Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

RFC concerning TOI-1338

There is an RFC at Talk:TOI-1338#Nomenclature RFC and any input would be appreciated. Lithopsian (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

PR on Pulsar planet

If anyone is interested, I've opened Wikipedia:Peer review/Pulsar planet/archive1 to see if this article would work as a GA. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit request(s)/Discussion: Add a "Coordinates" field to the infobox templates

Greetings and felicitations. Might a "Coordinates" field be added to the relevant infobox templates so that the {{Sky}} templates can be moved into the infoboxes, as is standard for the {{Coord}} template for terrestrial locations (e.g. {{Infobox settlement}}) and events (e.g. {{Infobox military conflict}})? — DocWatson42 (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Does it need to be consolidated with the current coordinates fields? That may require a change to the use of the RA and Dec templates. Right now we're already using a separate coordinates template, so it's unclear why it needs to be consolidated with the infobox. It may not be worth the effort. Praemonitus (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not certain if it needs to be consolidated. I'm not very familiar with this project's infobox(es). My immediate example of where I'd like to add the coordinates to the infobox is Mintaka, and the (recent) initial one is Crab Nebula, which both have separate {{Sky}} templates. If I'm just missing how to do that, please tell me how. Perhaps the infobox's coordinates just need to also be displayed at the top of the article? — DocWatson42 (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, in thinking about it, you could pass the strings for the RA and DEC templates as new, unique parameters. Say, for discussion purposes, coord-RA="14|39|36.49400" and coord-DEC="−60|50|02.3737". Those strings could (somehow) then be passed into RA, DEC, and sky templates, and evaluated, using something like an eval execution. Is that feasible with this technology? Praemonitus (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not capable of answering, as I am nowhere near good or knowledgeable enough with the script language(?) to put that into practice (thus my presence here), so I hope you're addressing the greater audience. —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

If this isn't anything someone needs handling this week, I can take a look at the template side of this next week after the heavy lifting on my ArbCom case is done. Primefac (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 10:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Moons of Saturn and WP:NASTRO

User:FilipinoGuy0995 has created a raft of articles about recently-discovered moons of Saturn. ([1]) I don't think these pass NASTRO, but I thought I'd best ask here first before making a fool of myself at XfD (as I am prone to do). Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 14:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

When people create these stubs, I wish they could say something unique about the object other than just listing time-sensitive orbital elements. Mention an orbital resonance, the potential for an impact with another moon, etc.-- Kheider (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The reason there's nothing else on such stub pages is because there's no other published information available. I agree with the lack of NASTRO: I'd support rapid deletion for all of them. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Is there some tool to multi-nominate pages for AfD? Because there are about fifty of these. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 20:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd condense them all into a single page and redirect. Saves an AFD while still allowing or searchability. But no, there is no easy way to mass-nominate pages other than with manually tagging via something like AWB. Primefac (talk) 08:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Lists of minor planets

From 2012 to 2022, Rfassbind has made many thousands of edits to keep the various lists of minor solar system planets, discoveries and observers in order. They have stopped editing in October 2022 (maybe taking a long break, maybe leaving entirely). Rfassbind certainly deserves the break. However, maintenance of those lists has stopped almost entirely since they've left, and that maintenance is our responsibility now. Affected are the lists linked from List of named minor planets (alphabetical) and List of minor planets.

About 1,100 new asteroid names have been announced since then. I have started to put those into a table on my sandbox (here), but I don't know how to finish that table (provisional designations are missing), and how to add them to the existing Meanings of minor-planet names in an efficient way. Rfassbind probably used a script to do so, but I can't find one published on their user page. Can anyone help, or are we giving up on those lists? To my knowledge, since the death of Lutz Schmadel, Wikipedia has been the only place that has kept track of these lists, and it would be a shame to lose that.

I am tagging Nrco0e, who have communicated with Rfassbind about those lists before (like here). Renerpho (talk) 08:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Well that is the elephant in the room with these pseudo-trivia lists: who is going to keep maintaining and updating them? The only list that really matters is: List of minor planets: 1–1000. After that, the objects of interest are going to grow increasingly rare. The List of minor planets: 99001–100000 page has just three linked articles out of a thousand. We have many articles of greater interest that need more TLC. Praemonitus (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Moons of saturn... again.

See the above section for context. Okay, so I AfD'd S/2005 S 4 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S/2005 S 4) and the result was to merge to Inuit Group. Working from that as precedent, I boldly BLAR'd the other 50-or-so related articles citing that discussion as precedent. Recently, a new user Florida sfs (talk · contribs) has re-added the same content to several of these redirects, including S/2005 S 4. These have been their only edits so far. Hoping to follow the "bold, revert, discuss" cycle, I'm inviting them (and of course the participants of this project) to discuss these articles as a whole before things get out of hand. I did revert their edit to S/2005, as the existing consensus was to merge. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 20:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to bring up that we had a whole discussion on which irregular moon articles to keep at Talk:Moons_of_Jupiter/Archive_2#Should_we_stop_creating_articles_for_newly-discovered_irregular_moons?, but it turned into a whole debacle where User:Double sharp and I boldly made redirects that got people opposing our actions, so we ultimately didn't get rid of anything. It looks like we'll have to revisit that debate once more now with Saturn's 63 new irregular moons. Nrco0e (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Authority control on minor planets?

What do we think of adding JPL Small-Body Database SPK-ID (P716), Minor Planet Center body ID (P5736), and other relevant identifiers to the {{Authority control}} template, in either the existing AC section "Other", or in a new section called "Scientific"?

{{JPL small body}}, {{NeoDys}}, and other templates exist, but they each require separate placement on each page, while {{Authority control}} would be able to capture all current and future database inclusions, and automatically display them compactly at the bottom of the page. I'm not suggesting {{Authority control}} replace {{JPL small body}}, etc., since they provide much more info, but that {{Authority control}} be used regardless.

Courtesy ping to Rfassbind ~ I hope he is well and chooses to return to editing.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Posted @ WT:AST#Authority control on minor planets?. Please only reply there.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Starbox

We know that many stars are so far away that, by the time their light reaches us, the stars themselves are long since gone. So, too, are the wikitext markup of templates, which echo out through the decades... anyway, what's the deal with Template:Starboxes? I guess there are a lot of infoboxes that are composed of individual templates. Is anyone interested in converting this to a module? I've never done this before but I would be willing to help. jp×g 02:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Well no, most stars last for millions to billions of years, and their light normally reaches us in up to just a few thousand years. The starbox templates work okay as they are; no star system requires the use of every starbox template, so this level of flexibility is needed. Praemonitus (talk) 06:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Possibly Template:Starbox observe 2s and Template:Starbox observe 3s can be merged with Template:Starbox observe into a single template that admits multiple sets of parameters. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Porting all that template code correctly into Lua, and then correctly updating the wikicode for all ~5,300 pages that use those templates seems like a royal pain in the ***.

I ported the various segments of {{Navseasoncats}} template code piecemeal into Lua, if only to not break the existing functionality. Because the scope of that template increased dramatically after doing do, I wish I had rewritten the Lua code from scratch. I don't see the same "issue" with the Starbox templates though, so subsuming the templates into Lua one at a time over time is probably the best way to do it.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Folks at WP:TFD can use bots for merging uses over. Of course, it depends on exactly what is being merged into what. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Replace 'Brocchi's Cluster' with 'Double Cluster'

On the level 5 VA talk page, I'm suggesting replacing Brocchi's Cluster with Double Cluster. Please comment on that suggestion. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

"Hottest planet" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Hottest planet has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 6 § Hottest planet until a consensus is reached. Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

List of minor planets: 624001–625000 nominated for deletion

@ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor planets: 624001–625000, the scope of which affects many of these list pages.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

& @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meanings of minor planet names: 623001–624000.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of 2MASX J22550681+0058396 (and many other stubs by User:Galaxybeing) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2MASX J22550681+0058396 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2MASX J22550681+0058396 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Parejkoj (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I've also nominated many other articles created by User_talk:Galaxybeing, and there are more yet to delete. We'll see if the author responds. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on redesign of the Starbox

...is underway at Template talk:Starbox begin#Broader redesign of apparent-magnitude and color-index entries. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

I propose we split articles on comets such as Halley's Comet or Comet Hale-Bopp into separate articles such as 1986 approach of Halley's Comet and 1997 approach of Comet Hale-Bopp. There are articles on the 2004 transit of Venus and the 2012 transit of Venus. That is why I think they should be split. DementiaGaming (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Halley's Comet § 1986 is six paragraphs long. I do not see a need to have a six-paragraph stub, nor do I think the existing article (at 100k) is so large that it needs to be split. Hale–Bopp's article is half that size and doesn't really have an "approach" section, making even less of a need to split. Primefac (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Removal of cited material and original research

An editor (pinging @InTheAstronomy32:) is removing quite a selection of cited material from star articles, effectively because they "know it is wrong". Example at EV Carinae, but many more cases. The response to any reversion of such changes is an instant re-revert in all cases. So, WP:OR or valid filtering of sources? Lithopsian (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I am following Wikipedia:Editing policy, by removing inaccuracies in articles. Just because something is sourced does not mean that it is accurate. About the reverts, i will stop reverting your edits every time (and other edits) and start discussion InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

In fact, there was nothing wrong with my edits. I was merely correcting inaccuracies in articles, which is encouraged by editing policy. Reverting others' reverts (with a proper edit summary explaining my edit) is not disruptive, in fact it's a productive way of editing, and does not creating edit wars, because if my revert is reverted I will simply take no action. When editing these articles, I did not insert my own thoughts (or any unverifiable information) into the articles and therefore did not violate the WP:NOR policy. I will close this discussion because no futher discussion is required. There was no problem at all. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

First, @InTheAstronomy32: you are required by policy to engage with the community and answer questions when they are raised. You may not unilaterally close discussions either.

Second, removal of sourced material based on a 'I know it's wrong' type of reasoning is not valid. If there is a valid source, the content should remain, until and unless there is consensus that the material is inappropriate, or that the source is outdated/misunderstood or whatever, or a more accurate source provided that contradicts the sourced material.

This is general advice that applies to every article on the encyclopedia. I haven't looked into any of the specific reversions. If you're called on it, slow down, have a discussion, and establish consensus. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok then. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

My edits weren't just "removing content that I think is wrong": Actually i was removing inaccurate and outdated information in articles and prefering newer ones, and it is encouraged by the editing policy. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

This discussion should maybe happen on the article's talk page, but why do you think Anders et al. (2019) is incorrect, and what citation would you use to replace it? You left the ref for the metallicity; why is that less outdated than the mass in this case? Separately, why is it referred to as "starhorse" in the ref? - Parejkoj (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The mass of EV Carinae of 5.36 M_☉ is highly inconsistent with masses of another red supergiants (see Category:M-type supergiants). Basically any RSG will have a mass larger than 10 M_☉. A star with a radius of 1,168 R_☉ would be required to have an inital mass larger than 15 M_☉ (see this page) for exist. StarHorse is the algorithm that generate these masses, but create a lot of unreliable values like 3.61 M_☉ for V354 Cep, 4.89 M_☉ for KW Sgr or 6.3 M_☉ for BI Cyg, which are all highly underestimate. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Being "highly inconsistent" does not mean "wrong"; if there is no source for this statement then it is, as implied above, you determining what is accurate and what is inaccurate, which is no bueno. Primefac (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Given the discussion at Talk:Betelgeuse, it seems that the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is a very good method of resolving certain disputes. I will start using it as well. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Should I revert the removals of mass estimates, or find a more recent estimate? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Help needed in expanding "List of conjunctions (astronomy)"

What I'm thinking is that the page "List of conjunctions (astronomy)" is a bit outdated, (the latest listed year being 2020) and that the page only lists a limited amount of years, (2005-2020) and is pretty crowded. So you see, I found this website that lists every conjunction from every year from 1950-2024 and is computed from NASA's DE430 planetary ephemeris so it is pretty accurate and reliable. My plan is to use that website to make a couple of pages about the "list of conjunctions", so each "list of conjunctions" page that I will make has 10 years of conjunctions in it. For example, the first page in the series will be "List of conjunctions (astronomy) from 1950-1959" and the second one will be "List of conjunctions (astronomy) from 1960-1969" et cetera. I know that this should be in the talk page for the article, but I've already done that, it's been 4 days since I posted it, and no-one has responded. Since this place has a bigger community, I hope someone will have the time to help me for this cause. Iamamodforjellymario (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

This article seems of more interest to the Astrology WikiProject. I suppose it might be of use for amateur astrophotography purposes. Praemonitus (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay! The options in Astronomy were so similar, it was hard to know which project was right. I'll go to the Astrology WikiProject. Hope that'll work :) Iamamodforjellymario (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

For any more inquiries or offers to help on this subject, go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astrology#Help needed in expanding "List of conjunctions (astronomy)" Iamamodforjellymario (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)