

{{astrobox begin1|Centaurus galaxy}}{{galaxy listings}}{{astrobox end}}


... into the infobox, and removed it on one page (Centaurus A Galaxy).

It basically hangs around not looking too good, so I though it would be good for the infobox.

Any thoughts on this?

--JamesHoadley 08:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Other projects usually just make a pair of templates; one for the image and one without. Alternatively you can come up with a generic image, such as a galaxy with a big question mark on top, that you use when you don't have an image. — RJH 00:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I think we can do fine with just the one template, it just means that even if a body has no image, the line
| image =
still has to be included in the template. --JamesHoadley 00:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Comet template

I added the {{Comet}} template. It seems to me orbits of comets are bit less stable than one for minor planets (or I'm misinterpreting things...) so there is a shorter list of parameters. Also, giving the last and the estimated next perihelion is something interesting for the reader. Please, commment and improve! Awolf002 01:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

As in the discussion above, an "image" section sounds useful enough even if it is "empty" for quite a few comets. Maybe we get some GFDL compatible pictures from amateur astronomers with decent quality? Awolf002 04:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I added the template to already exisiting periodic comet articles, with the data being extracted from the "visible comet" list from the MPC. I have many more visible comets in that list than we have articles, however having just a template in an otherwise empty page is rather ugly. I will hold off on adding those. Here is the list of articles I updated:
4P/Faye, 9P/Tempel, 21P/Giacobini-Zinner, 29P/Schwassmann-Wachmann, 32P/Comas Solá, 81P/Wild, 87P/Bus
Awolf002 15:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Recently, I put minor planets on my watchlist to prevent unnoticed vandalism. These pages sometimes just show the orbital parameters and a "canned sentence" about that this article is about a minor planet, e.g. 702 Alauda. That seems reasonable enough for our list of numbered comets, too. If nobody objects I will create a similar "canned" article for numbered periodic comets, which have current orbital parameters. Awolf002 00:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Look at 8P/Tuttle as an example for discussion. Thanks! Awolf002 02:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I finished with adding templates to all visible numbered periodic comets, using the MPC orbital data for epoch March 6, 2006. The MPC list also contains visible non-numbered periodic comet orbits (eg. P/1995 A1). Is it worthwhile to make stubs for those? Any other comments? Awolf002 15:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Planetary features

So there doesn't appear to be any convention on a template for a planetary feature. What do you think about an infobox tree format for things like craters, plains, valleys, and so forth? One of the things I was contemplating was how to fit the {{coor}} template format into this scheme. For example, in a template with separate lines for latitude and longitude, what about employing the {{Coor|cc|tt}} form by, say, having fields for: 

latitude
N_or_S
longitude
W_or_E

on, say, the Moon, and assembling it so that the latitude and longitude rows both have links to the same map information? For example:

... | latitude=42.5 | N_or_S=S | longitude=51.5 | W_or_E=E | ...

then the resulting coordinate entries would look like:

Latitude {{Coor|42.5_S_51.5_E_globe:Moon|42.5° S}}
Longitude {{Coor|42.5_S_51.5_E_globe:Moon|51.5° E}}

Thoughts? — RJH 19:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

  • For now I set up a new lunar crater template that has a single row for the coordinates, and includes the {{coor d}} template. (For example, see Abbe (crater).) Perhaps some day it can be refined. Also I tried out some of the maps and for an unknown reason the L&PI page isn't always finding the right pages. I'm not sure why, but the template is passing the right information so it can be fixed on the other end. It'll take me a little while to update all the crater pages with the new template and the reference link at the bottom... — RJH 23:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
A single line looks better to me than two. The example looks good! Awolf002 03:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay. I also put together a similar template that can be used to display a small image as well as the data. C.f. C. Mayer (crater). The reason I did that was because when somebody put an image at the top of the page the text didn't wrap very nicely and it looked a little ugly. So I folded the image into the table and it seems to look a little more elegant. :) — RJH 16:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps we could ask the interwiki site kvaleberg.com (which currently handles mapping coordinates to online mapping sites) to set up a special page pointing to Google Moon, and possibly the digitized sky survery.
Sounds good to me. :) — RJH 16:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
The url for the digitized sky survey for the orion nebula is:
http://stdatu.stsci.edu/cgi-bin/dss_search?v=poss2ukstu&r=05+35+17.30&d=-05+23+28.0&e=J2000&h=15.0&w=15.0&f=gif&c=none&fov=NONE&v3=
Here r is RA, d is Declination, h is height in arcminutes and w is width in arcminutes. There's a reasonably slow response time from the site unfortunately. -- JamesHoadley 21:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Starbox revisions

I took the liberty of making a few small revisions to the starbox templates. First of all, when you go to any of those template pages, it now shows you how they are used. (These details won't show up in the actual star pages thanks to the <noinclude> tags.) I also broke up the starbox base template into the {{starbox begin}} and {{starbox observe}} templates so that the {{starbox image}} could be inserted into the top of the table. Finally I modified the proper motion and parallax fields to use the milliarcsecond measurement, since that is becoming the convention these days. (It'll make it easier to double-check the numbers; plus some of these templates have been erroneously added using the mas values instead of the arcseconds anyway.) Hopefully these are to everybody's liking. :) — RJH 18:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

  • P.S. All of the star pages that were formerly using the {{star}} template have been modified to use the starbox instead. I tried to fill in as many additional fields as I could find information, so they're fairly complete. — RJH 23:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

"Buffy" the Kuiper Belt object

I read a clip from New Scientist about "Buffy" officially object 2004XR190 which apparently has a rather unusual orbit. I was going to create an article under "Buffy (Kuiper Belt object)" when I read that it would have an Inuit name selected for it by the International Astronomical Union. Please see New Scientist [16] and Google News search for Buffy Kuiper [17].

I would appreciate advice as to whether I should create an article under "Buffy" , 2004XR190 with a reference from Buffy disambiguation or wait until the International Astronomical Union names it. Capitalistroadster 10:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I was going through similar headaches when I considered to add this story to Current science and technology events. I now think, I will use the official "designation" 2004 XR 190 with a wiki link to it, and only mention the "nick name" Buffy in parentheses. So, my suggestion is to have an article with that designation number. (I also believe there are spaces in the designation. I might be wrong, though) Awolf002 12:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I just checked, the name is 2004 XR190 (2004 XR190) [18], and there is an article with that name, already. :-) Awolf002 12:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Misspelled 2004 XR 190 article is changed to redirect, since it doesn't have any additional information.--Jyril 19:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Improvement drive

Asteroid deflection strategies has been nominated on WP:IDRIVE. Support it with your vote if you want it to be improved.--Fenice 22:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects/Archive_2&oldid=1137393950"