To-do list for WikiProject Astronomy: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2011-09-13 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Create and develop a requested astronomy article. Copyedit : Check for proper usage of "equinox" vs. "epoch" when discussing the coordinates of astronomical objects. Equinox refers to the precession of the coordinate system used. Epoch refers to the timing of an event such as an observation. Verify : For a minor planet article, compare the infobox data to a JPL Small-Body Database Browser query. For a star article, compare the infobox data to a SIMBAD query.

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

WikiProject Astronomy was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 14 January 2013.

Archives

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

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

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

I have nominated Galaxy for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is now in a FARC discussion and could use some more input, particularly on the topic of new discoveries in the last decade. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are two ((citation needed)) tags as yet unaddressed and a list under "Magnetic fields" that should be prosified. XOR'easter (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More passages have been tagged as needing citations. XOR'easter (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should imperial/U.S. customary units be present in the infobox of astronomical objects in general?

• Option 1: No for all articles
• Option 2: Yes for info cited to sources that only use imperial units, otherwise no
• Option 3: Yes for all articles

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Context: Right now, the use of imperial/U.S. customary units are inconsistent among articles (for example, Sun, Mars, Earth and has imperial conversions, but Pluto, Mercury (planet) and Ceres (dwarf planet) don't). For articles that do use imperial/U.S. customary units, they also have SI conversions and often uses ((convert)) template.

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:UNITS applies, with the alternative being units conventional to astronomy. Praemonitus (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If so then all U.S. customary units be removed from these articles. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically for science articles (not necessarily for biographies or histories), per MOS:CONVERSIONS: "...in science-related articles, supplying such conversion is not required unless there is some special reason to do so." To avoid conflict, I'd include the linked policy in the edit notes. Also, I'd hesitate to apply this to the Earth article. Praemonitus (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opposed to imperial in general, but we need to keep it when citing values that are given in imperial. The reason is that when we convert to metric, not only may there be rounding errors, but we often change the number of significant digits. And when sources are in imperial, their source data was often in metric and there are already conversion errors involved. Often when we convert back, our figures differ from the original -- that's been a recurring problem with our data. Better to give it in imperial with our metric conversion following in parentheses. Editors will then be aware of the potential for error and try to find the original figures, which should be used instead. When our sources use metric, then we should use metric only, unless our source converted from imperial. In all cases, I think we should attempt to use the original figures, or as close to them as we can find. — kwami (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should be using metric units for everything except for material which is specifically US material. Wikipdia is not owned by the US. It is world wide and vast majority of countries now use metric. Bduke (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter if it's US/NASA. The issue is fidelity to the data. If a US source publishes in metric, we should use metric. If a UK source publishes in imperial, so should we. — kwami (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. We are not writing ransom notes with words cut out of other publications. We are giving coherent explanations that are based on reliable sources. To make our articles coherent, we should choose units appropriate to the article, and give the most appropriate unit first. If the unit given in a source is different from what we choose to list first, we can use the convert template in a way that the value copied from the source listed first and the converted value is given first. Since this thread is about infoboxes, it isn't even necessary to give the value from the source in the box at all, so long as it is in the body of the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I said, at least for the original data appearing first. Unless we explain that the figure given second is primary, and not just added because someone wanted to plaster imperial all over WP. We don't want someone coming by and deleting the data because that's all they think it is. — kwami (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

((convert)) has a function of just displaying the output. So it is possible to conserve the original data in some way. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomy data is often published with excessive numbers of digits; far more than is justified by the margin of error. I don't think we need to worry about the accuracy of the conversions. The appearance of excessive accuracy can be misleading in and of itself. We're not an original source for this data, and often we can get by with presenting rounded values. Praemonitus (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That's very often the case, and in such cases conversion errors are not an issue. If we have something at ridiculous (and spurious) precision in imperial, then I have no problem simply converting to metric and ignoring the published units. But not infrequently, especially with initial news reports and even beyond that with crude estimates, data is published to very few sigfigs in imperial, and we do introduce a significant error when converting. Say, the impact of an asteroid est. to be 10 miles in diameter -- what do we convert that to? 15 km? 20 km? Usually I see a misleading 16 km, a precision that is not justified by the source. — kwami (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, ((convert)) can be helpful here, by using "round=5" or "round=25" to round to the nearest .5 or .25. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I just think that in such cases we need to be clear to the reader that the source data is in imperial, not that we just decided to add a conversion to imperial. — kwami (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 seems the right solution to me. If the referenced source is in miles, we should give that value in the infobox for verification, along with a km conversion. If the source was in km, there's no need for miles. A conversion into au or pc might be more useful anyway, depending on context. The sentence about 'science-related articles' in MOS:CONVERSIONS applies and makes sense to me. Modest Genius ^talk 11:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a problem though with the wording of Option 2: "Yes for info cited to sources that only use imperial units, otherwise no."

The problem is that sources often include a conversion to metric with spurious precision (e.g. 10mi/16km, where the 10mi is the original number and only an estimate), and the wording of Option 2 means we'd cite only that conversion. That conflicts with the spirit of the MOS warning "Be careful especially when your source has already converted from the units you're now converting back to." That's not just a potential problem with converting back, but with dropping the original number and citing only the converted value. In my example, we shouldn't cite "16 km", but rather something more like "10 mi (10-20 km)" or "10 mi (approx. 15 km)", or even just "10-20 km" or "approx. 15 km". — kwami (talk) 12:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Imperial/U.S. customary units in astronomy object infobox

As a month passes by and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#Imperial/U.S._customary_units_in_the_infobox did not reach to a consensus, I think it is time to ask the wider community.

• Option 1: Omit all of imperial/U.S. customary units in infobox, but allow using ((cvt)) to convert numbers from the source to SI units
• Option 2: Only use imperial/U.S. customary units in infobox if the source itself only use imperial/U.S. customary units
• Option 3: Allow imperial/U.S. customary units in infobox

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CactiStaccingCrane, this is exactly the same question - if there is no firm consensus from one RFC, why do you think a second one will garner it? Primefac (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's because my first RFC is somewhat vague and did not gather enough activity. I do believe that the second RFC will come to a definite consensus. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above. Do not use imperial/US customary units so that they appear in infoboxes. If the source only provides an imperial/US customary unit, or the imperial/US customary unit is better because the SI unit contains unjustified excess significant figures, include the imperial/US customary unit in the body of the article or in a footnote. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain further what you meant by "excess significant figures"? Can we just trim them out for the sake of brevity? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes a source will give a value in imperial, such as 93 million miles, which has a few significant figures. The source will give a sloppily-converted value in SI, such as 149.7 Gm in parenthesis. If this value were given in the Wikipedia article it would likely be wrong, because the conversion was calculated from the rounded value, 93 million, rather than the true value. For example if we were talking about the semi-major axis of the Earth's orbit the true value is 92955902 and the value in km, rounded to four digits, would be 149.6 Gm. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is similar but not identical to the question you asked a month ago, which is confusing. Option 1 is now closest to my preference, but not quite what I would have chosen. More broadly, where are you proposing this rule would go? With what wording? Is there a problem that needs fixing?

In my view, astronomy infoboxes should use a) professional astronomy units (parsecs, solar masses etc.) and b) an SI equivalent if relevant. We don't need to convert everything e.g. listing every star's mass in kilograms isn't helpful to anyone. I wouldn't include an imperial conversion at all, unless the only units available in the references were imperial and the conversion to more appropriate units is shown. I highly doubt that there are many sources that are reliable, only use imperial, and have no alternative better source that gives the value in astronomical or SI units, so that's a very rare edge case. Modest Genius ^talk 17:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As a rule, astronomy infoboxes should contain standard astronomy units, plus SI if relevant (and only if relevant), but no imperial conversion. I'd say that Imperial conversions could be provided in prose, but should never be primary, and shouldn't go in at all unless the number is of significant interest to non-scientists. I'd add that any rule relying on the specific source adopted - such as Option 2 - is a nonsense because it opens the gate to people just switching the source to something that matches their unit preference. (And yes, people really do do this.) Kahastok talk 18:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We might use only SI in the info box, but imperial in the text if that's what the original (or oldest attested) measures are given in. My worry is the errors that creep in by converting a rough estimate (e.g. 10 miles as a guestimate) into something that looks spuriously precise (16 km). — kwami (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As for cherry-picking sources, we want the original data, not imperial conversions. Only if the original data is in imperial should we use imperial. Sometimes the oldest source we have has converted SI to imperial, and later SI might be back converted from the imperial. We don't want to copy that. This is mostly a problem with press releases. But once we can access the original data, we should of course go with that. — kwami (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is all already considered in WP:UNITS, and I'm not sure why this topic should be an exception to the standard rules there? Of course if there is an actual quotation (direct or indirect) then you preserve the quote. But if the first person who measured the distance to Mars did it in smoots, that would not be a good reason for us to use smoots for the purpose. Kahastok talk 18:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If that's the only measure we have, then yes, we should give the results in smoots. I'm not talking about the oldest measurement, but about the original units of the measurement we use. — kwami (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My view on each of these proposals:

• Option 1: Easily the best as there is realistically no context in astronomy in which imperial/USC is preferred over SI (or other scientific units, including occasionally some pre-SI metric relics). My main objection is to the use of the term "source" since, every time a proposal has arisen for source-based units, it has quickly become apparent how problematic and unworkable it would be. It's perhaps best to clarify that (as I understand) what is being suggested here is the use of the convert template with the disp=output only flag, so if a number is quoted in imperial/USC we can still take that information from the source but display it in appropriate units only e.g. ((cvt|120|mi|km|disp=output only)) → 190 km.

• Option 2: This seems to be just a more explicit proposal for source-based units, which I would oppose as described above.

• Option 3: No, as in the real world there's no case in which the very marginal benefit of such unnecessary conventions is worth the clutter added by their inclusion. Our overarching guidance is to provide conversions only where they are, in context, likely to be useful to readers. If someone is hell-bent on knowing the diameters of the moons of Mars in furlongs, they have access to other conversion tools. This also makes me wonder exactly what "allow" means – allow individual editors to do whatever they want, regardless of MOS-level guidance or stylistic consistency across astronomy articles?

So if we were to adopt any of these, my !vote would be for a clarified version of the first. A more general comment would be that, as others have observed above, this is spelled out in realistically enough detail already at WP:UNITS, so any guidance specific to this WikiProject should simply be a clarification of what that MOS guidance means specifically for the articles it maintains. It's important not to focus obsessively on problems that don't exist, or don't really manifest in article-space, so unless there is a recurrent problem with editors obsessively adding imperial/USC units to astronomy infoboxes, I'm not sure see a clear use case for this guidance. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like not all of the constellation navboxes have been fully populated. The ((Pegasus (constellation))) navbox, for example, is lacking sections below the stars, including globular clusters and galaxies. (Compare to ((Andromeda (constellation))).) Several such objects are listed at Pegasus (constellation)#Deep-sky objects. It can also include galaxies in Pegasus Galaxy and page links from Category:Pegasus (constellation). Praemonitus (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ((Pegasus (constellation))) navbox has been converted to a ((Constellation navbox)). It looks like ((Monoceros)), ((Ophiuchus)), ((Orion (constellation))), ((Sagittarius (constellation))), ((Serpens)), and ((Taurus (constellation))) still need to be converted. Praemonitus (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Project complete. Praemonitus (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought perhaps "Norma" was a cluster, so Norma Cluster should be named Norma cluster according to WP:NCCAPS. But I've found sources that used "Norma Cluster" and other that use "Norma cluster". So perhaps the proper name of the thing is "Norma Cluster"? Is there any astronomical naming convention source that says one way or another? Johnjbarton (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "Norma Cluster" should be capitalized as a proper name. Norma is the name of the constellation it's in, like the Virgo Cluster or the Andromeda Galaxy. SevenSpheres (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Do you know of any sources that discuss this convention? Johnjbarton (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SevenSpheres is correct. The phrase 'Norma cluster' (a common noun) could refer to any cluster of stars or galaxies located in the constellation Norma. The 'Norma Cluster' (a proper noun) refers to a specific galaxy cluster. Any book on English grammar or style will confirm that proper nouns are capitalised, and our MOS agrees. For a more Earthly comparison, compare 'a Washington monument' to 'the Washington Monument'. Modest Genius ^talk 14:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Alpha Cephei#Requested move 4 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 16:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I put some redirects (Betria and Gatria) in redirects for discussion. The discussion can be found in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 13#Betria. Everyone can join the discussion to decide the fate of these redirects. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of solar eclipses in antiquity#Requested move 16 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was my understanding that the Chandrasekhar limit concerns the maximum mass at the process of a star -> white dwarf transition. The end point is stable so the story ends.

Is Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit really analogous, meaning the max mass for star -> neutron star, end of story?

(I'm not really interested in the fine points of how these limits might be changed by better models, but rather just the concept they represent; these pages get edits that want the end points and cross the limits).

Ideal would be a ref. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is my understanding too. Here's a possible ref. that discusses both limits:

Illari, Phyllis (February 1, 2019). "Mechanisms, Models and Laws in Understanding Supernovae". Journal for General Philosophy of Science. 50: 63–84. doi:10.1007/s10838-018-9435-y.

Praemonitus (talk) 06:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I made changes to both pages using that ref. Please check. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the first sentence of the "Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit" section on the Chandrasekhar limit article is inaccurate. Praemonitus (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any hints on what you think is inaccurate? The sentence is:

• Hydrogen-burning stars heavier than the Chandrasekhar limit continue to compress, overcoming the electron degeneracy pressure.

Johnjbarton (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well the exception applies to the degenerate cores of massive stars, not hydrogen-fusing stars that have a little more mass than the Sun. See neutron star for example. Praemonitus (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I suppose that both limits are really models based on the final state stability. So the mass that they refer to is final state mass.

But in both cases the initial state is a massive star and that mass determines the final state right? You can't get to degenerate core of a massive star unless you start with a massive star. Some range of masses result in white dwarf, some in neutron stars, some black holes (and some not yet settled intermediate values). All of the end states are stable (absent eg binary). What is the role of the degenerate core mass?

Or maybe you are objecting to "hydrogen-burning"? That's fair since my sentence implies a starting state mass limit which I think is not correct. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I wouldn't mention hydrogen fusion. Maybe "stellar remnant"? In type Ia supernova you can exceed the limit via a double white dwarf merger. If Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit is at the low end of the estimates, two sufficiently massive white dwarfs could merge to form a neutron star.[1] Praemonitus (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some further input on Life_habitable_zones would be useful: the page looks like a WP:SYNTH list, with names that don't necessarily appear in the references and no obvious reason why it couldn't just be folded into Habitable_zone. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I think that article should be deleted. Someone has put a lot of work into writing up their own personal ideas, into what reads like an undergraduate essay. The term "life habitable zone" is not in widespread use by astronomers or astrobiologists. ADS shows no hits for that exact phrase, and Google Scholar shows only a handful of peer-reviewed papers, none in astronomy journals. The TLDR bulleted list is just describing a bunch of adjectives that people have tacked on to 'habitable zone', some of which are widely used and others that are not. I really don't see the point or value in it. Any of that content that's worth saving could be in our habitable zone article, with due weight. Modest Genius ^talk 18:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page clearly has some problems but it has extensive references.

The problem with merging in to "Habitable zone" is that article has limited itself to water. Planetary_habitability#Other_considerations would be a better choice IMO. That would also avoid the need to shoe-horn habitability criteria into the "zone" model. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Planetary habitability is also a good target merger target, thanks for pointing out that page (which I wasn't aware of). Modest Genius ^talk 12:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a List of definitions for habitable zone or something along those lines. Maybe it has some potential? Maybe there's a diverse merge target for this? Might be worth bringing this article to project or userspace as a potential source for references on the field. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are three new requested moves at Talk:WD 2359−434, Talk:L 97-12 and Talk:PG 1047+003 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mars

Please weigh in at /Mars task force#merger discussion.

Moon

Please weigh in at /Moon task force#merger discussion.

Thanks, Arlo James Barnes 23:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reformatted this slightly with no content change, mainly because we don't need a subjection just for a link. Primefac (talk) 09:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, much tidier without the headers. Arlo James Barnes 09:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

draft:list of smallest named extraterrestrial craters lemme know what y'all think. Arlo James Barnes 09:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the purpose in such a list. We already have List of craters in the Solar System and its various sub-lists (organized by body). Why would anyone want a list of the smallest among them? The only reference in that draft is a link to a database (about Mars, even though most of the entries in the draft are on the Moon), not anyone discussing the smallest named craters. I'm not convinced this meets WP:NLIST and WP:GNG (WP:NASTRO does not apply to surface features). Modest Genius ^talk 15:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good feedback; this is why I wanted to link it here. There are more Mars craters I haven't added yet, but sourcing and notability difficulties remain. As to why, it's just interesting to me that these are structures of a size that could be feasibly walked around by a person in a spacesuit, or roved around in a relatively brief time, or even spanned. Of course, no such thing has happened yet so can't be sourced. Arlo James Barnes 16:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me your goal would be much more easily and correctly attained by adding a simple paragraph with one or two examples. By creating the list you are synthesizing a source -- for the commonality of small craters -- that apparently does not exist as a reference. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to fall under WP:CROSSCAT: a combination of named features and small dimensions. Sorry but what encyclopedic value does it add? Praemonitus (talk) 04:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Minor planet articles that might pass NASTRO, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 04:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, in the Serpens article infobox there are two images depicting Serpens Caput. As Serpens is a constellation divided into two non-contiguous parts (Serpens Caput and Serpens Cauda), there are two images to represent the two parts, and there should be a third to represent both parts. However, the third image is already duplicating the image of Serpens Caput. On Wikipedia, we have this image which represents the constellation as a whole.

I tried to edit the article, but I couldn't replace the image. Apparently the images are predefined in ((infobox constellation)). InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check the source for the ((Infobox constellation)) template: it's only customized for a couple of articles. I'd take this issue to that template's talk page. Praemonitus (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:WD 2359−434#Requested move 24 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The subject phrase seems to be standard Astronomy lingo for a specific way of defining a galaxy diameter. I assume that this would be defined in an astronomy text. I have none. Any hints on a source for the definition?

Thanks. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An isophote is a contour of constant surface brightness, measured in magnitudes per square arcsecond. Our article isophote cites Binney & Merrifield 1998 for the definition, which is a standard textbook (though I don't have a copy right now). The choice of which photometric filter (B-band in your example), and what number to draw the isophote at, are up to the study in question. Deeper observations can use a fainter magnitude level - your example of 25 is very faint. The diameter of the isophote is a purely observational property - it tells you how big the galaxy appears in the data, not anything physical about it. Modest Genius ^talk 15:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this very specific isophote, which is then established as D₂₅, you may refer to the papers by Foqué and Paturel (1983), Paturel et al. (1987), and Paturel et al. (1991). These are quite detailed but to put it simply, it establishes it as a standard. SkyFlubbler (talk) 11:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I found

• Sparke, L. S.; Gallagher, J. S. II (2000). Galaxies in the Universe: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-59740-1. Archived from the original on March 24, 2021. Retrieved July 25, 2018.

which had a paragraph on the R_25.

It seems like the galaxy article has the most info on measuring diameters. The "Surface photometry" section of Photometry (astronomy) is very short. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to rate astronomy museums, documentaries, and education programs as of bottom importance. Do you agree? Examples include: Kepler Museum, Our Heavenly Bodies, Category:Astronomy education television series, Category:Astronomy museums, Category:Documentary television series about astronomy. Category:Planetaria are already of bottom importance. Praemonitus (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a general categorisation, sure. Primefac (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot "bottom" existed (and I clearly didn't follow the provided link to it); I was thinking "low" would suffice for these types of articles. Primefac (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think most of those could be 'low' if they're specifically about astronomy; 'bottom' is intended for articles which are of interest to the project but are not primarily astronomy content (pseudoscience, mythology, science fiction etc.). General science museums or programmes that contain only a small amount of astronomical content should be 'bottom', museums dedicated to astronomy can be 'low'. I see you recently added The Sky at Night as an example, but that's a bad exemplar because it has been historically influential on astronomy itself so probably merits a 'mid' rating, as does Cosmos: A Personal Voyage. Things like Wonders of the Solar System seem 'low' to me. Modest Genius ^talk 17:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so do planetariums really belong in the 'bottom' category then? Perhaps we should have a separate category for 'Education' on the importance scale page so we can better capture this category? Praemonitus (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that planetariums are usually attached to a larger museum or observatory (which are mostly 'low' importance); a stand-alone planetarium is more limited so would be 'bottom'. But I suppose there could be similarly limited museums... I wonder if we're better off not being too prescriptive. Modest Genius ^talk 11:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it depends on how consistent we want the ratings to be. Without a baseline of comparison the ratings are more likely to be all over the map. Praemonitus (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As mostly an outsider to this project, I would personally say that bothering with the distinction between "low" and "bottom" is a bit silly. I think using "bottom" to categorize topics only vaguely related to astronomy, like Mythology, is a clever use, tho. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Low-rated articles are often still worth maintaining by this project. Bottom is for topics that are at best weakly related to hard-core astronomy, such as a sci-fi novel. Praemonitus (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sample

Here's a candidate Education block for the importance scale:

• High: Major astronomy conferences, reputable astronomy training institutes, training principles.

Examples: Astronomy education, 'Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester', Lunar and Planetary Science Conference

• Mid: College-level courses, special topic astronomy conferences, astronomy certifications.

Examples: European Association for Astronomy Education, Network for Astronomy School Education, National Standard Examination in Astronomy

• Low: Public education and outreach, amateur astronomy associations, watch parties, astronomy museums, planetariums.

Examples: International Year of Astronomy, Faulkes Telescope Project, Hong Kong Astronomical Society, Sidewalk astronomy, Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey

Will this work? Praemonitus (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As there was no objection, I added it to the importance scale. Now to go apply it. Praemonitus (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was no objection because you only waited 48 hours over the Easter holidays. I a) don't think we need a separate education section and b) feel you've been far too generous in rating these highly. There's no way that Manchester's university department is as important to the Wikiproject as red giant, Fritz Zwicky, SN 1987A or the other high-importance examples. Similarly, an obscure exam board in India is not 'mid' level. I think we should scrap this entire section - the old guidance was fine, just adding a couple of examples in the lower importances would have been adequate. Modest Genius ^talk 15:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I adjusted the ratings so they would be more in line with the Institution block. There is now only one entry in the High block. Does anybody else find the new ratings acceptable? I disagree with scrapping it, since I went looking for ratings guidance on astronomy education articles and found the previous list to be lacking. Better a more comprehensive list than leaving people guessing. Praemonitus (talk) 05:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little bit confused about Draft talk:Andrea Ferrara (astrophysicist) because a sourced page was moved to draft for what sounds like minor reasons that no other users visiting it pointed out (so they don't look critical). I usually don't add information unless it's on third-party sources so I am not going to add more content just because it's on an official website even if I know it's true.

So whoever wants to take care of it further, please do so. Alexmar983 (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored it to mainspace, please see my comments on the talkpage. It was a completely unnecessary move to draftspace. AusLondonder (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AusLondonder thank you. I suspect that the reason of such strong action was that since I am not an autopatrolled user, some people assume they need to scrutinize my contributions heavily. However, I have been an editor here for years, so there is really no need to push so hard.--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear now User:Ldm1954 converted his request to this warning but this is not actually correct to me. I analyzed all sources for months, all other sources are almost from websites of university or institutions where he is actually working. I usualy do not add such content. It's fineI suppose for some of you, I agree that it's there but I focus mostly on content that it's also on third-party sources or peer-reviewed such as in publication. If User:Ldm1954 wants to be more specific and link here all sources he is referring to can add some of them if they are from a thirdpart.--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So the information here is correct, below is what I pointed out to the editors about the main issues with Andrea Ferrara which was created directly to main page so came up for new page review.

"Please read WP:NPROF carefully. As a new page reviewer it is not my job to correct badly structured pages, this is your job. As a few points:

• Notability is not inherited. Supervising a PhD is not relevant
• Being on advisory committees is WP:MILL
• Telescope hours is WP:MILL
• None of his career is mentioned. According to the current page he never did a PhD (or even BS)
• No awards mentioned
• Wrong infobox
• Nothing in the page demonstrates that he passes WP:NPROF.

I noticed that you edited the page to proper format, then reverted it back to inappropriate format.

Please look at (plus others comments on them):

Marc Davis (astronomer) which has problems

Martin Rees for a massive, well-structured page

Craig Hogan needs info box and sources"

IMHO this is exactly what Draftification is for, a page on a topic that will pass notability which is so poorly constructed that it needs a complete rewrite. AfD would be wrong.

N.B., to @Alexmar983, all academics must have sources for their faculty positions and, preferably for the BS & PhD. BS is often a commencement PDF, PhD's are often online. The university is a valid sources for their appointment, as universities are legally bound not to misrepresent so this is of a higher level. Many of these issues are, and continue to be discussed on WT:NPROF, and you can see what is done for others. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ldm1954 I understand that they are ok, but I put in articles only what is sourced by other parties. Otherwise, the risk of putting content just because it's on a website influenced by the subject is there. We can survive withour a detail of a Ph.D that can be accessd, it's much worse to open the door to this use as source. So I am not putting it there. Someone else here can, if it is considered so important, but not me. Still, I don't think it is. There is a stub template for that reason, you do not need anything else. The notability is still clear by accessig any bibliometric indicator and just taking a look at all mentions on national newspapers. In other words, your template simply states that it is a stub. I am fine with a stub, it is much more honest than using a personal webpage as a source. If there is a more robust source availale, I am the first to insert it. Plus, there is a wikidata item also for more factual details.

However, as I told you in the talk page instead of putting a template and provide long explanation, just add it yourself. it's the most efficient pathway--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was firstly it was an unreasonable move to draftspace, and not what WP:DRAFTIFY is designed for. Secondly, the rationale you gave for moving to draftspace was explicitly about formatting issues. 40 minutes later you raised other issues, only after I restored the article to mainspace. AusLondonder (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was a little bit odd. I mean, before doing anything at this point it's obvious that someone really wants to be sure what is the most important issue and there's nothing else. Still, to me this looks like a stub. It is not a stub because I am 'lazy'; it is in that state because I do not believe that the true value of this editing work lies in merely copying content from the official webpage. I have spent months reading online sources, utilizing only reputable national newspapers, other sources already established in other articles, and third-party sources. While the official page is of course accurate, my goal in writing this article is to go beyond that information – that is the free content I aim to provide. If anyone else wishes to add more, sure, but the reader is not naive. The stub template exists for that very reason, so strictly speaking, there is no need for the current warning. It's just... a stub.--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After a protracted argument on the Dyson sphere talk page that seemed to be going nowhere, I decided to consolidate and restate the basic issues concerning this section in general, and one particular instance that has proven especially vexing, as I see them. I hope that members of this and other related WikiProjects might weigh in and give their opinions. P Aculeius (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a little amusing to find the discussion is longer than the article. Praemonitus (talk) 04:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and I feel bad about that—but I find it hard not to reply to some of the replies by the people who were in the previous discussion. Even though the discussion is once again, somewhat circular. That's why I hoped to get more people involved, and more opinions that weren't just repeating the same things over and over. P Aculeius (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am inviting you to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox galaxy for a possible change in some parameters, particularly galaxy diameters. Feel free to add comments. Thanks! SkyFlubbler (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of July 16, 2186 (2nd nomination), which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Primefac (talk) 05:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]