Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →

Contents

Archived discussion

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Archive 1

New look for box headers

I've always thought the object name floating outside a lot of the infoboxes used in astronomy articles looks odd. I just edited {{starbox begin}} to try out a new look, which I think is an improvement (though I'm not sure whether the increased font size is really necessary). What does anyone think of it? If other people like it, the other infoboxes could be converted to the same style. Worldtraveller 17:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The style was different from the standard form being used for the other AO templates. I believe a consensus is needed before such arbitrary style changes are imposed. For now I've reverted it. The suggested look is here: [1], which changes the font style and includes the name within the table box. Note that this may have a negative impact on the appearance of some of the other templates. Thanks. — RJH 18:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I believe consensus is needed too, hence my request for opinions, you see. Please elaborate on what negative impacts there might be. Worldtraveller 19:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Enlarged font format may look fine in one browser but lousy in another, particularly if the name is overly long and expands the table excessively. There can be aesthetic issues with the color format of the other table rows, as well as cases where there is an image at the top. Finally the caption format is a widely accepted form for HTML tables, when it is included at all. (Personally I'd be all for getting rid of the name field altogether as it is redundant with the page title and text.) Thanks. :) — RJH 18:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, like I say, the font enlarging was just an idea - the main point was to not have the object name outside the table it's supposed to be the header of. Not sure what you mean about caption format? I'd also be in favour of dropping the name at the top of the table as well - I can't think of any examples of where it wouldn't be redundant either with a section title or the page title. Worldtraveller 18:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I had a look through the other WikiProjects to see how they are handling the same issue with their Infoboxes. The convention seems to be to include the title within the borders, in bold font (not enlarged), and using the color background theme of the box. — RJH

Something comparable to this: ...moved below under Style #2

Not bad so far. Let's have a full set of examples so we can discuss this further.
Urhixidur 14:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd prefer the current style, and I think other templates do have the title outside the box, eg, Template:Infobox Organization. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JamesHoadley (talk • contribs) 15:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC).
I like this style, having a large heading row is distracting. I don't have a particular visual preference for having the title inside or outside the box, but I'm not entirely sure using the caption as a title outputs semantic HTML (I'd suspect table header cells are more correct for this purpose). Chaos syndrome 15:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC).
I would assume that the new style would also apply to Minor Planet. The Name inside the infobox (in bold, standard font) makes sense and looks good to me. To make the boxes more homogenous (and avoid a direct background colour clash) I would suggest taking the category row up, under the name, as you do for other AO below, with colour-coded categories (to be agreed, e.g. Main Belt, Plutino, Scattered etc).Eurocommuter 16:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC) Could someone provide such a modified Minor Planet example, please?. I tried but while I can read HTML I haven’t got a handle on the 'wiki dialect' yet.)


What needs to happen is a threefold process:

  1. Decide whether we even need these extraneous headers. The page already has a H1 element of the same name. This is just a duplication of that data and provides no additional information. (Though on pages with multiple boxes maybe this would not be true)
  2. Once that's done, and if its decided that it be kept, decide whether a TH cell with an all-column scope is a good idea. it goes against my gut instincts of what a TABLE should contain, but CAPTION is definitely the wrong markup (CAPTION should be a terse prose description of the table).
  3. Only then can we faf around with what colours to make it. IMHO the Eros box looks good with a yellow top, but the Orion Nebula box didn't look good with a red top. The nebula box doesn't look good at all to be frank.

I would say that the tables shouldn't have a header at all, since the H1 element of the page provides that. Thus points 2 and 3 don't apply anyway. — Nicholas (reply) @ 02:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Going by the Help:Infobox content, it looks like having a name of some sort is accepted practice, even though it's redundant and can seem a little silly (IMO). But I suppose the title at least has the benefit of clarifying any potential ambiguity if additional tables are added later. The examples in the Wikipedia:List of infoboxes are all over the map in terms of header format (including borders, coloration, cell spacing, &c) with style #2 below being somewhat more common. — RJH 16:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I think repeating the article's topic is not breaking any "rules". Remember, that the title is repeated at the beginning of the text in bold. I would prefer to keep the header, and I agree that it looks better "inside" the box. I disagree with having a color background "just because". Where it does make sense to me is when tying together the top and lower part of a section with a larger image as the center. For instance for Eros, having the name on top and the caption with the same bgcolor (even if its grey) looks good to me. However, I feel that is just what I am most used to, not an objective design decision. It does certainly look bad, if there is nothing "in between" but filler space or the color changes (See both style #2 examples), though!! Awolf002 17:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Quick opinions: either of the new styles is better than the current setup, but I think the name looks too plain in Style #1, and it blends in too much in Style #2. Ardric47 00:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the centred properties (e.g. Discoverer, Discovery date in the asteroid template), it looks messy. I'll agree that the heading is not prominent enough on the #2 style. Style #1 is ok (though it would be best to preview these in the context of an article to get an idea of how they interact with the page elements), though I think there is too much of a gap between the title text and the top border. Chaos syndrome 18:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems that opinions on the three formats are all over the map, even on just the header style. I'm not seeing a clear consensus emerging, unfortunately. — RJH 18:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Style #1 -- bold; enlarged; plain bkgd

Alpha Centauri

Observation data
Epoch J2000
Constellation Centaurus
Right ascension 14h 39m 36.2s
Declination -60° 50′ 8.2″
Apparent magnitude (V) 0.01

Orion Nebula
Diffuse nebula Lists of nebulae
Observation data
(Epoch J2000.0)
Type -
Right ascension 05h 32m 49s
Declination -05° 25′
Distance 1,600
Apparent magnitude (V) +4.0
Apparent dimensions (V) 85 × 60
Constellation Orion
Physical characteristics
Radius -
Absolute magnitude (V) -
Notable features -
Other designations NGC 1976, M42
edit

433 Eros
This picture of Eros shows the view looking from one end of the asteroid across the gouge on its underside and toward the opposite end.
This picture of Eros shows the view looking from one end of the asteroid across the gouge on its underside and toward the opposite end.
Discovery A
Discoverer Carl Gustav Witt
Discovery date August 13, 1898
Alternate
designations B		 1898 DQ; 1956 PC
Category Amor,
Mars-crosser asteroid
Orbital elements C
Epoch October 22, 2004 (JD 2453300.5)
Eccentricity (e) 0.223
Semi-major axis (a) 218.155 Gm (1.458 AU)
Perihelion (q) 169.548 Gm (1.133 AU)
Aphelion (Q) 266.762 Gm (1.783 AU)
Orbital period (P) 643.219 d (1.76 a)
Mean orbital speed 24.36 km/s
Inclination (i) 10.829°
Longitude of the
ascending node (Ω)		 304.401°
Argument of
perihelion (ω)		 178.664°
Mean anomaly (M) 320.215°
Physical characteristics D
Dimensions 13×13×33 km
Mass 7.2×1015 kg
Density 2.4 g/cm³
Surface gravity 0.0059 m/s²
Escape velocity 0.0103 km/s
Rotation period 0.2194 d (5 h 16 min)
Spectral class S
Absolute magnitude 11.16
Albedo 0.16
Mean surface
temperature		 ~227 K

Style #2 -- bold; normal; color bkgd

Orion Nebula
Diffuse nebula Lists of nebulae
Observation data
(Epoch J2000.0)
Type -
Right ascension 05h 32m 49s


433 Eros
This picture of Eros shows the view looking from one end of the asteroid across the gouge on its underside and toward the opposite end.
This picture of Eros shows the view looking from one end of the asteroid across the gouge on its underside and toward the opposite end.
Discovery A
Discoverer Carl Gustav Witt
Discovery date August 13, 1898

TfD nomination of Template:Star-planetbox primary

Template:Star-planetbox primary has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Also nominated are {{Star-planetbox secondary}}, {{Star-planetbox end}} which are members of the same template sequence. Chaos syndrome 14:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Worklist and general project organisation

Walkerma suggested earlier that we start a worklist for the project. I just started a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Worklist, with the idea of listing the topics we ought to prioritise and what their current status is. I just created a table for solar system articles, and will also add tables for galactic and extragalactic astronomy - unless anyone else does it first! Hope people will have a look and help out with a) making the list and b) getting some of the articles up to good or featured quality.

Starting off this list made me think that actually the project front page here is not very instructive as to what articles the project actually works on - the lengthy displays of all the infoboxes are somewhat offputting. So I wondered what people would think about moving all that to a separate page, and structuring the main page a bit more like the wikiproject template structure? Worldtraveller 11:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Entirely agree with your statement that the project page is a turn off and with your suggestion to make it more attractive. Maybe we should (try to) define what we actually want to do (specific criteria for articles describing objects/classes of objects?). Admittedly, the aim for our articles goes beyond the infoboxes and literature list (and FA status, indifferent to some of us). Re: the list; we have TNO, Kuiper Belt, classical and scattered objects, currently dividing the content in somehow arbitrary way. I would suggest either to include all four (or five; plutinos are currently weak) or re-distribute the content to have a first-class, self contained TNO article (I would prefer the first alternative, we have plentiful of content after all). I’ve tentatively included these suggestions in your table. Please bear with my current TNO bias; these articles are not necessarily important in the bigger scheme of things but I’ve already argued otherwise. Finally, some brief review of the typical structure of an article in a given category would be useful, so we all play from the same sheet. Eurocommuter 13:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I had a go at something more inviting: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects/temp. What does anyone think? Re the list contents, more is better - TNOs are not my area of expertise so what I put there originally was just the basics. Worldtraveller 13:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Good start! I hope the 'goal' section will encourage people to add their goals, while of course not incompatible with the general wikipedia’s objectives, could go beyond. The section asks a simple question: why are we (I would expect a wealth of different answers) spending hours ‘stolen’ from professional or academic activity we could use with kids, friends, a fascinating book, soldering iron, telescope, a stubborn program, (you name it), to add, edit, keep up-to-date these articles. I’ve been with wikipedia for only 2 months so I struggle with an answer; still it’s .. addictive. I’ll be back when I sort out some answers. Cheers Eurocommuter 14:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest making the current WPAO page be a "main article" from the templates section of the new page, renaming appropriately. Otherwise it looks like an excellent start. Thanks. :) — RJH 19:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean make the current page a subpage, linked to from a new main page? That's what I had in mind for it, so we still have all the details of all the infoboxes. Worldtraveller 11:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Yup. Okay. — RJH 18:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Following this generally positive reception I've gone ahead and moved the temp page to the main page, and all the template information to a sub-page linked from the main page. Hope it looks OK! Worldtraveller 11:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Error estimates for distances

I would like to ask editors to please not remove error estimates for astronomical distances (or other quantities.) In fact, it would be best if editors added them whenever reasonably possible.

Spacepotato 06:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Re the above remark, it's possible that it is not clear how to calculate a distance error estimate from a parallax error estimate. Section 1.5 of the Hipparcos Catalogue has a discussion of the propagation of error estimates. Although the errors encountered in the Hipparcos project are not normally distributed, as this document points out, it generally recommends propagating them as if they were normally distributed and small—i.e., by placing the covariance matrix between the Jacobian matrix of the applied transformation and its transpose. I think this is a reasonable thing to do in most cases. In the case of distance d in parsecs, which is the reciprocal of the parallax π in arcseconds, this yields the formula already given by Ketil Trout:

\delta d = \delta \left( {1 \over \pi} \right) =\left| {\partial \over \partial \pi} \left( {1 \over \pi} \right) \right| \delta \pi ={\delta \pi \over \pi^2}.

There are of couse other possible methods. Spacepotato 06:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: There is an explanation at User talk:Ketiltrout#Distance error measurements. Are we sure that all quoted errors work that way, though? Ardric47 06:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The formula is not beyond criticism even for the Hipparcos data. However, any reasonable error estimate is better than no estimate. If a naïve user sees a figure like Distance: 71.3 pc without an error estimate, he is likely to think that it's exact. Spacepotato 07:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The Yale Catalog of parallaxes also gives standard errors. Spacepotato 07:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Above formula, of course, is only accurate for infinitesimally small error values. ;-) I obviously disagree with listing an error estimate for the distance when there is already an error estimate for the parallax. The error must then be propagated to four fields, rather than one, so it is redundant and must be continually synchronized as new data is presented. As an alternative I suggest changing the word "Distance" to "Estimated distance". — RJH 15:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Would it make sense to have a help page such as Wikipedia:How to read a taxobox that summarizes the various fields? — RJH 16:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
In my view, the parallax error is not sufficient.
1. Users may not know that distance is derived from parallax; or, they may not care to take the trouble to calculate the probable distance error; or, Wikipedia may provide a distance which is not parallactic but found some other way (e.g., for BD-10°3166.)
Looks like we agree to disagree then. I suspect that most users will only be interested in the distance estimate. The error term is extra upkeep that somebody will need to maintain. I know that when I get a new parallax for a star I am unlikely to go through and recompute the error on the distances and the absolute magnitude. It'll be easier just to delete the erroneous error range. :-)
...unless there is some way to automatically derive/update the values through a macro or automated task, which there may be... ...I checked and it looked like we may be able to cook up something using the methods listed on "Help:Calculation". In that event we could have two different astrometry Starboxes; one of which calculates the distance field and error based on the parallax values. In that event my objection would be partly resolved. — RJH
Just so. I have altered the {{Starbox astrometry}} template to do this. The result is in {{Starbox astrometry experimental}}. Spacepotato 01:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC) For example, {{Starbox begin | name=Test star}}{{Starbox astrometry experimental|parallax=3.02|p_error=1.28}}{{Starbox end}} will produce:


Test star
Astrometry
Parallax (π) 3.02 ± 1.28 mas
Distance 1100 ± 500 ly
(300 ± 100 pc)


Spacepotato 23:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Nice job. I did some playing around with the numbers and I think it's reasonably safe to say that the above formulation provides a decent approximation when the parallax error is at least an order of magnitude smaller than the measured parallax. It's when the error is of the same magnitude as the parallax that it becomes unreliable. So Deneb (π = 1.01 ± 0.57 mas) would likely be suspect, while Canopus (π = 10.43 ± 0.53 mas) would probably be good. — RJH (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Seems to work for nearby stars as well. Again, nice job. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Alpha Centauri
Astrometry
Parallax (π) 747.23 ± 1.17 mas
Distance 4.365 ± 0.007 ly
(1.338 ± 0.002 pc)
2. Providing a help page on the infobox is a good idea, but it is not a substitute for making the infobox self-explanatory. Most users will not read the help page.
That was more of a general statement anyway, rather than a substitute.
3. The formula is one way of providing an error estimate. If you have a different, reasonable, method, that is just as good. Spacepotato 23:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
An error range would be more mathematically accurate. E.g. Rigel is 4.22 ± 0.81 mas, or 3.41–5.03, which corresponds to a range of 199–293 (237-38 to 237+56). By contrast, 237 ± 45 is off at both ends of the range. The mathematical estimate is only nearly accurate when the error is much smaller than the distance. But either way my preference is to have neither. No offense intended. :-) — RJH 16:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I have written {{Starbox astrometry experimental asymmetric}} to provide asymmetrical error ranges. For example, {{Starbox begin | name=Test star}}{{Starbox astrometry experimental asymmetric |parallax=3.02|p_error=1.28}}{{Starbox end}} will produce:


Test star
Astrometry
Parallax (π) 3.02 ± 1.28 mas
Distance ~1100 (800–1900) ly
(~300 (200–600) pc)


Spacepotato 23:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Again that looks nice, but at that distance and margin of error, I'm not clear how useful it is. I mean the error range is as large as the distance. Just rounding off the distance estimate and giving a tilde seems sufficient in most cases, I think. (But then I'm an old statistics dude, so there you go. :-) — RJH (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd prefer having both the distance and the distance range. Sometimes the error range is as large as the distance and I think it's good for people to know that. It would be useful to make clear how large the uncertainty is in an accurate and consistent way and I think {{Starbox astrometry experimental asymmetric}} would do a good job. Fournax 02:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Using the built-in math routines, might it be possible to use an expression something like:

#ifexpr: {{#expr: {{{parallax}}} > ( 10.0 * {{{p_error}}} ) }}

If the expression evaluates to true then the parallax error is at least an order of magnitude less than the parallax and so the ± notation is a reasonable approximation. Otherwise don't bother with the ± and instead just indicate that the value is approximate. What do you think? — RJH (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have implemented this as {{Starbox astrometry experimental 2}}. Spacepotato 23:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


There are some examples on this page:

Template talk:Starbox astrometry experimental 2

It looks to me that this should work very nicely, so I'm in favor of using this template to replace the previous {{Starbox astrometry}}. Does anybody else have some input? Thank you! — RJH (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Since there was no objection, I was "bold" and swapped in the new version of the astrometry template. Looks like this issue is resolved now. I've started updating a number of start pages to use the new template. (I.e. stripping out the distance fields so it defaults to the parallax computation.) — RJH (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Star updates

Pages linked from the following lists have been updated to use the new template by removing the distance estimates and allowing the template to compute distance from the parallax:

The only issue I've encountered is a tendency for trailing zeroes to be dropped, which makes the ranges look a little odd. For example, Fomalhaut is 25 ± 0.1 ly; Procyon is 3.496 ± 0.01 pc, and Epsilon Eridani is 10.5 ± 0.03 ly. — RJH (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

galaxies by orientation

user:HurricaneDevon made a new galaxy cat, Category:Edge-on galaxies. I was wondering if we should be categorizing galaxies by orientation? (Edge-on, face-on and other, are the only three I can think of at the moment) 132.205.93.89 21:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I see little point categorizing galaxies on a property that is entirely random and not physically related to the galaxy in question.--Kalsermar 17:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I have nominated teh category for deletion, see WP:CFD#Category:Edge-on galaxies. 132.205.45.148 03:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I can see the point in categorising spiral galaxies that are seen face-on, as those are more spectacular to look at. There might even be scientific reasons to prefer to study a face-on, rather than an edge-on galaxy, or even the other way round (dust lanes etc). But I suspect that this property is already covered in the Sb, Sc, etc classification system (though I could well be completely wrong here). Yes, I was wrong, the S classification for spiral galaxies does not include any orientation information. Carcharoth 11:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe a better way to do this is to have two articles describing face-on galaxy and edge-on galaxy (making clear that this is a random orientation thing), and then just linking the term from the respective articles? Or are there too many for that to work? :-) (Yes, I know there are a lot of galaxies). Carcharoth 11:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Got edit conflict as I was saying that Hubble classification doesn't cover orientation! I don't see a need for categorising according to orientation. It will probably be mentioned in the article of the galaxy concerned, and I think that suffices. I wouldn't honestly see the need for articles either, as all that can really be said about a face-one galaxy is that it's a spiral galaxy that's seen face on :) Worldtraveller 11:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, it probably needs adding to wiktionary or a glossary of astronomical terms (let's see if we have one). Not everyone will understand what wikt:face-on and wikt:edge-on means (let's see if the wiktionary definitions exist). Carcharoth 11:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This was the closest I could find: Wikt:Appendix:Astronomical_terms. I would suggest that this WikiProject consider helping to build that resource and/or linking to it if no articles exist here. Hope that helps. Carcharoth 12:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Well there's "list of astronomical topics", but I'm a little dubious about that page's usefulness in its current form. No offense intended to anyone. :-) — RJH (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Should that list be in article space? It looks like it should be in "Wikipedia:xxxxxx" namespace. 70.51.9.28 11:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
It might be considered to be semi-obsolete due to the category:astronomy. But some of the red links could probably be added to the requested articles page. — RJH (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Referencing drive

The worklist now has a pretty good list of the most important articles on solar system and galactic topics. What's clear is that there's loads of unreferenced articles on even the most important topics. Does anyone want to have a push towards adding references to all of these? With a few people working on it, we could probably get through all of these in not very long at all, and then many would probably be up to WP:GA standards. It would be lovely to have a list without all the garish red indicating no refs! Worldtraveller 11:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to work on the astronomy articles when I can, but I'm usually only good for one or two at a time. :-) — RJH (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Week

Looking at the WP:ASTRO/Worklist, it seems like one way to help improve these articles would be to start a "Collaboration of the Week/Fortnight" here at WP:ASTRO. This would be modeled on the some of the many great collaborations here on Wikipedia, like Military History and Tropical Cyclones. The idea would be to collaborate in getting some of the articles in WP:ASTRO/Worklist up to at least GA-status or better, by adding references (per Worldtraveller's comment above), expanding the text, and cleaning up the grammar and style of the article.

Articles would be nominated primarily from the Worklist, but obviously any article related to Astronomical objects needing attention can be nominated. If others here are interested, and/or have a suggestions, I can set up the Collaboration page this weekend or next week (though it would largely be a port of the Tropical Cyclones Collaboration page). --Volcanopele 15:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea! This might help draw in people that otherwise would not know where to start when looking at that large 'Worklist'. Awolf002 15:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd be an enthusiastic participant in a weekly astronomy collaboration. Worldtraveller 20:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I've stated up a Collaboration page. Not much to it right now, just an port of the Tropical Cyclones collaboration page with some elements from the Japan collaboration of the week page. But its a start. --Volcanopele 22:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Good start! So we now should add a few candidates to the bottom (the red shaded articles in the worklist, maybe?) and go from there. Thanks!! Awolf002 02:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I've never liked the whole voting thing too much on collaborations. It seems to take up a lot of time and consign articles that 'lose' to ongoing mediocrity. How about everyone who's participating lists 5 articles they want to work on, and then we start with the article picked by the most people, and continue with second place, and so on? Worldtraveller 15:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
That's essentially what we are doing now, though perhaps those listed articles that don't become the collaboration of the week would not be removed from the Collaboration of the week list (or we could list articles for several weeks based on a monthly vote. --Volcanopele 19:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Some of the other collaboration groups use the helpful technique of posting updates on "members" talk pages. That might be useful in the short run. — RJH (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Small Magellanic Cloud

Just a note... some enthusiastic Trekkies have included a huge section on a pen-and-paper RPG (Star Fleet Universe), that I've cut out or chopped down. I expect that I will be reverted, being as they are Trekkies who do this. The section exceeds in size and facts the size in a real SFU article. So we may need to pay attention to Trek-cruft in this article. I just wonder why they can't just make an SMC (Star Trek) article instead. 132.205.44.134 03:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

List of IC objects is up for deletion on AfD

FYI, List of IC objects is up for deletion on AfD... see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of IC objects (June 8, 2006) 132.205.45.110 01:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I rather have to agree with the nomination. This is just a list and gives little no additional information about the list members. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 01:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Globular cluster

I tried to bring this page up toward Good level, yet I can't help but feel that it could stand a bunch more improvements. It's currently undergoing a peer review and had some suggestions, but nothing of an astronomical nature. If you fancy a gander, the PR is at Wikipedia:Peer review/Globular cluster/archive1. My personal opinion is that this is a fundamental astronomical topic and it should be a top notch WP page. Thanks! — RJH (talk) 01:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The PR is complete. — RJH (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Astronomical data to be removed from Wikisource

I would like to alert this community to the fact that Wikisource has decided to delete all reference data, some of which may be of interest to this project. This raises the question of whether some of this material should be hosted at Wikipedia. See Wikisource:Category:Deletion requests/Reference_data and the discussion at Wikisource:Scriptorium. In particular all the tables for upcoming astronomical events are to be deleted.--agr 15:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the pages for Pluto and the Sun, and it just appears to be ephemeris data. I'm not sure that information that detailed is appropriate for an encyclopedia; so we'd probably get some complaints. Would we even care about occultations, say? Probably solar eclipses, transits of the Sun, and possibly rare planetary alignments would be of interest. — RJH (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Extrasolar planets article reviews

Hello, I guess I'm back on the Wikipedia again, though I am no longer actively editing articles. I've done a quick review of the articles dealing with multiple-planet systems (I may do a review of single-planet systems at a later stage). These are some of my observations.

Gliese 876

Gliese 876 d

Article contains calculated temperature value and unreferenced radius value. Article claims the planet is "sometimes called IL Aquarii d" but this yields no results on Google other than the user page of the editor who put this designation into the article. Speculations about carbon dioxide atmosphere should be referenced.

Gliese 876 c

Article claims the planet has water clouds, contradicting Sudarsky et al. (2003) which suggests the planet would be cloudless, in favour of the popular website Extrasolar Visions. Habitable zone speculations unreferenced except for simplistic (and undocumented) calculations on Extrasolar Visions website. The article should cite Barnes et al. (2002) for its speculations on maximum moon masses (note that the Barnes paper has reversed designations of planets "b" and "c").

Gliese 876 b

Article should reference habitable zone speculations to a more accurate source than naive (and undocumented) calculations on Extrasolar Visions.

HD 73526

Article should emphasise that mass values are lower limits.

HD 82943

Article should reference claims about the habitable zone of this system.

HD 108874

Article should reference claims about the habitable zone of this system.

HD 128311

Article should emphasise that mass values are lower limits.

Mu Arae

Article is inconsistent in its use of Mu and μ (written out as opposed to symbol). Infoboxes contain calculated temperature values from Extrasolar Visions and theoretical radii, without any indication that these are not measured values.

Hope this is useful. Chaos syndrome 19:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The article needs a complete rewrite—new data from HARPS gives very different orbits and a new, fourth planet.[2] The authors of the paper name the innermost, Neptune-mass planet as c ("d" in the list), then d ("e"), b ("b"), and e ("c"). The authors claim that the outermost planet was confirmed only now, thus the letter e.--JyriL talk 15:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Handling multiple star systems

The current starbox starts to get rather confused when star systems contain more than 2 stars, I've tried a different approach in the article for 16 Cygni, any comments/suggestions would be much appreciated. Chaos syndrome 20:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  • That looks fine to me, although I was okay with the previous approach. :-) — RJH (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The STScI Digitized Sky Survey: Endless Black-and-White Pictures

For years, I have been using the STScI Digitized Sky Survey at http://stdatu.stsci.edu/cgi-bin/dss_form to get free black-and-white images of the night sky. This would be a valuable asset to use in creating images for Wikipedia pages of less-than-famous night sky objects (such as M73). The copyright information on the STScI website says that the images can be used in non-profit ventures like Wikipedia, so importing images from the website to here should be OK.

When I first tried to import an image from the Digitized Sky Survey into Wikimedia, I was flustered by all the information i had to give to add an image. I'm going to try it again sometime when I have a lot of time, but it would be very helpful if someone wrote a "how-to" guide.George J. Bendo 13:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The "Upload file" page on wikimedia seems pretty comprehensive to me. Nowadays I just use their "Information" template and it works out pretty well. — RJH (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The specific things that I do not know how to fill in are the licensing and permission. The copyright information for the Digitized Sky Survey (DSS) is at http://stdatu.stsci.edu/dss/copyright.html. This does not quite fit any of the licensing options that Wikimedia offers in their pull-down menu. I also do not know how many details about the copyright need to go into the permissions in the text description.
Another part of the reason why I hesitated to insert DSS images into Wikimedia is because I did not know how much information to include on the image. For example, if I upload a POSS2/UKSTU Red image, I don't know if I would need to explain what POSS2 and UKSTU are.
I think I still need to meditate on how to do this well, although advice on these specific issues would greatly help. George J. Bendo 23:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The relevant licensing information appears to be the following (from [3]): If you're using images from the DSS for research, teaching purposes and other non-profit activities, you may use them freely, and we only request that you acknowledge the source. Commercial applications require a license.
Images which are only licensed for non-commercial use are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons at all, and, regrettably, as of May 19, 2005, User:Jimbo Wales has decreed that such images are only allowable on Wikipedia under the "fair use" doctrine [4]. If you determine that this is possible, you should probably do the following:
  1. Upload the image to Wikipedia using the Special:Upload page.
  2. Select None Selected for licensing.
  3. Edit the image page manually and add {{Fair use in|blah}}, where blah is the name of the article you are using the image in.
  4. When editing the image page, also include the information (source, copyright information, and rationale) requested in the fair use tag.
As for explaining what POSS2, UKSTU, etc. mean, I don't think this is necessary. Spacepotato 23:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

HD 64180 was PRODed and is now at AfD

Note, HD 64180 is being PRODed (up for quick and silent deletion). If anyone thinks it's worth having a deletion debate on, I suggest you change it from PROD to AfD. Or if its worth saving, just delete the PROD message. Zzzzzzzzzzz 05:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

A quick search on the ADS Abstract Server shows that this star has no scientific significance. George J. Bendo 09:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, the PROD notice has been removed, but really this star is just a number in the star catalogues. SIMBAD returns no references to any papers. Chaos syndrome 10:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I've listed the page on AfD. Chaos syndrome 09:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

constellations

Hmm... I just noticed something. Even though it has no value in an astronomical sense, in a stargazer sense, and as a reference to the general public, constellations really should list the stars that form the traditional pattern, and probably some information concerning the pattern / star positions. The constellations template has "number of stars". If a casual stargazer were to look at that, it would be confusing, since it counts the stars greater than 3rd magnitude. It intuitively should indicate the number of stars in the pattern. The infobox should probably have a list of stars forming the pattern, as the graphic representation is not the easiest thing to read, and doesn't hyperlink. 70.51.9.28 11:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Do the constellations have officially-recognised patterns? If they don't, then we have the issue of which patterns to use. For example, sometimes Ursa Major is drawn as just the Big Dipper asterism, sometimes as a larger representation (e.g. [5]) Chaos syndrome 22:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
We could use the patterns designated in the various classical star atlases... As for the modern constellation creations, like the compass, we have the creator's thoughts on the matter. Zzzzzzzzzzz 04:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
There should be some prevalent fixed sets of stars used, since they were used for navigation, it would not help if each astrogator used different stars, and everyone got lost. The post Greco-Roman Arab sources should probably have some. 70.51.11.172 14:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
With Ursa Major, I've been taught that the Big Dipper is only part of it... like Orion's Belt, and such, a portion of a larger constellation. (or the split Argo Navis) 70.51.11.172 13:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The term for that is asterism. I've noticed that the diagram on the Ursa Major page only shows the Big Dipper. Ideally this should be changed to one of the patterns representing the great bear. I'm not sure how to go about changing this though. --Nebular110 15:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Cha110913-773444.jpg on IfD

Hello, I listed Image:Cha110913-773444.jpg on Images and media for deletion, opinions would be welcome there. Chaos syndrome 21:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Is Barnard's Star a halo star?

The article on Kapteyn's Star claims that Kapteyn's Star is the closest halo star, while Galactic spheroid claims that Barnard's Star is the closest halo star. Unless I am misunderstanding something, those two statements cannot both be true. --Bletch 02:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It appears that Barnard's Star is not thought to be a halo star. Gizis 1997 [6] makes it an intermediate Pop II star. Spacepotato 06:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
In that case, I'll do the honors and update the pages in question. --Bletch 01:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies

I have been working on the Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies for over a week. While, as of 16 Jul 2006, the article is still a work in progress, I would appreciate reviews of the article, with particular emphasis on the technical aspects of the article and the references. I am aware that I need to add some references (such as for the NGC 4618 entry).

I have been using the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database ( http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/ ) heavily for this article, so I have created a general reference to it as well as a general reference to their copy of the Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies. However, I do not know if I should add footnotes for every passage that was based on the NED website or if I can just leave a general reference. I am adding specific references to specific information retrieval in individual sources, but I was wondering if, to be technically correct, I need references for all 338 sources. (Comments on the technical aspects of the NED references would be welcome, too.) George J. Bendo 20:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks pretty good. Some of the images are jumbling up the formatting a bit, at least in my somewhat narrow browser window. You might try inserting a {{clear}} template just before the appropriate tables so that they don't collide. Also the "External links" section is usually placed at the very end.
This doesn't really address your concern, but you can use the same reference multiple times by using a named reference. Thus for the first reference: <reference name="ned">Reference here...</ref>, followed thereafter by: <reference name="ned" /> wherever appropriate. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
What is the standard for arranging "External links", "See also", and "References" sections? I thought that it would be more logical for "References" to follow "External links", but I am new to Wikipedia, so I could very easily be mistaken.
I am unable to recreate your problem with the image layout on my web browsers, so I invite you to change the layout of the images so that it will appear better in your browser. George J. Bendo 09:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay. The suggested location for external links is described in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#External_links. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Nomenclature of PSR B1620-26

I've found a few potential issues with the current article nomenclature for the components of the PSR B1620-26 system - I've summarised the points on the article's talk page, any comments/suggestions there would be welcome. Thanks, Chaos syndrome 14:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Solar system

I've been working on the Solar system article and was wondering why it wasn't listed at the top of the "solar system" section of the worklist. It seems this article just can't get noticed!Serendipodous 14:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I just went ahead and shoved it in there. AFAIK there's no limitations on who can modify that page, and it'd be good if it were frequently updated. :-) — RJH (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Using figures from scientific papers

Is it possible for Wikipedia to use figures from scientific papers in articles? For example, Changing Face of the Extrasolar Giant Planet, HD 209458b has some very nice diagrams of predicted atmosphere flow patterns on HD 209458 b (e.g. this one), but I'm not sure if that can be legally uploaded or what license to use. Paper was published in The Astrophysical Journal. Chaos syndrome 17:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

According to this talk, since 2001 arXiv authors have been required to agree to the following click-through license:
  • I grant arXiv.org a license to distribute this article.
  • I certify that I have the right to grant this license.
  • I understand that submissions cannot be completely removed once accepted.
  • I understand that arXiv.org reserves the right to reclassify or reject any submission.
As for the Astrophysical Journal, the permitted use statement for the electronic edition [7] states: Materials from the journals may not be recompiled, manipulated, used to prepare derivative works, or published in another format without prior written permission from the Press. Clearly, neither of these licenses grants Wikipedia any rights, so the only way the diagram can be used is under fair use. Spacepotato 21:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, probably I'll avoid uploading those then... just a question, how would these terms apply to numerical data in articles (e.g. orbital elements of exoplanets?) Chaos syndrome 22:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Fortunately, data is not copyrightable, so these terms don't apply to it. Spacepotato 22:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
BTW, fair use might be possible here as being, per point 1 of the Stanford fair use guide, "scholarship"; points 2–4 also look reasonable. Spacepotato 23:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Galaxy article requested moves

I've put a lot of Messier objects and 4 NGC objects up on WP:RM. This is as a result of comments made at this WikiProject (see Naming Conventions in Archive 1), details/discussion at Talk:Globular Cluster M2 and Talk:Irregular Galaxy NGC 55. Chaos syndrome 21:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

General issues with images

The new discussion on using images from journals prompted me to start this discussion. I have only been working on Wikipedia for about a month, but I have now encountered a few general issues with using images in Wikipedia that has become particularly frustrating from the standpoint of writing astronomy articles. My specific problems are as follows:

1. Wikipedia seems to have stringent rules on image use. The images apparently have to be entirely copyright free and not just available for non-commercial use with restrictions for commercial use. As a result, many of the great archives of publicly-available professional astronomy images cannot be used in Wikipedia. As stated in the above discussion on the STScI Digitized Sky Survey, the copyright restrictions for those images renders them unsuitable for Wikipedia. Images from the Sloan Digitized Sky Survey and the NOAO have similar restrictions. While the Hubble Space Telescope does take pretty pictures, it does not cover the entire sky, and its images are not always suitable for what I need, so it is not a replacement for these other surveys or archives. In light of these problems, it would be nice if Wikipedia could reconsider its image-use policy. (For now, I'm just too afraid of the Wikipedia copyright policy to upload any images that aren't my own.)

Yes, I've had a few uploads get deleted even though I took the shots and loaded them under a Creative Commons license. The issue seems to be that wikipedia gets replicated quite a bit, including to commercial sites. So the image police are real sticklers for only including images with a definitive source and no licensing issues. (Public domain is best.) I've had no problems using NASA images with the proper license, but there seem to be objections to the ESA license (so I've stayed away from using the SMART-1 shots, for example). — RJH (talk)

2. Searching for astronomical images in the Wikimedia commons is very difficult. I often receive hundreds of undesired results and only one or two usable results. Searching for an optical image of M73 or Messier 73, for example, is extremely difficult and requires paging through many lists of images with either "Messier" or "73" in their titles. (The one image of M73 that I did find is a near-infrared image, so it seems inappropriate or slightly confusing to use.) A search for anything beginning with "Arp" brings up huge numbers of images unrelated to astronomy. Advice on how to use the search engine would be appreciated, but I think the Wikipedia organization needs to examine their search engine more carefully and fine-tune its operation.

Yes I agree it seems awkward sometimes to find images on wikimedia. Some of the category organizations are a little non-intuitive, at least to me. I'll often end up trying to drill down to the proper topic from the top level categories, rather than trying to do a search. But wikimedia is a separate project from wikipedia, so they likely have their own set of standards. — RJH (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I realize that the majority of users here probably would not be able to do much to about these issues, but, as I understand it, a couple of the frequent visitors to this page are administrator-like people who could convey these comments to the power that be. It would also be useful to know if other people have encountered similar problems. I hope the Wikipedia administration will at least consider these issues.George J. Bendo 08:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Bayer objects

Looking at the listed objects in Category:Bayer objects, I've got a few points:

  • Can we clarify whether we want to be using designations of the form Mu2 Cancri or Mu-2 Cancri in article titles? Looks like the majority of articles are in the first form, but before I go on a page moving spree I'd like to get the community's view on this.
  • The category links seem to vary between using numbers and superscript characters, which leads to poor ordering of articles in the list (take a look at the entries for the various Psi Aurigae stars to see what I mean). I suggest standardising on using the number characters for the links (primarily because of ease of use).
  • Would it be better to organise Bayer designations in the constellation by order in the Greek alphabet rather than the order that the written-out Greek letters end up when sorted in the Roman alphabet? Not sure how this could best be accomplished, or if it would be desirable.

Any thoughts on this matter? Chaos syndrome 21:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I have a slight preference for Mu2 over Mu-2.
  • We should definitely use number characters rather than superscript characters for the category links.
  • It would be desirable to sort by Greek alphabetizing rather than by English alphabetizing and I think we could do it by putting a number before the Greek letter in every category link. For example: [[Category:Bayer objects|Andromedae, 01Alpha]], [[Category:Bayer objects|Andromedae, 06Zeta]], and [[Category:Bayer objects|Andromedae, 24Omega]]. But that would involve changing hundreds of pages and keeping them updated. Would it be worth the effort? --Fournax 22:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I support the first form (Mu2 Cancri)
  • Agreed, of course
  • Yes, I would prefer that option. On another note regarding the organization of the category; given the current size, would it be an idea to split this cat up into Bayer objects in Andromeda etc.?--Kalsermar 22:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, we already have Category:Andromeda constellation etc. Do we actually need a specific Bayer objects category anyway? Chaos syndrome 09:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The [[Category:Bayer Objects]] links in the Psi Aurigae star articles appear to all be using superscripts. The reason the sort is incorrect is that numeric superscripts don't sort correctly in Unicode: the characters for superscripted 0, ..., 9 are U+2070, U+00B9, U+00B2, U+00B3, U+2074, U+2075, U+2076, U+2077, U+2078, U+2079, respectively. As you say, it would be better to use inline numerals here (e.g., [[Category:Bayer Objects|Aurigae, Psi9]].)
Placing Bayer designations in Greek letter order could be done by using the Greek letters as sort keys (e.g., writing [[Category:Bayer Objects|Aurigae, ψ9]].)
As for the article titles, I would prefer Mu2 Cancri to Mu-2 Cancri. However, now that we are using UTF-8, it should be possible to use the title Mu² Cancri or even μ² Cancri. Spacepotato 23:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • One thing I'm concerned about when using unicode to do the superscripts is whether all the numeric superscripts are commonly supported: 1, 2 and 3 definitely are, but as far as I know the other numbers may not be. Chaos syndrome 08:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


  • I've seen it listed both ways, as well as yet another format that used a space separator. I think the later form may be clearer, but I don't really have a strong preference—as long as it's consistent.
  • Organizing by greek letter may make some sense since there is already a category for the stars in a constellation.
  • You could also sort using the Project Gutenberg greek letter transliteration table.[8] I don't know if it would be worth doing by hand, but using a bot to make the modification might make some sense.
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
We could use sortkeys such as |Andromedae, α. Ardric47 19:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Gravitational lens template

OGLE-2005-BLG-390
Observation data
Epoch J2000.0
Right ascension 17h 54m 19.19s
Declination −30° 22′ 38.3″
Maximum
amplification		 3.136 ± 0.044 (intensity)
Minimum impact
parameter		 0.332 ± 0.005 REinstein
Time scale 11.735 ± 0.116 d
Time of maximum
brightness		 2,453,582.755 ± 0.006 JD
Source properties
Distance 28,000 ly
(85,000 pc)
Spectral type G4III
Lens properties
Distance 21,500 ± 3,300 ly
(6,600 ± 1,100 pc)
Spectral type M?
Other designations
EWS 2005-BLG-390

Here's a mockup of a template which could be used for gravitational lensing events involving stars. Might be useful for things such as articles on microlensing planets. Column labels and data from the OGLE-III Early Warning System page. Comments/suggestions? Chaos syndrome 11:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This looks like it is written for gravitational lenses within the Milky Way (things that the MACHO project would detect), not extragalactic gravitational lenses. Most of the parameters are not applicable in a scenario where a foreground galaxy (or a foreground cluster of galaxies) lenses a background source. Maybe you can clarify the types of objects that this template may be applied to? (I don't want to see lots of pages on clusters of galaxies with weak lensing that include this template.)George J. Bendo 14:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
True. Maybe call this one something like {{Intragalactic lens}} and create a different template such as {{Extragalactic lens}} or something for galactic cases. Not really sure what information the galactic version would need though. Chaos syndrome 16:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Robert Heinlein's Variable Star -> Variable Star

There's a requested move going on right now to rename Robert Heinlein's Variable Star to Variable Star. I've opposed it on the talk page, because it's far more likely someone is looking for a real honest to god star than the novel, IMHO. I think Variable Star should either redirect to variable star, or be a DAB page. 132.205.93.88 23:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:100TPF

Template:100TPF has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Chaos syndrome 14:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Star

This article has been nominated for GA and has a request for peer review open. If you have a moment, please could you take a look and see where else it could be improved to bring it up to FA-quality? (The French and German articles are already FA.) There's much more that could be included, but unfortunately the article size has passed the recommended ceiling. So some of the sections will need to be expanded in daughter articles. Thanks! — RJH (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It's been GA'd and the PR is complete. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

CFD rename on Category:Nebulae

user:Keenan Pepper has proposed that Cat:Nebulae be renamed Category:Nebulas at 04:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC). See WP:CFD or Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Some_plurals 132.205.93.195 18:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The proposed renaming appears to be going down in flames... c.f. Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_6#Some_plurals. — RJH (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Splitting galaxy pairs

I noticed that a lot of articles on galaxy pairs will group the objects together under one heading rather than give each galaxy its own heading. NGC 1531 and NGC 1532 or NGC 7752 and NGC 7753 are two examples. In astronomical research, the two galaxies would still be treated as individual objects. They are given separate catalog numbers, and their optical disks are distinctly separated. They can even be researched as separate objects. (This is in contrast to something like the Antennae Galaxies, where the galaxies no longer have distinct, separate disks.) Therefore, as a general policy for people in the WikiProject Astronomical Objects, may I suggest that galaxy pair articles be split into separate articles until the galaxies themselves merge (in several hundred million years)? George J. Bendo 12:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Are all galaxy pairs primary and satellite? If so I would suggest the main galaxy be given the article and the secondary galaxy be given a redirect to the main galaxy. --Exodio 16:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Whether some of these galaxies can be designated "primary" and "satellite" is not always clear. NGC 7752 is not much fainter or smaller in angular size than NGC 7753. If seen isolated in the field, it would not be called a dwarf galaxy. The case for NGC 1531 being the "satellite" of NGC 1532 is clearer.
Regardless, each of the galaxies in the example above can be treated as a separate object. The NGC catalog (as well as many other catalogs) give each object separate designations and list separate properties. A search on NED or SIMBAD will return information on the individual objects. The same is true for a few other galaxy pairs that I have encountered in Wikipedia. The pages for the pairs (if they are to be treated as pairs) should probably include two fact box templates to at least list the separate galaxy properties, although splitting the pages (and referring to the other galaxy's page when discussing the interaction) would be cleaner.
Besides, the smaller object in a galaxy pair is often worth discussing based on its own merits. NGC 5195 (M51B) is a good example. Although the Wikipedia page does not discuss this (yet), NGC 5195 is a good example of a low ionization nuclear emission region (LINER). The power sources for LINERs have been debated for a long time. In the case of NGC 5195, I would guess that this is powered by star formation (although I would have to go look at an infrared spectrum to be certain). This in and of itself makes it an interesting source to discuss outside the context of NGC 5194 (M51A), which is why it should be (and is) on its own page and why other galaxies in galaxy pairs should potentially be on their own pages.
Does anyone else besides Exodio have an opinion?George J. Bendo 17:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I would say this is a good case to just do it - split the galaxies into separate articles and reference each one in the other. I don't think anyone will have a problem with that. --Exodio 01:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Binary Systems

Another issue I might as well bring up here is binary systems which don't have an overall system name, such as HD 80606 and HD 80607. What's the best policy for those? Chaos syndrome 14:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Same thought as galaxy pairs for binary star systems, such as Sirius (Sirius B redirects to Sirius, make the primary or lower numbers star the main article and redirect the seconday or higher number star to it) --Exodio 16:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
In the case of HD 80606 and HD 80607 the current name seems fine to me, but just listing it under the primary works as well. The other naming scheme I found in the ghits was HD 80606-HD 80607. But that seems like an unlikely search expression for wikipedia. — RJH (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
My vote would be in favor of splitting pairs into two seperate articles. As long as it is clearly noted in each article that the the galaxy in question is a member of a pair and there is a prominent link to the article regarding the companion galaxy, I don't see why this would be a problem. As George J. Bendo says, components of galaxy pairs can have drastically different properties and explaining this would be easier with seperate pages for each. Plus, an article with the title NGC 1531 and NGC 1532 just does not sound very professional. --Nebular110 17:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Worklist format problems?

Today when I looked at the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects/Worklist page, the format seems to be all messed up down at the bottom. I'm not sure what happened, or if it's even anything we did. I looked way back in the history for that page and the same problem shows up. It might be a change in the wikipedia logic that is being used in the {{astro-todo-item}} template. Any suggestions? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I cannot read the bottom two tables, either. However, if I click on the "edit" button for Extragalactic Astronomy, I can see the table clearly. (I set my Wikipedia preferences to show me a preview of what I am editing before I make any changes.) Maybe the formatting issue is at the end of the last readable table? (I'm too new to know what I am doing.)George J. Bendo 18:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it is a wikipedia issue. I can also read the table if i edit one of the sections. But if you edit the page as a whole, every table after Uranus in the Solar System is not viewable. It might be necessary to break the tables up onto different pages. --Exodio 22:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
And by the way - I am going to play around with utilizing this format for other project type pages - I like the possibilities of laying out necessary work and organization in a good table like this. --Exodio 22:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Generated HTML contains this helpful WARNING: template omitted, pre-expand include size too large Eurocommuter 23:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Perhaps it would solve the problem by having four separate astro-todo-item templates then, rather than using the wikimedia parser functions? I'm guessing there may be a limit to how much of that code can be included on a single page. — RJH (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I did not format the links, but I created three sub-pages for the worklist. It breaks the Solar System articles into Sun, The Inner Planets and Asteroid Belt, and The Outer Planets and Comets. This eliminates the oversize table, and allows for expansion later on if new articles are added to the list. I propose, if it is acceptable, to also create pages for the other tables, but leave the vital articles on the main Worklist page. --Exodio 01:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Planets

er... there's a bit of a kerfuffle going on with planets. Seeing as it might pass muster... that means we'd need binary planet cleanup, minor planet cleanup, and especially 1_Ceres cleanup. I wonder if they'll start numbering planets now? (1 Ceres, 2 Pluto, 3 Charon, 4 Xena, ...) ... too bad they didn't give Pluto #10000 as was suggested. 132.205.93.195 22:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Asteroid-stub split

I've proposed a further split of the main blet asteroid stub type, as it's somewhat oversized. Comments (and manual labour) welcome. Alai 22:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Created the following:
Please do help populate these, and deplete the parent category at least somewhat. Alai 04:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Astronomy School

I cordially invite the partisipants of this project to the newly founded wikiversity school of Astronomy Astronomy. It's still being move over, so mind the stardust! Hopefully I'm not spamming to bad. --Rayc 23:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

infoboxes

I just noticed that we don't seem to have mean orbital radius in the planet or minor planet infoboxes, and that they don't seem to appear in the articles themselves. It occurs to me that the average bloke would want to know this tidbit more than the semi-major or semi-minor axis size. 132.205.93.195 03:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Which average do you mean? (C.f. Semimajor_axis#Average_distance). Perhaps a (1 + \frac{e^2}{2})\,\!? I'm not sure the mean orbital radius is all that useful in the cases of high eccentricity. The body isn't going to be spending all that much time at that radius. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Table_of_planets_and_dwarf_planets_in_the_solar_system
True, though when people discuss Pluto as (formerly) the ninth planet out from the Sun, they mean its mean orbital radius, and not its perihelion or aphelion. In my opinion, the general public generally likes to take an average, over trying to understand orbital dynamics. 132.205.44.134 03:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

A hundred or so irregular satellites...

Currently, the individual articles/stubs on irregular moons of giants planets are typically without refs. I wondered if instead of painfully adding (usually the same) refs we could insert links instead, pointing to the reference sections of relevant X's natural satellites article and irregular satellite article. See Ananke (moon) for example. Some standardisation of the external links (ex. Orbital data, Sheppard/Jewiit pages etc.) via a template would also be helpful. Eurocommuter 10:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Adding specific references to each article will be more clear for the reader. It also clearly demonstrates that refernces outside Wikipedia were used; some people reading the Ananke article may think that Wikipedia is referencing itself (although I can tell that it isn't). Besides, cutting and pasting refernces is not that difficult. I do it all the time. (I get a lot of mileage out of the Carnegie Atlas of Galaxies in my Wikipedia entries. See NGC 4088, NGC 5457, and NGC 5713.)George J. Bendo 13:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree with George J. Bendo. Each reference should be included in the article. Not so difficult to cut and paste, and the less redirecting to get information, the better. --Exodio 13:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You've got a point. Given your interest, a few questions to your consideration:

  • For some of the content, I fail to see where it comes from, or it seems at odds with the current sources. Should we delete this part of the content? (the info could be correct at the time of the edit but the original author failed to provide the ref)
  • Sources to use

Thanks Eurocommuter 15:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If you find unreferenced Wikipedia content that is contradictory to your references, delete it. It is a disservice to everyone to leave such information on the web.
Judging between which references to use for data is harder. The best thing to do would be to figure out where they get their numbers from and how reliable or accepted those numbers are. Unless you understand the subject material, this can be tough. If you have a choice between a scientific journal article (something like the Astrophyiscal Journal) and an online database, go with the journal article. I cannot really suggest more.George J. Bendo 16:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I’ve drafted a few suggestions for a shorter infobox here with a sample there. Eurocommuter 13:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


I’ve posted a draft template for a shorter infobox here. As I’ve just read about templates’ definition this morning (!) I’d greatly appreciate comments from the experienced wikigurus. The example of application is here. Please comment on the infobox talk page. Eurocommuter 09:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested Move: Messier 81 and Messier 82

I finally made a request to rename Bode's Galaxy and the Cigar Galaxy as Messier 81 and Messier 82. "Bode's Galaxy" and "Cigar Galaxy" may be accepted names, but in my opinion they are not as commonly used as M81 or M82. Please go to the talk pages for each galaxy and comment.George J. Bendo 14:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Very good idea. What do people think about the following suggested moves:
I wouldn't mind renaming Andromeda Galaxy to Messier 31, but enough people call it the Andromeda Galaxy that I understand the rationale for keeping the name. --Fournax 20:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I support a renaming on all but perhaps the Sombrero as that is a widely used name. Having said that, renaming them would make the common name a redirect anyways so I can see renaming all to be the best option for consistency's sake.--Kalsermar 21:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Kalsermar - rename them all, you can always use redirects. Of course, that begs the question - why does it matter, if we are just going to use redirects anyway? --Exodio 22:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I originally made the requested move for M81 and M82 because those two galaxies' articles used obscure names for the article titles and because, after working with the galaxies for three years, I wanted to see them identified correclty. In contrast, some of the names listed by Fournax are moderately well known galaxy names (such as the "Black Eye Galaxy" and "Triangulum Galaxy") and at least two of the galaxies are very well known by their common names ("Sombrero Galaxy" and "Whirlpool Galaxy"). Some of these names are even commonly used by the scientific community. For example, nine of the cited scientific refereed papers on the Sombrero Galaxy page (including mine) use "Sombrero" in the title. I would support moves for M63, M83, NGC 3115, and NGC 5866 while taking a neutral stand or possibly opposing many of the others. (I personally like to refer to galaxies by their NGC number; I have problems remembering the Messier numbers for NGC 4826 and NGC 5055, and I only remember the Messier number for NGC 4594 because I revised the Wikipedia entry.)George J. Bendo 22:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd oppose moving Sombrero Galaxy, Triangulum Galaxy and Whirlpool Galaxy since they are quite well known. I don't really know enough about the others to have an opinion on them. Chaos syndrome 23:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I would support moving a few of those, especially M83 and M33. I don't have a problem moving all the others as well but if we are going to do that, it seems like it would then make sense to move all of the messier object articles to the format: "Messier x" for the sake of consistancy. If no one likes that idea, then I would say keep M64, M103, M63, and M31 as they are now because their common names are used more frequently than the catalog numbers. --Nebular110 23:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


Some statistics on galaxy names in ADS papers:
  • As George J. Bendo pointed out above, many papers on NGC 4594 have Sombrero in the title (about 50 in ADS by my count), and of those a little over half don't mention NGC 4594 or M104 in the title. My opinion is that Sombrero is in the same category as Andromeda: I'd support a move but leaving it where it is would be fine.
  • I count 28 papers in ADS with Whirlpool in the title, of which 10 don't mention M51 as well.
  • Of the 2,826 articles in ADS that mention M33, 528 have M33 in the title and only 10 have Triangulum in the title. Only one has Triangulum in the title without also having M33 in the title. I still recommend moving Triangulum. --Fournax 23:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Google search gives 42900 hits for "m 33" galaxy, 222000 for "m33" galaxy, 937 for "messier 33", 39500 for "triangulum galaxy" and 92100 for triangulum galaxy. Chaos syndrome 23:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

For well-known galaxy names such as Andromeda and Whirlpool, keeping it at the current name would be my preference. Those are the titles that people are more likely to use in a WP/google search as well as a WP hyperlink. If a page doesn't have many entries in a "what links here" lookup, it's probably okay to move. But every time those things get moved around you create the possibility of double-redirects that need to be cleaned up. — RJH (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Stellar Classification

Hi,

It was suggested to me by CarpD that we could use the stellar spectral images from the French article on stellar classification, http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_spectral, on the English-language stellar classification page. The spectrum images are licensed under public domain and they are all good quality. One possibility is to ask for a translation on the Wikipedia:Translation_into_English/French page. My French-language skills are pretty mediocre, but from what I can read the French version looks fairly good. What do you think? — RJH (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Mmmhh.. do I read this correctly that those are made up spectra, not actual images? Or am I misinterpreting the "resynthétisé par Visual Spec"? That would explain that they are not protected by copyright, since the author has released the image, maybe... Awolf002 19:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, if they created, maybe we should find the real ones first. I've seen them before and will try to remember where I seen them. Thanks, CarpD (^_^) 8/20/06

Redirect for Deletion: "Phantom Galaxy" (and other gripes)

I have submitted the redirect "Phantom Galaxy" for deletion on Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion. This pointed to the Messier 74 web page. I see that the former HurricaneDevon originally added the name. His redirect is all that remains of this "name" for M74.

I thought that this was a particularly good redirect for deletion because:

  • M74 has never been called the "Phantom Galaxy" outside of Wikipedia and people who copied Wikipedia.
  • Other objects are occasionally referred to as phantom galaxies, and a redirect to M74 would cause confusion.

Having said that, I would like to make a few gripes. First, it is incredible how much damage people can do to Wikipedia. (HurricaneDevon was not the only person who invented galaxy names). I have spent a lot of time just renaming articles with stupid names ("Starfish Galaxy" for NGC 6240) and deleting stupid "alternative names" from galaxy entries (such as "Surfboard Galaxy" from Messier 108 and "Fried Egg Galaxy" from NGC 7742). I still do not know what to do with some of the more complex problems where it looks like entire entries are based on questionable or fictitious information. For example, I do not even know if anyone thinks that dwarf barred spiral galaxies exist; I certainly cannot find anything credible using Google. I might just ask a dwarf galaxies expert (i.e. Fabian Walter) for an opinion and then get the article deleted. Even more difficult is trying to figure out what to do with the M104 group of galaxies. I can't tell if this is a real group deisgnation or if it's another made-up name from the SEDS website.

I have more that I can gripe about later (specifically extragalactic distances), but I wanted to bring these issues up now in this forum.George J. Bendo 18:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I have followed Hurricane Devon's edits for a while (after I found myself on his "to kill" list...literally) but have been unable to repair all the damage he created. The two issues you named, the dwarf barred spirals and the M104 group were both Devon's brainchildren so that probably should tell you a lot about the validity of the terms. The dwarf spirals "article" doesn't serve any purpose right now even if it is a legitimate term because there is only a listing of 3 galaxies there. Ripe for AfD right now imho.--Kalsermar 19:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
You're right about the damage such editors can do. I never thought that making edits to astronomical articles would earn me death threats, but I can now count myself an alumnus of the Hurricane Devon "to kill" list. He's basically left a huge swathe of copyright violation, plagiarism and nonsense over the Wikipedia. Fortunately, his spelling and grammar are so atrocious that it is instantly possible to tell when he's been doing copypaste jobs. I'd suggest that people be on the lookout for his edits - I've already had to revert the Vega article back a long time to get rid of material he copied off SolStation. BTW I can't find "Phantom Galaxy" on the RfD page... Chaos syndrome 19:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
"Phantom Galaxy" was submitted to RfD on 20 Aug 2006, so I expect that it will appear on the actual RfD page on 21 Aug 2006.George J. Bendo 20:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I checked on SEDS site, M47 does not even have a name.
Hope this helps, thanks, CarpD (^_^)
I had a general problem with HurricaneDevon's edits, but followed them assuming good faith and the fact that I didn't really have the time to factcheck them. As for "Fried Egg Galaxy, M83/NGC5236, NGC7742, seems like it's in use for two different galaxies. And Starfish Galaxy isn't used that much (this was my only semiauthorative source). Then there is this list right off off SEDS that has a list of names. (well, I did put up for deletion several things he did) 132.205.93.88 18:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
If you find a potential nickname, please check NED (http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/) or SIMBAD (http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/Simbad) to see if it is an accepted nickname. Both websites keep a list of commonly-accepted nicknames for many objects. It is especially unhelpful when people (especially SEDS) introduce "fun" names. Most people are going to be more familiar with the traditional names, and, as 132.205.93.88 has pointed out, multiple people may use the same "fun" name for different galaxies, causing confusion. (I really think that the SEDS website needs to be written better. They do not cite their sources, and it's difficult to verify their information.)
I agree that you should not have immediately deleted HurricaneDevon's edits. It's best to leave them alone until you can prove that their incorrect. Once you know that his information is invalid, then you should delete it.
While HurricaneDevon is a source of frustration, his actions have also served as a valuable lesson for me. I look to his work to see what he has done wrong, and then I endeavor not to repeat his mistakes. George J. Bendo 19:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Generally I try to assume good faith. I admit I must work harder at assuming good faith after receiving death threats, but there you go. Chaos syndrome 21:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The things HurricaneDevon did with images to infoboxes were pretty annoying, as his images usually were never sized properly. Though they now seem to be being deleted for the most part, so now there's cleanup to do to delete the images from the infoboxes or they'll have a missing image link instead. 132.205.93.88 18:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Naming Convention - Stars

If you're interested please add your comment at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Stars. Thanks AndrewRT - Talk 23:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Grey Dwarfs

I am uncertain these objects exist? I've only seen them in the Extrasolar.net forum. And the thread lead to the creation of those names, Grey Dwarf / Gray Dwarf. I've searched on Google and only found it in the Extrasolar and Wikipedia and Hack sites of Wikipedia. I'm asking that removing this would probably be best.

thanks, CarpD (^_^)

Done, as I added it because people were talking about it, so I now remove it, because of lack of usage. 132.205.93.88 17:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, CarpD (^_^)

List of smallest/lightest stars?

Is there a need for separate pages for List of lightest stars and List of smallest stars? It seems like there would be a lot of overlap. Also is anybody else bothered by the term "lightest star"? It seems ambiguous and it describes the name in terms of weight rather than mass. "List of least massive stars" seems preferable. (In which case List of heaviest stars should probably also be changed.) Thanks. :-) — RJH (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I am bothered by lightest and heaviest. Least massive and most massive would be much better. --Fournax 20:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Weight has different meaning to mass in space.AndrewRT - Talk 21:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I suppose "least massive" and "most massive" would be best. I did notice that both the "smallest stars" and "lightest stars" lists were created by the same person (or at least guest users with the same IP address).
I will point out that smallest (in radius) does not have a one-to-one correspondence with least massive. Neutron stars are very small in radius yet they have a mass of 1.4-3.0 solar masses. However, I don't know if anyone is tracking neutron star radii (or any stars' radii except for Betelgeuse, which was resolved with the Hubble Space Telescope).
I would also like to point out that any least massive star list will run into the problem that the difference between large gaseous planet and very small star becomes very ambiguous. The list of lightest stars page already alludes to this. Maybe it would be best not to have such pages?George J. Bendo 21:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh cool, I've been waiting for this list. If needs be, why not a list of brown dwarfs? http://dwarfarchives.org Thanks, CarpD (^_^)
Okay they're moved. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Galaxy groups: Should they even be listed in Wikipedia?

I managed to do quite a bit of detective work into galaxy groups. My conclusion is that the science on identification of group membership is so fluid that it probably should not be in Wikipedia.

I found a few sources that are commonly used:

  • The Nearby Galaxies Catalog by Brent Tully published in 1988, accessible from http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/VizieR . I have known about this since I was a graduate student. These are commonly accepted, although I do not know that NED or SIMBAD can be used to search for specific NBG groups.
  • The LGG Catalog by Garcia, accessible from http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993A&AS..100...47G . This is a well-used list; ADS abstracts shows that it has over 200 citations. These LGG numbers are recognized by NED and SIMBAD, although the two websites do not necessarily agree on the groups' identities. For example, NED thinks LGG 291 is the NGC 4631 Group, wheras SIMBAD thinks LGG 291 is the NGC 4736 group. (Garcia places NGC 4631 but not NGC 4736 in LGG 291.)
  • The relatively unusued catalog produced by Fouque et al. in 1992 at http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992A&AS...93..211F . This paper only has ~30 citations according to ADS abstracts, so it probably is not as accepted. Someone (possibly HurricaneDevon) may have found a list of groups of galaxies based on this list at [URL removed to avoid spam blacklist - see [9] for the URL. Mike Peel 17:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)] (or a similar page on that website) and used it to create Wikipedia's group pages. NED and SIMBAD do not recognize the Fouque catalog (as best as I can tell).
  • Huchra and Geller wrote two papers in 1982 and 1983(http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...257..423H and http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJS...52...61G) that also identified galaxy groups, but these are much older papers. NED also recognizes these papers' groups, although I do not know that the groups designations can be used as search terms.
  • Additionally, a few papers since the Garcia paper have also identified groups, but they tend to be specialized on specific types of groups (loose groups, compact groups, etc). Giuricin et al. (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...543..178G) may be more general, but I have not investigated it further at this point.

For reference, NED is accessable at http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/ and SIMBAD is accessable at http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/Simbad .

The problem is that Tully, Garcia, Fouque et al., and Huchra & Geller do not all agree with each other very well on the identification of groups or group membership. Moreover, NED and SIMBAD do not agree with each other, as I described above.

Therefore, my opinion is that Wikipedia should not list galaxy groups except for a few clearly idenitified ones that have been very carefully studied. These exceptions include the M81 Group, the Local Group, the Fornax Cluster, and the Virgo Cluster, where members have been carefully identified in many refereed papers. Other less well-studied groups, such as the NGC 4631 group of galaxies and the M104 group of galaxies (but not limited to those groups), should either be deleted from Wikipedia or statements should be placed in the entries describing the disagreement in the group identification (in which case the article tells readers that the group identification may not be very useful).

Could I get other people's thoughts?George J. Bendo 12:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Obvious galaxy groups and clusters should be included without question. Less studied groups should be included if they seem fairly well-defined. I wouldn't just dismiss problematic groupings, they should be mentioned somewhere (in individual galaxy articles, or in a some list of galaxy groups). And finally, any group that don't appear in scientific literature or in any catalog should be removed quickly as original research.--JyriL talk 15:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd say that they should be included. If the group is loosely defined, then they should state that it is loosely defined. Thanks, CarpD (^_^)
It sounds like other people want the groups left in Wikipedia. I will do that for now. If I think a group page can be deleted, I'll do it on a case-by-case basis, but only later after I discuss it with people.George J. Bendo 18:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Stellar Classification

Question on this page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_classification There is a section called "Spectral types for rare stars". I beleive that spectral type L and T should move out, since brown dwarf out number normal stars, these objects are not rare obejects. What do you think? Thanks, CarpD (^_^)

This could be a semantics issue. I would disagree that identified L and T stars outnumber identified OBAFGKM stars. However, L and T stars might theoretically outnumber OBAFGKM stars, although I would need to see some good references to believe this. (Someone should add a reference to this claim in the stellar classification article.) Anyhow, perhaps "rare stars" is simply the wrong phrase to use. Maybe LTYCS stars could all be placed in a "cool stars" subsection, just like the white dwarfs are placed in a "white dwarfs" subsection.George J. Bendo 08:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Here's the links, but is was from 1999, so possible things could have changed. http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:j0qcXs2LB18J:origins.colorado.edu/cs12/proceedings/oral/tuesday/hawleys_3xx.pdf+%22brown+dwarf%22+outnumber&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=8 I used google cache. It is near the bottom in cyan highlight. Original link, http://origins.colorado.edu/cs12/proceedings/oral/tuesday/hawleys_3xx.pdf Thanks CarpD (^_^)
It looks like conference proceeding itself is from 2003 (relatively recent) but the comment on brown dwarf population does date from a 1999 paper (possibly a conference proceedings paper) by Neil Reid. Even though this does seem to endorse the idea that brown dwarfs outnumber normal stars, Reid is careful not to say that this is actually the case. Instead, he is considering a possibility implied by the data but not absolutely guaranteed. Additional observations are needed to verify his result. (Also note that the article is from a conference proceeding, which may not be peer-reviewed before publication.)
Anyhow, could you please insert this reference into the Stellar classification article? It would be even better if you added the Reid reference.George J. Bendo 18:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
How are the newer spectral types generally referenced? Are they put into the same tables as the classic spectral types? I think that the most common form of dividing the types up should be used. On a side note, why is there a brief listing of the types at the beginning of the rare section, only to be expounded directly below? Shouldn't the information at the beginning of the section be weeded into the definitions below? Seems like redundancy to me. Or, they should be put into a table like under the Morgan-Keenan spectral classification table. --Exodio 18:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I cannot find any paper with this claim or speculation. I just remembered it from some article that was either from spaceflightnow.com or spaceref.com. CarpD (^_^)
D'oh, sorry for the double post. I forgot to say, maybe replace "rare" with "extended". CarpD (^_^) 8/23/2006.
I am uncertain how this information can be entered to the Stellar classification page... Not sure what the best route would be, http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~pberlind/atlas/atframes.html CarpD (^_^) 8/24/2006.

Planemo - extra acronyms

I am not sure how to add this, PMO = planetary mass object (page 11), PMC = planetary mass candidate (page 1). http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=application%2Fpdf&identifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Aastro-ph%2F0504570 These are the acronymns, I think they should be added to the Planemo, thanks CarpD (^_^) 8/23/2006.

I'd just add a link to the PMO and PMC pages that jump to planemo. Or did you mean redirects for the full names? — RJH (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd say that they should appear in the PMO & PMC list. And in the Planemo page, it should mention the acryonym. I am uncertain where to add it on the page. thanks CarpD (^_^) 8/25/2006.

Move requests

I request the following moves be made since I couldn't do them myself because the target pages already exist.

I have moved a number of other objects to their NGC/IC numbers, including some with valid "common" names that are not that widely used. Other's were just silly like the Pac Man Nebula.--Kalsermar 14:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you want a long and laborious "Requested Move" or a fast, unilateral move? George J. Bendo 14:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I think a fast move is in order. I circumvented the Requested Move page as I see no controversies if people here on this wikiproject are in agreement.--Kalsermar 15:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I had to go through the "Requested Move" page. Please go vote on the moves. Note that, to make life complicated, a two-month-old "merge article" notice is still on the NGC 5866 page and NGC 4676 has been moved twice. George J. Bendo 16:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Astronomical object peer reviews?

Pages such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history have sections for performing peer reviews on appropriate subjects. Is there interest in this sort of thing for astronomical object pages? For it to work we'd need members of this project to be willing to step up and give some input on the nominations. What say you? Would you prefer to just stick with the WP:PR as most people have been doing? — RJH (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Although I respect the concept, I lack the enthusiasm for working on peer review at the moment. Aside from simply wanting to expand many articles on important extragalactic objects beyond a few sentences, I am also busy working on other problems (such as deleting bad nicknames, moving articles to recognizable names, and trying to delete objects that do not exist). I would, however, probably review an extragalactic astronomy page. George J. Bendo 21:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I am currently concentrating on organizing categories and information on space related topics into Portal:Space using Wikipedia:WikiProject_Space. I think a peer review system should be enacted, but one that covers all space topics, not just Astronomical Objects. I think a standard should eventually be enacted within the metaproject. For now, I think regular WP:PR should be utilized (or a specific request to George). --Exodio 23:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I would favor it. But, what really is strange is that the different languages of the same articles have different pictures. I suppose this peer review will only deal with the English (American/British/Australian) view. But, a good set of standards will be needed before the whole sha-bang. I suppose a lot of the basic stats will be coming from Simbad and NStar. Right now, I have a list of objects within the Milky Way. I could contribute this, but siting sources would be hard, since I never kept most of them and a lot came from news sites. But, my time is also an issue, but maybe once a week is sufficient to start with. Maybe say all votes and nomination due every friday, else have to wait til next friday. And so on. Thanks, CarpD (^_^;

Standards & Infoboxes

What kind of standards do you think are needed for Astronomical Objects? There are templates for each type of object already, right? --Exodio 23:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The templates define the labels but do not specify (please bear with my TNO/irregular satellite bias)

  • The preferred sources of data
  • The way to reference specific items
  • Fail to differentiate among mean, best-fix, osculating etc. orbital elements so people often feel like ‘updating’ from some web-based table
  • Rigidly include calculated items (e.g. surface acceleration) when the albedo is assumed, diameter inferred, density a guess…

Whether we call it standards or four-paragraph guidelines I feel we need them to make sure that the result makes sense, is up to date and can be reviewed... i.e. compared against the very standards. Eurocommuter 01:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Would it be best to use Infoboxes as the basic page to set down the guidelines and standards? It seems like that would be the logical place to put any sort of standards. Also, as a sub-note, should the infoboxes page be broken down to provide links to different pages, one for each template? It is kind of cumbersome-looking to scroll through all that info to get at the template you would want, and then figure out what to read that pertains to it. --Exodio 01:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I like Exodio's suggestions about the Infoboxes page. I too would like a central place that lays out agreed-upon standards, and I think that such pages are needed before a peer review system is put in place. However, I would also argue that some of the infobox templates themselves need review and revision. (I personally would like to remove distance-based quantities from the "Galaxies" and "Groups of Galaxies" templates, but I have not felt ready to discuss this yet.) George J. Bendo 08:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Infobox is a must. But recommend that the colors change. Rocky planets = brown, icy = blue, gas planet = gray. I think most people interpret the colors this way. (Rock/Ice/Mist)
Recommend one more data on the infobox. Orbital Spin, Prograde/Retrograde/Locked. CarpD (^_^) 8/25/2006
Goodness, I keep multi-posting... Is there going to be an infobox for Filaments? CarpD (^_^) 8/25/2006
Wikipedia already features multiple pages on poorly-defined extragalactic structures such as galaxy groups. (I would like to delete the M104 group of galaxies and the NGC 2841 group entries, since neither group may actually exist. However, I need to go through a laborious process to prove that they do not exist before I can put such a proposal forward.) Filaments, particularly the exact membership of filaments, may be even harder to identify. Wikipedia should not attempt to even create pages on individual filaments (if such objects have been identified), nor should an infobox be created. The creation of pages on such tenuous scientific results damages Wikipedia's ability to function as a credible reference. (The preceeding comment was created by George J. Bendo)
So would the consensus be to use Infoboxes as a main page, with links to the different types of boxes? If so, maybe we could move this part of the conversation to the talk page over there. I will prepare a sample main page for viewing sometime this evening if time permits --Exodio 22:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so time permitted right now. Rough idea of a breakdown: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects/Infoboxes_sandbox. Each page would have to be re-worked to a standard, and re-organized. Please do not take my breakdown or naming of the individual pages to be any sort of final decision - I need comments on how best to organize these pages. Each one could have lists of objects that are not complete, as a good entry-project point for interested newcomers and a way of not doubling up on work for oldtimers. The Infobox page could also be re-made as a Template and added in any WikiProject main page as an insert, so there could be multiple entry points. There could also be lists of Peer Review articles and an overall catalog of what has been done. --Exodio 22:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion request for Category:Binary planets

Note Category:Binary planets has been put up for deletion (presumably because Pluto-Charon is/are no longer planet(s). See WP:CFD 132.205.93.19

List of Astronomical Acronyms

I think there should be a page on this. When reading astronomical papers, a few instances where the paper does not define the acronyms. A person would probably come to Wikipedia to search for it. I have a massive list, about 8 pages worth, of acronyms that I collected over the years. Unfortunately, I did not record the source paper. If interested, let me know. And I will submit the list. Thanks, CarpD (^_^; 8/25/2006

This is a good idea for a main Wikipedia article, and I think CarpD/Marasama should create the page. This could also be a useful guide for creating redirects or additions to disambiguation pages. Could someone who is familiar with Wikipedia naming conventions suggest a good article title? George J. Bendo 15:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Incase your wondering, here is what I have. http://marasama.googlepages.com/abbrev.html Thanks, CarpD (^_^; 8/25/2006 3:30pm
Maybe you can rewrite that webpage to improve its organization before Wikifying it? Some sections did not have headers, some links at the top of the page were broken, and the organization did not make sense. George J. Bendo 20:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Organize in 4 groups, Equipments/Vehicles/Telescopes, Celestial Objects, Math/Physics Terminology, Catalog Names. What do you think, Thanks, CarpD (^_^; 8/25/2006 5:30pm
Astronomy acronyms List of astronomy acronyms should be the name of the page, and it should be categorized under Category:Acronyms. It is possible, I checked out the page, that it may be necessary to create sub-pages, but probably would be best to put them all on one page for now and see how it looks. Try your 4 groups, see if it makes sense, and then re-organize from there. Let me know if you want any help with it. --Exodio 22:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
By convention the name for such pages is almost always "List of..." See for example List of government and military acronyms and List of acronyms and initialisms. A page named "Astronomy acronyms" would be expected to primarily a discussion page. If it is named "Astronomy acronyms", you can expect somebody at some point to rename it. :-) — RJH (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Ack, sorry. Corrected. --Exodio 17:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, here is the first attempt, tell me if this setup seems good. Also, I was thinking of highlighting the letters that belong to the acronym. List of astronomy acronyms. I am unable to figure how to create a better content box. Thanks, CarpD (^_^) 8/26/06
I don't think it is necessary to highlight the letters - it seems like a lot of work for little reason. I checked some of the other acronym pages and at least the basic lists don't highlight. Ultimately, since you are the one donating the blood sweat and tears, do what you think looks best. But I for one vote for no highlighting. What do you mean you can't figure out how to create a better content box? Looks fine to me. --Exodio 04:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
As a second thought, do you feel it necessary to have 4 categories? Would one page serve as well, by Alpha? Because if you are looking for a particular acronym, you just need to search the particular letter it is under. Maybe each entry could have a tag explaining what type of acronym it is, but have one complete list for everything.
I cannot add a link of Astronomical Acronyms to the page, Category:Acronyms. When I click to edit the page, it does not list anything for me to add a link. I'm not sure how to write it in. As for the grouping, I'll probably change to alphanumeric and add a tag.
OK, I have 0-9,A,& B done. Tell me what you think. I tried to link the acronyms to the proper articles as much as possible. It also shows that we may have to create a few articles. Thanks, CarpD (^_^) 8/27/06 morning...
That looks good. The information in the parentheses after each acronym("celestial object", for example) is a useful addition to the list. If you do not mind, I may comb through the list later and either revise some of the entries or delete some of the genuinely obscure acronyms. George J. Bendo 07:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, but about delete obscure ones. Let me know, if you need citation. I'll look for it. Some of those obscure ones I find time-to-time and have a hard time looking up of what they are. Thanks, CarpD (^_^) 8/27/06 morning...
Oh, APM is a catalog, [[10]], APMM is a goof. I use Simbad to answer the catalogs. Also, the list is of acronyms that I have are when I come to it in astronomical research paper & news sites. So, I am not physically searching for them, they are the ones that I bump into. CarpD (^_^) 8/27/06 morning...
I suggest that we continue this discussion on the List of astronomy acronyms talk page. George J. Bendo 08:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The continuing conversation and above text has moved to Talk:List of astronomy acronyms

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 17:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Rename/deletion status update

Moved to log found under the main page of this WikiProject. --Exodio 20:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

New Format

I have created a new format for the main page of the project in order to try organizing the data and projects in a more efficient manner. Each box can be edited on its own, but the information can be better accessed by those wanting to only view that particular topic and not wade through pages of other stuff. This is a work in progress, and if anyone needs a box to track anything additional, please let me know. I will be working on an instruction sheet so that if this style catches on, others may maintain it easily. I am in the process of learning how to format, so please bear with me. My ultimate goal is to gather all the branches of the study of Space into a master wikiproject. To that effect I have started WikiProject Space down the road of coordinating efforts to best effect a la the Military History WikiProject. --Exodio 20:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Err... on my browser it looks pretty ugly. Was this really needed? — RJH (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
How is it ugly? The reasoning behind the change is to group like projects, lists, etc in boxes that can easily be moved around, and also added to other pages as templates. Maybe there is a format issue somewhere, can you take a screenshot of how it looks and send it to me? If so give me a message on my Talk page so I can see it. Plus, do you have feedback on the actual layout? This is a preliminary as I figure out what tasks need the most focus, etc. --Exodio 21:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
It may be due to the way the boxes are all stacked in a single column on narrower width IE browsers. What I like to think of as the introduction box (with the pleiades image) is pushed way down to a later part of the page. In Mozilla the boxes overlap and collide with each other. It really looks quite unappealing. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What are these LEVELs? Do they really reflect the structure of what we are doing round here? Do they really need to be ALL CAPS? As far as I can tell, we don't really need the "Structure" section. And as for "Etheral, Dimension, all that crazy stuff!!!", I don't think I want. Maybe I'm getting old and resistant to change, but I thought the previous layout was fine, and this one's a bit of a mess. Chaos syndrome 20:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I prefer something between the old and the new layout. Like RJH, I have problems displaying this on my browser unless I display it in a wide (1024 pixels?) format. In a narrow window in Firefox, the black bars with the section titles on the left overlap the boxes on the right. In a narrow window in Internet Explorer, the content on the left appears at the bottom of the page after the content on the right. However, I do like Exodio's efforts to reorganize the project page, which had become messy. What I would like to see is that some of the information is updated. For example, since joining Wikipedia in June, Messier 73 has remained on the "articles to expand" list in the information box, even though I expanded it somewhat since then. Maybe I should arbitrarily update this section? Also, should we check the members' list to make sure that everyone is still active in Wikipedia? George J. Bendo 20:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If the "div" HTML tags are replaced with HTML "table" tags, the formatting improves. Should I reformat the page and save it? George J. Bendo 21:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't using <table> for layout anathema in today's standards-conscious internet? Chaos syndrome 21:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Chaos syndrome may be right. I defer to other people's opinion, particularly those with computer science or web design backgrounds. George J. Bendo 21:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Before we redesign the page again, we should probably think about what content we actually need there. Some suggestions I'm going to put in here: merge Intro, Scope and Goals into one section, get rid of the Structure section. The Links section doesn't seem to have much to do specifically with this WikiProject, so we could probably get rid of that too. Chaos syndrome 21:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Another point to consider is if we want the sections to be held in external templates. Doing this means that people who only watch the WikiProject page itself do not get updated if someone adds items to the various deletion/rename/etc lists. Chaos syndrome 22:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. That way you give flexibility to people who do not want to know about certain group projects or agendas. You can let them select the area that they are interested in and focus only on that. Things like pages regarding the membership, or the collaboration of the week. If someone has no desire to learn about those, they choose not to watch the template for that. The whole point of the templates is that information that may be related to multiple projects, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martian_Geography. So a martian geographist could watch just that portion within the Astronomical Object project. --Exodio 23:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure being able to do that is necessarily helpful. My experience is that the page doesn't get updated all that often, so splitting things up like this just means it is harder to add the project to your watchlist. Edit summaries serve perfectly well to state which topic is being dealt with. Chaos syndrome 11:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Chaos syndrome's comments. George J. Bendo 14:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone object to subst:ing all the different sections onto the main project page? Chaos syndrome 15:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I do not know what that means. Could you please explain? George J. Bendo 18:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Template substitution for an explanation. Chaos syndrome 19:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I now understand. Implementing subst: would change the way that the page functions. I am in favor of it; I do not like the current subpages approach. However, you should get Exodio's comments, since it would undo some of his work. George J. Bendo 21:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure i understand the purpose of it. I don't have a huge issue with whatever format the page ends up at - i am trying to re-organize so it is more user friendly and easier to navigate. if my changed make it more difficult, i have no problem with others working on it. The best way to spur growth is to begin implementing it and see where it leads - a lot of what i am trying is new to me. Knock yourself out, or, let me know how you would prefer it done and explain the whole subst thing to me (i read the page but for some reason it isn't really clicking) and i will work on it myself. Cheers. --Exodio 02:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Basically, what it would do would be copy all the templates onto the main page. We basically end up with one page to watch instead of loads of templates, without destroying all the formatting and stuff that you've put in. However before this happens (if it happens), we should probably make sure that the layout we've got is ok with people because it's easier to move all the various blocks and stuff around when we still have template references. Chaos syndrome 12:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I guess the first question to ask would be, what sections do we really need? How best to simply lay out the different tasks that are going on? We have the templates that Georgo Bendo is working on. The structure (or categories) of astroobjects. There should be a section for pages that need to be worked on. Give me a day or so and i will start a new talk here at the bottom of the page without all this convo between us, with a proposed layout of sections and whatnot. Then we can vote on which parts should be subpages (i really believe the members box should be a subpage, so it can be kept on the membership page under WikiProject Space All Members) and which should just be part of the main page. I would like to design it though with an eye to the number of members growing - the whole point I am trying to achieve with subpages is to coordinate easily and compartmentalize to make it more accessible to a great number of editors. RIght now it is easy to have everything on one page, since there are not a huge amount of active editors. But like Military History, they have 337 members. Permanent information that does not change a lot, such as guidelines for using templates and how to link to other parts of astro object pages should be on the main page, while information that is more of a subset of astroobjects that changes on a constant basis should (imho) be broken off as a sub-project. I will also look to see if there is a way to link subpages to the main page so that if you watch the main page you will also see changes to the subpages. Anyway, those are my thoughts for now. --Exodio 13:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
When George is keeping an eye on the big picture I hope we'll still have a section related to our solar system, the satellites, other rocks and dirty snow balls :) . Eurocommuter 13:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

As for sections we need, I suggest adding a section for articles undergoing peer review / good article nominations / featured article candidates. Chaos syndrome 18:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to write "how-to" pages for galaxies and galaxy groups that also list some information on commonly-used scientific references with useful information (and warnings about references with lousy information). I imagine that similar pages could be written for other subjects. I could also picture a page written with information on popular books that are frequently used as references with guidance on how to use the books' information. George J. Bendo 19:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I think what would be good here is that things that are likely to change in the short-term e.g. rename/deleted article logs, worklists, etc. should be on the main page which is most likely to be watched by the largest number of people. Other things which are likely to remain in place for long periods, e.g. template lists, tutorials, etc. could go on subpages. Chaos syndrome 20:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry to repeat myself, but the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects page still looks quite hideous in my browser. I fail to see how this benefits anybody except a few CSS purists. — RJH (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

My personal preference with Wikipedia is to avoid styling the pages as much as possible, since there are several different "skins" out there, which all must be tested! I personally don't see what's wrong with using Wikicode to format the page! Keep the project infobox and then use == and other headings to structure the page. Chaos syndrome 19:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I made some revisions to the page that fixes my format problems while preserving the layout. Please let me know if the modified look is an issue. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
That looks really tight. I like it a lot. I am a fan of the boxes to clearly delineate separate subjects and it brings a more organized look to the page. --Exodio 02:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Natural satellite versus List of Solar System Moons

Legolost has created a new page entitled List of Solar System Moons. This seems like it might either be redundant with or complementary to the table on the much older natural satellite page. Would someone else like to take a look and offer an opinion? If this turns out to require some sort of administration action, I would prefer that someone else do it. (Both pages also need references.)George J. Bendo 21:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There's some redundancy, but mainly in the names. They present their information in a different manner, so they could probably be considered complementary to each other. I think the name of the list page is all wrong though, and it's liable to get moved to "List of solar system moons". — RJH (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree with RJH - plus, why the "3 of 63" "4 of 63" etc? THat seems a bit distracting. I think it would be more effective to have the first line for each planet have the # of moons, and just the number of the moon in each box. --Exodio 21:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow wow wow, let me just catch up here, I don't have alot of time on my hands, so I can't complete this as quickly as I liked. Yeah ok, its a bit on the downside, but once I've completed it I change that format like you've suggested -- Legolost EVIL, EVIL! 04:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I’ve just discovered this list. My concerns, among others

  • selection of the source of data (see talk on X’ natural satellite pages)
  • lack of consensus among scientific papers on the classification of many irregulars into a given group
  • Unnecessary/unjustified justified precision in the period data for the irregulars

I believe that maintain this list in synch with other articles will represent a lot of effort and the discrepancies will confuse the reader. In other words, to have an up-to-date list in one place seems a good idea at the time of the creation but a broad consensus is needed first as to why, what for, and how to keep it maintained. Regards Eurocommuter 13:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Astronomical object

We have this page in wikipedia that attempts to categorize the various astronomical objects. But it looks like number of the links do not have pages yet, although they may exist under some other name. Also I'm not sure if some of the links are in need of a page. For example, some of the stars by spectral type. Does it makes sense to have a page about "blue stars"? It seems like that topic is covered by the Stellar classification page, so maybe we should just redirect such "[color] stars" links there? This page could probably use a good introduction as well.

What do you think? Any suggestions? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I find the sub-categorization of gamma ray bursts humorous. That could go. The sub-categories for comets could also be deleted. Some of the unusual star types should stay, although choosing which ones to keep should be decided by a stars expert. Type II suvernovae should definitely stay (and they should have a Wikipedia page; type II supernovae are only one of the most important processes in the universe). In galaxies (my expertise), I would keep all red links except "ultracompact dwarfs". I would also keep dust disks, which could be renamed "debirs disks".George J. Bendo 19:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay I updated the page. It was also missing IMBHs. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I think one of my comments was misinterpreted; I was unclear in what I wrote. I will put "Gamma ray bursts" back in, but I will leave out all the other stuff that was underneath gamma ray burst. George J. Bendo 20:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Galaxy template: changes needed

I now have multiple reasons for wanting to change Template:Galaxy, and I want to talk this over.

The primary thing that bothers be in the template are the distance-related terms: the radius and the absolute magnitude. As it is, distances for most objects are difficult to calculate accurately. Many galaxies, particularly nearby galaxies, have their own individual motions relative to the expansion of the universe. Many galaxies are gravitationally affected by interacting galaxies or other groups and clusters, particularly the Virgo Cluster. Therefore, the Hubble law cannot be easily applied to calculate distances. Moreover, the [Hubble constant] is still uncertain to 10%-15%. Calculating distances is therefore difficult, and careful measurements need to be made.

The Sombrero Galaxy is a good example. The Nearby Galaxy Catalogue by Brent Tully (accessible fromVizieR) gives the distance at 20 Mpc. The Spitzer Infrared Nearby Galaxies Survey (SINGS) (with a paper available here) recalculated the distance assuming a slightly different Hubble constant and determined a distance of 13.7 Mpc. However, both of these distances were inaccurate according to Ford et al., who used the known luminosities of nearby planetary nebulae and observations of the Sombrero Galaxy's planetary nebulae to measure a distance, and Ajhar et al., who used the "graininess" of the galaxy's bulge to estimate a distance. Both Ford et al. and Ajhar et al. calculated distances of about 9.2 Mpc, which is much lower than the values calculated using the Hubble law. (The referee for this paper directed me to references that led me to Ford et al. and Ajhar et al. when I used the SINGS distance of 13.7 Mpc. I now think that 9.2 Mpc is more appropriate.)

These distance problems make calculation of the physical radii and absolute magnitudes of galaxies difficult. Moreover, the distances in Wikipedia are generally unreferenced, so it is not clear as to whether they even originate from a reliable (or up-to-date) source. However, I have additional complaints.

Applying physical radii to galaxies is simply inappropriate, and few professional astronomers ever do this. First of all, only disk galaxies (i.e. spiral galaxies and S0 galaxies) can be characterized by single radii. Elliptical galaxies are triaxial (hot dog shaped) and would need three axes to characterize the radii. Irregular galaxies simply have no clearly defined shape, and therefore application of a radius seems strange. (Some even clearly extend beyond the radii commonly given in various catalogs.) Second, most galaxies do not have sharp edges. The interstellar medium of galaxies (and some of the stars as well) clearly extends beyond these galaxies "radii". These images of NGC 4618 and NGC 4625 and these images of the M81 group are just examples. Applying a "physical size" is simply inpractical and inappropriate.

The problem I have with the absolute magnitude is that it is hardly meaningful to most people except those who are very familiar with the magnitude system. The average reader cannot understand absolute magnitude. A quick survey of a few random articles that I have never (or hardly) edited (NGC 2403, NGC 4414, NGC 4649, NGC 5055, NGC 5236) reveals that the average Wikipedia editor does not understand absolute magnitude either. Average magnitude is simply given in strange units that even most professional astronomers dislike, and it has little physical meaning. Its inclusion in Wikipedia is therefore not useful. (If it were expressed in solar luminoisities, it would be better, but then the distance calculation is still problematic.)

I therefore recommend removing the "Radius" and "Absolute magnitude" from the Galaxy template. Their calculation and interpretation is simply very problematic, and their inclusion is not useful. I still recommend keeping "Distance" simply because distance measurements are easy to understand, because they have real physical meaning, and because the general public is interested in distances. (However, these distances need to be referenced.) I also recommend keeping the "Apparent dimensions" simply because these dimensions are still useful to amateur and professional astronomers.

Please let me know what you think. If I receive no negative feedback by 18:00 GMT on 3 Sep, I will see what happens if I change the template. George J. Bendo 08:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I support adding Parsec units to the Galaxy template (like is done already for cluster template) since Parsecs are the unit of choice for professional astonomy.
With respect to radius and magnitude, I don't support dropping these completely as the concepts they represent are useful for absolute comparisons of one galaxy to another. Perhaps we could have the template have the label for these be a link which explains what they mean in detail or replacing them with other values that are more standard. We could replace absolute magnitude with the distance modulus value to be grouped with the distance in lys and parces which can be used to derive the absolute magnitude from the visual one by substraction. I suggest this since that appears to be what astonomers commonly use. Perhaps the template could be written to calculate the other two distance values from one of the thee? (Not sure if that is possible in wiki, to have calculated values.) It is nice to have a radius measurement to compare one galaxy to another to get a sense of their relative size, maybe we could work on the accuracy of this and agree on replacing it with the length of the Major Diameter as a distance. Related, maybe the Apparent dimentions line of the galaxy template should be replaced with Major and Minor Diameter as given by NEDS. WilliamKF 19:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone besides WilliamKF and me have opinions? If not, I'm going to experiment with changing the template. A third opinion would be useful. George J. Bendo 08:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Article for Deletion: M104 group of galaxies

I have nominated the M104 group of galaxies for deletion on the basis that it may not exist. A discussion of the science can be found on the Sombrero Galaxy page under "Environment". A discussion of the deletion can be found on the M104 group of galaxies page. George J. Bendo 10:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. So here is my question. If this above information goes on the rename/delete log, does it need to be duplicated here in the talk section? If you Watch the R/D Log, then you will see the edit and go look to see what the heck George J. Bendo is doing this time. And you won't have to wonder what the basic topic is, like in Talk, you know what it's about. --Exodio 03:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The only problem I see is that the Rename/Delete log has to be watched (instead of the WikiProject page) to catch the updates. Other than that, I would stick to updating the Rename/Delete log. Are people here wise enough to figure this out? George J. Bendo 06:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
That is a valid point, and one that can be addressed on the main page. Under projects, or introduction, or somewhere. I think the project asa whole needs to coordinate and give direction to those who want to take part, and an instruction manual of some sort will be needed as the different facets are developed and organized. --Exodio 07:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Structure

The recently created table with universes, galaxies, is intended to be a master list to navigate the categories of Astro Objects from a single menu. Please review the table as needed and spot out any flaws in the overall structure. It may be that sub-templates are created for galaxies, stars, etc if the categories are too big. I will try getting to adding links to the categories this weekend so the organization can begin - as categories are linked among themselves and according to the template, it will begin to take care of itself, so the whole will be easier to navigate. If anyone has issues with what I am trying to do please feel free to discuss them here. Thanks --Exodio 23:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Fiction standard

To keep all astronomical page good, I think any fiction items should be in the 'See also' at the bottom of each page. That way, we won't have a page that has more fiction item about the object vs. actual data. (object) in fiction. ie. Jupiter in fiction. Thanks, CarpD 9/01/06

I think that a small (less than 1/4 article length) "in fiction" section is appropriate. If the section grows beyond this, a subarticle "X in fiction" should be created and split off. We should still retain the "in fiction" section in the main article, but keep it only to the most notable, groundbreaking, or significant uses, with a template:main pointing to the sub-article. 132.205.45.148 03:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Are there any other examples of subjects that occur in fiction that we can draw on? I doubt anything like space stuff. I think it is important to develop the standard - I don't know if I like the idea of including any actual text on the main article page. About the only place that would be appropriate is possibly in Space Colonization related articles where the ideas are drawn upon by real people from a fictional source. --Exodio 04:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm all for that idea, where it makes sense. Several of the star articles actually have more about the star in fiction than the actual astronomy content. But in most cases the fiction section is fairly brief, so moving that type of content elsewhere may require some judicious merging. The {{FictionAstroLocs}} template is suggested for 'astronomy locations in fiction'-type pages. — RJH (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I just found an entry labeled star systems in fiction. Maybe star-related fiction material belongs there (or should be copied there). George J. Bendo 19:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense to me. Odds are that somebody who is interested in that material for a particular star would want to look up similar information for other stars. We can always just put a link to that page at the bottom of the appropriate star articles. — RJH (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Gas giants, Giant planets, Ice giants

Shouldn't our article on giant planets sit at giant planet, and gas giant should describe a subcategory of giant planet, along with ice giant? 132.205.45.148 03:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the definition of an ice giant? Do such things even exist? If ice giants do not exist, then the discussion is moot. George J. Bendo 06:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
What's the definition of a gas giant anyway? As far as I'm aware, there is no formal definition. The term "ice giant" is usually applied to Uranus and Neptune and seems to be well established... it refers to the large proportion of their mass which is made up of "ices" i.e. water, methane, ammonia. Chaos syndrome 12:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
OK. User 132.205.45.148 seems to be concerned about a semantics issue. First, I would say that Uranus and Neptune are functionally similar enough to Jupiter and Saturn to all be considered under the same category, whatever that category is names. As for the category/page names, I would stay with "gas giant". Uranus and Neptune's volume appears to be mostly hydrogen and helium gas, even though the mass is mostly "ices", so they can still be considered "gas giants" in some ways. Also, this NASA site as well as other non-Wikipedia pages still calls Uranus and Neptune "gas giants" even while acknowledging the icy composition. I do not think a move is warranted, but feel free to disagree with me. George J. Bendo 13:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
If we do move the article to "giant planet" (not sure if I'd support such a move though), I still don't think we'd need separate articles for gas and ice giants... there isn't an official planetary classification system anyway: such systems are best left to science fiction writers for now. Chaos syndrome 21:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know of a definition of giant planet other than it's smaller than a brown dwarf and larger than a terrestrial planet (whatever that is). But science writers do tend to use the terms ice giant and gas giant in different ways, sometimes they are distinct groups, sometimes, ice giant is a subgroup of gas giant. Seeing as our article is at gas giant, and there being a diversity of opinion on whether gas giants cover ice giants or not, and the fact that ice giants are geologically different because of being icy instead of supercritical fluid/gas, the more general term giant planet, which also is used to describe gas giants and ice giants, would be the better article title. Whether there are sub-articles called gas giant and ice giant depends on our feelings as to the division between Uranian planets and Jovian planets. 132.205.44.134 03:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
May I just say that, as a scientist, I would use gas giant to describe Uranus and Neptune. On another note, my copy of the Chaisson McMillan Astronomy textbook and my copy of Frank Shu's The Physical Universe calls Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune Jovian planets.George J. Bendo 08:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Definitely I agree that using the term "gas giant" for Uranus and Neptune is not incorrect. However, scientists do refer to them as "ice giants" as well (e.g. [11]). Also, the rather ill-defined term "super-Earth" may or may not apply to Uranus and Neptune, depending on which paper you read. Chaos syndrome 17:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The term ice giant is becoming systematic in TNO papers recently given the problem of the ‘standard model’ to explain the origin of Neptune and Uranus. However, the popular term gas giant is still fine for all 4, IMHO. Eurocommuter 13:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Devon

I noticed that user:Hurricane Devon is on the list of members... but since his user page was replaced with a block notice, that would preclude him from having a userbox showing membership... is that list bot created or handmade? 132.205.45.148 04:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like there is some autoblock issue with his account. I htink the block was created by hand originally and then removed, but the bot got him. Is that what you mean? --Exodio 04:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I meant the list of project members actually. 132.205.44.134 03:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The list of users on the project page is handmade (I don't do the whole userboxes thing, and I'm on there). Hurricane Devon's been blocked multiple times, not surprising there are a few autoblock entries in there. See his talk page for an idea of what's been going on there. Chaos syndrome 12:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I had a notion it might be made by bot, if it were, the list would be out-of-date and would indicate that had such a bot existed, it was not running. As such is not the case, everything's fine. 132.205.44.134 03:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

mergeto binary system (astronomy)

There's a bunch of merge requests on binary system.

- 132.205.44.134 03:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Changes to Messier, Caldwell and Herschel Lists

I've been working the Caldwell catalogue and Herschel 400 Catalogue and received some excellent comments back from George J. Bendo. I would be grateful for any comments from this group. I intend to action George's comments and add a Star Chart to the Herschel page, in a similar format to the Messier/Caldwell ones, see my talk page if your interested.

Several things I would like to do (If no one has any objections):

  • Reformat the object lists on all three pages (List of Messier objects, Caldwell catalogue and Herschel 400 Catalogue). I want to remove the background colours and Object type names. And just have object symbols, as in the start charts (a la Tirion Star Chart). Then remove the links for the object types and just have them in the key at the top of the lists. I can also extend the key to include more types like globulars, planetaries etc. An example is in my Sandbox
  • Remove the stellar distances from all lists. For two reasons:
    1. Talking to George this is generally not accurate, or not cited. I've pulled all of the distances from Stephen James O'Meara, The Caldwell Objects ISBN0521827965, or from Wikipedia itself.
    2. If any of the target object pages get amended then people will have to edit the object lists also, which will lead to inconsistencies within Wikipedia. Also since the lists are mainly for observers, distances are not that important anyway, users can always just click through to the object for more information.

-- Jim Cornmell 12:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Astronomical Objects (revisited)

Question on this format. If you like, then I will complete the list in this grid style format. Talk:Astronomical_object#Reorganization, thanks CarpD 9/9/06

Revised template for Galaxy Cluster

I have revised the template for galaxy cluster. A preliminary version of the template is in my sandbox. Among the changes:

  • The galactic and supergalactic coordinates were replaced with the more useful right ascension and declination.
  • Distance was removed from the template.
  • "Main member" was replaced with the more accurate "Brightest member".

Please comment on the template. I will replace the template on 16 Sep 2006 unless I receive overwhelmingly negative feedback. George J. Bendo 08:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I have replaced the template. Most of the pages that use the template now look a little messy (because they are missing some information, including RA and Dec). Hopefully, this can be cleaned up over time. George J. Bendo 09:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Revision of a group entry: M74 group of galaxies

I have finally found a page listing an unfamiliar small group of galaxies that I could verify was real: the M74 group of galaxies. I rewrote that article and the table listing the galaxies in the group. Note the uncertainty in the group identification; about five galaxies are listed by the three sources that I used, and about seven others are listed by only one or two papers. Please provide comments on this galaxy group list; I may revise other entries to look like it. (I just wish I could say more about the M74 group than its group membership. It seems like the article is devoid of scientific meaning.) George J. Bendo 14:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: I know that the infobox contains some formatting issues. Please ignore those at the moment. George J. Bendo 14:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

2003 UB313 as an astronomical object

I wondered if someone is still watching 2003 UB313. If so, please try to re-read the article in its entirety. In my opinion, the article in the current shape reads as an incongruous history of present and past ‘events’. The proper encyclopaedic content still exist but become almost invisible. I would suggest to re-group and move to a separate article all non-encyclopaedic, event(s)-related content, including details and controversies about the circumstances of discovery, naming, classification, etc. All these were news at one moment in time but being a news archive is hardly the goal of the atronomy articles. The dependence on the discoverer’s page should also be reduced; as example, Name section contains a 8-line quote from the site! Is the discoverer page a ref the naming rules? His publications are the refs; he’s page is for the wide public – no need to duplicate it. I do not list all my concerns now; just wanted to see if what you think and if we have the will to reclaim this news item as an astronomical object. Regards Eurocommuter 09:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest condensing the news-related items rather than shifting them to another page. (Maybe the hype can be toned down or deleted. For example, do we need personal quotes from Chad Trujillo on the name of the object? (This is funnier if you know that I know Chad.)) I also noticed that the references (listed under "References" and "Notes") could be better organized. George J. Bendo 09:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Uncertain galaxies - What is it for?

I looked up "Category:Uncertain galaxies" today and, thinking that it referred to "objects" like Messier 102, started looking up the individual entries and deleting the link to the category if the individual objects if they did not seem to resemble M102. (M102 is the thing in the Messier Catalog that could be either M101 or NGC 5866.) I stopped halfway through deleting the links because I would have deleted all of them, leaving only M102.

Before I started deleting the links, the list contained the following entries:

These objects have little in common with each other. Mayall II and Omega Centauri are clusters that the Wikipedia pages claim might be the cores of dwarf galaxies. Andromeda IV is probably a star cloud in the Andromeda Galaxy that was once labeled a dwarf galaxy. "Dark galaxy" is a term to describe a hypothetical galaxy made mostly out of dark matter. Abell 1835 IR1916 is a candidate high-redshift object that Wikipedia claims has not been detected in follow-up observations. IC 5152 is an irregular galaxy that someone who wrote the Wikipedia article thought may or may not be part of the Local Group. M102, as described above, is an ambiguously-identified object.

The category page says, "This category serves as a reservoir of disproven galaxies, things whose status as galaxies is uncertain, and hypothetical galaxies." That seems overly broad and vague (which, given the jumble of stuff in the category, seems like an accurate assessment).

So, I am uncertain as to what to do with "Category:Uncertain galaxies"? What belongs in the category? What does not belong in the category? Do we need this category? Should we delete this category? (I am tempted to depopulate the category and then put it up for deletion.) George J. Bendo 22:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like depopulating the category and then a CfD nomination is the appropriate approach. — RJH (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Listing Frenzy

I'm asking if there are any objections to listing everything? As in, a List of Brown Dwarfs, Quasars, Pulsars, etc. So, for example, the Brown dwarf page would have a list of notable brown dwarfs, but the List of Brown Dwarf page would have all known brown dwarfs. Probably will take some time, but I would not mind doing it. Considering that I would probably use the data later in life, (ie. SCI-FI stories/games). So, it would not be a total waste of my time. Definately would need help, (mostly in verification), but it is not be a priority at the moment. I'm just asking to see if there are any takers for helping me. As always, I'll try to site references mostly from

Primary Source
(as to obtain and validate objects)		 SIMBAD
NSar
RECON
Aikins
Astro-Papers
APOD
Extrasolar Encyclopedia
Hubble Page
etc.
Secondary Sources
(as to look for objects to add)		 Solstation.com
Atlas of the Universe
Newscientist.com
Space.com
Spaceref.com
Spaceflightnow.com
Console Station
etc.

Thanks, CarpD 9/13/06

Oh yeah, there has to be a minimum amount of that object. Ie. if there is only 8 known, that does not validate to have a list page. So, what would be the minimum number of objects? Thanks, CarpD 9/13/06
It would be better to carefully improve one of the existing lists than create several new lists that will need heavy revision later. Why not work on the list of NGC objects as I suggested on your talk pages? It's only 7840 objects. It would also be nice if the list looked as good as the German version but contained all of the entries of the catalog. Aside from that, though, I would be hesitant to work on any other projects; proof-reading the list of astronomy acronyms took a couple of weeks.
You also need to consider that simply making multiple lists of stuff on Wikipedia may run afoul of Wikipedia policy. The goal of Wikipedia should not be to replace the National Virtual Observatory, VizieR, or Simbad but to present encyclopedic knowledge. In other words, Wikipedia is not here to present statistics and numbers but to present information that has meaning beyond the numbers. Besides, a transcription of all of the world's astronomical catalogs becomes silly after a while, especially for some things like the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. George J. Bendo 18:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Wherever possible I'd use categories rather than lists, unless you are presenting additional information other than a series of links. Wikipedia is already awash in lists and they are difficult to maintain and validate. — RJH (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Do we need official naming conventions?

In case you hadn't noticed, there's some quite intense discussion on the articles about the dwarf planets 1 Ceres, 136199 Eris and Pluto about names. Maybe it would be good to get some official naming policies at WP:NAME for various astronomical objects? Chaos syndrome 21:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I’m afraid we (at Wikipedia/this project) will not be able to regulate the names for a few high-profile articles. The media frenzy on one hand and IAU are doing the job. Scientists with their "every Joe-friendly" interviews did not help either. I suggest we try to save the content of the articles i.e. keep it compatible with the objectives of Wikipedia, try to limit the gossip and keep the facts straight. I believe adding 6-digit number in front of all occurrences of Pluto is as mature as the scores of Gabrielle, Easter bunnies and other nicknames polluting the pages. Again, when/if the dust settles, let’s review these articles and try to save the content. Regards Eurocommuter 21:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Being an extragalactic person, I had not noticed.
Based on the discussion on 1826 Miller (AfD discussion), I do think that a lot of Wikipedia editors are overly-passionate about their solar system objects. One person effectively accused me of trying to destroy the world's knowledge when I suggested that the 1826 Miller was not encyclopedic. Similarly, many of the arguments in the talk sections of Ceres, Pluto, and Eris look like they rely on emotion rather than logic. Heated irrational discussions like those are the kind of thing that could drive people away from Wikipedia.
Back to the topic: I would say that the names used for the articles should be names commonly accepted by the scientific community. Since I have been on Wikipedia (and since HurricaneDevon has been gone), this has been handled rather nicely for stars, galaxies, nebulae, and star clusters. Two convenient professional references (NED and SIMBAD) list all of the "official" names for these objects, so anyone can check the names' validity. Moreover, everyone has been fairly level-headed in discussing naming conventions. Unfortunately, I do not know of a reference for solar system objects that is equivalent to NED or SIMBAD. I do like Chaos syndrome's technique of checking Google and the ADS Abstract Service for the most accepted names; that should be applied here if possible.
Finally, here is something I discussed with CarpD about a planet classification scheme that he had invented:
I think too many people get caught up in semantics issues too much and do not understand the importance of trying to understand how everything works. Whether or not Pluto or Jupiter is technically called a "planet" does not matter that much. What is important is understanding that Jupiter has a substantial amount of hydrogen and that it radiates more radiation than it received from the Sun but that it does not contain enough mass to trigger nuclear fusion. What is important is understanding that Pluto's chemical composition and orbit make it more similar to the Kuiper Belt than to either the Jovian planets or the terrestrial planets.
George J. Bendo 22:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone's already had the idea: I found Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects) a few minutes after posting here. Chaos syndrome 22:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Galaxy group/cluster names

I just wanted to ask about naming groups and clusters of galaxies. The current convention seems to have been developed by HurricaneDevon, who seems to have used the convention applied by Astronomy & Astrophysics (where the word "group" or "cluster" is not capitalized). Recently, I began converting articles to the Astrophysical Journal/Astronomical Journal convention (where "group" and "cluster" are capitalized). Today, I double checked the ADS Abstract Service and discovered that the two conventions exist.

This leads to an issue of what people's opinions are on naming groups and clusters of galaxies. My personal preference is to treat them like proper nouns and to capitalize "group" and "cluster". After all, all words are capitalized for other place names that are proper nouns (such as "City" in "New York City", "Lake" in "Lake Superior", and "Mountains" in "Rocky Mountains"). Does anyone else have any comments before I make further changes? George J. Bendo 17:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Double quasars

Category:Double quasars is up for deletion at WP:CFD. 132.205.44.134 04:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I also put Category:M104 group and Category:Uncertain galaxies up for deletion. George J. Bendo 06:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Revised galaxy template

I have a revised version of the galaxy template at User:George J. Bendo/Sandbox. This template rearranges the contents of the template and also removes the "Absolute Magnitude" and "Physical Radius" items. I know WilliamKF may disagree with this change. Does anyone else have any comment? If I receive no other negative feedback by 28 Sep 2006, I will update the template. (Next template: Supernovae) George J. Bendo 16:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. I have just a couple of minor comments:
  • Should the distance be in light years, parsecs, or Mpc? The dist_ly implies the first, but I'm used to seeing Mpc.
  • I've never understood the point of the "notable features" field in the galaxy infobox. Couldn't that optional field just be covered by the main article?
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
The distance issue is hard to deal with. Professionally, I prefer Mpc, which is commonly used by professional astronomers and some knowledgable amateurs. The standard in Wikipedia when I started working here was ly, which is also easier for the general public to understand. I am not certain if one is preferable over the other. As for the variable used for distance in the template, I recommend using "dist_ly" just because switching to "dist" will cause a lot of blank fields to appear in the hundreds of Wikipedia galaxy infoboxes (unless someone would like to write a bot to change all the "dist_ly" to "dist" in all the articles with the galaxy template). Please note that if I were creating this template from scratch, I would use "dist".
As for the second point, I will keep that in mind. Pointing out the blatantly obvious in the infobox ("this galaxy has only one spiral arm!") could be useful, especially given the dearth of pictures available for Wikipedia entries. However, as you have indicated, this information should already be given in the main text, so inserting it into the infobox is redundant.
George J. Bendo 22:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback from WilliamKF and RJH. I have ultimately decided to go replace the galaxy template with the template that I created on 20 Sep 2006, although I would have preferred more feedback. Please let me know if you strongly disagree with my actions. George J. Bendo 08:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. Hopefully the lack of feedback is a positive sign with regard to the changes. — RJH (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Hypothetical solar system bodies up for deletion

Category:Hypothetical solar system bodies has been put up for deletion at WP:CFD. 70.51.11.116 03:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hypothetical categories:

It seems user:Mrwuggs has made an entire hypotheticals heirarchy...

Here are some of questionable usefulness:

  • Category:Hypothetical extrasolar astronomical objects
  • Category:Hypothetical extrasolar minor planets
  • Category:Hypothetical solar system minor planets
  • Category:Hypothetical solar system natural satellites

Here are some that might be considered for renaming:

  • Category:Hypothetical solar system astronomical objects
The old name was Hypothetical solar system bodies
  • Category:Hypothetical natural satellites
Might be better called Hypothetical moons
  • Category:Hypothetical solar system minor planets
Might be better called Hypothetical small solar system bodies
70.55.84.50 03:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
These are better than the (now deleted) Category: Uncertain galaxies and Category: Uncertain novae. To some degree, these categories do serve a purpose; they do collect a lot of related false-detections and theorethical objects together. However, I really wonder if categories for hypothetical extrasolar objects are needed. For renaming other objects, I recommend using the current convention followed by Wikipedia categories; for example, since a "Moons" category already exists, "Hypothtical moons" may be preferable to "Hypothetical natural satellites". George J. Bendo 07:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

User Random Critic

It seems that User:RandomCritic has been removing all categories (parents) from many categories recently (see his history and "remove cats" edit summaries). It would appear that some article fixing may be mecessary. AFAIK, Wikipedia requires that categories have parents. 132.205.44.134 22:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at Category talk:Hypothetical astronomical objects 132.205.44.134 00:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

user:Mrwuggs

FYI, user:Mrwuggs has been reverting the CFR templates on the hypothetical objects categories. (which RandomCritic seems to subsequently delete all categories from, fracturing the heirarchy and making it hard to find things). 132.205.44.134 22:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at Category talk:Asteroids. 132.205.44.134 23:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Hypothetical planets

Category Hypothetical planets seems to have been emptied by User:RandomCritic. It seems to have been dumped into the more general "hypothetical astronomical objects" which is not all that useful for a hypothetical planet. 132.205.44.134 22:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

user:Mrwuggs categories

I've put up for deletion:

  • Category:minor extrasolar planets
as I can see no use for it.
  • Category:Natural satellites
The common name is "moon", and the user:RandomCritic used a "#redirect" on the original category instead of the proper "template:Categoryredirect"
  • Category:Solar system astronomical objects
I don't see the necessity.
  • Category:Dwarf planets of the solar system
I don't see the necessity, and apparently, neither does Mrwuggs.
  • Category:Hypothetical minor extrasolar planets
I don't see the necessity in this.

I don't see the use for:

  • Category:Hypothetical dwarf planets

Mrwuggs has created:

  • Category:Solar system planets which duplicates Category:Planets of the solar system, which was subsequently broken by his edit.
  • Category:Hypothetical minor solar system planets and Category:Hypothetical solar system minor planets
  • Category:Minor solar system planets
132.205.44.134 23:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Mrwuggs is putting in weird descriptions on categories

It appears as though user Mrwuggs is putting in very lengthy and weird category descriptions. See Category:Astronomical objects 70.51.11.250 07:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I have asked Mrwuggs to stay away from editing categories for a while and to study the current category structure in Wikipedia. I pointed to this page and his own talk page in explaining that his edits are causing a lot of confusion and chaos that may harm Wikipedia, and I asked him to be more careful in the future. I hope he is willing to be cooperative. George J. Bendo 07:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

category:Natural satellites

User Mrwuggs created Category:Natural satellites, which duplicates Category:Moons, which he subsequently emptied. But, by decision of the CFD back in July 2006, it was decided that "Moons" was the preferred naming for these categories. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_17#Natural_satellites 70.51.11.250 13:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Wuggs speaks

Well, its about time I got in on this converstaion. I know I've been shaking things up a lot around here in order to get all the new hypothetical planet articles properly connected with other relivant tops, and I am happy to see that there is finally some discussion on what to do with this mess. With more discussion and people working on the project, these categories and articles can only improve. I have started talks on many of the hypothetical planets asking for specific ideas on how we can make these articles better. Please visit them and leave feedback so wikipedia can continue to grow. Mrwuggs 14:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Mrwuggs has been deleting category for deletion, category for renaming, and category for merging notices. I have placed a comment on his talk page about these activities. George J. Bendo 16:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I thought the work I had done had properly clarified the categories in question. Please excuse my ignorance. Mrwuggs 16:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Counter-Earth and Antichthon

User:Mrwuggs is proposing to merge Counter-Earth and Antichthon together. Previously, it appears he merged both into the Antichthon article. This would be wrong, since the Counter-Earth article is not mainly involved with the Antichthon concept of antiquity. 132.205.44.134 02:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This can be split into two debates. The first is whether Antichthon and Counter-Earth should be merged. The other is what the title of the merged article should be. (I also hope that Mrwuggs has learned not to attempt manually merging articles.) George J. Bendo 09:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Uppsala General Catalog

We should probably have a redirct on the Uppsala General Catalog, as we have a category for it Category:UGC objects, and it's on the proposal for a policy on naming galaxies. 132.205.44.134 02:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Article at: Uppsala General Catalogue
That sounds like a good idea to me. A lot of catalogs could use similar redirects, since users are prbably not going to remember whether specifically to use "catalog" or "catalogue". George J. Bendo 07:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

1181 Lilit - move request

1181 Lilit → 1181 Lilith
at WP:RM

But this article has problems. My personal view is that the astrology section should be deleted, as it is not in relation to this asteroid, but to a concept in astrology... 70.51.8.243 06:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This move request is incomplete; the person who requested the move needed a reference. I found this list at the Minor Planet Center website. This list labels asteroid 1181 as Lilith.
Unfortunately, I do not see a good solution for dealing with the article's contents. It looks like Lilith has some importance in astrology but almost no relevance in astronomy. If you delete either the article's references to astrology or the article itself, the astrologers in Wikipedia would get upset and accuse you of censorship or pushing your point of view.
1181 Lilith is probably perceived as astrologically important because it has a clever name. If it had a boring name (like 1826 Miller), then hardly anyone would care (although I can picture astrologers named Miller astutely following the path of 1826 Miller in the sky). If someone was motivated, they could study the history of the arbitrary assignment of importance to 1181 Lilith and place relevant information on the 1181 Lilith page. This would have to be done subtlely, however, so as to avoid giving the appearance of pushing a point of view. George J. Bendo 08:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
70.51.8.243, could you please add these move/deletion/merge requests to Template:WikiProject Astronomical objects/RDLog when you find them? George J. Bendo 08:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Star systems

Not sure if this is exactly the right place to ask, but could some experts swing their spacecraft by star system. See recent Talk:Star_system and my recent edit of the article which has been reverted. I think I'm right but I'm not an expert in this area. thanks. Nurg 10:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Rename and deletion silliness

All of the renaming and deletion is getting silly...

After a formal requested move was made to rename 1181 Lilit as 1181 Lilith, I posted a link to a Minor Planet Center webpage that listed the asteroid's name as "Lilith". After that, SteveRwanda simply moved the page because he thought the rename was obvious. Following that, the incredulous Gene Nygaard disputed the entry at the Minor Planet Center, but then Beardo pointed out that "the Minor Planet Center is the official body dealing with names on asteroids and other minor planets". Gene Nygaard has now proposed removing the accent mark from the name of 7796 Járacimrman because the Minor Planet Center's list does not include the accent mark (probably for technical reasons). Anyhow, this all seems goofy, and I thought other people would be interested.

An update on the above asteroid articles: Gene Nygaard appears to be on a quest to remove all accent marks from all Wikipedia article titles. He apparently only cares about 7796 Járacimrman because it has an accent mark, and he seems very vehement about debating anyone who disagrees with him. Gene Nygaard also reverted the name of 1181 Lilith back to 1181 Lilit; he seems to be oddly upset with the proposed renaming. The original name looks like it could have been a typo by Mrwuggs, the creator; I will ask him about it. As for now, you may want to comment on renaming 1181 Lilit and 7796 Járacimrman (and someone should do something aboutn the astrology in the 1181 Lilit article). George J. Bendo 21:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Removing all diacritic marks from article titles does seem to conform to the "use English" policy, as diacritics are not part of the English language. (And the MPC list was designed to be transmitted via 7-bit ASCII, therefore not having diacritics, despite what Gene Nygaard thinks about technological limitations) 132.205.44.134 00:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

To add to the rename/deletion chaos, however, I have proposed to delete Category:Galaxy cluster template. It is incredibly funny that someone created a category for a single template. This would be like someone creating Category:Users named George J. Bendo. George J. Bendo 14:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is a lot of activity on wikipedia that seems pretty goofy at times. There are lunar craters with valid diacritic marks, and I don't think it would make sense to have them removed. The same should be true of any other astronomical objects; wherever the IAU sets the naming convention. — RJH (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
But we should have redirects from the names without the diacritic marks so that those who search without the marks can locate the articles easily. WilliamKF 22:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, but in many cases those redirects already exist. They're easy enough to add if they aren't found. — RJH (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

As of 9 October, the asteroid rename debates have been closed. (WilliamKF accidentially added his votes to the discussions.) The objects are now labeled 1181 Lilith and 7796 Járacimrman. Hopefully, Nygaard will focus his attention elsewhere (and learn how to spell my last name, which may not conform to Wikipedia's "use English" policy). I am now happily working on revising some of the galaxy group pages and galaxy group categories. (Please see the Talk:Coma cluster of galaxies, Category:M51 subgroup, and Category:M101 subgroup.) George J. Bendo 00:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

CFD Category:Hypothetical extrasolar minor planets and Category:Hypothetical solar system stars

I have nominated for deletion WP:CFD Category:Hypothetical extrasolar minor planets. It is similar to the recently deleted Category:Hypothetical minor extrasolar planets also created by MrWuggs. 132.205.93.148 21:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have nominated for deletion WP:CFD Category:Hypothetical solar system stars. It occurs to me this will not be useful. 132.205.93.148 21:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Controversy over Pluto's classification

A POV fork of the 2006 redefinition of planet article has been placed up for deletion at AFD, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Controversy_over_Pluto's_classification 132.205.93.148 01:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

In the future, could you also please add these notices to this page? Thank you, George J. Bendo 09:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

FF Leporis has been prodded

FF Leporis has been prodded 70.55.87.17 00:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Planets of the solar system

Category:Planets of the solar system has been nominated for renaming, capitalization of "solar system" by David Kernow 70.55.87.17 00:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

User:RandomCritic has made several nominations on WP:CFD

- 70.55.87.17 00:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

New Article

Due to misunderstandings on Talk:1 Ceres (Where, by the way, there's a vote ongoing about moving it), I've started an article on Minor planet number - should this be MPC Numbers? In any case, can anyone help expand it? Adam Cuerden talk 12:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've also been adding the symbols for minor planets 5-15, etc. Adam Cuerden talk 19:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Debates on dwarf planet and asteroid names

Debates on dwarf planet and asteroid names have spilled over into Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (astronomical objects). As best as I can tell, this debate would benefit greatly from a planetary scientist with a Ph.D. who can provide credible professional input. Someone should also contact the Minor Planet Center and get information from them (or get them involved in Wikipedia). (I'm just an extragalactic astronomer, so I am not going to get involved further in this debate.) George J. Bendo 08:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that! I thought that they should at least be aware of what was being changed if they wanted to change it. Adam Cuerden talk 14:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
The debate is in the right place. I just think the debate could benefit from people with more professional experience with asteroids. George J. Bendo 14:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I just wish that some of them actually knew anything about astronomy - there's a bizarre reaction against MPC numbers that I find incomprehensible. Adam Cuerden talk 14:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well. Give it a few months to settle down, then re-vote on the issue if it turns out to be unworkable? Adam Cuerden talk 14:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The reaction against the numbers is understandable. Most of the general public (any probably some professional astronomers like me) do not commonly see asteroids referred to by number (for example, we do not see the asteroid Vesta commonly referred to as "4 Vesta"). This still looks like an unresolved issue with naming asteroids. Galaxies are generally easier. For example, a layperson or a professional looking up NGC 5005 will find it listed as NGC 5005. George J. Bendo 15:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose. But the bits about how it's a personal offense to a lump of rock and all the other anthromorphosizings are kind of scary. Adam Cuerden talk 15:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
One of the problems with asteroid names, is that they are generally named after someone or something notable - and unless it is described as going to hit/pass very close to the Earth, or has been visited by spacecraft - the vast majority of minor planets virtually never appear in "popular" media. This means that, whilst NGC 5005 is at NGC 5005, very often, something else is at just the name part of the asteroid on wikipedia. Even Vesta is a disambiguation page, and is perhaps one of the best known asteroids. Some, like Juno links directly to the goddess. The minor planet articles generally have to be disambiguated. Besides, it'd be a huge task to change a few thousand article titles, and countless thousands of links to them! Richard B 19:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Minor planet names

It attempts to be an overview of how the MPC handles names, the process, and the history (expansion and clarification of Minor planet number). It could really use a look-over by an astronomer, since I'm about to be trounced by the non-astronomers if I got this wrong. Adam Cuerden talk 18:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Dysnomia (moon) → Dysnomia (natural satellite)

User:Cool Cat has proposed to rename Eris/Xena's moon. 132.205.44.134 00:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be inconsistent with the naming convention of the multitude of other moons listed on the natural satellite page. Why use two words when one will suffice? — RJH (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Galaxy group work

Just to stir up conversation a little...

I have been working on trying to clean up the galaxy groups on Wikipedia lately. I currently have four categories (Category:M51 subgroup, Category:M101 subgroup, Category:NGC 6703 group, and Category:Galactic groupings) nominated for deletion, and I would like to rename the Coma cluster of galaxies and Leo I group of galaxies pages. It also looks like more work on the categories is needed; Wikipedia currently contains three categories for the M96 Group and three categories for the M66 Group. (Can you guess which categories correspond to each group?)

On another note, in a brief discussion with WilliamKF, I came to the conclusion that Wikipedia may need two galaxy cluster templates: one for extended nearby clusters (where group boundaries, centers, and redshifts are hard to define) and one for Abell clusters, compact clusters, and distant clusters (where group boundaries, centers, and redshifts can be clearly defined). What do other people think? (Is anyone out there?) George J. Bendo 00:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I just proposed renaming Category:Leo cluster as Category:Abell 1367. (I have the sense that this seems too esoteric for people.) George J. Bendo 19:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)