Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects

MainTalkAstronomical objects
(Talk)Eclipses
(Talk)Article ratingsImage reviewPopular pagesMembersWikidata

Project-independent quality assessments

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy § Project-independent quality assessments

Discussion on redesign of the Starbox

...is underway at Template talk:Starbox begin#Broader redesign of apparent-magnitude and color-index entries. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

I propose we split articles on comets such as Halley's Comet or Comet Hale-Bopp into separate articles such as 1986 approach of Halley's Comet and 1997 approach of Comet Hale-Bopp. There are articles on the 2004 transit of Venus and the 2012 transit of Venus. That is why I think they should be split. DementiaGaming (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Halley's Comet § 1986 is six paragraphs long. I do not see a need to have a six-paragraph stub, nor do I think the existing article (at 100k) is so large that it needs to be split. Hale–Bopp's article is half that size and doesn't really have an "approach" section, making even less of a need to split. Primefac (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Removal of cited material and original research

An editor (pinging @InTheAstronomy32:) is removing quite a selection of cited material from star articles, effectively because they "know it is wrong". Example at EV Carinae, but many more cases. The response to any reversion of such changes is an instant re-revert in all cases. So, WP:OR or valid filtering of sources? Lithopsian (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I am following Wikipedia:Editing policy, by removing inaccuracies in articles. Just because something is sourced does not mean that it is accurate. About the reverts, i will stop reverting your edits every time (and other edits) and start discussion InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

In fact, there was nothing wrong with my edits. I was merely correcting inaccuracies in articles, which is encouraged by editing policy. Reverting others' reverts (with a proper edit summary explaining my edit) is not disruptive, in fact it's a productive way of editing, and does not creating edit wars, because if my revert is reverted I will simply take no action. When editing these articles, I did not insert my own thoughts (or any unverifiable information) into the articles and therefore did not violate the WP:NOR policy. I will close this discussion because no futher discussion is required. There was no problem at all. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

First, @InTheAstronomy32: you are required by policy to engage with the community and answer questions when they are raised. You may not unilaterally close discussions either.

Second, removal of sourced material based on a 'I know it's wrong' type of reasoning is not valid. If there is a valid source, the content should remain, until and unless there is consensus that the material is inappropriate, or that the source is outdated/misunderstood or whatever, or a more accurate source provided that contradicts the sourced material.

This is general advice that applies to every article on the encyclopedia. I haven't looked into any of the specific reversions. If you're called on it, slow down, have a discussion, and establish consensus. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok then. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

My edits weren't just "removing content that I think is wrong": Actually i was removing inaccurate and outdated information in articles and prefering newer ones, and it is encouraged by the editing policy. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

This discussion should maybe happen on the article's talk page, but why do you think Anders et al. (2019) is incorrect, and what citation would you use to replace it? You left the ref for the metallicity; why is that less outdated than the mass in this case? Separately, why is it referred to as "starhorse" in the ref? - Parejkoj (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The mass of EV Carinae of 5.36 M_☉ is highly inconsistent with masses of another red supergiants (see Category:M-type supergiants). Basically any RSG will have a mass larger than 10 M_☉. A star with a radius of 1,168 R_☉ would be required to have an inital mass larger than 15 M_☉ (see this page) for exist. StarHorse is the algorithm that generate these masses, but create a lot of unreliable values like 3.61 M_☉ for V354 Cep, 4.89 M_☉ for KW Sgr or 6.3 M_☉ for BI Cyg, which are all highly underestimate. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Being "highly inconsistent" does not mean "wrong"; if there is no source for this statement then it is, as implied above, you determining what is accurate and what is inaccurate, which is no bueno. Primefac (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Given the discussion at Talk:Betelgeuse, it seems that the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is a very good method of resolving certain disputes. I will start using it as well. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Should I revert the removals of mass estimates, or find a more recent estimate? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Help needed in expanding "List of conjunctions (astronomy)"

What I'm thinking is that the page "List of conjunctions (astronomy)" is a bit outdated, (the latest listed year being 2020) and that the page only lists a limited amount of years, (2005-2020) and is pretty crowded. So you see, I found this website that lists every conjunction from every year from 1950-2024 and is computed from NASA's DE430 planetary ephemeris so it is pretty accurate and reliable. My plan is to use that website to make a couple of pages about the "list of conjunctions", so each "list of conjunctions" page that I will make has 10 years of conjunctions in it. For example, the first page in the series will be "List of conjunctions (astronomy) from 1950-1959" and the second one will be "List of conjunctions (astronomy) from 1960-1969" et cetera. I know that this should be in the talk page for the article, but I've already done that, it's been 4 days since I posted it, and no-one has responded. Since this place has a bigger community, I hope someone will have the time to help me for this cause. Iamamodforjellymario (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

This article seems of more interest to the Astrology WikiProject. I suppose it might be of use for amateur astrophotography purposes. Praemonitus (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay! The options in Astronomy were so similar, it was hard to know which project was right. I'll go to the Astrology WikiProject. Hope that'll work :) Iamamodforjellymario (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

For any more inquiries or offers to help on this subject, go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astrology#Help needed in expanding "List of conjunctions (astronomy)" Iamamodforjellymario (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

solstation.com

There are about 70 references to solstation.com, which I expect are mostly links (possibly some have been changed to an archive link). solstation.com has been dead (according to reddit) for about 6 months. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:URLREQ might be the best place to deal with that, get a bot to post up archives if they're available. Primefac (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

UAP studies?

Wikipedia's algorithm has directed the Timeline of Ufology to Fringe topic noticeboard, which got a lot of pushbacks. If you guys think it's necessary, could you save it by voting in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of UFOs? The content is mostly inline with multiple recent developments in the astronomical observation circle such as the Galileo project in the US, the Sky Canada Project, the 3AF/SIGMA2 project in France, etc. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)