Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects
| Main | Talk | Astronomical objects (Talk) | Eclipses (Talk) | Article ratings | Image review | Popular pages | Members | Wikidata |
| This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Astronomical objects and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: Index, 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, 29Auto-archiving period: 6 months  |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5. |
| Edit this box |
Starbox catalog wrapping
edit{{Starbox catalog}} outputs a list of catalogue designations spanning the two columns of a starbox table. The list is explicitly limited to a maximum of 250px regardless of the width of the starbox. This is comparable, usually somewhat smaller, than the width of a starbox, but it is sometimes quite a bit smaller and the list appears squashed against the left side of the starbox column. I don't think there is any overriding need for the 250px limit.
I have edited the template sandbox to remove the limit and played around with a few pages and it seems to behave sensibly. It will wrap to a very small size if the starbox is narrow, and will usually "unwrap" naturally to the width of the starbox as set by other parts of the starbox. Pathologically-long designations with no natural wrapping points will blow up the width of the starbox which is different to the current behaviour, but probably better. The current behaviour will force wrapping in some strange places and if there is a still a pathological unbroken sequence of characters will overflow the width of the starbox and disappear off the right-hand side of the screen with no scrollbar. Try it, it isn't pretty!
You can test this on any page with a starbox by changing the "{{Starbox catalog" line to "{{Starbox catalog/sandbox". Let me know if you think this change is an improvement or not. Lithopsian (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that the wrapping can be improved, as long as it doesn't unnecessarily expand the infobox as a whole. Praemonitus (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- I've requested this change to go live. Lithopsian (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
- This is now in place. So far, I like it. Lithopsian (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, it looks good. Praemonitus (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Factual errors with Cybele asteroid articles
editA discussion about a factual error affecting many minor planet articles has been started at Talk:Cybele asteroids#Resonance?. Your input and help is welcome! Renerpho (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
Add 'Little Red Dots' to Galaxy Template?
editLittle Red Dots are a newly-discovered type of galaxy (c. 2024) that have been observed by the JWST. Thought to have AGN, they seem to host 'overmassive' black holes. yet are only found in the early universe, possibly contradicting existing theories. A class of galaxy already highly studied. NASA - Little Red Dots: Stars or Black Holes? Richard Nowell (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Added LRDs to the Galaxy Template. Richard Nowell (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Reliability of science.howstuffworks.com
editIs https://science.howstuffworks.com/sedna.htm a reliable source? Since this edit to Sedna (dwarf planet), we're using it there as a reference. It is AI-generated content. Even though the article says that it is "fact-checked and edited by a HowStuffWorks editor", there are factual errors, like the claim that Quaoar is the largest Kuiper belt object. My biggest concern is that it reads like a rewritten version of the Wikipedia article, suggesting that the AI was using the Wikipedia article as its primary source of information. That would make this a WP:CIRCULAR reference. Renerpho (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know how reliable it is, but the site is used on a lot of Wikipedia articles. I've seen some whopper mistakes on AI-written content, so that would be a cause for concern. Maybe we should contact them and ask? Praemonitus (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- I would say absolutely not. We don't want AI-generated content pasted into wikipedia articles, and we shouldn't be using it as primary or secondary sources, either. There are several other kinds of websites that just dump summary information without giving sources, and I've called out those in the past, too. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Based on WR 16, the inclusion of text generated by a large language model may now be an issue. There's a Category:Articles containing suspected AI-generated texts, which shows 115 articles in June. That's probably a conservative count; the actual number may be much higher. Praemonitus (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Proposal to change naming conventions for moons
editA discussion to change our naming conventions for articles about moons is happening at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (astronomical objects)#Proposal to change naming conventions for moons. You are invited to participate. Renerpho (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Add 'Blueberry galaxy' to Galaxy Template?
editBlueberry galaxies (BBs) are small, dwarf, starburst galaxies that are counterparts of Pea galaxies. BBs were first written about in the scientific literature in 2017, though their name can be traced back to the Galaxy Zoo website. BBs have recently been studied by the JWST and are thought to be analogs of the galaxies in the 'epoch of reionization'. A worthwhile addition to the Galaxy template. Small Blueberry galaxies close to home could help astronomers understand distant Green Peas. Richard Nowell (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Done, good suggestion. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. They are peculiar galaxies but have been gaining attention from astronomical professionals. They are likened to early galaxies, though most of the GPs/BBs have a stellar population that is billions of years old, so go figure :) . Richard Nowell (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Citing the constellation for an object
editCurrently, the constellation for most astronomical object pages is uncited. In many cases (eg. R Aquarii), it may seem obvious, but the designation isn't always accurate. For example, 2 Serpentis is in Virgo. There has been some effort recently to add references, most often using the XHIP database which includes the constellation most objects in the Hipparcos catalog. Another possibility for non-Hipparcos objects is Bibcode:1987PASP...99..695R which has a corresponding table at VizieR table that can be queried for any object.
Doing this got a little tiresome, so I have created a template at {{cite constellation}} which generates a CS1 citation for the paper and optionally a link to VizieR output for an object (by designation, not co-ordinates at the moment). For example {{cite constellation|WR 31a}} generates:
Roman, Nancy G. (1987). "Identification of a constellation from a position". Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific. 99 (617): 695. Bibcode:1987PASP...99..695R. doi:10.1086/132034. Constellation record for this object at VizieR.
Before I throw this at hundreds of starboxes, I'd like to get any feedback. Lithopsian (talk) 13:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- That looks good to me. The complication with constellation boundaries is that they're defined in B1875 equinox, so precession needs to be taken into account. If I'm understanding the VizieR output correctly, the way you've set up the table query means it does the precession calculation automatically. So I think it's all good. I tweaked the template documentation to explain this. Modest Genius talk 14:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Whenever a HIP identifier is available, one can use Anderson and Francis (2012).[1] I've found this utility to be useful for back-tracking a set of coordinates. (If you're concerned, the author, David Meows, appears to be a Ph.D. mathematician at the Center for Communications Research.) Praemonitus (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Do you want a template for an XHIP citation? There are already a lot out there, but having the VizieR record built in would be convenient. Lithopsian (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, it would make sense to have an XHIP template with a built-in VizieR lookup. I guess that would use the HIP ID? Praemonitus (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- Using the HIP identifier would probably be best. Accepting a more general designation like {{cite constellation}} is possible, but is fairly pointless because it would only work for objects that have an HIP designation. Lithopsian (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- An XHIP template will probably cover the large majority of notable star articles on Wikipedia, so I'd say that's good enough. Praemonitus (talk) 23:32, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- {{cite constellation}} already accepts HIP designations, and the paper describing the XHIP catalogue says those constellation entries were computed using the VizieR catalogue of Roman (1987) - which is exactly the catalogue that {{cite constellation}} queries. So what would be the point in having a separate template just for HIP stars? It's better to cite the original source anyway. Modest Genius talk 10:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- I suppose because XHIP computes the relevant constellation, whereas Roman (1987) says how to do it. In addition, the XHIP template is used to cite other parameters such as absolute magnitude, color, and luminosity. Praemonitus (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- XHIP didn't 'compute' the constellation, it simply looked each set of coordinates up in the same VizieR catalogue as {{cite constellation}} does. It's better to cite the original source, which is Roman (1987). Modest Genius talk 17:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
- Tomato, tomatoe. When an editor goes to look up the source for the constellation, they expect to find a source that will demonstrate the object's constellation. I.e. it tells them that object X is in constellation Y. Instead, you're asking them to "look up" the constellation by following the same algorithm already used by XHIP. That seems unnecessary when XHIP provides the result. Praemonitus (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
- XHIP didn't 'compute' the constellation, it simply looked each set of coordinates up in the same VizieR catalogue as {{cite constellation}} does. It's better to cite the original source, which is Roman (1987). Modest Genius talk 17:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
- I suppose because XHIP computes the relevant constellation, whereas Roman (1987) says how to do it. In addition, the XHIP template is used to cite other parameters such as absolute magnitude, color, and luminosity. Praemonitus (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- {{cite constellation}} already accepts HIP designations, and the paper describing the XHIP catalogue says those constellation entries were computed using the VizieR catalogue of Roman (1987) - which is exactly the catalogue that {{cite constellation}} queries. So what would be the point in having a separate template just for HIP stars? It's better to cite the original source anyway. Modest Genius talk 10:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- An XHIP template will probably cover the large majority of notable star articles on Wikipedia, so I'd say that's good enough. Praemonitus (talk) 23:32, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- Using the HIP identifier would probably be best. Accepting a more general designation like {{cite constellation}} is possible, but is fairly pointless because it would only work for objects that have an HIP designation. Lithopsian (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- I have created {{cite XHIP}} and used it at S Canis Minoris. Have a play and decide if it is worth it now that XHIP has been cited longhand in so many articles. Lithopsian (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. Heuristically, I'm thinking that any reference that is employed in a large number of astronomy articles (say 100+?) and has a useful table or page lookup, is a potential candidate for a citation template. The TESS Input Catalog is a possibility, as is Star Names by Allen. But it should be able to support either citation style 1 or 2, for consistency within an article. Praemonitus (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- I've added mode and postscript fields to {{cite constellation}}, {{cite XHIP}}, and {{cite Gaia DR3}}. Lithopsian (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- The updated {{cite XHIP}} template seemed to work fine on Zeta Arietis. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- Is there a strong desire to have templates citing other common sources? They are easy enough to create, but it is only really worth it if they're going to get used, and used reasonably often. Lithopsian (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
- Mmm, I suspect probably not. Praemonitus (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
- I've added mode and postscript fields to {{cite constellation}}, {{cite XHIP}}, and {{cite Gaia DR3}}. Lithopsian (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. Heuristically, I'm thinking that any reference that is employed in a large number of astronomy articles (say 100+?) and has a useful table or page lookup, is a potential candidate for a citation template. The TESS Input Catalog is a possibility, as is Star Names by Allen. But it should be able to support either citation style 1 or 2, for consistency within an article. Praemonitus (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, it would make sense to have an XHIP template with a built-in VizieR lookup. I guess that would use the HIP ID? Praemonitus (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- Do you want a template for an XHIP citation? There are already a lot out there, but having the VizieR record built in would be convenient. Lithopsian (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, precession is taken into account to match against the 1875 boundaries. Lithopsian (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Whenever a HIP identifier is available, one can use Anderson and Francis (2012).[1] I've found this utility to be useful for back-tracking a set of coordinates. (If you're concerned, the author, David Meows, appears to be a Ph.D. mathematician at the Center for Communications Research.) Praemonitus (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- I use https://djm.cc/constellation.html to find constellation using coordinates, and an explanatory note like that in GJ 3929. 21 Andromedae (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
The naming of articles about individual supernovae
editThe titles of some articles about individual supernovae are inconsistently named, if the title begins with "SN". Some titles have a space after the "SN", and some don't. That's not an earth-shaking problem, but I think it's messy. Should we rename some of them so that they are all consistently named? I prefer a space following the "SN" (ala SIMBAD), but really I'd just like to see consistency. PopePompus (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- IAU specifications take the form: Acronym ^ Sequence ^ (Specifier), so yes a space following the acronym seems the norm. WP:ASTROSTYLE suggests, "Articles about astronomical objects should use conventional astronomical naming conventions for the article title, particularly as specified by the International Astronomical Union". Praemonitus (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply! Unless someone argues against it, I will start renaming the "no space" articles next week. PopePompus (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- How many are there? I can only find one: SN2019so. Lithopsian (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
List of comets
editWho decided that splitting List of comets into List of parabolic and hyperbolic comets vs. List of near-parabolic comets was a good idea? I've just moved the former from its previous title of List of hyperbolic comets, which was misleading (the first sentence of the lede has said "parabolic and hyperbolic comets" for about a decade). There are complaints about this on the article talk page from 2019 that have not been answered. I'm tagging Exoplanetaryscience and KyloRen2017; the former because they've worked on that article in the past, the latter because they've worked on it today.
Many of the comets listed on List of parabolic and hyperbolic comets should be on the other one. For example, C/1886 J1 (Brooks) has an outbound heliocentric eccentricity of 1.000115 +/- 0.003902 according to JPL, which is exactly the kind of object that list would be made for. The uncertainty of its barycentric orbit is not specified in the source, but it cannot be much lower. Renerpho (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- Based on their edit histories, they were created by @Exoplanetaryscience. Praemonitus (talk) 04:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Praemonitus: Yeah, that's why I tagged them. Renerpho (talk) 11:06, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:NW Puppis#Requested move 1 June 2025
edit
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:NW Puppis#Requested move 1 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 11:34, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Geocentric model#Requested move 7 July 2025
edit There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Geocentric model#Requested move 7 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 04:18, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:1SWASP J093010.78+533859.5#Requested move 7 July 2025
edit There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1SWASP J093010.78+533859.5#Requested move 7 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 04:21, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Sharpless 29 and NGC 6559
editThis article describes NGC 6559 to be within Sharpless 29 but I am not sure how it would be handled as I am not familiar with the rules of the project or in what manner the two are connected. ✶Quxyz✶ 15:32, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
- There hasn't been much published on 'Sh 2-29' (Sharpless 29),[2][3] so perhaps a redirect to this article makes sense. At least for now. Praemonitus (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
- That is bothering me because there is a lot of vague wording but I wasn't able to find any clearcut definitions for what it was or what space the region inhabits. ✶Quxyz✶ 13:32, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
On the shape of the Corona Borealis consteallation as presented
editGreetings! It has occurred to me that even though the page Corona Borealis says that there are seven main stars in the constellation Corona Borealis, most pages regarding the stars in the constellation, such as Delta Coronae Borealis, Zeta Coronae Borealis, and R Coronae Borealis all show the star Iota Coronae Borealis as excluded from the main stars and instead show six main stars. I am not sure which direction should we unify the images towards. Pygos (talk) 02:48, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- Does "main stars" even have a definition? I suppose it depends on who is making the chart. Praemonitus (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Repost: Edit request(s)/discussion: Add a "Coordinates" field to the infobox templates
editGreetings and felicitations. See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Archive 29#Edit request(s)/Discussion: Add a "Coordinates" field to the infobox templates. This will centralize the coordinates, making them easier to find (and edit if necessary), and bring the usage into line with terrestrial infoboxes. —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
Your help is needed at Interstellar object
editA problem with the article interstellar object is being discussed at Talk:Interstellar object#Torbett (1986) is not a good reference. Any input would be appreciated. Thank you! Renerpho (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Natural satellite counter templates?
editShould we have a separate template for each outer planet listing the number of its satellites? That way we don't need to keep updating the count in the articles, just the templates. (Or we could just have one template and use the planet name as a key word. E.g. {{satellite_count|planet=}}; 'planet=all' gives the total.) Praemonitus (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- I support the latter option. Does that include the various dwarf planets with moons? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, we could just change 'planet' to something like 'primary' or 'host'. Praemonitus (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)