Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects

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

{{Infobox open cluster}} proposed merge with {{Infobox astronomical object}}

@ Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 December 25#Template:Infobox open cluster.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

NGC 17 or NGC 34?

I clicked on a NGC17 link in a navbox, expecting to be taken to NGC 17. However, the target redirects to NGC 34, with little explanations on the page itself, and the page contains a lot of references to NGC 17.

Doing some digging ([1]) it seems that this object is refered to NGC 17 in most references (~253) and seldom as NGC 34 (~2).

So what gives? Should this be at NGC 17 instead? Why the dual name in the same catalogue? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

NGC 17 and NGC 34 refers to the same object. —MartinZ02 (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Based on [2] it appears that two different people saw the same object, gave them different names, and then a third person proved they were the same object. Not sure how reliable that source is, but it might be worth chucking it in there as the reason why two NGC objects have the same designation. Primefac (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

SIMBAD and NED both confirm that the two designations refer to the same object, as does the second edition of the Index Catalogue ([3], page 186), so there doesn't seem to be any reason to doubt that website. The entry for NGC 34 further down the page Primefac linked to explains things nicely. Modest Genius ^talk 22:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, this should be explained in the article. The next question is should this be located at NGC 17 or NGC 34? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb, based on the research/search numbers it would appear that the COMMONNAME is NGC 17. I would have no opposition to that move. Primefac (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed on both points. Modest Genius ^talk 11:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Moved and updated. Primefac (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Caldwell, really?

What is this Caldwell stuff? This "Caldwell" what astronomical/astrophysical measurements did he do to erect a new catalogue? (Sarcasm) Patrick Moore is admirable for his popularization work, and may deserve some crater named after him here and there in the Solar System, but he did not make an astronomical table, he borrowed from other tables, so that amateur astronomers can make contests of observations, so far so good, but there is nothing official with this Caldwell catalogue. I propose that this Caldwell stuff is toned down, and put in a section "Amateur observation" in each article, it is misleading to list the Caldwell number in the lede. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 18:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I assume this is in reference to Caldwell catalogue? What brings about this sudden hatred? The article has been there for years, as has the inclusion of the Caldwell # on many pages (a random sampling showed the # being included at least two years ago). Primefac (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is a reference to Caldwell catalogue. For the rest: those are invalid arguments, false star names were in Wikipedia for many years too, they were removed: User:Rursus/star name desinformation. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Caldwell numbers are hardly 'false star names'. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

That catalogue is one of the pointers in the WP:NASTCRIT list, so that may a reason why it is being mentioned. Praemonitus (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

My reasons are encyclopedic: the reader should get an objective balanced view on how names are used in other contexts outside Wikipedia. I don't propose removing the Caldwell numbers, I propose moving them to an amateur observation section. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't really see what's to be gained in treating Caldwell numbers any differently than say Messier numbers. Do you have a specific example at hand? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you complaining about the existence of the Caldwell catalogue article, the wording of WP:NASTCRIT, the inclusion of Caldwell numbers as 'other designations' in various infoboxes, or something else? I can't work out what we're discussing here. Modest Genius ^talk 11:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Gamma Circini

I made an attempt to improve the Gamma Circini article by adding references and such. However, I found it pretty confusing going in large part because the various references either seem to mix up the two components or listed contradictory findings. If somebody knowledgeable would be willing to give the article a perusal and do a little fact checking, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science promotion

The WikiJournal of Science is a start-up academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's scientific content. It is part of a WikiJournal User Group that includes the flagship WikiJournal of Medicine.. Like Wiki.J.Med, it intends to bridge the academia-Wikipedia gap by encouraging contributions by non-Wikipedians, and by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia. Since it is just starting out, it is looking for contributors in two main areas: Editors See submissions through external academic peer review Format accepted articles Promote the journal Authors Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analagous to GA / FA review) Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 10:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Upsilon2 Ceti

The star designation Upsilon2 Ceti does not appear to be widely used, if at all. I'd like to rename it 56 Ceti, which at least gets search hits in Google. Any objection? Praemonitus (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I've added it to WP:RMT. Praemonitus (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Hello, Please note that Astronomical object, 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 00:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Template:Starbox character

How do we get this template to display UK English spelling "colour" instead of US English "color"? --John (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

You put in a bunch of #if statements wherein if (for example) |colour=yes it adds a "u" to "colo(u)r". Of course, the more important question is "why do you want to do this?" Primefac (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. WP:ENGVAR. --John (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

That hasn't worked for me. Can you take a look at Sirius for me and see what I am doing wrong? --John (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

That's because the template doesn't currently have that functionality. In the interest of not having an edit war break out over template wording, why don't you ask for consensus to be determined about whether a generic template (used in thousands of places) should have an option for a choice of language? Primefac (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

That wouldn't be necessary or appropriate. We already have WP:ENGVAR in place for that. This template needs to have that functionality, especially if it is used in thousands of places. Are you able to make the change? I don't have the technical skill to edit template syntax, or I would have just made the change myself. --John (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

It kind of is. The article title is color index. While colour index redirects there, how many of the 3000 articles we have actually use British English? Does WP:AST feel that we need to strictly follow ENGVAR?

As I said before, I have no issues making this edit, I just don't want to be reverted by someone who hasn't yet seen this discussion and thinks that what you're asking is completely unnecessary. It's not like it has to be done today.

And, as a third point, there's a notice at the top of the template requesting that all proposed changes be discussed here first. Primefac (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with your last point. This is why I am here discussing it. I don't think a project can unilaterally withdraw from project-wide guidelines like ENGVAR. While in a way there is no deadline, one consequence of this being left hanging for a prolonged period would be for any articles like this one with mixed language to lose FA status. MoS compliance is a Featured Article criterion. I haven't systematically looked to see how many articles would be affected. It's probably easier to just fix the template. --John (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I created Template:Starbox character B to accommodate ENGVAR in this template's use. This will patch things up for now but obviously there should be a more elegant solution possible in the long term. --John (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see an issue here. It's a pretty simple and straightforward change. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, supporting the ENGVAR of the surrounding article is clearly necessary and should be uncontroversial. Rather than a forked template, it would be simpler to maintain (and clearer to use) if it was a simple parameter in the template call. Something like engvar=bre or use-bre=yes would work. Modest Genius ^talk 16:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Aye, I'll get on it later today. Primefac (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Redirect checking

A user has recently created some redirects of a questionable nature, some of which are in this project's purview. Please join in the conversation here. Primefac (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Redirects for deletion

I've submitted a number of redirects of star designations to be deleted. I should think they would be obvious to any astronomer, but maybe confusing to others. Typically these are things like A1 Capricorni → alpha1 Capricorni and U Booetis → Upsilon Boötis. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 11 and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 14. Many of these things were deleted in the past. There may be more, but I think I got the worst offenders. Lithopsian (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

ESA media open access announcement

The ESA announced today that it plans to release its media under a CC-BY-SA license, which is a Wikipedia-approved free license!! Note that according to their new usage policy, this only applies "where explicitly so stated", but they apparently plan to state it in many places in the near future. If there are any ESA images that you know of that were removed for copyright reasons, keep an eye on them in the coming days to see if their licenses change. It might help to do a reverse Google image search to see if ESA is hosting them in a new place under the CC-BY-SA license. Also, if you know of any ESA images that are currently being used on a fair use basis, check to see if they have the new license, and if so, upload them to Commons, delete the local copy, and use them as widely as you want! It's a great day for space articles! A2soup (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• That's very good news. Praemonitus (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Split up List of exoplanets

Hello, WikiProject Astronomical objects. You have new messages at Talk:List_of_exoplanets#Split_apart.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have asked to split up List of exoplanets into sublists, for the discussion, see talk: List of exoplanets#Split apart -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Moved to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_exoplanets#Split_apart_.5B2017.5D

(2060) 95P/Chiron (1977 UB)

Does anyone have photos for Chiron? Commons doesn't have that, and neither does our article 2060 Chiron (there's an artist's impression in the infobox)

I seem to recall it was photographed by HST before, but I can't find those.

-- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 09:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

PGC objects

Hi. I'm user from another wiki and I'd like to add list of PGC objects to my wiki. I have 2 versions of file with the list. Both of them have more than 983000 rows but catalog includes ~73000 objects. Can you help me with that? I can send you both version by wikimail. --Artificial123 (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)