Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Cosmology task force

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconAstronomy: Cosmology Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by Cosmology task force.

Welcome[edit]

This is my first WikiProject. I decided to create this project because I'm surprised it still didn't exist (there is a project even for the Moon, come on). Well, I hope you wish to be part of it and also help expand the page for now, as I've only added the basics so far. However, if you decide to edit the page, I want you 1) to not vandalize (obviously) and 2) not to do drastic changes. Just add more information. I prefer to leave most of the information in the main page instead of a subpage, by the way. That way you can simply scroll through the headers and there is always the table of contents on top in case you get lost. PS: Sorry for my bad english

Anyway, welcome! Get a userbox if you wish. {{User WPCOS}}

This user is a member of the
Cosmology task force.


Tetra quark (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding scope[edit]

Creating the page isn't a bad idea. There would be one question whether this project deals with the entirety of the contents of Category:Cosmology, or only the contents of Category:Physical cosmology. I have to say I get the impression that it is intended as the latter rather than the former. If it is, then it might not be a bad idea to request that the Astronomy WikiProject banner be adjusted to give individual assessment details for this project. If it is intended for the whole field of cosmology, I could probably work up a talk page assessment banner at request. But it would be helpful to know in advance what the intended scope of the group is. John Carter (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@John Carter: I am not quite sure, to be honest. I checked out the Category:Cosmology and it turns out to be mostly about mythology and historical beliefs. In my opinion, this project should be about science, so I guess that Category:Physical cosmology would be a better choice. However, this last one might not have a wide range of articles to improve, so perhaps we could include Cosmogony as well (even though it is worth of having its own project. Tetra quark (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You'll notice that the Category:Cosmogony includes a lot of mythical/philosophical content as well. It might not be a bad idea to read the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide written by some of those who have had most success at developing continuing WikiProjects and maybe consider some of what it says there. John Carter (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rock it![edit]

Okay. As far as we know, Wiki has hundreds of cosmological articles, and mostly are on the scope of other WikiProjects. I think we must be a subproject of two or more projects. In that way they can contribute to us.

Next, we must invite members. There's a crapload of people at WT:AST, and they're great experts. I am pretty sure this would become a successful WikiProject, because even though cosmology is a complex subject, it is interesting. Besides, we got WT:AST in our back.

Next, what can we scope? Is it only about for components of the universe (i.e. cosmic microwave background, dark matter, dark energy, etc) or we include large scale structures (like Sloan Great Wall and Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall)?

Next, the current highlight picture of cosmology, CMB map by WMAP, is dating far back in 2009. A new version based on Planck is released, however no one yet uploaded it.

That's all. SkyFlubbler (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least regarding scope, in general the easiest and clearest way to define that is by just saying that the articles in a given category and its subcategories are within the scope of the project. That was why I raised the question about Category:Cosmology above. At least some of the specific topics you mentioned do seem to be included in the relevant categories, so they would reasonably be included as well.
Regarding relationships with other projects, I know of the existence of the WikiProject Astronomy, and I think to the extent that some of the content relates to Astrophysics, although I don't know how much because I haven't actually checked, it might not be unreasonable to maybe try to seek some sort of at least assessment relationship with WikiProject Physics as well. John Carter (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being a subproject is fine, I guess. For instance, inviting people from WikiProject Physics is a good idea because there are many many topics scoped in physics and we would focus their attention on a specific one, which is Physics related to Cosmology. Also, when you think about it, Physics is a subproject of Science, isn't it? It is Science but focused in a specific area.
Regarding our scope: Well, I am not quite sure what to include. My first idea was to focus on articles about components of the universe, like those you mentioned. However, we really could expand to large scale structures as well, considering that the articles about large stuff are short and need improvement. Tetra quark (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation[edit]

The theory of cosmic inflation is one of the dominant paradigms of modern cosmology, and the inflation article should obviously be included within the scope of this project. Does anyone know how to add it to this WikiProject? Polytope24 (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take care of this later. I intend to create a section for all the articles in the scope Tetra quark (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A request[edit]

I just wanted to point out that M-theory is currently a good article nominee. It's not exactly a cosmology article, but it would be great of someone on here could review the article. Thanks! Polytope24 (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WPCOUNCIL[edit]

Was this wikiproject proposed through WP:COUNCIL, the WikiProject Council? -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 04:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware that any such proposal is required, merely suggested. They have no special power afaik, nor should they. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophical cosmology[edit]

How much of philosophical/religious cosmology will be covered by this project?

ie

-- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are still not quite sure yet, to be honest. Tetra quark (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, like I said before, a project is supposed to more or less in general cover all of the articles within a given range. So, for instance, pretty much everything in Category:Physical cosmology should be included, as it does to some degree anyway more or less relate to the topic of physical cosmology, even if a lot of them aren't the most central articles to that topic. WorldCat shows that there exists a Encyclopedia of cosmology: historical, philosophical, and scientific foundations of modern cosmology by Norriss S Hetherington here, and Ancient astronomy: an encyclopedia of cosmologies and myth by C L N Ruggles here, and volume 8 of the old International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, Cosmology, by Erwin Freundlich here. In a lot of cases, the best way to proceed is to find what topics are covered and to what relative weight in the leading encyclopedic reference sources about the topic, and then get together a list something along the lines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Encyclopedic articles to make it a bit easier for interested editors to know what related topics are notable and what sources on them can be found. John Carter (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I created a page at User:John Carter/WikiProject Cosmology with the standard formatting template for new projects. Feel free to incorporate any of it as desired. Based on the outcome of the standard format, though, I very much do think that it would be useful to clearly decide whether the scope of this group is "Cosmology" as per Category:Cosmology, or "Physical cosmology" as per Category:Physical cosmology. If only the latter, it might make sense to also change the name of the project to WikiProject Physical cosmology to better indicate the scope of the project. John Carter (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. I will add a few things there and perhaps we incorporate the changes into the project page. Regarding the scope of the project, now I believe we should focus on the definition of Cosmology. Let's read the Cosmology article and find articles that relate to that definition Tetra quark (talk) 20:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, unfortunately, it might be better to find existing encyclopedic articles on cosmology and find what they say. I know from experience, particularly regarding complicated topics like this one, that despite the best intentions there can often be a lot of information found in other reference sources. And, unfortunately, having just looked at Encyclopedia Britannica online, they don't have a main "cosmology" article, but the main article on the topic of physical cosmology is "Cosmology (astronomy)".
P.S. Also, when the bot finishes the assessment, you might want to transclude Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Cosmology articles by quality statistics into the main project page to indicate more clearly the current status of the relevant articles. John Carter (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When you click cosmology (astronomy), you go to a page which is simply called cosmology. Even the URL says just cosmology. When you see the images there and the other search results, you can see it seems to be mostly about pysical cosmology. I'll take a look at the definition of cosmology in my encyclopedia I have on a shelf here Tetra quark (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Project banner[edit]

You might want to create a project banner {{WikiProject Cosmology}} so that you can get article alerts up and running for the project. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done! {{WikiProject Cosmology}}. Now maybe we can get a bot to create all the relevant categories? StringTheory11 (t • c) 07:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That'd be nice, I guess. :) Tetra quark (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Tetra quark and StringTheory11: I have created all the categories necessary for the template to function. Now someone just needs to go around an add it to a few talk pages. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@StringTheory11: can you copy Template:WikiProject_Astronomy/class & Template:WikiProject_Astronomy/importance over to Template:WikiProject_Cosmology/class & Template:WikiProject_Cosmology/importance ? -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can do that myself. The problem is that it'd be necessary to modify the content. Those are related to Astronomy, not Cosmology. It is going to take a while, but in future I will adapt the pages to Cosmology and modify the links in the sidebar template. Tetra quark (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's only one change necessary, change "Astronomy" to "Cosmology". The subpages are really simple things
/class:
{{class mask<noinclude>/templatepage</noinclude>|{{{class|}}}
 |topic=Astronomy
 |FQS=yes
 |redirect=yes
 |book=yes
 |fm=yes
}}
/importnace:
{{importance mask<noinclude>/templatepage</noinclude>
 |1={{{1|}}}
 |class={{{class|}}
 |topic=Astronomy
 |bottom=yes
}}
There's literally nothing else there on those subpages. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it turns out that you're right. Just changing the name from Astronomy to Cosmology is enough. Thanks, I will do that Tetra quark (don't be shy) 05:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article assessment[edit]

So, will the project be assessing importance and quality? (or either importance or quality, or neither?) We can turn off assessments if the project is not doing those. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think definitely at least quality would be a good idea; it would be easy enough to automatically implement for existing articles by copying the quality from existing WikiProject templates. Importance would be nice to have too, but it would require somebody to manually go through every article and rate it for importance. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@StringTheory11: @G S Palmer: I've done that now! Sorry for taking that long. I put the template onto several talk pages and rated (mostly based on other ratings by other projects) and selected appropriate importance levels. See the bottom of the List of articles section Tetra quark (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article alerts[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Resolved

Shall we start ArticleAlerts then?
Add {{ArticleAlertSubscription|project = WikiProject Cosmology}} to Wikipedia:Article_alerts/Subscription_list
-- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done: see [1]. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 02:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article alert bot has deleted the whole page. Tetra quark (talk) 11:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@G S Palmer and Tetra quark: The subscription is incorrect, it needs its own page, AAbot will delete all content on a page it is assigned as the place to put alerts, and write out content as it chooses. That's why the subscription default shows a subpage. We need to change
WikiProject Cosmology (talk): Banner: {{WikiProject Cosmology}} → Wikipedia:WikiProject Cosmology#Article alerts
→ Wikipedia:WikiProject Cosmology#Article alerts
to
-- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, sorry about the screw-up. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Sidebar question (and thank you)[edit]

I woke up today and saw the project page so much more improved. Thank you for your work!

Well, the sidebar is on the right. I created the sidebar as a replacement for the table of contents. I guess it should be on the left. What do you think? Tetra quark (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should be on the right. Anyway, do you like the description? I created it. SkyFlubbler (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oh, sure. I liked it. It should have more links in it, but I can add some later.
And I still think the table of contents should stay on the left. It is more of a table of contents instead of a sidebar to me Tetra quark (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stub-type?[edit]

Will we be needing a stub-type? {{cosmology-stub}}

Stub icon

This cosmology-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

-- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Category Tree and others[edit]

Cosmology is a big subject of Wikipedia, so we must have the initial Cosmology category that branches out to scientific cosmology that branches out to physical cosmology and mathematical cosmology, and branches out many more. I think we need to identify the basics of cosmology so we can create the category tree.

Next, we need a to-do list so others may identify our tasks.

Next, article alerts and discussions must be on here.

Also, just for fun, a nice border and font on top, with an amazing picture similar to our sister WikiProject Spaceflight. I suggest the picture or background to be the Hubble Ultra Deep Field 2014 release. In addition, we need a double row list of members to maximize the space available. SkyFlubbler (talk) 03:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We already have categories: Category:Cosmology and Category:Physical cosmology, which fill the purpose of the two described above. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Members list[edit]

Wait a minute, wait a minute, WAIT A MINUTE! – Category:WikiProject Cosmology Members?! This category is not valid! As per other WikiProjects, they have the members list at their subpage, not on a category, like WP:AST's Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Members.

I suggest the creation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cosmology/Members. Clear! SkyFlubbler (talk) 12:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, they have categories. Just take a look through Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject (and take note of Category:WikiProject Astronomy members). That's not to say you can't have both: categories and lists are different things. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to leave most things on the main page rather than on subpages. It is simpler to browse that way Tetra quark (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be a parent[edit]

How about if I make a proposal?

Contrary to my first proposal above, instead of being a subproject, what about if we become a parent project? Cosmology is more than science, so say we will have many subprojects, like Wikiproject Physical cosmology, WikiProject Mathematical cosmology, Wikiproject Religious Cosmology, and so on... then those subprojects will be also subprojects of other projects. Example: Wikiproject Physical Cosmology subproject would also be a subproject of WikiProject Physics and Wikiproject Astronomy. SkyFlubbler (talk) 06:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be too confusing. It will already be great if people actually make this single project work Tetra quark (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Skyflubber, you should read the wikiproject documentation at WP:COUNCIL, it's quite likely that such wikiprojects won't fly, since you'd need a sustained community to maintain activity, and many wikiprojects fall to inactivity (some get converted to taskforces/workgroups of active projects) If you split the Cosmology editors community further, then maybe only one subproject would have enough editors, and the "parent"project itself may fall inactive as activity moves to the child. Also, you don't need a subproject to be parented by multiple wikiprojects, project taskforces can also be parented by multiple wikiprojects (like TF-WarFilms, underneath WPFILM and WPMILHIST) -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problem in Template:WikiProject Cosmology[edit]

When {{WikiProject Cosmology}} is used on a page, it adds it to the redlinked Category:¬-Class Cosmology articles of ¬-importance. I can't figure out what in the template is causing this, so if someone (such as StringTheory11) could take a look, it would be appreciated. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to find what is causing that Tetra quark (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I just copy-pasted the code from {{WikiProject Astronomy}}, making what I thought were the necessary changes to change it to cosmology, but I must have done something wrong. Perhaps a user who knows a lot about templates such as @DePiep: could help us here? StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WPASTRONOMY's banner is feature filled, did you copy all the subpages the template uses? Should WPCOSMOLOGY even be using the extended features, instead of a basic banner?
The banner currently says it uses subpages, but I find none.Special:PrefixIndex/Template:WikiProject_Cosmology unlike for Template:WikiProject_Astronomy/class&Template:WikiProject_Astronomy/importance -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed a hook for specifying a taskforce/workgroup/subproject. If this was copied from WPASTRONOMY, I take it this was the hook for specifying WPAstronomicalObjects ; and it seems to have fixed the problem. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My apology to the project - I had made a request to User:John Carter, at the point where yesterday I had found red link tagging had created this problem. I do believe DePiep is good at this sort of thing - I hope he or someone of similar experience in project start up and project template tweaking, might help fix it. satusuro 21:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Task: Help improve the Universe[edit]

Now that we are settled here, the main page of this project is sufficiently ok, there are some members, etc... so let's start working.

The article about the Universe is a very popular one but it is very very poor and it urgently needs attention.

What I've done so far:

  • Added more images. It was almost just text
  • Copy edits
  • Moved a paragraph to a more appropriate place
  • Removed duplicate informations
  • Moved the big centered image to its current location
  • Wrote more about the size of the universe at the top

What has to be done (This is where you go):

  • Fix the "History" section. The last paragraphs are unrelated
  • Decide whether to capitalize the "U" in universe or not, and apply the decision to all words
  • Add more science in it. Keep historical, mythological and pseudo-scientific content more hidden
  • Organize the contents/sections in a better order. Preferably, put the scientific stuff more to the top
  • Add even more images
  • More sections related to actual facts about the universe. A section about its expansion, for example.
  • Simplify the text
  • ANYTHING ELSE YOU LIKE

And of course, let's share some ideas. All items above are my ideas afterall Tetra quark (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to the talk page of this article, you'll see that it is not listed as belonging to this WikiProject. This appears to be a problem for many (all?) of the articles on cosmology. Clearly this needs to be changed… Polytope24 (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Polytope24 (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a new WikiProject, very few articles are tagged with the project banner. Just start tagging things that are in scope (at the very least, physical cosmology) -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I just added the wikiproject cosmology template in the talk page there. I will do the same on other articles now. Meanwhile, let's focus on editing and improving the article. Secondary concerns aside Tetra quark (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This can be done with the help of a tool. Place
importScript('User:Kephir/gadgets/rater.js'); // User:Kephir/gadgets/rater
in the Javascript file, accessible in Preferences->Appearance->Common Javascript file for all skins. You will get a new tab called "rater", from which you can add projects and also rate articles. For documentation, follow the user link above. YohanN7 (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, it appears as it cannot. It says "Cosmology is not a known Wikiproject" so it is missing in some sort of list/category. YohanN7 (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@YohanN7: I'm confused. First, I only see "shared javascript file for all skins" (edit: It worked. A "rater" tab appeared on top. Ignore this first item). Second, is it ok if I add the templates manually? I have no prolem in doing so. Oh and third, how can I make it an "official" wikiproject then? What's missing? Tetra quark (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you folks are up to - cosmology project would read as Wikipedia:WikiProject Cosmology - not sure what is going on about whether something is official or not.... satusuro 08:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I'll edit the article myself, since everyone seems so worried about the project page Tetra quark (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is WPCOSMOLOGY settled in yet?[edit]

I'm not sure we are settled yet, since the scope of the project beyond physical cosmology has yet to come to consensus. Though, that under physical cosmology itself does appear settled. There's still the issues concerning the project banner (such should we use the extended features provided by the subpage mask setting for class and importance; as we don't have an infobox, is the "needs-infobox" setting even useful? ; is requesting an image setting a useful one for the project? ) -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really think we should focus more on improving the articles. There is a list of articles in the main page so maybe we should start there. Tetra quark (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Making the banner work properly is also quite important, since it will require much cleanup later if it isn't right. Working on the banner and articles at the same time isn't mutually exclusive.
I think that the request infobox setting should be removed from the project banner, since cosmology articles don't have any particular infoboxes (unlike with WPAstronomy where objects carry infoboxes)
Should we have the |attention=yes setting? If no one is going to be tracking that, it's not going to be useful
Should we use the image request setting?
Should we support extended |class= types? (ie. DRAFT, REDIRECT, BOOK, PORTAL, etc)
Should we support |importance=? (from ST11's comment, maybe not)
-- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One thing we'll need to do is start tagging all of the articles pertinent to this wikiproject with the talk pager banner for wp:cosmology. We'll also need to sort out which things in space do and do not count towards the wp, such as asteroids and bodies of rock etc. RoyalMate1 20:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Royalmate1: I have been doing that for two days now. The banner is now on the talk page of many articles (check out the bottom of the List of articles category in the main page). And yes, asteroids and stuff should not be in the scope. There are a few exceptions, like Black Hole and Galaxy, but still, they received a lower rating on importance. It all depends on the importance rating. Tetra quark (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmology[edit]

FWIW, there's an interesting paper recently put on arXiv about cosmology ... http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.01919 -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 08:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. That probably will fit well in some articles Tetra quark (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yurij Baryshev seems to be making a case for an alternative to general relativity which he calls "Feynman Field Gravitation". However, Wikipedia does not seem to have an article on it, at least by that name. JRSpriggs (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmography[edit]

FYI, here's a paper that might be useful for some of our editors ... http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9905116 -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CMB map by Planck[edit]

Based on my research, the best map of the CMB uploaded on Wikipedia is the 9 year WMAP data, which is on the Template:Physical cosmology. However, the more detailed map by Planck Surveyor is not uploaded. The map is linked in another website in the Planck (spacecraft) article, however we cannot use it here in Wikipedia since it is only linked, but not uploaded. I think it must be uploaded because it is the latest map of the CMB, with better detail. SkyFlubbler (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree that the latest map should already have been uploaded by now. I'll take care of that. However, I'm still not quite sure whether we should use it as the new image for the template, userbox, portal etc of this project. I know this is silly but the color green has become the theme color of Cosmology here on Wikipedia.
Update: I have uploaded two images. File:Cosmic microwave background (CMB) by Planck.jpgFile:Planck CMB image with the milky way.png I got a feeling that I'm gonna have copyright issues with the second one, but let's see what happens Tetra quark (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Update2: Yeah, they've been removed.[reply]
Yes, I apologise, but both were copyrighted by ESA and had to be deleted :( — Huntster (t @ c) 20:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no fair-use rationale available that can justify it's use? -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AAlertBot and the scope of the project[edit]

Just a few updates.

First, the AAlertBot has finally updated the page. There is only one page in the AA list, but that's something.

Second, as some of you might know, I've been putting the banner on the talk pages now. Now I need to know for sure: Are we going to include historical and philosophical cosmology in the scope as well? Say, should Heliocentrism be in the scope, for example? What about Hindu Cosmology? I know we have discussed that before, but now it is decisive.

Physical cosmology is already settled, for sure. The banner has an image of the cosmic microwave background, so perhaps that banner wouldn't be the best for other articles, considering that very few people know what that image is. If we decide to expand the scope, we could either create a new banner with a more appropriate image or create a task-force. See the physics banner in this talk page. It'd be something like that. "Wikiproject Cosmology / Philosophical cosmology" or something. Tetra quark (don't be shy) 18:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmology lists[edit]

Seems like some missing major navigation points:

-- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 06:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts[edit]

While trawling through DRAFTspace looking for Cosmology draft articles, I've found:

There are a few more that are fictional, mythological, religious or philosophical cosmology, but these are scientific cosmology related

-- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should we start tracking DRAFTs? {{WikiProject Cosmology|class=draft}} ? -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 08:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forgot to reply. Well, I don't see why not! By the way,where do you find drafts? Tetra quark (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You need to search the namespace "DRAFT" with advanced search, for terms found in cosomology (such as "cosmology" [2]) -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 10:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! I'll add the banner in the drafts you linked above. Thanks for your effort into finding them Tetra quark (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are more drafts underneath WP:AFC space (as talk pages), but searching for them is a headache [3], and they do not support addition of project banners. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where else could we add banners? ~~

Suggesting articles that might be suitable.[edit]

How does one suggest an article to be included - there doesn't seem to be a 'possible' section on the info box? I ask because there are several that might be included. Two to start off with are:

  • Reionization - this article could be a lot better with more citations. The first half of it barely has any.
  • Galaxy Zoo - A astronomical project that has classified over a million galaxies, leading to 55 papers.

Richard Nowell (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How would Galaxy Zoo qualify? That's just examining galaxies, seems like plain straight-forward astronomy. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You could post a list of potential candidates here, if it's not too long. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Nowell: I don't think Galaxy Zoo is related to cosmology, as IP said. Also, the Reionization article already is in the scope of the project. See the talk page of that article. The banner is pasted there Tetra quark (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reply. Firstly, should Re-ionisation be on the main article page, as it isn't? Secondly, GZ no problem, as it is as much about me finding out which subjects qualify for this project. I'll start randomly and try to improve refs.Richard Nowell (talk) 09:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Nowell: Not all articles are in the main page. It'd take too much space. Also, if you check the talk page of Metallicity, you can see the WP Cosmology banner isn't there. That article isn't in our scope and really shouldn't be anyway. But hey, no effort is in vain. Thanks for contributing to that article! Tetra quark (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Started updating and tidying refs in Metallicity article.Richard Nowell (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comoving distance[edit]

Started tidying Comoving distance but large parts of it are uncited and I'm not able to check the maths. I've removed ExLinks in text and replaced with inline citations. In 'External Links' there are some links to Fortran programming etc. that need pondering. I'm not sure that they should be linked to. Richard Nowell (talk) 11:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to Participate in a WikiProject Study[edit]

Hello Wikipedians,


We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.


The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.


You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at [email protected].


We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.


The link to the relevant research page is m:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects


Ryzhou (talk) 02:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfC submission[edit]

Care to review Draft:Relic abundance? Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Self-creation cosmology"[edit]

Self-creation cosmology has been nominated for deletion -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 05:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Complex spacetime"[edit]

The author of Complex spacetime is removing the WPCOSMOLOGY banner. So should this remain in our purview? -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that's going to be deleted pretty soon, so it shouldn't matter. - Parejkoj (talk) 11:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project[edit]

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These possible copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present).--Lucas559 (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific notation with {{Convert}}[edit]

Do you think that template:convert should support an option that forces output to use scientific notation ? I've noticed there no such option at template talk:Convert. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of draft templates[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Template:convert, an MFD nomination of some templates in draft namespace, which may be relevant to the interests of this project. 103.6.159.74 (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are under construction templates that convert redshift to lightyears and vice versa, and decimal degrees to HMS and vice versa. It also converts redshiftspace values to parsecs and lightyears, and converts comoving distance to redshift and vice versa -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:MartinZ[edit]

See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy § Unilateral_changes_for_this_project

MartinZ (talk · contribs) has been removing cosmology from WP:Astronomy and placing it only into WP:Philosophy, despite the years of this being listed in WPASTRONOMY. This affects pages and categories. -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should we merge WP:COSMOLOGY as a taksforce of WP:ASTRONOMY?[edit]

See the above discussion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move: Steady State theory → Steady State model[edit]

Hello, I tagged the article Steady State theory for a potential move to "Steady State model" as it failed as an accepted theory. Your input there is welcome. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing article "Timescape Cosmology"[edit]

That article was requested on the Astronomy/Cosmology requested articles list. It seems, now, to be the same thing as Inhomogeneous Cosmology, though mine will be much more a layman's explanation. I will probably request a merge. WritingMan (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A possible Science/STEM User Group[edit]

There's a discussion about a possible User Group for STEM over at Meta:Talk:STEM_Wiki_User_Group. The idea would be to help coordinate, collaborate and network cross-subject, cross-wiki and cross-language to share experience and resources that may be valuable to the relevant wikiprojects. Current discussion includes preferred scope and structure. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 02:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool[edit]

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)[reply]

Dark matter as a controversial theory or proposed form of matter[edit]

There's a dispute at Talk:Dark_matter on whether to call dark matter a controversial theory or a proposed form of matter. Would appreciate some extra opinions there. Banedon (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Project coordinator[edit]

I will be happy to take this WikiProject to be active again and be it's Project coordinator Signed,The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 02:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Radiation-dominated era[edit]

I feel like the radiation-dominated era should have its own article, but I'm not knowledgeable enough in cosmology to create it. Anyone else? Sandizer (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy/Cosmology_task_force&oldid=1173321595"