Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

MicroFUN page name

Created the page but realize that the name of the page probably should be changed to the full name. From "MicroFUN" to Microlensing Follow- Up Network". If this is the case, than the Spanish page will also need to be updated. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for help at Pea galaxy

Folks, I have responded to a request at WP:FEED to review the above article (which I moved from Peas (Astronomy)). I have cleaned up the lead a little and removed the original infobox (which related to the Galaxy Zoo website, not the subject), and moved up the image from further down the article. But that's where my capabilities with the subject matter end. Would anyone form this Project care to help out with review of the article and help clean it up further? Thanks in advance. – ukexpat (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The main problem I have with writing this article is that it has all happened online, as it is an online project. The discovery was the result of a forum and lots and lots of goodwill. How the Pea galaxies were discovered, how they got their name, mostly everything apart from the paper and the press release, happened online. However this use of material from the forum is frowned upon by Wiki.

Does anyone have any suggestions about how to proceed? Should I abandon the history altogether? Have none of it referenced to anything? The history is central and gives it all context. 'A new way of doing Science', yet I can't use a lot of it.

Confused... thankyou, Richard. Richard Nowell (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a problem that I've seen happen with a number of articles, especially in popular culture topics. If you can establish that the person posting the information in a blog is highly reputable (such as if they have their own, well-cited wikipedia article), then that may be satisfactory. But otherwise I'd avoid most public, anonymous forums. See also WP:SOURCES.—RJH (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is confused. It claims things "make solar mass" - make solar mass out of what and into what? It makes it out of empty space and into dark matter? It says it takes x solar mass to make y solar mass several times. If I said it takes 10 kg to make 3 kg, no one would understand what I meant, or if I said it takes 30$ to make 5$, or that it makes 30kg per year... context is missing. Most of the time it seems to mean gas to stars, other times it means star formation rate, but it is never specified, so it's not good. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Astronomy

Please post your reviews for Portal:Astronomy that should it be classified as a "featured portal". --Extra999 (talk) 13:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Grammatical tense

I was just reading Sloan Great Wall, which is about a structure that is 1 billion light years away. Which got me thinking about the present tense we use when we're talking about astronomical objects that we can only observe as they were in the distant past because of the time it takes for us to get information about them. Using present tense seems to presume present information, which we can't have. Is there a stylistic convention in this subject that it's simply less confusing to use present tense regarding present observations, even when that observation is of the distant past? Or is there a stated assumption in astronomy that distant objects are likely to continue today as they were in our observations made today, given the extreme length of time it takes for stars and larger objects to change (i.e., a million years isn't long in the life of a star)? Cheers, postdlf (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The universe is relative, since there is no present outside of your inertial frame of reference. :) The present for you is a few split seconds into the future for astronauts returned from space, if you call the present the same amount of seconds since the big bang. Using that standard, the present-for-you, could be near a black hole could be years or billions of years into the future...

Aside from that philosophical debate, another philosophical debate could contend that anything outside of our lightcone cannot affect us, so if we say that the "present" is whatever is affecting us right now, then it is the present...

moving away from that... I have no problem with present tense being used, since if you see it as it is, it is that way right now, as present is whatever you're experiencing at the moment.

76.66.197.17 (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Star-sizes.jpg

We have a featured image of the day... Jan 12/2010

File:Star-sizes.jpg

76.66.197.17 (talk) 12:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Darthchess

We appear to have a person making hoaxes, and adding content to astronomy articles to link to the hoaxes. See Darthchess (talk · contribs).

76.66.197.17 (talk) 06:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

User accound was blocked; Person returned as Darthcheckered (talk · contribs); new account was blocked. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

Several articles have come up for deletion...

• Applied planetology has been prodded
• Southland Astronomical Society has been sent to AfD
• Chambliss Astronomy Achievement Student Award has been sent to AfD

76.66.197.17 (talk) 08:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

article activity notices: Quasar and Black hole

FYI,

there's a straw poll open at Talk:Quasar

And

there's a debate at Talk:Black hole about recent edits to Black Hole

76.66.197.17 (talk) 06:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK Nebulium

As this nebulium is more a discovery by an astronomer and was a topic in nebula for decades a person with a little bit more knowledge on astronomy should have a look. The article will be on the Mainpage in two hours. Thanks!--Stone (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Stone (talk) 06:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Nebulium

Someone asked for a review of Nebulium since it was a DYK on the 21st, at WP:Physics... this is an article related to nebulae. 76.66.192.206 (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Exoplanet

Some changes I proposed to do. Wanted to get feed back before changing it.

• Will add link to Sudarsky extrasolar planet classification.
• Part of the templete uses the "&bull" and "•", recommend using the "•".
• List_of_extrasolar_planets#See_also is now large due to so many missions and observatories participating. If accepted, I will move these into the template and create two sections, "Ground based observatories", and "Space based observatories", unless someone has a better suggestions. Missions will be removed.

Thanks, Marasama (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think the template should be split in two... the general planet classes, system types should be moved to {{planet}} which isn't being used at the moment (it's a redirect, all instances can be corrected to point to {{infobox planet}}) ; {{exoplanet}} would contain the search missions , observatories, etc, and archetypal planets (as opposed to planet classes). 76.66.192.206 (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Before adding Sudarsky's classification scheme I think we should see some evidence that his schema is actually used. None of the papers I'm familiar with that cite his work make any mention of the classification scheme. — Aldaron • T/C 15:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Tahnks, Marasama (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliability (or not) of astronomical data in article texts

It seems to me there's a somewhat widespread problem over reliability of facts and data affecting a number of astronomy article texts.

Here are some samples/examples of kinds of problem-situation that I've noticed:

• Editor just seems to be making it all up:

(e.g. 1 'time standard' article used to say that sidereal time measurement was no good or impractical because of the proper-motions of the stars!)

(e.g. 2 'kepler's laws' article had a whole story of how the solar system barycenter was deep inside the sun and so close to the sun's center that specialized measurements were needed to detect the difference, and that made Kepler's 1st law 'accurate' for the solar system -- in spite of a wikilink actually there to another article with an image showing how the ssb regularly wanders outside the body of the sun up to about a whole solar-diameter from the center.....)

(e.g. 3 again in 'kepler's laws' there's what looks like a spurious as well as unsourced story about how to measure eccentricity of the earth's orbit.)

• Editor substitutes wrong numerics in place of previously-correct data:

(e.g. in 'earth orbit', discussion was of sidereal year, originally with correct data -- since then substituted by wrong-in-context tropical year length, with other bad data).

The 'wrong-numerics' category of edit seems to have a spectrum ranging at one end from misunderstanding leading to substituting-in wrong data, to another end of the range where it's a kind of vandalism, e.g. birth dates of historical figures changed to 1999 etc.

There are either no citations or none that actually support the materials in question. I guess it's inevitably hard to detect corrupting changes that introduce errors of this kind, because they sometimes look superficially like good-faith edits. But some of the stories look like products of pure imagination or invention, replete with false circumstantial detail.

Can these really all represent good-faith edits, it's rather a puzzle to me. It's probably unreasonable to expect bots ever to be able to cope, does anyone know any way of preventive handling for any of this kind of stuff? Terry0051 (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well it's not just a problem with astronomy article, but yes there are definitely astronomy-related pages where the citations could be better, as well as additions that are pure opinion, complete rubbish, or some combination. As there are thousands of astronomy articles, it's hard to police them all. If you find something a bit dubious and unsourced, the usual approach is to add a {{Fact}} tag. That will highlight the fact that it needs a citation to back it up. For absolute rubbish, I think that WP:BEBOLD applies. :-) If a whole page is unsourced and filled with dubious information, I'd insert a {{unreferenced}} tag at the top. That will at least alert readers to the fact that the information they are seeing may be unreliable. Another approach is to bring up the issue on the article's talk page. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Biocentrism in cosmology

Biocentrism in cosmology has been nominated for renaming

76.66.192.206 (talk) 05:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion here. :-) —RJH (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hiroshi Abe (astronomer)

Hiroshi Abe (astronomer) has been prodded for deletion. 76.66.192.206 (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Why? Seidai Miyasaka & Robert H. McNaught has just about the same amount of info. What makes Hiroshi Abe page significant to delete? Thanks, 160.109.98.44 (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You should direct that question to the person who prodded it (this can be discovered from the edit history of the article Hiroshi Abe (astronomer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ) 76.66.192.206 (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The delete request has been removed. Not an issue anymore. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Standard infobox for observatory pages.

All three pages have a different setup on the infobox. Lake Afton Public Observatory, Lulin Observatory, and W. M. Keck Observatory. Is there a standard for the infobox? Thanks, Marasama (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The one at Lake Afton is definitely not standard. 76.66.195.93 (talk) 07:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Lake Afton is not standard, Keck actually has a telescope infobox, leaving Lulin Observatory as the only one that is using the observatory infobox. James McBride (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Sun

The Sun redirect is up for discussion on its target, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 26

70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI spamlinx massacre ongoing

Just so that you are aware (and so that I may therapeutically can complain), I'm removing the spamlinks from each and every star article to http://www.alcyone.de/ for the reason that the links don't provide any essential information of use for WP, and that the very poor information provided is vastly inferior to other sources, such as SIMBAD. Compare for example:

• Alcyone.de on HR410 with,
• SIMBAD on HR410.

Alcyone.de lists "HR 410, HD 8673, SAO 54695, BD +33 228", while SIMBAD lists facts about the star. I think that Alcyone.de has been using WP as a means to marketize their software Alcyone Ephemeris, while providing nothing of value by their spamlinks. This is not the way to go around using Wikipedia! If the company/software reaches a certain size and so reach a position of notability, not just a couple of hundred licenses sold per year, articles may be created for the company/software. Wikipedia is not an advertizement ground for companies, it's an encyclopedia produced by unpaid volunteers. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm using Special:LinkSearch on http://www.alcyone.de/ for the event of anyone wishing to help a little. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm guilty of using Alcyone in the past, and I really don't think I have anything to apologize for. Many of those were added before I became more aware of SIMBAD. The information used in Alcyone was derived from valid astronomical star catalogues, including the Bright Star Catalogue and the Washington Double Star Catalogue. But if you want to replace those with more direct citations, then great. However, those additions were never intended as spam, and you shouldn't go around blaming the publisher for the additions.—RJH (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Eh, um. I'm not accusing anyone. I followed history for one of the star stubs and the user who created the star obviously used a pattern from another star, since that user created a lot of astronomy stubs, not always using alcyone.de for the external links. It might have functioned as a crossref once upon a time, and many users might have added the links in good faith ... and now I have to cleanup! Currently there are exactly 337 links to alcyone.de, down from about 510-520 or some such yesterday. Just note that alcyone.de don't provide us with any relevant info that cannot also be found in SIMBAD. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 18:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks.—RJH (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I must apologize a little. Most of the links were pretty meaningless, but a few of the alcyone.de links actually provides some information that is more than just a trivial crossref. Those links always seem to regard HR stars, i.e. bright and otherwise notable stars. In a few cases I may have removed useful references by not scrutinizing sources well enough. Throw me a note if you feel that I've made a mistake. The cleanup continues. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox minor planet

Template:Infobox minor planet has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems Template:Infobox planet is used for minor planets, which is a good thing. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Change to requested articles configuration

In order to be able to watch changes specific to the "Astronomy and Cosmology" section of the Wikipedia:Requested articles tree, I changed that sub-section so that it is merged into the "Natural sciences" from a separate page. The new page is at: Wikipedia:Requested articles/Natural sciences/Astronomy and cosmology. Otherwise it seems to work as before.—RJH (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Astronomy

Astronomy has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Beta Lyrae

I know very little about astronomy. Could someone review my recent edits to Beta Lyrae? Dlabtot (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. However, this 1962 source suggests at least a common motion. I'm not sure if there is a subsequent source that clarifies their relation. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Recombination

Should recombination have an article of its own, rather than brief coverage in the articles cosmic microwave background radiation and Timeline of the Big Bang? Or is there somewhere else that there is coverage of recombination? James McBride (talk) 09:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it should. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 13:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there more to add besides the handful of sentences in the CMB article? Perhaps recombination of helium and lithium? (Personally, I'm curious to know what the explanation is for the use of the word "recombination" to describe a first-time event. =) Thanks.—RJH (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The level of content that needs to be added is probably not that great. I think it would be nice to include a bit more thorough an explanation of why it happens when it does, and present a couple of relevant equations. For instance, a quick discussion of the Saha equation and photon to baryon ratio are sufficient to give an estimate of the recombination redshift. Adding this to either of the aforementioned article does not really seem appropriate to me though. The other thing that kind of irks me is that the recombination link in the CMB article links to the timeline of the Big Bang, while the timeline links right back to the CMB article. I guess I could have just been bold and started this article, but the fact that it did not exist already made me question to some degree the need, even as I now make the case for why it should exist. James McBride (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Recombination page used to be a brief article, but then it was converted to a disambig page. That's probably why it is now linked to the timeline article from the CMB page. If I may, I'd suggest calling the new article something like Recombination (astronomy) for consistency. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for explaining that. For the name, I was planning on Recombination (cosmology). James McBride (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I also think it should have an article. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of farthest known astronomical objects

I'd like to make a list with the milestones (in distance) reached per year, but I'm missing data. Could you please somebody give me a hand or tell me where could I find such information? --Micru (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is the list so far: Light-year#Farthest_known_astrological_objects_per_year_of_record--Micru (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That table is wrong, Abell...IR... is listed as not a real object in its article. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's appropriate material for that article, since it is a unit article. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 10:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a more complete list, with references, that I've been working on, to turn into an article Talk:List of astronomical objects/workpage - I've been trying to fill in the stars section; from the discovery of the distance to the galaxies to today, I think is complete. I think some of the refs I used are written in Latin and medieval French, and very old style English, so they might be hard to read. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You are right. I have started the suggested page and moved the information there. It would be great if I could use your table to complete the List of most distant astronomical object record holders --Micru (talk) 12:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, now someone will have to rate the article. I'd think it might be somewhat important for popular astronomy. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK

There are 4 DYK's in the project that are on the way, namely S Ori 70, Magellan Planet Search Program, HIP 79431 b and HD 156668. My question is this: would the DYK's automatically come up in the project's front page? Or do we need to edit them manually? --TitanOne (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The front page seems to require manual editing. Or rather, the page that the front page links to with a list of DYKs needs manual editing. There are quite a few DYKs in astronomy that are not on the list. I am rather surprised that a bot does not exist which will update the page, but so far as I know, there is not. James McBride (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

There is indeed a bot that does an automatic listing of DYKs (and lots of other things, like FAs, GAs, etc...). See User:JL-Bot/Project_content. The DYKs (and others) will need to have been tagged with the Astronomy banner for this to work however. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I copied the physics template for the bot to my sandbox a few days ago, and the bot just updated it, so I copied it over to the recognized content page. It is nice to have it up to date now, though I was surprised to see that most solar system bodies are not included, as they seem to only be listed under the Solar System WP. James McBride (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

S Ori 70 - hmm... the article notes a Sigma Orionis open cluster, but links to a Sigma Orionis (Sigma Ori) star system, which is not an open cluster. Not to be confused with the S Orionis (S Ori) star. Sigma Orionis Cluster does not exist as an article... Should this article be renamed to S Orionis 70 to expand the abbreviation?

SIMBAD does not come up with this star on basic search, but a coordinate search results in [1] "Mayrit 520267" as the brown dwarf [2]

70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That's the same issue I have when creating stars and exoplanets around them. What to follow? Is it Durchmusterung, Hipparcos or Draper? Normally I go with notability via press releases and/or scientific summaries from observatories such as KECK, Magellan, etc. --TitanOne (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Element articles

Whenever an element article comes up for PR or FAC, I think it is a good opportunity to put in suggestions about adding astronomy information. Currently Caesium is up for a FAC here. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:HD and HDE objects

Category:HD and HDE objects has been nominated for renaming, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 23. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:Current moon Formating & Template:Current Moon

{{Current Moon}} and {{Current moon Formating}} have been nominated for deletion. These could be made into something useful, but are not now useful. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Does the "Heat Death" Make Life Possible?

Does the "Heat Death" Make Life Possible? —Michael R. Donohoe

by Michael R. Donohoe Creationists get into trouble when they say that such complex order as life in a universe governed by disorder must be deliberate, an act of God. One thing that is pointed out to them is that entropy represents the statistical tendency toward disorder, not a rigid law somehow violated by every occurrence of order. I've noticed something that is not what Creationists claim, yet it doesn't seem to be acknowledged by science that I have been able to find. It could seem outlandish, yet with a little examination it appears irrefutable to me that evolution and life are in fact dependent on processes and conditions which by definition qualify as disorder. This even includes the ultimate state of cosmic disorder called the heat death in which it is assumed that all viable energy within the universe will have been expended. I want to mention that more than once I've been taken for a Creationist, and more than once people have assumed that I am one of these people who apparently do not believe that earth has limited resources, or who think that things like overpopulation, ozone depletion, pollution, and global warming are not real threats. Such assumptions are as far off-base as they could possibly be. On a science message board a man in England became livid at what I suggested. Somehow I guessed that he was a teacher. To be exact it turned out that he was a high school science teacher. Eventually he did an abrupt about face and declared that I was correct, yet he was no less hostile than he had been before. A number of people with a deeper understanding of science, such as a science writer I conversed with online and a friend who teaches astronomy, were surprised by my observation, but they did see my point. In the unauthorized collection of essays, *The Theory of Everything*, Stephen Hawking illustrates how the statistical tendency toward disorder demonstrates the arrow of time with a water glass falling off a table to shatter on the floor. He shows how this demonstrates time's directional arrow, time being a one way street, in that the glass will not reform up on the table like a film run in reverse. It's established in the scientific picture that stars produce the stuff that earth and life are made of. Stars are essentially immense hydrogen reactors. Hydrogen burning in a star can become oxygen as well as helium, and helium can be burned into carbon. The progression of star fuel, hydrogen, into these other substances, is the aging of the star. As the star is comprised of less and less hydrogen fuel and more of these substances, it is progressing toward what occurs when a red giant star goes nova and explodes, dispersing the stuff that life is formed from. Apply the arrow of time. Anything in a star that is no longer hydrogen fuel, such modified hydrogen as oxygen, helium, and carbon, will not revert into hydrogen fuel any more than a shattered water glass will reform up on the table. The stars that go nova also will not revert into the stars they had been. While earth could conceivably be swept into a new star form during a future nova, the stuff of which earth is made will not un-burn or un-explode, and happens to provide the basis for carbon-based life forms such as ourselves. Mixing is disorder. In the book, *Chaos*, James Gleick gives the example of a swimming pool with ink on one side and water on the other divided by a barrier. Remove the barrier and the pure water and ink will mix together into a disordered mess. In *The Theory of Everything*, Hawking gives the example of two types of molecules in a box, again, separated by a barrier. Simply remove the barrier and the two types of molecules in separate ordered states will mix together into one disordered mess. They will also not separate and reorder themselves. What if hydrogen and oxygen mix together? That's how we get water, which, like carbon, is very handy for such life forms as ourselves. My thinking is that ordered energy forms of the star and of the hydrogen and oxygen are lost, but that these ordered states must be lost, and become disordered, before new more complex forms of order can arise. I became curious about topsoil. Fertile topsoil is formed through similar processes to soil erosion. In the latter case that this is disorder is apparent. What about when manure, ashes, and plants and animals decompose and mix into fertile life-sustaining soil? For dust art thou, and unto dust shalt thou return. The individual plants and animals will not reform but will sustain future generations of flora and fauna, which can then revert into soil. Apoptosis is also known as programmed cell death. Our body replaces in the area of a million cells a second. If it does not do this as it should the result can be cancer. When, on the other hand, cells die more rapidly than they should it causes strokes and such diseases as Alzheimer's. The cells that die don't come back into existence like a shattered glass reforming on a table. Like the brake pads on a car, the cells must be replaced with new cells. Life barters with entropy, in the cycle of soil and plants and animals, and in the life, reproduction, and death of cells in our bodies. Evolution itself demonstrates time's arrow. Cells live and die within complex organisms that live and die within species that carry on, adapt, and evolve into new species, or become extinct. In the case of human beings, individuals rise and fall within cultures that carry on, evolve, or die out. So I don't expect to awake tomorrow as one of my Celtic ancestors or as an Australopithecus or a pro simian or a lung fish, or maybe even as part of a long dead star, any more than Hawking's shattered glass will reform on the table from which it fell. Heat loss is considered by definition to be entropy. Apply this to the fact that the death of stars is a loss of viable energy in the universe and a drop in temperature on a cosmic scale. The death of stars is a progression toward the hypothetical heat death of the universe. When standing before a mirror, consider the former temperature of the air around you as well as the walls and floor and ceiling and of the mirror, and, of course, of you, yourself. A great deal of heat loss, entropy, and disorder factor into that moment. The fact that all forms are finite, from shattered water glasses to exploding stars, makes evolution and life possible. Would you rather reside at room temperature, or on the surface of a star? If the heat death scenario is accurate, one result of this eventuality can be seen in your reflection. Organic processes also happen to be the heat death in progress. While it seems to strike many as counter intuitive, I don't believe that I am the only person to make this connection, yet I can't find any acknowledgment of it. You might think it would make an interesting aside when addressing disorder and the proposed heat death. Why does no one make any mention of this? I have two thoughts about why that might be. One is that in reductionism there is a tendency to view things as isolated occurrences; nature as the sum of it's parts. Stars, while undergoing the entropic process of aging, happen to produce the stuff that life is made of. While succumbing to entropy in the form of a nova, they happen to disperse that life stuff. In addition to this, if one is to view all of these events as disconnected happenstance, complexity and life can occur in a finite universe. Perhaps to make this connection would threaten an underlying bias in reductionism against any view of order as other than a purely random occurrence. I would not say that this observation is proof that a higher power is at work in nature, but I think it qualifies as an argument for the fine tuning of our universe and it does lend itself to the possibility that nature is more than purely random. Is what is classified as a statistical tendency toward disorder also a statistical tendency toward complexity that makes evolution possible, or maybe even inevitable? Is that why I never find any mention of this aspect of entropy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.136 (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

What is this crap? 70.29.210.242 (talk) 10:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a rambling quasi-religious manifesto, and appears off topic for this page. I support removal of this anonymous post.—RJH (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

or template collapsing it. de Bivort 18:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Done and done.—RJH (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

File:MercuryOrbitResonance.gif

FYI, Image:MercuryOrbitResonance.gif has been nominated for deletion at FfD. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This was transferred to commons as: File:Orbital resonance of Mercury.gif

There also exists still images: Image:Mercury's orbital resonance.svg and Image:Mercury's orbital resonance.png

70.29.210.242 (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Element books

WP:ELEMENTS started creating books on each individual elements. Since there are a lot of them, any help would be very much appreciated. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Moon science

FYI, Moon science has been sent for deletion at AfD.

70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Adsabs

FYI, {{Adsabs}} has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Portal:X-ray astronomy

We have a new portal, courtesy of Marshallsumter. Portal:X-ray astronomy.

70.29.210.242 (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Black hole

There's a notice at WT:Physics about Talk:Black hole, concerning people posting personal theories about the things.

70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

A straw poll is now up at Talk:Black hole#Straw poll: talk page notice. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Zero-energy Universe

FYI, there is a note at WT:Physics concerning the article Zero-energy Universe, and a possible need for cleanup of the article and its incoming links.

70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Solar system geography

FYI, someone created the Category:Solar system geography recently...

70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Exploration of Io Peer Review

Exploration of Io, is currently undergoing a peer review. Please take this opportunity to give the article a once over, submit a review, or Be Bold and help to improve the article. The article contains a significant section on the history of Io observations from Earth since its discovery in 1610. I hope to nominate the article for a Featured Article Candidacy in the next few days if all goes well. Thanks you, --Volcanopele (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Exploration of Io has now been nominated for featured article candidacy. Please go to the nominating page to provide support, opposition, or your constructive comments. Thank you! --Volcanopele (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

TFD for {{Infobox crater}}

I have nominated the newly-created {{Infobox crater}} for deletion. (I first asked the creator to withdraw it.) Please see and participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Infobox crater. Summary: editors including some from WPAstronomy have already worked to alleviate confusion over unqualified use of the term "crater". The mass category renaming CFD for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 22#Category:Craters renamed 77 categories like "Craters of..." to "Impact craters of..." after volcanic crater articles were moved to subcategories of Category:Volcanoes. Let's not re-introduce that confusion. The template docs make no differentiation between terrestrial craters and those on other celestial bodies. Ikluft (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it be a bad thing if all the crater templates were consolidated (along the lines of {{Infobox planet}}).—RJH (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

After "Infobox crater" was deleted, a follow-up discussion in the village pump yesterday led to the creation of {{Infobox terrestrial impact site}}. Ikluft (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Moon

I have nominated Moon for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It's unfortunate but I find that FA pages still need regular upkeep and improvements to satisfy the current criteria, or else they tend to get removed from the list.—RJH (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Book clean up

As with articles, WildBot also goes through books and creates problem reports on their talk page (with details on the cause and effects of these problems, and what to do to fix them). There are currently 1 astronomy-related book that needs cleanup.

• Book:Jupiter (problems)

If someone could take a look at it, that would be great. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hot companion

FYI, there's a discussion at WT:ASTRO about the relatively recent article Hot companion.

70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

New portal

There is a new Star portal..pls add it to your watch list!!..tks!!Buzzzsherman (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone keeps adding "... that stars cannot be seen, directly from our eyes, in space!" to the Portal. There's a notice on the talk page requesting an explanation before having it on the portal, but it just gets readded. I would say that the entire "Did You Know" should be deleted, as I find the remarks there highly questionable. 76.66.198.79 (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Interstellar (disambiguation)

FYI, Interstellar (disambiguation) has been nominated for deletion.

All the astronomy content was removed from the dab page as well.

76.66.194.4 (talk) 04:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Systemizer

FYI, there is a notice about Systemizer (talk · contribs) making edits to cosmology articles at WT:PHYSICS

65.94.252.177 (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The notice also includes Dark energy star now... 76.66.194.32 (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Dark (something) star

User:RK wants to do some weird things with articles Dark energy star, Dark star and Dark matter star. See the talk pages for dark energy star and dark star.

76.66.194.32 (talk) 05:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Star portal nomination

I have nominated Star Portal for featured status. See here and add comments. --Extra999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 02:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Ever thought of creating a portalbox shorthand? {{Star portal}} with {{Portal|Star|He1523a.jpg}} as its contents? 76.66.192.73 (talk) 05:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. --Extra999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 06:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a move to delete all asteroid discovering astronomers from Wikipedia

I see there are quite a few Asteroid Discoverers listed on Wikipedia. Some are making an attempt to erase these, and stick them all on a list article List of miscellaneous minor planet discoverers. Should news of their discovery be enough to prove them notable enough to have their own article, or should their articles be erased, history and all, and a redirect placed there instead? Could there be a guideline added by those who known and care about Astronomy on what makes an Astronomer notable? If you don't add one, then this'll just keep coming up in AFD time and again, and whether any of the articles are saved or lost will depend on whatever random group of people show up to comment. Dream Focus 05:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you point out where this move to delete everyone is occuring? 76.66.192.73 (talk) 05:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I only spotted four that have been sent to the AFD so far, but the reasoning of the nominator is quite clear, there more to follow. I've seen them nominate articles previously months ago about astronomers as well. Certain people are known to delete not just a few things, but to go through everything related, and do wide spread deletion nominations. That happens far more often than not. I wonder how many articles for those listed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Asteroid_discoverers have been replaced by redirects already. Any way to check that? That'd show how many were deleted already, by who, and at what time. Dream Focus 06:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that consolidation is necessarily a bad thing, when there is nothing else to write about the topics than the asteroid discoveries. It's better than just deleting the information. See WP:MERGE for example.—RJH (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 5/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 5/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 01:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if there should be a biography task force ? 76.66.192.73 (talk) 07:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

How do I add something to the list of Astronomy articles up for deletion?

Other Wikiprojects have a page where it explains how and is rather easy to do. How do I add Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hiroshi_Araki and others to the watch list of those interested in this sort of thing? I notice there are quite a number of categories for astronomy related things. Hopefully they are all combined as sublist into one general category, making it easier to watch and find things. Dream Focus 05:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The list is supposed to be automatically maintained by the Article Alerts Bot, it scans AfDs for any article that has the WPAstronomy banner and updates the listing page... 76.66.192.73 (talk) 05:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

If you tag the article it with the astronomy banner ({{astronomy}}), then deletion discussions will automatically show up in the Article Alerts of the project. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

On the talk page. Got it. A lot of these guys listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Asteroid_discoverers don't have that yet. Anyway to automatically add it to any that don't have it already? Dream Focus 06:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You can make a bot request, or use AutoWikiBrowser. The bot request would probably be easier. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm starting to suspect that the Hiroshi Araki article (or at least the links) may be a conflation of multiple individuals, so I added a note to the talk page.—RJH (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Notification regarding Wikipedia-Books

Hadronic Matter An overview

An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter

As detailed in last week's Signpost, WikiProject Wikipedia books is undertaking a cleanup all Wikipedia books. Particularly, the {{saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of the books. Title, subtitle, cover-image, and cover-color can all be specified, and an HTML preview of the cover will be generated and shown on the book's page (an example of such a cover is found on the right). Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class Astronomy articles should have covers.

If you need help with the {{saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.

This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 01:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot ^{(owner • talk)} 01:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

To-do list

Hello. I patrol the NASA website looking for needed images. If I can find I to-do list of images that are needed, I may join. Thanks for any help. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

One place where astronomy image requests can be posted is Wikipedia:Requested pictures/Science#Astronomy. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Article of qualité ?

Hello everybody, hello !
Here is a copy of a message I just left on White dwarf talk page.
"This is to inform you that this article, translated into french last summer, is presently underway being discussed for promotion up to the "Article de Qualité level.
So, thanks you to évérybody, and a special thank you to the contributors who wrote this article.
If you speak enough french, your advice (+ vote) would be most welcome.
Hop ! Kikuyu3 (talk) 08:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
PS : if you do not maintain a sufficient level in written french, please let me know on my personal page, I will translate and give suite accordingly."
Hop ! Kikuyu3 (talk) 08:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Astrodynamics terms

I was wondering if we shouldn't just merge Central body and Orbiting body among other terms that have really short articles, into a Glossary of astrodynamics ? 76.66.192.73 (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, why not? There's a bunch of glossaries already, per Category:Glossaries. Or perhaps they could be added to a glossary on the astrodynamics article?—RJH (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable idea. Terms like that, which only have meaning in relation to each other, are best explained together. TimothyRias (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Image:Overwhelmingly Large Telescope.jpg

FYI, Image:Overwhelmingly Large Telescope.jpg has been nominated for deletion. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 04:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Standard assumptions in astrodynamics

Prod'd based on talk page. In retrospect, this is related to the above note.—RJH (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This is now up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standard assumptions in astrodynamics . 70.29.208.247 (talk) 06:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing astronomy topics

I've updated my list of missing astronomy topics - Skysmith (talk) 13:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting list you have there; much larger than Wikipedia:Requested articles/Natural sciences/Astronomy and cosmology, for example. But I'm not sure that all of them would necessarily deserve an article. ("16-inch Telescope" for example.) Others could perhaps be satisfied with a redirect, such as "Laplace's nebular hypothesis", or maybe a glossary entry.—RJH (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Age of solar system? Shouldn't that be Age of the Solar System?

X-ray background radiation - we already have that... X-ray background

Double Cluster in Perseus -- we already have that, see Double Cluster

HLIRG means Hyperluminous infrared galaxy, and it is contained in the article for LIRGs (luminous infrared galaxy) which also contains the ULIRG info. That should just redirect there.

Lyman-break galaxy already exists, just redirect Lyman break galaxy there.

dE galaxy, we have that, dwarf elliptical galaxy, just redirect it there.

Sagittarius dwarf spheroidal galaxy, we have that, Sag dSph, see Sagittarius Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy, just redirect it there

United Theory of Active Galaxies -- the unified model is in the active galaxy article

AO620-OO -- that just looks wrong. Don't you mean A0620-00 or something?

Circinus X-I -- that's just wrong. It's Circinus X-1

Planet pulsar -- do you mean pulsar planet ?

Contact Binary Star Envelopes -- do you mean contact binary or common envelope ?

Pulsating star -- do you mean variable star ?

Ae star -- that just doesn't look like an "individual star"

h and Chi Persei -- do you mean NGC 884 ?

Superterrestrial -- do you mean Super-Earth ?

Muses-A mission -- that's a space probe, and it already has an article, see MUSES-A

Mercury-Atlas 11 & Mercury-Atlas 12 should redirect to Project Mercury - there were cancelled.

65.94.253.16 (talk) 06:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I also think Algenic is supposed to be Algenib. Reyk _YO! 09:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Several things seem to be mispelt. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I would not be surprised. You are welcome to fix the spelling - Skysmith (talk) 07:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Some more articles that probably need not exist, all pulled from the astronomical terminology section after I went through and created redirects where appropriate.

• Day number
• Density classes, density class
• Hubble-bandage variable (your list is the only thing that comes up in a google search using quotes)
• Magnitude at opposition (I think the two terms separately are enough)
• Mean parallax (this is nothing more than the mean of multiple parallax measurements, so far as I know)
• Number count (unnecessary)
• Planuloid (or at least it does not belong on an astronomy list, from what google turned up)
• Position astronomy (unless this is actually something, but I do not think it is)
• Recurrent hove (I am guessing this is a typo?)
• Star trail (unless you want to redirect astrophotography, but that seems unnecessary to me)
• Telescope time (this is self explanatory, and if not, use "time on a telescope")
• Telescopic object
• Wide field (also self explanatory)

James McBride (talk) 08:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - Skysmith (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think Hubble-bandage variable is likely a typo for Hubble-Sandage variable, which probably should have an article. Scog (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Augh. So it is - Skysmith (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Star

{{Star portal}} It has been nominated for featured portal status, come and give your comments. --Extra999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 06:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion at Talk:Seki Kōwa

Please come participate in the move discussion at Talk:Seki Kōwa#Move discussion. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Astronomy-nav

FYI, {{Astronomy-nav}} has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Moons of Saturn

I nominated this article for Featured List status. The review page is here. Ruslik_Zero 12:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Earth citations needed

There are currently five figures in the "Orbital characteristics" part of Earth's infobox that are uncited. This shouldn't be the case on a Featured Article. If anyone could provide citations, that would very helpful. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Done.—RJH (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Cirrus (astronomy)

I was looking at the cirrus disambiguation page, and there doesn't seem to be an article for the interstellar/galactic/local cirrus. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a stubby Infrared cirrus article.—RJH (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Book:Galaxies

I just gave this book an overhaul (previously it was just a list of galaxies, now it's a book on galaxies in general). If someone could double-check that I didn't forget something, that would be nice. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Caldwell catalogue

I just created Book:Caldwell catalogue and {{Caldwell catalogue}}. Any feedback?

Also, I made a bot request so that Calwell objects are tagged with the navbox and the relevant categories. I doubt there will be any objections, but I'm mentioning it here just to be sure (and on WP:ASTRO). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Kiyosato Inquiry

Hi, I'm involved in disambiguating articles and came across Kiyosato and noticed most of the links have to due with asteroids discovered at a location designated as Kiyosato. After doing some research, it appears the the Kiyosato in question is the district in what used to be Takane, Yamanashi, but I thought I'd see if anyone here could confirm that fact for me before I started to do anything.

If you have info, just drop me a line on my talk page.

Thanks in advance.

Ulric1313 (talk) 02:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

stub templates

FYI, someone has been messing around with the stub templates in the last few days.

I've reverted most of the changes, as they have not been discussed, and I think the change is for the worse.

The templates affected were

• {{astronomy-stub}}
• {{observatory-stub}}
• {{mars-stub}}
• {{crater-stub}}

• the change for "crater" seems for the better, so I left it, pending further discussion here.
• I replaced the satellite TV dish that was implemented at "observatory" with an observatory dome pic.
• I reverted the change to astronomy that made it look like WP:WikiProject Space's logo.
• I reverted the change to Mars, IMHO it was not for the better.

70.29.208.247 (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all but the Mars image. The transparent icon of Mars seemed fine to me. Is there a rendering issue?—RJH (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, for me, it's fuzzy all along the edge of the globe, while the black backgrounded one is crisp. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The white background image seems nice and crisp to me. Maybe you are using a different font size than I and that is causing the transparent background image to rescale to match? That can make it look ugly.—RJH (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm the one responsible for all this, I didn't realize there was a single project handling these stubs. I believe that images with transparency should be used whenever possible for the reasons I gave at Template talk:Astronomy-stub#New image, transparency allows an image to blend seamlessly with a page regardless of background color. I don't see a problem with the transparent Mars image, it looks crisp for me. Also see Template talk:Observatory-stub#New thumbnail for my recommendation of a monochromatic image for {{Observatory-stub}}
--Gyrobo (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem with your image is it is the image used by WP:SPACE for their logo, see {{WPSpace}}. WP:SPACE has its own stub template, {{space-stub}} . 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I reverted a change by Alpha Quadrant (talk · contribs) that reinstated WP:SPACE's logo on {{astronomy-stub}} ; Alpha Quadrant has a very weird idea of what vandalism is, since he/she never checked here, where the discussion is mentioned on the contribution history page. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Three things:

1. I didn't know that that image was being used by WP:SPACE.
2. You didn't link to this discussion or mention that the projects were separate and that the image was already in use in your edit summaries or on the talk page for that template -- all you said was that the change hadn't been discussed.
3. You're posting anonymously, and most of the vandalism that I've seen has been done by anonymous IPs. It's kind of an easy mistake to make.
4. I can't count.

--Gyrobo (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Not all observatories are refractors, and your image is much too large at 40px; It just doesn't play nice with other stub templates. See all the whitespace it creates:

Whereas the old picture stacked nicely, so that multiple stub templates can be placed on a page without being very ungainly.

The new image "P200 Dome Open.jpg" works at 40px and 30px

Your image needs to be at most 15px, where it is too small to be useful.

and it already looks like a military cannon, even more so when reasonably sized to play nicely when multiple stub templates appear on an article.

70.29.208.247 (talk) 10:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

{{crater-stub}}

I reduced the pixel count, as I hadn't noticed it wasn't playing nice with other stub templates, when it was first implemented, by using alot of whitespace. It should be more reasonably sized now. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:ConstellationsByBartsch

Template:ConstellationsByBartsch has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Please have your say! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:JCW help

There's a new WP:JCW report.

Out of the 500 most highly cited missing journals, here's a few that fall into our scope, or near our scope.

• Planetary and Space Science
• Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta
• Physikalische Zeitschrift
• Advances in Space Research
• Platinum Metals Review
• Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
• The Minor Planet Bulletin
• General Relativity and Gravitation
• Thin Solid Films
• J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
• Journal of the American Ceramic Society
• Earth-Science Reviews
• Earth, Moon, and Planets
• Sedimentary Geology
• Lunar and Planetary Science
• Journal of the Electrochemical Society
• Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan
• Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society
• Geophysical Research Abstracts
• Journal of Solid State Chemistry
• Los Alamos Science
• Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater.
• Journal of the British Astronomical Association

See the writing guide if you need help with those. Some of these might be better as redirects (Guide to redirects). Feel free to remove those which you think are too far from astronomy from the list. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• I took the liberty of adding your list to: Wikipedia:Requested articles/Natural_sciences#Journals and trade publications.—RJH (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Books on the planets

Related articles

wikipediabooks

Make your own book with Wikiproject Wikipedia-Books
6 June 2011

ArbCom tally pending; Pediapress renderer; fundraiser update; unreferenced BLP drive
6 December 2010

Fundraisers start for Wikipedia and Citizendium; controversial content and leadership
15 November 2010

Wikipedia books launched worldwide
10 May 2010

Wikipedia-Books: Proposed deletion process extended, cleanup efforts
22 March 2010

New Book namespace created
11 January 2010

35k donated, WikiProject for Wikipedia-Books, 2M rated articles, and more
30 November 2009

Books extension enabled
2 March 2009

More articles

Make your own book with Wikiproject Wikipedia-Books 6 June 2011 ArbCom tally pending; Pediapress renderer; fundraiser update; unreferenced BLP drive 6 December 2010 Fundraisers start for Wikipedia and Citizendium; controversial content and leadership 15 November 2010 Wikipedia books launched worldwide 10 May 2010 Wikipedia-Books: Proposed deletion process extended, cleanup efforts 22 March 2010 New Book namespace created 11 January 2010 35k donated, WikiProject for Wikipedia-Books, 2M rated articles, and more 30 November 2009 Books extension enabled 2 March 2009

Recently I saw the Rings of Neptune on the front page, so I though I'd make a book about Neptune (see Book:Neptune, download the PDF). It seems to me that each planet deserves its own books, and several other solar system bodies (individual moons, asteroid belt, etc...). I've built list of plausible books that we could make, but feel free to add topics or comment on them.

• Book:Solar System
• Book:Mercury
• Book:Venus
• Book:Earth (Book:Moon)
• Book:Mars (Book:Phobos and Demos)
• Book:Jupiter (Book:Moons of Jupiter)
• Book:Saturn (Book:Moons of Saturn)
• Book:Uranus (Book:Moons of Uranus)
• Book:Neptune (Book:Moons of Neptune)
• Book:Pluto and Charo
• Book:Asteroid Belt
• Book:Comets
• Book:Dwarf planets

Since many of you probably aren't familiar with books, I've put a list of signpost articles on them. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

image:Sun-symbol.png

FYI, file:Sun-symbol.png has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 04:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Progress tracker

It's a minor nit, but it looks like the Progress table on this wikiproject article hasn't been updated in two years. Do we still need that table?—RJH (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The bot generated table produces much the same information... Probably why this table hasn't been updated. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 05:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Friends of the Observatory

It seems to me that there are alot of Friends of the Observatory groups around the world... but we only have an article on the one in Hong Kong... 76.66.193.224 (talk) 04:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Eccentric Jupiter

I should have posted yesterday that I put Eccentric Jupiter up at articles for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eccentric_Jupiter if you have any thoughts on the matter. Basically, it is not a well defined term and it is not in common use, and I am fairly confident that finding a source to back up the definition in the article is unlikely. James McBride (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:Astronomy portal

FYI, {{Astronomy portal}} has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This template has been replaced by {{portal|Astronomy}}. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ben Gascoigne

Hi there. The above article (about an Australian astronomer) is at WP:FAC for review if members would consider perusing it (I am the nominating editor). Any time editors can give is appreciated. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Star Diagonal

Should the astronomy project adopt the Star Diagonal page? it seems like it shold to me, what do yuo guys think? Corhen (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but maybe also some physics optics group might be interested, with which we can share it. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 18:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think so. The primary mirror article talk page already has a WPAstronomy template.—RJH (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, WikiProject Telescopes was merged into WikiProject Astronomy. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 06:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Advanced Technology Solar Telescope

FYI, Advanced Technology Solar Telescope has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Mars-stub template

FYI, someone changed the image of {{Mars-stub}} again. This time it renders Ok on my system, but I don't know if the image is all that good...

Current image		Mars Valles Marineris.jpeg
Proposed image		Mars transparant.png
New image		Tango Mars.svg

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mars for additional discussions.

70.29.212.131 (talk) 06:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Polar bulge

We have a stub polar bulge linked to several scalene moons such as Mimas. Do we have refs that any of them rotate on their longest axis, or is this confusion with the word prolate, which defines the geometric pole as being the long axis? (These moons aren't exactly prolate or oblate, of course.) I doubt that a moon with a "polar bulge" would be stable in that orientation over geological timescales, and expect that all of these moons have their long axis orientated toward the planet, with their shortest axis at the pole. Photos of Mimas are suggestive of that. Anyone know for sure? Should polar bulge be deleted? — kwami (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe it is right, so I deleted pending any confirmation here. I merged the table to the natural satellite article. I expect Luna is also scalene, but am waiting for discussion at Talk:Moon. — kwami (talk) 07:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I do seem to remember adding to this article quite a while back. However, I believe all I did was add links directing from other articles to this one.

“ I doubt that a moon with a "polar bulge" would be stable in that orientation over geological timescales, and expect that all of these moons have their long axis orientated toward the planet, with their shortest axis at the pole. ”

This does make sense since a "polar bulge" would be less stable than an equatorial bulge due to axial precession. Also, I've looked up "polar bulge" and only managed to find website with copies of this Wikipedia page, no external sources, so I will agree with its deletion. Hope this helps. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 199° 37' 30" NET 13:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I think it must be confusion with the geometric convention of defining the long axis as the "pole" for a merely geometric object that has no inherent orientation. — kwami (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the term "polar bulge" would suggest that the orientation was already set. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 301° 40' 45" NET 20:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Galaxy

Should we create a Portal:Galaxy? Template:Galaxy has a link to Portal:Star since we don't have one for galaxies; that looks just a bit odd.

70.29.212.131 (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have much of an opinion on that, since portals have never struck me as particularly useful/interesting, but I thought I should say here that I removed the star portal link from the galaxy template. It does not belong there, and it is not as though templates need a portal to link to. James McBride (talk) 05:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I more or less agree. The portals just seem like one more non-article page that needs to be regularly maintained and updated. But the people who put them together seem to enjoy it, so why not?—RJH (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

List of directly imaged stars

List of directly imaged stars has been requested to be renamed to List of imaged stars, see Talk:List of directly imaged stars

Additionally, it has been prodded for deletion.

70.29.212.131 (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Dark fluid

FYI, there is a discussion about the article dark fluid at WT:PHYSICS. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Dark matter lede

There's an ongoing dispute about what the lede to Dark matter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) should look like. More eyes would be helpful. The relevant thread is at talk:dark matter#Dubious lead sentence(s). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hot Companion

FYI, hot companion has been sent for deletion at AfD. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 05:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot companion - it survived AfD, now what to do with it? 76.66.195.196 (talk) 05:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Universe

There's an edit war going on at Universe over the inclusion of a theory that the universe is shaped like a dodecahedron. I know, small stuff, but Universe is a kind of important article; if someone could stop by and express an opinion, maybe it could be resolved. --Chetvorno^TALK 04:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it appears that the consensus was to put the material in Shape of the Universe instead.—RJH (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Anomalistic period help

Can anyone tell me how to retrieve the anomalistic period for the planets from the HORIZONS Web Interface? The "Object Data Page" table lists the sidereal period, but I can't find the others. Thanks. SharkD  Talk  03:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. I figured out that if you change from OBSERVER to ELEMENTS it will give that information. SharkD  Talk  07:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Black hole nominated for GA

I've nominated Black hole for GA. All citation needing statements have been referenced now. The article is not perfect, but feedback from a GA review might reveal some specific aspects to work on for FA. TimothyRias (talk) 09:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Unassessed astronomy articles

Well I just went through a process of assessing 1,600 unassessed astronomy articles, which took many weeks to finish. Now it looks like another 1,300+ minor planet articles have just been tagged as unassessed virtually overnight by User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao. I can almost guarantee that these will be low priority stubs of no particular significance. Can they be auto-tagged that way?—RJH (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The editor isn't a member of WPAstronomy, but he has kindly agree to update the templates so they won't show up as unassessed.—RJH (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Universe article

FYI, there's a notice about an edit war at WT:PHYSICS going on in the Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 08:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

More JPL HORIZONS questions

I'm trying to determine the direction that a planet's rotational axis points toward WRT the J2000 reference plane. What values do I need to look up when accessing the JPL HORIZONS ephemeris database? I'm trying to create either a POV-Ray script or an SVG animation that is capable of showing planets in their proper orientations, but am missing the necessary data. Thanks! SharkD  Talk  17:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

resources

Via what I saw at another wikiproject...

WP:GLAM/BM and WP:GLAM/SI exist, any may be useful in improving our coverage of astronomy artefacts... 76.66.195.196 (talk) 04:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Does Anthropic principle belong in Universe?

There's an argument in Universe over whether the Anthropic principle deserves a mention in that article. Some expert opinion would help. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, I've also started a straw poll on the best way to present the topic, at Talk:Universe#Straw poll on anthropic principle and fine-tuning. If anyone would be willing to take a few moments to evaluate the competing proposals, that would go a long way towards resolving what is presently a rather heated debate. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

List of adjectivals and demonyms of astronomical bodies

Contributions to List of adjectivals and demonyms of astronomical bodies are welcome. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks like we've got a Monocerotis dab page now.—RJH (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've resorted it, and labelled it an SIA, which is what it is (it isn't a dab page, that's for sure). 76.66.192.55 (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Ultraviolet

FYI, Category:Ultraviolet is up on WP:CFD for renaming, or splitting, or something else (that's the nomination). 76.66.192.55 (talk) 04:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Dark matter (again)

(Cross-posted from WT:PHYS.)

The Dark matter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article has been substantially revised by Bbbl67 (talk · contribs), who as near as I can tell (from this editing pass) is trying to emphasize non-mainstream views of dark matter (or at least paint the nature of dark matter as a controversial issue; actual emphasis is a somewhat subjective call on my part). For context, this is the same guy who's been adding links to the Dark fluid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article (which as far as I can tell is one group's pet project, based on that article's references).

A couple of other editors have stepped in, and there's a bit of talk page activity. Would other people from WT:AST and WT:PHYS be willing to take a look at the current state of the dark matter article? More eyes would probably help at this point. --Christopher Thomas (talk)

I'm not sure how the topic can't be considered at least somewhat controversial at this time. My preference would be for the Problems & Criticisms section to be moved ahead of the Alternative explanations section and then be given a better introduction. I think that would give the article a better flow and balance.—RJH (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that while the composition of dark matter is widely debated, its existence isn't very controversial. The recent edits seem to be attempting to give a different impression. Regarding changes to the article, by all means suggest them on the article's talk page. I'm steering clear, so as to avoid being sucked into what would likely be a time-consuming and frustrating dispute (I'm mostly on sabbatical for the time being). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to be a little careful about saying what "exists" here. The galaxy rotation problem is not controversial, nor the gravitational lensing effect. However, there are MOND hypotheses that do not require additional matter to explain the effect. This contradicts the first sentence in the article.—RJH (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a reason I said "isn't very controversial", vs. "isn't controversial". I agree that MOND and similar modifications of gravity or of mechanics are possible explanations, but my understanding is that none of these are widely accepted as being more likely than non-interacting matter. They're still discussed in the article; my objection was to statements that I'd interpreted (at the time) as saying that the "non-interacting particle" hypothesis was no longer widely accepted as the most likely (it's not just galaxy rotation curves providing evidence for it; structure formation in the early universe is sensitive to the amount and "temperature" of dark matter, and the element distribution produced by the big bang nucleosynthesis is quite sensitive to the amount of dark matter while being relatively insensitive to most other variables, and these all point to roughly the same amount of non-interacting matter existing).

That said, User:ScienceApologist seems to be keeping track of changes and collaborating with User:Bbbl67 in a civil manner to produce an article that addresses such concerns, so my fears about the article might have been unwarranted. By all means take a look at it and comment at Talk:Dark matter if you want to doublecheck; I'm not in a position to do so at this time (or I'd have made more specific comments in my original posts). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 01:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well then we're probably just mincing words. I say "somewhat controversial" and you say "isn't very controversial". No matter. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Informed editors requested

This is related somewhat to Global Warming, so I present you the "wikipolitics" disclaimer.

Recently on the biography of Robert Watson (scientist), a minor edit war broke out over Watson's use of Mars to illustrate what the lack of global warming might look like. He said "We only need to look at 3 planets: Mars, Venus and Earth and you can explain why there is such a difference, a frigid Mars planet, no greenhouse gases, Venus is absolutely boiling lots of greenhouse gases and earth is by luck somewhere in the middle." The editors seeking to include this quote also noted that Mars' atmoshpere is 95% CO2, and that Watson's statement is "in conflict with our basic understanding of Mars."

Other editors responded that Mars' CO2 might be high in %age, but the relevence to global warming was not in %, but in Mars' near vaccum atmosphere, and that Watson's statement is not in conflict with our basic understanding of mars. It appears that there is a dispute over this.

It would be useful if editors educated on Astronomical objects could comment on a straw poll at Talk:Robert_Watson_(scientist). Thanks so much for your time. Hipocrite (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

List of extrasolar planets

There is a suggestion at List of extrasolar planets to split off two sections to make the list a more manageable size, see talk:List of extrasolar planets

76.66.193.119 (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Astronomical unit in metres

I have placed a query on Talk:Astronomical unit as to why the values for this unit in metres are quoted with error bars by some, and claimed to be exact by others. Also, significant discrepancies appear between some sources. Brews ohare (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Apus (Traditional Chinese star name)

FYI, Apus (Traditional Chinese star name) was recently prodded for deletion, and deprodded by the author. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 05:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It has been sent for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apus (Traditional Chinese star name). 76.66.193.119 (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Star

It has been nominated for a featured status, see here. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 04:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Chinese star name lists up for deletion

FYI, several Chinese star name lists have been prodded for deletion, see Category:Proposed deletion as of 29 July 2010

76.66.193.119 (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone deprodded them. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 04:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Largest article trivia

At #382 on the list of the largest Wikipedia articles, the largest astronomy article is (surprise) Astronomy in medieval Islam, coming in at 161 Kb. I didn't find any other astronomy articles on the top 1000 list. Shrug.—RJH (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought that some of our list articles were rather large... 76.66.193.119 (talk) 06:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

They probably would be, but I suspect the largest have all been split up into sub-lists.—RJH (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Gravitational time dilation

FYI, there is a notice at WT:PHYSICS about an edit war at Gravitational time dilation , described at talk:Gravitational time dilation , about the difference between "clocks" and "time". 76.66.193.119 (talk) 06:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Okay, we have Angular distance and Angular diameter distance and Angular diameter. I am proposing the first two be merged into the third. Discuss at:

Talk:Angular_diameter#Merge_discussion Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Galactic quadrant

The article Galactic quadrant is up for deletion. While it is currently a trekky article, it is evident, according to this Google book search that it is use professionally as well in Astronomy. Since I believe this to be a useful way to categorize astronomical data, the article could use some experts who can give insight into the technical usage of the term. For more details of what I found, see my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galactic quadrant. —CodeHydro 21:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't think the use of astronomical galactic quadrants in the GCS should pertain as to whether to retain the Trekkie information, which is the large majority of the article. If necessary, the astronomy information should be split off into "Galactic quadrant (astronomy)", which could be a wikilink to the GCS article.—RJH (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Messier 82

We have two images of the galaxy, and it seems that the smaller one has been chosen as the lead image in the article- I was wondering if there was any reason for this. Opinions of more knowledgable editors appreciated. J Milburn (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Fermi paradox' FAR

I have nominated Fermi paradox for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)