Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

Roche limit

Anyone here know what the Roche limit is? Roche limit has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Optical magnitude

The Optical magnitude article seems to duplicate Apparent magnitude, but with some misinformation. The former article says the Sun is 10²⁵ times brighter than Vega, but the latter article, while agreeing that the Sun is about magnitude -25, says that means 100⁵ which is only 10¹⁰ times brighter than Vega. Do we need an Optical magnitude article at all, or should it just be redirected to Apparent magnitude? Art LaPella (talk) 06:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Art LaPella (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Article ratings

Astronomy articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low Bottom NA ??? Total FA 50 27 56 12 6 151 FL 3 9 5 1 18 FM 161 161 GA 15 24 84 133 25 281 B 64 111 238 217 15 645 C 92 211 962 1,413 61 2,739 Start 7 134 1,948 13,806 177 1 16,073 Stub 132 7,702 82 7,916 List 14 230 1,978 13 120 2,355 Category 4,391 4,391 Disambig 91 91 File 518 518 Portal 332 332 Project 82 82 Redirect 1 43,120 43,121 Template 1,084 1,084 NA 7 7 Other 66 66 Assessed 228 524 3,659 25,267 380 49,972 1 80,031 Unassessed 1 1 Total 228 524 3,659 25,267 380 49,973 1 80,032 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 141,314 Ω = 5.08

I was just noticing that the totals for the astronomy article ratings look a little uneven. We have more than 2,000 at high, but only 18 at the top and 73 in the middle. Compare to the Physics articles by quality statistics, for example, which have a more even distribution. The physics ratings also include a number of prominent physicists among their top pages.—RJH (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The "High" class seems inflated by a whole bunch of "List of Asteroid" lists. I'm not sure why those would be considered high-importance, while Quasar and Venus are only "Mid". The "Top" class is kind of bizarrely random. A more systematic approach (like "all the planets in the solar system are Top") would be helpful... -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we probably need some sort of criteria for rating. Wikipedia:VA#Astronomy articles should probably all be top, as should the main classes of astronomical objects and important phenomenon. I'd guess that moons and minor planets are high or medium. List of basic astronomy topics is probably a decent source for medium or higher topics. Personally I'd rate all but a hundred asteroid articles as low.—RJH (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

In particular the lists of asteroids are all very low in priority. The articles listed at Wikipedia:VA#Astronomy should all be top priority. Let's see what the balance looks like after a few changes like that. --mikeu ^talk 11:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Asteroid lists need to be downgraded to Low importance. An editor added them a month ago to all space related projects. In Solar System they were rated as a top priority. However even with AWB this is a daunting task (I have already did this for ~ 100 lists). If somebody can help I will be grateful. Ruslik (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That's going to take a while, unfortunately.—RJH (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This might help to build some criterias. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 00:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes that's a nice example.—RJH (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Sub-Jupiter mass planets etc.

Category:Sub-Jupiter mass planets, Category:Sub-Earth mass planets, Category:Super-Jupiters are awaiting closure on CfD. I don't know if there is recognised ways of classifying them. Comments welcome (quickly). --Salix (talk): 16:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Category:Types of planet includes the standard planet categories used in the scientific literature.—RJH (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

M-100 rename

M-100 (rocket) has been proposed to be renamed to M-100, a redirect to the dab page, which also lists Messier 100. This is part of a renaming of rocket articles. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry/Titles/Poll 70.55.203.112 (talk) 12:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Penny Sackett

Hi all. Anyone who can contribute to the article about Australia's new Chief Scientist will be most welcome. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 04:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

2006 definition of planet

2006 definition of planet has been nominated for renaming 70.55.203.112 (talk) 04:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Rating summaries

For each article, the WPAstronomy template generates a red link to a "ratings summary page". I thought it would make more sense to have a single page that explains the ratings in general. For example:

The importance of an astronomy article is determined as follows:

1. Content that is fundamental (widely applicable) to the science of Astronomy receives a top or high rating.
2. Content that is historically important to the development of Astronomy receives a high or medium rating.
3. Pages that are rated vital receive top importance.
4. Astronomers that made major contributions to the field receive a high or top ranking. Individuals who discover a planet or moon receive at least a medium ranking. Comet and asteroid discoverers are low or medium.
5. Solar System planets receive a top rating. Major moons and dwarf planets receive a high rating. Minor moons and large asteroids are mid rated.
6. Astronomical objects that contribute little to the field and have few or no publications are generally rated low. This includes most stars, planets, clusters, asteroids and galaxies.

Thoughts?—RJH (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a redirect Wikipedia:WikiProject_Astronomy/Importance_ratings, which is linked from the template as "within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy.". It can be expanded. Ruslik (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Per Headbomb's suggestion, I copied the importance guidelines from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Projects of the Week page and made a few modifications. It's a skeletal shell of a guideline right now, but it shouldn't be too hard for us to flesh out over time. I hope this works for everybody.—RJH (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

conversions of tables to orbit diagrams

A discussion at Talk:Gliese 581 c revolves around the OR-ness of converting data tables to diagrams of orbits. This might be of interest to you. 70.51.8.75 (talk) 08:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Asteroid renames

The following two moves have been requested at WP:RM ; See Talk:List_of_asteroids#Requested_move

• List of asteroids → List of minor planets
• Meanings of asteroid names → Meanings of minor-planet names

70.51.10.188 (talk) 04:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Whatever you do, please don't add the |astrophysics=yes tag to them. It was a real pain to remove. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 07:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Starbox - astrometry

I don't understand how to change the distance data in the Starbox (astrometry) at Betelgeuse. It seems to be transcluded from somewhere. Can anyone help me out? Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The distance is computed from the parallax field. To change the distance you can insert an updated parallax and a corresponding margin of error (along with the authoritative reference citation).—RJH (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The source update doesn't state the parallax, only that a new one has been derived. Does this happen often, that until a source shows up with a new parallax, the article text must contradict the infobox? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've seen that happen on occasion. Typically SIMBAD[1] is referenced, unless there is an astronomy paper with a more recent determination. But yes they should be made consistent based on the most authoritative source available. It looks like Graham M. Harper et al (2008) is more recent than the Hipparcos Calalogue and may be more accurate.—RJH (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately it looks like that paper is subscription locked at the moment. However, it is possible that Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to help.—RJH (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Top class articles with low class ratings

These are the lowest-rated WPAstronomy articles that are also in the top class: outer space, physical cosmology and standard candle.—RJH (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Featured article review

Comet Hale-Bopp has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Marskell (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

CarloscomB

Can someone look at user:CarloscomB? I just found that he recently copyvio'd a research paper (see Okayama Planet Search Program ) 70.55.200.131 (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Skygazing

Skygazing has been sent to PROD 70.55.200.131 (talk) 08:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I yanked the Prod, because it is not a neologism (having been around for at least 8 decades) and the article should be merged and cited rather than deleted. Prod-er can always take it to AfD.—RJH (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possum Observatory

Could someone with a bit of experience please have a look at and comment on this AFD please. Pointers to guidelines for notability of Observatories and/or Astronomers also welcome. - SimonLyall (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Anticenter shell

Here. Thanks, --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 04:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Steve Gottlieb

CarloscomB has added unreferenced quotes from whom he attributes to be "Steve Gottlieb" on several articles, and no listing of permission for the extracts... I think these are beyond fair use sanction, but someone should take a look. [2] 70.55.200.131 (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If he is becoming more egregious about violating Wikipedia policies, you might consider using the templates at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace to provide warning. For example, the uw-copyright template. If nothing else, these can serve as evidence at a later date.—RJH (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Assessment categories

I've uploaded the assessment categories intersection table so you guys can more easily assess and rate stuff. The table is transcluded below. Now to update the template... Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 00:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Assessment categories

Importance→ Class↓	Top	High	Mid	Low	Bottom	NA	???	Rated	Total
FA	50	27	56	12	6	0	0	152	152
FL	0	3	9	5	1	0	0	19	19
GA	15	24	84	0	25	0	0	282	282
B	64	111	238	217	15	0	0	646	646
C	92	211	962	1,412	61	0	0	2,741	2,741
Start	7	134	1,949	13,801	177	0	1	16,076	16,077
Stub	0	0	131	7,699	82	0	0	7,917	7,917
List	0	14	230	1,976	13	122	0	2,356	2,356
Template	0	0	0	0	0	1,084	0	1,085	1,085
Category	0	0	0	0	0	4,388	0	4,392	4,392
Disambig	0	0	0	0	13	91	0	92	92
File	0	0	0	0	0	518	0	519	519
NA	0	0	0	0	0	40	0	41	41
Redirect	0	0	0	1	0	43,121	0	43,125	43,125
Unassessed	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	2	2
Assessed	229	524	3,659	25,256	380	50,009	1	79,437	79,438
Total	229	524	3,659	25,256	380	50,010	1	79,439	79,440

No offense, but I think I'd like to see the totals in each cell rather than the cell name. Perhaps you could just link the totals instead?—RJH (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I wish I could, because I too would love to see that, but I don't know how to do that. It would involve either querying some stuff on the database (or in the logs), or would need to be updated by a bot everytime the logs are updated (well if you want to manually update them, go right ahead). Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 15:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You can use PAGESINCATEGORY magic word. I provided an example (see above). Ruslik (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know that magic word existed. I'll update the whole table later today. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

PAGESINCATEGORY has a limit of 999, as 1,000 is formatted with a comma.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 22:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand, where the problem is ? Ruslik (talk) 04:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

#expr cannot handle commas for subtraction.

­{{#expr:{{PAGESINCATEGORY:Top-importance Astronomy articles}}-15}} produces 230

­{{#expr:{{PAGESINCATEGORY:Low-importance Astronomy articles}}-15}} produces

Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 04:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You should use {{formatnum:{{#expr:{{PAGESINCATEGORY:Low-importance Astronomy articles|R}}-15}}}}, which produces 25,257. See, for instance, {{Counter}}. Ruslik (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This should be working properly now, but it relies on categories tagged by the newer (unimplemented) template, so the outputs might not make sense.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 19:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Updating the template to handle category intersections

The code can be seen here User:Headbomb/Sandbox4. For an example of a tagged page with all parameters enabled, see User talk:Headbomb/Sandbox4.

Features:

• Quality ratings of : FL, FA, A, GA, B, C, Start, Stub, List, Image, Template, Category, Disambig, NA, Unassessed
• Importance ratings of: Top, High, Mid, Low, NA, Unknown
• Wikiprojects (full support): WP Astronomy, WP Astronomical Object (as long as |object=yes is there)
• Wikiproject (partial support): WP Physics. Placing astrophysics=yes places articles in Category:Pages within the scope of WikiProject Physics (WP Astronomy Banner) as before, so the folks at WP Physics can flag them with a WPPhysics banner. But this time this is all it does, essentially transforming the astrophysics parameter into nothing more than a flagging device rather than a tagging device (which would give a quality rating, but no importance rating for the Physics project). However, this was essentially what the astrophysics parameter was used for anyway. The "This article is within the scopes of WP Physics" message doesn't appear anymore.
• Category intersection is fully supported
• Attention, needs-image, needs-infobox are all supported
• Comments are still supported, as before.

Recap: Everything is the same, other than astrophysics being turned into a flagging tool rather than a tagging tool, and category intersection support for both WP Astro and WP Astro Objects. It's tested and fully functional. Now should I upload or do you have questions/comments?Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 01:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I am unclear what you are planning to do when you say "upload". Do you mean you want to replace the article ratings table on the project page? Thanks.—RJH (talk) 15:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean replace the WPAstronomy template with the one on in User:Headbomb/Sandbox4. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 15:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the concern I have is that your template restores the problem with the box in the upper left overlapping the text (that is fixed with the current template). That makes it look unpolished. Is there any way you could address that concern? Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what problem you're talking about. What's on User:Headbomb/Sandbox4 and User talk:Headbomb/Sandbox4 looks fine to me.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 21:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it may depend on the (IE) browser width: it goes away sometimes when I vary the window size.—RJH (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I just popped IE open and zoomed in and out and the template looks fine at all level of zooms, even the most extreme ones. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 00:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm not imagining this. I've tried it on two different PCs with two different versions of IE, and they both show the problem. The maintainer of the current template apparently agrees with me, because he fixed it.—RJH (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well whoever the maintainer of the current template is more than welcome to fix whatever problem there is with the one on my sandbox. He/She also is invited to take a look at {{physics}} since I use that one as the basis for this one.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 17:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)