User talk:Lithopsian

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 5.

August 2025

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to PKS 1424−418, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it.

The *Show preview* button is right next to the *Publish changes* button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 01:21, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"CBS 46" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect CBS 46 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 24 § CBS46 until a consensus is reached. Thryduulf (talk) 23:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Lithopsian. Thank you for your work on Mu Boötis. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for taking the time to write the article! Have a blessed week ahead!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 13:16, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reflink on T Coronae Borealis

Hey there! Extremely trivial thing about [1]: I noticed doi:10.3847/25c2cfeb.e7358267 {{doi}}: unflagged free DOI (link) links to the entire issue instead of the specific abstract being cited, which is why I added a direct "deep link" to the abstract itself, as the cite template docs suggest for |url=. Lemme know what you think. --Slowking Man (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's an odd one. Although it presents itself as a journal, the "papers" are only abstracts for presentations made at the "meeting". It looks like it should really be covered by cite conference; although there is a journal, conference abstracts are often published in things that look a lot like journals. The doi should come out, it is near-useless for actually locating the relevant abstract and it will keep getting tagged with doi-access=free and then the url will look redundant (Citation Bot might even take the url out, depending on which way the wind is blowing). The bibcode links directly to (a copy of) the abstract and that page links directly to the real abstract. NASA ADS doesn't link directly to a pdf download, but then there isn't anything to download beyond the abstract. The downside is that the template doesn't wikilink the title for bibcodes, only for dois. Using an explicit url is a bit of a last resort because of linkrot, but it is probably the only way to get the title linked to the abstract if that's your goal.

As an extra, the OCLC and ISSN links are probably even less help than the doi so they should probably come out too. That would make it doubly or triply obvious what to click on to see the crucial information. I notice that this article uses OCLC and ISSN extensively but they are not very helpful for cite journal, linking only to a generic page for the journal rather than something that would be useful in a reference.

I've just taken out the doi fields for now, see if it looks any better that way. Lithopsian (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Want to learn something from you

@Lithopsian Sir, I want to understand how to reference the Starbox table because everytime i do it happens some time other time it straight up show error. Example of that are EK Draconis and 47 Tucanae X9. And thanks for finding SIMBAD Page for 47 Tuc X9. Abdullah1099 (talk) 02:31, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to a revision of some page that shows the sort of errors you see? Or set it up in your sandbox? References in the starbox shouldn't really be any different from anywhere else, but if you miss a closing tag of some sort then the whole page will be mangled. Lithopsian (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will see it Abdullah1099 (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mosa

Just wanted to let you know that you don't need to note the entry with "multiple people" since it seems redundant to do so. Logoshimpo (talk) 06:55, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you very much for correcting my errors @Lithopsian Abdullah1099 (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete pre ISO DIN sizes

Acording to this reference both M1 and M1.1 existed Peter Horn User talk 02:06, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could be. I was trying to second-guess what that row was meant to say. There was a lingering decimal point, but nothing after it, and a plain M1.0 was clearly incorrect. Any better ideas? M1.2? M1.3? Should the whole section be renamed/re-purposed to reflect a specific standard instead of just "obsolete"? Lithopsian (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've dropped the "obsolete" section header already. However, I think it is misleading to have a table of obsolete DIN sizes in the "Preferred sizes" section. Perhaps push it down to the bottom of the article, but still in its own section? Maybe not using the word "obsolete"? Also, should DIN 13 be listed in List of thread standards? Lithopsian (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Image

Hi, @Lithopsian I know most stars on wikipedia tend to use the constellation map and it provides good encyclopedic value but I was inspired by the Proxima Centauri article to do this and decided to WP:BEBOLD and change the image. The reasons you gave for undoing were reasonable but I wonder, why can Proxima Centauri's lead image be the star but the image I selected for Sirius can't? Is there some informational value in that image that I'm missing, which justifies keeping it instead of replacing it with a constellation map? WhatADrag07 (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't be my first choice for a lead image, just another bright dot on black, and not a particularly attractive one. Meaningless. Adding a location chart for Proxima would be more tricky than for a naked-eye star, but there is at least one image that shows its position relative to α and β Centauri, which IMO would be more useful even if most people aren't going to go out side and look up at it. Lithopsian (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

Hey dude your greatǃ Welches2012 (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]