Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

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

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Irregular moon diagrams.

On articles such as those for Jupiter and Saturn's irregular moons (and their groups), there are diagrams comparing the eccentricity and the inclination of the irregular moons, demonstrating how they fall into several distinct orbital families.

However, these diagrams are perhaps a decade old (!) at this point (I think 2007 or 2008) and haven't been updated to reflect new discoveries and orbital refinements since then. I'd appreciate it if someone could make newer versions of these files reflecting current knowledge. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 01:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

A request to create or update an illustration can be made at the Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Illustration_workshop. --46.242.12.78 (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and sent in a request. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 22:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Дрейгорич: You must click the "New request" button and fill in the required fields. You must also provide a detailed description of the illustration you are requesting. Illustrators are not astronomers, they know nothing about inclinations, eccentricities, etc. Upload a file with a crude sketch of what you want (use some free drawing app). Use language like "modify this image (show the current image) with the following changes (show your sketch)". — UnladenSwallow (talk) 11:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@UnladenSwallow: Unfortunately, I am not sure how to explain the technical jargon to someone not familiar with these plots. I would make my own plots and upload them, but I have neither have the programs nor the knowledge to do so. Thus, I must request. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 11:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Дрейгорич: Looking at the image in question, I think it's best that you create the plot yourself. It's not that hard.

1. Download and install computer algebra system Maxima (it's free): http://maxima.sourceforge.net/download.html.
2. Follow this simple guide to create the plot: http://www.austromath.at/daten/maxima/zusatz/Graphics_with_Maxima.pdf.
3. Follow the instructions at Wikipedia:How to create charts for Wikipedia articles § Maxima to output the plot to an SVG file.
4. Upload the SVG file to Wikipedia.

— UnladenSwallow (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@UnladenSwallow: When/If I have time, I'll likely do that. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 16:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Is there a Gamma-ray binary page?

Never knew there was a such a thing, [1]. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 22:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, a gamma-ray binary is simply an X-ray binary that is also detected at gamma-ray energies, though the mechanisms that produce the gamma-rays vary. They could be discussed in that article. This review article might be a good source to start with. Modest Genius ^talk 12:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, but the link won't load for me. If it is a different link to the paper, Discovery of the Galactic High-Mass Gamma-ray Binary 4FGL J1405.1-6119 , then I read it and this one was an O-star with a compact object companion. Thank, Marasama (talk) 05:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

No, that's a different paper. Try [2] or [3]. Modest Genius ^talk 18:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed move for Mizar

There is a proposal to rename the article Zeta Ursae Majoris. The discussion has just been relisted due to lack of votes. I think it is a fairly important star and hopefully a few people will take a look. Lithopsian (talk) 10:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Can someone validate the spectra on EBLM_J0555-57

On the page EBLM J0555-57, it says component Aa is spectra F8 with a reference. Unless I'm looking at the reference wrong, I could not find an F8 spectra. Can someone verify? Thanks Marasama (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The spectral type was added to the infobox in this edit, citing the WDS catalogue. That does indeed give the spectral type as F8 [4], but that's for the whole system, not component A (or Aa). The von Boetticher reference gives an effective temperature for component A (not Aa) of 6461 ± 124 K, and later papers from the same team give slightly different values but within that uncertainty. That temperature is equivalent to a late F-type, but technically not quite the same thing. I would expect A to be slightly earlier type than F8, given that B is cooler.
So F8 is the correct classification of the whole system, but spectral types of the separate components fail verification. Some word-smithing is required. Modest Genius ^talk 12:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Satellite galaxy, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Frankly that page is already well developed. Perhaps a better target would be: Warm–hot intergalactic medium. It's a stub article with a high importance rating. Praemonitus (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

It seems being selected led to no improvement anyway. Modest Genius ^talk 12:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Portal :Astronomy

Proposal to delete all portals. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to delete Portal space. Voceditenore (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Geophysical Planet Definition

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geophysical Planet Definition Fdfexoex (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Geophysical planet definition was spared deletion but it could really do with attention from more members of this project. Physdragon (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Source for Messier object data

Hello, I'm considering working on bringing Messier object to FL class. In a previous failed FL nomination the reliability of the main source http://www.messier.seds.org/m/m001.html was questioned and I'm now wondering what could be used instead. This is both my first astronomy article so I'm a bit shakey on what's usually used and what's considered reliable. Thanks! --Trialpears (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

You could look at a book, eg Observing Handbook and Catalogue of Deep-Sky Objects by Christian B. Luginbuhl, Brian A. Skiff or 3,000 Deep-Sky Objects: An Annotated Catalogue by Ted Aranda Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Books in general make more reliable sources than the internet. Apart from the verification and checks before publication (of a real book), they are likely to still be around in ten years time. An obvious start for general texts would be The Messier Objects, but also The Atlas of Messier Objects. Going back further Burnham's Hanbook could be helpful. For supporting specific claims, searching Google Books will usually turn up something. For an article like this, if it isn't in a book it very probably shouldn't be in the article. For specific recent research, you can search Google Scholar for journal papers, or go to Simbad for a list of scientific research for each Messier object. 13:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Lithopsian (talk)

Thanks! I've been looking at all of them through various previews and The Messier Objects seems to be just what I was looking for. Currently I'm looking at getting it from my local university library which seems to have access to it. --Trialpears (talk) 06:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Subsolar point

An editor has been continuing to add unsourced (and confusingly written) information to the Subsolar point article despite being reverted for a lack of one (and pointed to WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD). This isn't really my area, so some extra eyes would be appreciated to see if I'm being too harsh. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Our/the Solar System

There are hundreds of occurences of "our solar system" in wikipedia. Should these be changed to "the solar system". Fdfexoex (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

They should be changed to 'the Solar System'. The Solar System is a proper noun, so capitalised and takes the definite article. See MOS:CELESTIALBODIES. Lowercase 'solar system' can be used for those around other stars, though in that case saying 'planetary system' is usually clearer. Modest Genius ^talk 13:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree, especially since Solar System refers to Sol, one of Sun's proper names. Reyk _YO! 14:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The Observatory (journal)

Hi all. Quick query—does anyone know where this journal's website is now? The links on our page are out of date, as it seems to have been hosted by UCL, but they are now 404s. I'm after the 1905 volume, which I'd half-expect to be in an online archive somewhere, but without knowing where that is...! Hope you can help. Cheers! ——SN54129 15:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

No idea what happened to their website, but ADS has the entire archive of The Observatory scanned and available in PDF or GIF formats [5]. Modest Genius ^talk 15:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)