Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Astronomy page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:AST

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37Auto-archiving period: 30 days

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

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37

Old WikiProject Telescopes talk

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:49, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Yellow is currently being worked on - can anyone spruce up Yellow#Astronomy nicely? and add any other examples (apart from the obvious sun and G stars) Casliber (talk · contribs)

File:Joseph Nicolas Delisle.jpg. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-03t20:10z

While doing some cleanup, I found a malformed template, {{Ecliptical constellations}}, which I fixed some markup errors on (which is how I discovered it), and noticed that it was "split" from {{Zodiac}}. Frankly, I don't see the new template (it was created at the end of August 2009) having any use over the old template {{Zodiac}}. If no one objects, I will send it to WP:TFD for deletion. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 06:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 12 76.66.196.139 (talk) 05:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WT:PHYS#Missing (highly-cited) physics & astronomy related journals. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should Category:Discoverers of extrasolar planets contain only astronomers, or should it also contain search teams/projects/surveys? Most of the categories in the heirarchy only contain astronomers, but there is one "cousin" category that only contains observatories. The category as it is now currently contains all astronomers except one search program. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should contain only people, not organizations, in my opinion. Ruslik_Zero 15:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about a Category:locations for astronomy ?

While I was catdifusing/cleaning up Category:Astronomy, I couldn't diffuse Astronomy in Chile or Ridge A, and I noticed Category:Astronomy protected areas of South Africa. So... a new category for locations might be in order, containing these three, and Category:astronomical observatories and Category:Astronomy museums ...

76.66.196.139 (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm requesting peer review on astronomer Nicholas U. Mayall in the hopes of making it a Good Article. Please provide your feedback. Thanks.

WilliamKF (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 30#Unify astronomical coordinates for more info and give feedback. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following recent changes by some editors to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy page, a Referral For Comment, (RFC) is now being held to debate the removal of the passage specifying that individual WikiProject and other naming conventions are able to make exceptions to the standard policy of using Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles.

This WikiProject is being notified since it operates such a specific naming convention. Editors are invited to comment on the proposed change at this location. Xandar 00:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above "notification" is a grossly biased misrepresentation of the changes under discussion. The old version of the naming conventions policy tried to lay down binding rules; we don't work that way, so it was necessary also to make explicit exceptions. The new version articulates principles, and allows for consensus to establish how they should be applied. Thus there is no longer any need for exceptions. In fact, making exceptions is nonsense, since there are no rules to make exceptions to. These changes are good for specific conventions. Xandar is trying to induce moral panic in those who stand to gain the most from this. Xandar is only opposed to the new version because he thinks the wording, not the general thrust, weakens his position in a dispute unrelated to this RfC. Don't be fooled. Hesperian 02:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Don't be fooled. The proposed wording change is shown at the RFC linked in my post above. The removal of the "exceptions" phrase is a very significant change. The policy never stated that it consisted of "rules" before, and it still doesn't. However it remains policy. Simply stating a personal view that titling a section "principles" changes the status of the policy page, is one not even accepted by many editors on Hesperians side. There is already an attempt to use the principle of no exceptions to the "use common name" policy to radically change the Naming conflict page, and one of the proposers of this change has indicated that the guidance on flora is also targetted. The change is in my view an attempt to impose a rigid, top-down policy on naming which ignores what wikipedia editors on the ground find most useful. Xandar 03:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Moon}} and {{Coor Mars}} have been nominated for deletion at WP:TFD. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 16

76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After deleting Category:Pages within the scope of WikiProject Physics (WP Astronomy Banner) as an empty category, TimothyRias wrote a message in my talk page that the template "is used for a legacy feature of the {{astronomy}} template, which allows the astro=yes switch to tag articles which should also have the {{physics}} template. This category lists the articles that use that switch (which should then be tagged and assessed.) If this seems like a roundabout way of doing things, thats because it is. But as long as that option exists on the {{astronomy}} template, this category should exist to record its use."'.

So there are some things:

• This parameter doesn't appear in the manual and it's use is not explained,
• None used this parameter the last 20 days at least.
• I think this parameter totally unnecessary. If an article was to be tagged additionally with another banner then this is what it has to be done. I see no reason that some editors add the parameter and other finish the job.

I wrote the same message some days ago in Template talk:Astronomy and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. I've been addressed that this is the right place to discuss it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Serendipodous merged Jupiter mass into the planet Jupiter.

Someone reverted him, but he's still trying to push it through at the Jupiter talk page, complaining that there has always been resistance.

I said, "What reasons can be given, other than Jupiter mass being a stub, for a unit of measurement to be merged into an article about a planet?" - but he still came back at me. I am not going to exhaust myself explaining the simplest of things to the ... He is unable to listen to reason, perhaps weight of numbers will dissuade if not persuade him. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to have a separate article on Jupiter mass; this permits the reader to quickly find out what this mass unit is, without having to wade through the very long article Jupiter, most of which is not relevant to the mass unit. Spacepotato (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you are continue to attack other editors and strongly advise you to stop disruption. Ruslik_Zero 19:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:HarryAlffa has proposed that solar mass , jupiter mass , earth mass , lunar mass all be merged into Astronomical system of units. see Talk:Astronomical system of units.

76.66.196.139 (talk) 06:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Planetary nebula 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. Tom B (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Royal College Astronomical Society has been prodded for deletion, additionally, there is a possible copyright violation warning on the page. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 02:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem particularly notable.—RJH (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:List of the star names by constellation ; these list articles seem to be in need of help, since they're built like a name dictionary, and in current form would be more suitable to be transwikied to Wiktionary instead of being articles here...

76.66.197.30 (talk) 11:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Expert assistance is needed at Bareket observatory. Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I started putting articles about education-oriented observatories and minor amateur astronomical societies in the Bottom importance category for WP:Astro, but that seems to be stirring ill feelings with at least one amateur astronomer. What do you think? Should everything be lumped under Low in order not to antagonize some people? Certainly some pages have a lower Low importance than others, but I didn't think the rating was all that important. It seems to be mainly for identifying high and top priority pages (or at least that's how I use it). Thoughts?—RJH (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think that "bottom" importance should remain. But, perhaps what's necessary is a separate importance rating scheme for amateur astronomy... since importance in amateur stargazing is vastly different in many cases from astronomy in general, professional astronomy, etc. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 05:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but that would require some wikipedians to set up a separate project. For the moment I just moved most of the amateur astronomy stuff to the low category. Hope that works for everybody. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, a task force can also assign importances... if so, then we'd set up an Amateur Astronomy TF or WorkGroup... 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As of this moment, all of the articles that were in "Category:Unassessed Astronomy articles" have received an assessment. Phew!!! Anyway, hopefully it should be fairly easy to keep up now. There seem to be only a handful of unassessed articles added per week. (I am finding quite a few worthwhile astronomy articles that don't have assessment templates though.)—RJH (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats from the physics project :P. Assessing 10K+ articles ain't a small feat. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hum... actually you still have about 400 to go. See Category:Unassessed Astronomy articles of Unknown-importance. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I checked those earlier but they all appear to be redirects, categories, images, templates, &c. I'm not sure why they are ending up in that category.—RJH (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the function of WPBANNERMETA changed at some point... 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone in the know disambiguate "Great Wall" as it appears in Arp 272. The "450 million light years from Earth" would seem to suggest CfA2 Great Wall (as would the redirect Great Wall (astronomy), however the "largest known structure in the universe" would seem to suggest Sloan Great Wall. Thanks. -- ToE^T 03:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of the Hercules Cluster, which is part of the CfA2 Great Wall... 76.66.197.30 (talk) 06:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]