Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

Astronomy Project‑class

	Astronomy portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Project	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Shortcuts

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Archives

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, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38

Merged from old talk

Old WikiProject Telescopes talk

Topical archives

Asteroid redirection 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by .

Galactic Coordinates for Astronomical Objects

I noticed though, the usage of galactic coordinates is fairly common, yet I've never seen any template infoboxes that puts the galactic coordinates of objects. As for me, galactic coordinates are also easy to read. Also, galactic coordinates can also be formatted to epoch J2000. Comments? SkyFlubbler (talk) 10:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restatement to what I've said: Why are galactic coordinates not included in astronomical infoboxes, like for stars, galaxies, nebulae, etc. Professional astronomy uses galactic coordinates, even SIMBAD and NED themselves. Does Wikipedia don't allow such "infamous" system even though it has been used by professionals?

Plus, instead of having a list of astronomical objects by galactic coordinate system, why not include it to all infoboxes, so people can see it in the infoboxes. Comment please! SkyFlubbler (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably just because no-one got around to writing the template code for it, rather than anything about being allowed or 'infamous'. Galactic coordinates are indeed sometimes used by professionals, although RA and Dec are more common. I don't see any harm in adding them, though they wouldn't be a huge benefit either as it adds no extra information compared to the equatorial coordinates. Which list are you referring to? Modest Genius ^talk 12:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the List of celestial bodies by galactic coordinate system, there are only very few objects, and I found it to be useless for many objects not listed. So I think, instead of just creating a list of celestial bodies and putting their galactic coordinate locations in there, it may be more comprehensive if the galactic coordinates are in their infoboxes. SkyFlubbler (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, such a list actually exists? Since such a list is impossible to be comprehensive, taking to AfD. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per the comments on the discussion, for objects in the list to have data on galactic coordinates, I suggest if we make it as data on the infoboxes, which would affect so many articles. I am not sure, because of the wide range of artcles concerning celestial objects in Wikipedia, it will take more or less years before we put them in. SkyFlubbler (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow. Who thought that would be a good idea? I've !voted on the AfD. Modest Genius ^talk 15:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As long as Galactic Coordinates are only used in articles about specific items, and not list articles, that's fine. List articles, if they feature coordiantes, should only use RA/DEC because we'd be cluttering the lists with too many sets of coordinates. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

conditional support I'm not opposed to incorporating galactic coordinates into existing templates, as long as they're linked to Galactic coordinate system to explain their relationship with B1950.0, and that they don't appear underneath (or are in some way distinguished from) epoch and equinox J2000 in the template, which apply to the current RA & Dec convention. ~ Tom.Reding (talk|contribs|dgaf) 15:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

galactic coordinate system seems a bid odd, it doesn't have examples of locations using galactic coordinates. I would think a short list of examples of prominent night sky features should be given with galactic and equatorial coordinates. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How would you limit the inclusion criteria of such a list? Two or three examples is fine, dozens is not. Modest Genius ^talk 15:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm not opposed to the idea in principle, but so far I haven't seen any convincing argument that galactic coordinates are necessary. This proposal stems from a good intentioned, but ill-conceived list, and I'd find it odd if this was ultimately about compromising with a single user's wishes... Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I note that galactic coordinates are not mentioned in the index or glossary of the Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac (3rd ed.). So although they may be used on occasion by professional astronomers, they seem to be secondary. This means they would be less accessible for editors who are not themselves experts, but are cleaning up after vandals or uninformed editors. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing "Earth mass", "Jupiter mass", "Solar mass" etc with symbols

Recently, sentences containing terms such as "Earth mass", "Jupiter mass", "Solar mass" etc have been rewritten with symbols in many astronomy articles. There has been some discussion at Talk:Exoplanet#Mixed use of numerical suffixes. Since this affects more than just the Exoplanet article, I think it would be better to have the discussion here. These replacements were often done without regard to context, or the flow of a sentence or sufficent explanation to the reader of what the symbols meant. Also, M_E would be a better match with M_J than the M_⊕ that is used in the recent replacements. Astredita (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose replacing terms with symbols that would make the articles inaccessible to lay people, and WP:JARGON -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I should post this here, lest it gets overlooked.
There's no point in discussing "should we make replacements without regard to context?"; the answer is obvious and not up for discussion. We should be discussing that context with examples:

A good example is when the word "mass", "luminosity", "radius", etc. are used excessively in a sentence where a numerical value is given. A symbol would remove redundancy and wordiness, like:

blah has a mass of 30 Jupiter masses →

blah has a mass of 30 M_J

"Neptune's mass equals 17 Earth masses, Jupiter has 318 Earth masses, and the 13 Jupiter-mass limit used in the IAU's working definition of an exoplanet equals approximately 4000 Earth masses." →

"Neptune's mass equals 17 M_E, Jupiter has 318 M_E, and the 13 Jupiter-mass limit used in the IAU's working definition of an exoplanet equals approximately 4000 M_E."

While "the 13 Jupiter-mass limit" is better left as-is.

This is assuming the symbols have been defined somewhere earlier in the text, of course. ~ Tom.Reding (talk|contribs|dgaf) 13:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I moved SkyFlubbler's reply here immediately below, since it was made on Talk:Exoplanet well after Astredita started this conversation. (Generally, I don't like moving people's talk; my appologies.) ~ Tom.Reding (talk|contribs|dgaf) 13:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I may suggest:

While yes, those symbols are shorter, but is it understandable? When we use the M_☉, M_E and M_J and so many others, we still need to link the article to it, rather than just typing the words and linking it (i.e, Solar mass, Jupiter mass and others)

Suppose a very new user who has not yet any experience in the Wikipedia reads symbols with M_☉, M_J. Obviously he will ask "What does that mean?"! Then he will still need to find what does "M" mean and what does the subscript mean before he understoods it, instead of just putting the words for him to not be confused. To be honest I misinterpreted M_☉ as "solar momentum" in my earlier years. I think Wikipedia is not about how we get well to the standards of information, it's about simplification of information to be understood by unknowledgeable readers.

Now before we ever add those symbols, at the introduction we must indicate them. But I was in thought of users who only want quick-reads stumbling upon the symbols such as M_☉. That may confuse him.

I clearly don't want the symbol M_Sun to be used as a replacement of M_☉, only for the reason it is more complex to construct. Suppose again unknowledgeable readers newly editing Wikipedia. Of course, he will try hard how to simulate the subscript. That will take time on him, plus confusion. And that's the beginning of misinterpretation.

With that being said, I may suggest to use the solar mass phrase and M_☉ template, but not the M_Sun or something like that; it's more confusing. SkyFlubbler (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to symbols, so long as they are explained in the article. Repeatedly writing out the name can be tiresome when it is used repeatedly. Similarly, using those symbols without explanation is inaccessible to non-experts. Treat them like any other unusual unit - define and link at first use, abbreviate thereafter if desired. Modest Genius ^talk 15:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List Break-up

I noticed something about the List of largest known stars. First, recent edits done by Asyulus has produced some incorrect figures in the list. Example is VV Cephei A. The list states it as 1,475, although just to be honest when I checked the references I don't even saw that number. Another one is PZ Cassiopeiae, listed at 1,565, although like the former, no figure of 1,565 appeared in the references.

I come here to discuss. It's not really valid to get the middle point of stars' sizes if not stated in references. You cannot put 1,500 when the references say 1,000 to 2,000. References are very valid, we must not make our own views. I think more stars in the list are given the wrong sizes by Asyulus. Just to be honest, when I checked Asyulus on Google I've found out that he's a YouTube uploader of "Star Size Comparisons" Maybe he used Wikipedia in order to get his own benefit. Please judge me if I'm wrong, but the list has gone well worse since his edit. I now call on to people working on to that list to reimprove it.

Oh, next issue. The true list of largest stars, which is the top list, goes down to R Leporis at 500 R. But the top itself says "A survey of the Magellanic clouds...44 of them are larger than the 700 R...". Now why the list extends to 500 R when the 44 are not listed? The top itself says "...700 R cutoff point at this table". Now why the cutoff point is 500? I suggest to move the cutoff point back to 700 R since we don't list the 44 Magellanic cloud RSGs well.

Next, the comparison list is not aligned with the actual list, making it look narrower and more confusing for me. (Sorry, this issue is not as heavy as the formers, please comment lightly) What do you think, can we still separate it or join it? There's a script "The following...of comparison", anyway.

Comments please. If my comments are wrong, please take it lightly. SkyFlubbler (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All I wonder is when VY Canis Majoris lost its tile and fell to the 9th position Tetra quark (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for Tetra quark; see Talk:List of largest known stars#VY CMa for the reason why VY CMa knocked down to 9th. SkyFlubbler (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison table was made separate because it was causing problems, per earlier discussions, as the way the table was formatted it was an excessive number of comparison stars. The solution was split it into a separate table. There should not be so many comparison objects in the main table as to overwhelm the number of actual entries. So keep the tables separate or delete most of the comparisons if we were to have only one table. We can always go for a cut-off of the top 100 stars, as with other tables, that would have a floating lower bound, based on the 100th star, instead of a defined radius lower bound. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But I was thinking, the phrase at the top says the cutoff point is 700 R. I'm saying that, we must move it to 700 R instead of 500 R because there are 44 RSGs which we still need to join at the main if we put the cutoff point to 500 R. SkyFlubbler (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait! This is urgent! Somehow Tetra quark was reverting again and again my edit in the list. I created that edit last few months ago and I was scolded. This is about adding some stars in the comparison list. Those stars are simply too small that they shouldn't be on the list. Plus, it dominates the main list. But somehow Tetra quark says it should be in there and in fact it needs more he says. I guess it was just a misinterpretation by Tetra quark.

Oh, I really need to move the cutoff point to 700 R. There are lots of stars beyond 500 R than those in the list. SkyFlubbler (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not leave more information there instead of less? Also, as I said, those stars are good for comparison because they are well-known, unlike most of the others. But whatever, I am not gonna insist on adding them. Tetra quark (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flames Problem?

Somehow I've just stood up at the article of IC 434 and the first sentence says: "The Flame Nebula is a bright emission nebula..."

What's going on? I think the real "Flame Nebula" must be NGC 2024. Not only it does look more like a flame, but more sources say it was the Flame Nebula. So where did IC 434's distinction as "Flame Nebula" came from? SkyFlubbler (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. IC 434 is the emission nebula that is in the background behind the Horsehead Nebula. The Flame Nebula is (if the horse is upright) to the southwest of the head, below IC 434. I've adjusted the text accordingly. Primefac (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{infobox astro object}} and {{infobox cluster}}

{{infobox astro object}} has been proposed to be merged with {{infobox cluster}} ; for the discussion see WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 21 -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through and fixed all the error where the astro object infobox was used when the cluster infobox was suitable. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sardanaphalus‎ and I revamped the sh!t out of {{Infobox astro object}} today. I went through astro obj transclusions to make sure all old parameters were updated. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 19:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As this is badly named, I've also nominated it for renaming, see template talk:infobox cluster -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_21

Actually, many different astronomy templates have been nominated on this date -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are you even tring to say Tetra quark (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be snarky, but he's literally saying there's a number of astronomy-related templates that have been nominated and listed on that page, if editors are interested in discussing them. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to our attention, 67.70.35.44. Much appreciated. Andy seems to be trying to condense templates over several WikiProjects, based strongly on parameter similarity. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 17:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my. This is indeed an urgent matter. SkyFlubbler (talk) 11:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Older featured articles

Hello all. Now that WP:Featured articles has seen its first decade, we are working through our oldest FAs to bring them up to modern standards. Two WP:AST articles from 2006—Enceladus and Crab Nebula—need a bit of attention. They are really in quite excellent shape considering their age, but both articles have acquired some uncited statements and external linkcruft over the years, and gone a bit outdated, as their main authors are no longer active. Hoping that I can get some subject matter experts to tidy them up and bring them up to date. I have watchlisted both articles and will help however I can. Thank you! Maralia (talk) 05:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to pitch in at Crab Nebula, although I'm not necessarily an expert. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @Arianewiki1:, who is an expert on the subject and has cleaned up a somewhat similar article (Cat's Eye Nebula) recently. Ariane, would you mind helping here, since you know more about the subject than me? StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stellar classification requested move

I've posted a requested move for one of our project's most popular and vital articles, stellar classification; details can be found at talk:stellar classification. Any thoughts would be appreciated. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2015

Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2015 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than fifty users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Miyagawa (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cosmology

Hi, guys. Somehow a well-intended user has created a new project that is related to ours, the Cosmology WikiProject. There are only three members in it, so anyone in here is invited to join. This project needs discussion, improvement, and members.

And, I think it must be a branch of ours, like the WikiProject:Astronomical Objects. Do it on its talk. SkyFlubbler (talk with me :-D) 20:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link is Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of the project. Thanks for mentioning it here! If you guys intend to improve the page, make sure to take a look at the talk page and the edit summaries first. Thanks Tetra quark (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor planets (again)

Whilst clearing the unassessed articles for this project I came across a lot of subpages for the List of minor planets. Almost all of these subpages (each containing 100 minor planets) are duplicated in the larger 1000-planet lists. Should these subpages be deleted as duplicates? Primefac (talk) 05:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the subpages are actually transcluded onto the larger pages (the ones with colons), so they are not duplicates. That being said, I can't see a reason to have the information in the articles contained in subpages, and would advocate for a merge-and-delete to the larger lists. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting Data on Wiki for Star Distance (Light Years)

I am an amateur astronomer trying to do a simple thing: determine the distance and magnitude of stars.

The problem is: the figures for distance (LY) and magnitude (VIS) on the Wiki tables for constellations often, even for prominent visible stars, differ with the figures for same on the wiki links for the individual stars.

For example Jim Kaler publishes the distance to Beta Herculis as 148 light years, which agrees with the 'list of stars' distances published under the constellation maps in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stars_in_Hercules

However, when we click on the Wiki link for individual stars in the list, e.g.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Herculis

The page for the individual star reports a significantly different distance to the star (139 on 'star' page versus 148 on 'list of stars' page).

This is not an isolated example. I could cite dozens of cases where there is conflicting Wiki data.

Which distance is correct?

Is there a source that has the latest most accurate distances to stars? (e.g. Hubble parallax)

Thank you for your assistance.

Mark 23.29.196.252 (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find. Based upon the Hipparcos parallax data, Beta Herculis is more likely to be 43 parsecs (139 ly). However, we can launch a clean up for the list. Can you link those dozen stars so we can adjust them? I will try to use the Hipparcos data. SkyFlubbler ^(talk) 07:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean I get an asteroid named after me? [LOL]

My data source is HYG at: http://www.astronexus.com/hyg (says it uses Hipparcos parallax distances circa 2006)

Using HYG (unknown validity) almost all the star distances are off in the Wiki 'list of stars' page by a material amount. I call anything over 1% difference material. By this time in astronomical observation we should have parallax distance pinned down don't you think?

Here are some examples of the prominent stars in Hercules: (distance LY)

BAYER	HIP	HD	W_Star	W_List	HYG LY	Diff	% Diff
β Her	80816	148856	139	148	139.2	8.8	6%
ζ Her	81693	150680	35	35	35	0	0%
δ Her	84379	156164	75.1	78	75.1	2.9	4%
π Her	84380	156283	377	367	376.7	-9.7	-3%
α1 Her	84345	156014	360	382	bad data
μ Her	86974	161797	27.1	27	bad data
η Her	81833	150997	112	112	108.7	3.3	3%
ξ Her	87933	163993	160	135	136.8	-1.8	-1%
γ Her	80170	147547	193	195	192.7	2.3	1%
ι Her	86414	160762	455	495	444.4	50.6	11%
ο Her	88794	166014	338	347	338	9	3%

(W_Star) is the distance on the Wiki Star's individual page

(W_List) is the distance on the Wiki Constellation All Stars page

Most of the time, the W_Star page matches the HYG distances. But in some cases it does not.

HYG has some corrupted data for some stars. It is not a reliable source.

Iamtoliman (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are many discrepancies like this in the various lists articles. There is no automatic mechanism for keeping them consistent with the individual star articles, hence when the star is updated with new data the list can become out of date. Feel free to bring them back into like, but don't just grab some number out of your head or a 20 year old blog and stuff it in. Usually an individual star article will have the latest and greatest data, but that isn't guaranteed so checks the references. Lithopsian (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The HYG "blog" as you call it is a website that was updated in 2006, which makes it 8 years old. So, don't understand your comment 'some number out of your head'.

There is a scientific controversy as to the accuracy of the Hipparcos distances. I would direct your attention to the Wiki on Hipparcos, quoting:

The Pleiades distance controversy

One controversial result has been the derived proximity, at about 120 parsecs, of the Pleiades cluster, established both from the original catalogue[41] as well as from the revised analysis.[13] This has been contested by various other recent work, placing the mean cluster distance at around 130 parsecs.[42][43][44][45]

In August 2014, the discrepancy between the cluster distance of 120.2±1.5 parsecs (pc) as measured by Hipparcos and the distance of 133.5±1.2 pc derived with other techniques was confirmed by parallax measurements made using VLBI,[46] which gave 136.2±1.2 pc, the most accurate and precise distance yet presented for the cluster. According to the authors of the study, "The unrecognized nature of such an error is especially dangerous when one considers that Gaia, the successor to Hipparcos and very similar in design, is just now starting its Galaxy-mapping mission".

Based on these comments, not 'some number out of my head', my thinking is the Hipparcos data itself is suspect.

Iamtoliman (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what your beef is. A blog, new or old, is not a reliable source for this sort of data. Neither is your own head. The Hipparcos data may be suspect, but that isn't for you to decide. If an alternative published paper derives a conflicting value and considers the Hipparcos data to be suspect then by all means put it in Wikipedia. Lithopsian (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could get a bot to update the list of stars in xyz articles' distance parameters with the values from within the star articles themselves? That would make sure they are consistent. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we put a link to the source of the distance data? And, the date? And the degree of scientific accuracy? (e.g. +/- %)

Thank you to whoever cleaned up my table.

Iamtoliman (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding data - alot of this highlights just how difficult and fiddly estimating distance actually is. The pleiades example shows that even researchers have challenges. The main thing is that articles can list more than one distance and hopefully identify the sources of that measurement. (This holds true for luminosity mass etc.). Presenting science like this I think is actually more fascinating than handing down data like it came from the ten commandments or something. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing we learned in Physics was every scientific measurement must come with a +/- range of its accuracy.

The second thing we learned was when you add two estimated figures, you must combine the +/- range of each estimate.

So 10 +/- 2 PLUS 3 +/- 4 EQUALS 13 +/- 6

The masses out there [awful pun] will not appreciate this nicety, but the boffins certainly will, along with any serious student actually trying to use the data, not just admire it like candy in a window.

23.29.196.252 (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If those errors are a multiple of a Gaussian standard deviation, or something like it, then error propagation would tell you that the sum is

13\pm {\sqrt {2^{2}+4^{2}}}\approx 13\pm 4.5

. Dragons flight (talk) 07:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: I was a professional statistician by trade. Hence, squinting at data comes natural to me. But concerning the errors, "IF" means "(I) have not the (F)aintest idea". Iamtoliman (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source

As a general point to everyone here: distances need to be cited to reliable sources. At present the best source for most nearby stars is the 2007 re-reduction of the Hipparcos data. The catalogue is available online for free, as is the paper which describes it. The catalogue actually lists parallax rather than distance, but handily the star infobox accepts this as input and will automatically calculate the equivalent distance. I also encourage editors to include the uncertainty, which is also available in the catalogue and supported by the infobox. These data will of course change in future as research advances, particularly when the Gaia catalogue is published. Modest Genius ^talk 22:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertainties in radius, mass, density, and semi-major axis

List of Solar System objects by size currently includes most of the uncertainties of the radii of the best-known objects, but notably lacking are those of Earth and the Moon, also from the infoboxes in their articles. More often, the uncertainties in those objects' densities and especially mass are missing.

Similarly, the uncertainty in the semi-major axes of those objects is normally missing. I have already found that the Moon's is known to near-millimeter precision and increasing at 3.8 cm/year, but strangely I have so far failed to dig up a more precise value of its semi-major axis than the one listed in its infobox. Moreover, the Moon's semi-major axis listed in orbit of the Moon is quite different from the one in its infobox, which means at least one of them is dead wrong.

Does anyone know of one or more sources that list these so that these can be added? --JorisvS (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The accuracy of the measurements of the sizes of the Earth and Moon is far better than the non-sphericity both on a large scale (oblateness, etc.) and a small scale (mountains, basins, etc.). There is no point offering a ridiculously tiny margin of error for a single value for the size of these objects because it is entirely meaningless. There are detailed models of the lunar profile developed for purposes such as occultation timings, even more detailed models of the level of the Earth's surface, but these go far beyond what this article needs. I'll go look at the orbit numbers now ... Lithopsian (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's not just you. I tried looking into this too, and all I found were very precise values for the radial velocity and change in precession rate, but no hard "the semi-major axis of the moon's orbit is: blah", anywhere in the 21st century finer than a km... ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 16:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orbital mechanics isn't me speciality, but I think I know what is happening here. The semi-major axis quoted in the main Moon article, and in most other places, is not strictly the geometric definition of the semi-major axis of an ellipse. Instead it is the reciprocal of the time-averaged value of the reciprocal of the radius. In a perfect world this is the same as the semi-major axis, but the world isn't perfect so it is actually slightly different. In the Orbit of the moon article this is listed as the "inverse sine parallax" (although I'm not familiar with that term and I don't think it is in common use), while the semi-major axis value is the geometric mean distance of the earth-moon radius. Both are "correct". Lithopsian (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted, you could use 2 references - one for a semi-major axis at a certain date, and another for the velocity, and do the math in a note^[note], saying "as of year-end 2014, [etc.]". ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 16:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 2013-Jan-01 the semi-major axis of the moon was 2.56802E-03 AU. On 2014-Jan-01 it was 2.58208E-03 AU. On 2015-Jan-01 it will be 2.55964E-03 AU. There really is no neat one-size-fits-all solution because of on-going perturbations from the Sun, Jupiter, Venus, etc. -- Kheider (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's your source for those values? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 15:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Earth-Moon-Sun interaction is complicated enough that when measured from the Earth-Moon barycenter, the apparent semi-major axis of the Moon undergoes substantial (+/- 1%) swings over the lunar orbit. If you want to define a semi-major axis for the moon, you presumably need to take some sort of long-term average. Computed by direct averaging, you'd need to consider hundreds of years of orbits to get a 1 km precision in the average, though I suspect one could probably find a better way of describing the parameter that eliminates the apparent variation due to the orbital interactions. It may be worth noting that the time-average rate of recession isn't actually measured directly from lunar distance, but rather inferred by using the range observations to measure changes in mean motion (i.e.

{\dot {a}}=-{2a \over 3n}{\dot {n}}

). Dragons flight (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AU vs au vs ua

What symbol should be used for the astronomical unit in Wikipedia articles. I have seen mostly either AU and au, but the international standard symbol turns out to be ua. Please comment at the Astronomical unit talk page. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The recent IAU resolution (2012, Res B2) says "au", and that's all (with AU) I've ever seen in English papers. It's not a SI unit (proper), so I think the IAU position trumps SI. Tbayboy (talk) 06:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that "ua" is an abbreviation of the French term, unité astronomique. Evensteven (talk) 08:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm usually all for going with whatever the standard is, I don't think I've ever seen "ua" used, not once, and thus I cannot support it. I'd be inclined to stick with AU, since it seems to be used most. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Most of the discussion action seems to be taking place at the Astronomical unit talk page. Evensteven (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For your information: The vast majority of editors involved in the discussion about harmonisation prefer not to adopt a single unit symbol for astronomical unit. Of the reasons presented, the only one I could follow was a preference to follow whatever unit symbol was used in the sources. Several editors also expressed the view that the discussion did not even belong there, so I am not planning to respond further on that page. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the comments from that discussion indicating that WT:MOSNUM would be the proper venue for any such discussion. In contrast to Dondervogel, I did not see a "vast majority" of editors preferring not to discuss, and there was good participation there. While I was among those who did not regard "harmonization" as productive or necessary, I did not get Dondervogel's sense that everyone agreed with that, but rather that there was broad support that if WP were to adopt a standard that the world usage has not established, that the MOS was the proper place for it, and that the discussion should happen there. That would be the best place to watch for any continuation. Evensteven (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I said was "The vast majority of editors involved in the discussion about harmonisation prefer not to adopt a single unit symbol". Out of 6 editors who expressed a clear opinion, 5 opposed harmonisation. I agree that is not "everyone", but it is literally all but one. As far as the "right place" is concerned I don't see why a discussion on the use of the astronomical unit cannot take place at Talk:astronomical unit, but if there is no will for harmonisation the discussion is pointless, wherever it is held. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is no need to get exercised about it. If the discussion is pointless, it was nevertheless you who brought it to WT:MOSNUM, which is fine with me. It might be good to see if a wider group of the editing community shares your view. I don't oppose "harmonization"; I merely ask "harmonization with what"? True "harmonization" would ensure editing in harmony, which I would hope would be the goal of any discussion. Evensteven (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to imply that you oppose harmonisation in general. The discussion was about adoption of a single unit symbol across WP (i.e., to make a choice between ua, au and AU in WP articles), and that is what you and the other editors oppose.
I did not take the discussion to mosnum. I just posted a note there to advertise the existence of the discussion, in order to encourage wide participation.

~~Dondervogel 2 (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~Note: User:Dondervogel 2 has moved the disucssion to WT:MOSNUM#What is the correct symbol for astronomical unit?. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 16:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

@ASHill Did you read my reply to Evensteven? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's still a section there. I guess it's up to responders where to put their comments, and they can find us here too. Evensteven (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer 'au' (per the IAU resolution) but 'AU' is also acceptable (per common usage). Define and link on first use either way. There's no need to force every article to use the same nomenclature, but it might be slightly easier for readers. I doubt it's worth the effort though. Modest Genius ^talk 22:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mechanism to force articles to do anything, but there is a mechanism to provide a uniform guideline. My original question was about which was preferred between AU, au and ua. You have answered that question clearly enough, but the consensus at Astronomical unit was that it is better not to standardise at all, i.e. to allow individual articles to make a free choice between these three symbols and (presumably) any other symbols or abbreviations they care to think of, such as a.u. or A.U. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Language question

Concerning Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 4, 2015, I've got a quick language question: if a star is "one of the strongest sources of ultraviolet radiation in the night sky", will a significant number of readers think that "strongest" means it puts out more UV than than other stars, not that its visibility from Earth in the UV spectrum is stronger? - Dank (push to talk) 23:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite clear to me that the "strongest source" must mean the source is stronger than other sources. If in the context of UV power I would assume it means the most powerful UV source. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: I agree, it could be confusing for readers. Maybe we could change it to "from Earth, it appears as one of the strongest sources"? That way, the fact that it is only apparently the strongest is more emphasized. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is "one of the brightest sources of ultraviolet radiation in the night sky". Dondervogel 2 (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was worded correctly at Epsilon Canis Majoris. The correct statement is that it is "the brightest source of extreme ultraviolet radiation in the night sky"; the extreme ultraviolet distinction is important and can't accurately be omitted (and this statement is what the source says). —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 05:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that correction! I've added the word "apparent" per this discussion and per John's edit ... he wanted to vary the prose a bit. - Dank (push to talk) 05:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Am I being dense, or by "strongest" are we talking about strongest absolutely, as in ergs released by the object, or strongest relatively, as in ergs received from it on Earth. And even if we are talking relative, are stars really the strongest in general. What about the nearer galaxies, each collectively? And do other distant sources that emit in higher frequencies appear strongly in ultraviolet on Earth due to red shift because of the expansion of space? Even if these questions sound silly, I find the whole point of the statement confusing, because ... which stars? They vary absolutely so much according to class, and again even more relatively according to distance from Earth! Do not other objects somewhat fill in the range, and where does that leave the meaning? Evensteven (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that even to an astronomy audience, it will be understood that "in the night sky" refers to "in the night sky of Earth" rather than as viewed from an exoplanet or from interstellar space. --John (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're not being dense. Thinking about this more, "strongest" is a lousy word, as indeed it's not clear whether it's referring to luminosity or brightness. In fact, I'd normally associate "strongest" more with luminosity than with brightness, though brightness is correct here. (This is clear to me in context, but I could probably be classified as an expert.) "Strongest" also doesn't appear in the source which supports the statement; "brightest" is the word used there. I'll change this in the Todays' featured article, Canis Major, and Epsilon Canis Majoris. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 17:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out that this issue was only present in the Today's Featured Article summary; "strongest" was introduced in the edited version of the lede of Canis Major. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 17:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lists at AfD

People here may be interested in three lists I have just sent to AfD: List of stellar angular diameters, List of spiral galaxies, and List of unconfirmed exoplanets. Rationales can be found on the AfD pages. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting image – request

This image is a nice way to compare the sizes of natural satellites to each other and to the terrestrial planets, but some things are wrong. First, Pluto is in there. Secondly, Mars is too small relative to Ganymede, though roughly right relative to Earth. Is there someone who'd like to fix this? --JorisvS (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, Pluto has every right to be in there. Second, does that mean that Ganymede is too large relative to Earth? Primefac (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A) No, Pluto is neither a satellite nor a (terrestrial) planet. If it is included, the other dwarf planets would also have to be included, but that makes a different comparison, which also be a nice one, though. B) On closer inspection, the problem of the sizes appears much more complicated. Earth is a bit too small compared to the rest, except Ganymede and Titan, which are much too big compared to the rest. And I may not have spotted all of the problematic sizes. --JorisvS (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sizing issues aside (which I will work on fixing and reuploading), the description on the image is "Relative sizes of the 25 Solar System objects smaller than Earth." It makes no implication about Pluto's status, and neither do any of the en.wiki pages that use it (one even says "dwarf planet Pluto." Primefac (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(and yes, I am being incredibly pedantic on this one). Primefac (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be best if there are two: the satellites compared to the planets and everything. Note that the image's title is "relative satellite size", that's why I said that it was wrong that Pluto was in there: aside from the inner planets, it's the only one included. I think the description got changed later, because it includes more than just satellites, notably Pluto, and then it was added that all those other objects are missing. --JorisvS (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The image will be fixed (see below), so I'll make sure to give it a suitable name before uploading. Primefac (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the size question - if Earth were to scale with everything else in this picture, Io would only be one pixel wide (and 3/4 of the bodies sub-pixel size). Therefore, either Earth becomes a larger-than-the-frame segment (like the Sun in most Planet pictures) or it gets nixed altogether. Best option is probably scaling everything relative to Nereid or similar-sized body. Primefac (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Io is approximately 2/7th the size of Earth, so it would be substantially bigger than one pixel. Your strategy sounds sound, though. --JorisvS (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, turns out I'm just an idiot and didn't remember to set my spreadsheet formula properly. All the current images will fit perfectly fine on the current image with only minor tweaking necessary. I shall do that post-haste. Primefac (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JorisvS:, if this looks good to you, I'll upload and switch all the wikilinks.Primefac (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Already much better, though their placement is a bit irregular: the southern poles are now not at the same height. --JorisvS (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You missed one: Enceladus looks too big. It should be just a touch bigger than Miranda, and about half the size of Tethys. Maybe you confused diameter with radius? Tbayboy (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that. It was already way too big in the original. Also, Rhea and Oberon are best switched positions. Although the same size to within uncertainty, Rhea is likely the bigger one. --JorisvS (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I didn't mess with the top row since they were fairly close to what they should be. Should have figured someone would notice :p The south poles weren't all at the same height to start off with, but I suppose they did get a bit more skewed. Primefac (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed, but their placement should be regular regardless. --JorisvS (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, comments welcomed. Primefac (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Visually-speaking, I think it looks good except for the gray box around Callisto. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I checked and found no mistakes. If you could make Triton and Pluto images overlay with the other images on the left, it'd be better. Tetra quark (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Primefac (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you also switch Rhea and Oberon? And could you remove Pluto from this satellites comparison and then make another one that includes it, along with at least Ceres and Vesta (and maybe the other (IAU) dwarf planets if it can be made to look okay). --JorisvS (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose Rhea is slightly smaller than Oberon. Primefac (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's slightly larger. --JorisvS (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For near-future consideration: If Ceres and Vesta are added, then later this year this could become a montage of all the larger, sub-Earth-sized, imaged bodies (after an update). Tbayboy (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the names don't look horizontally centered, like at least Enceladus, Miranda, Proteus, and Nereid (by visual approximation only). Can you line up all names with their object centers (for pedantry's sake)? Looks great otherwise!

Good point, will do! Primefac (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the bottom of the Moon's image appears slightly higher than the bottom of the other images.

The bottom of all images are perfectly aligned. I checked that before. Tetra quark (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Earth" doesn't appear in all caps like everthing else. Though that may be on purpose, idk. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 17:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed that, it was in the original image and I forgot to fix it (but I will). Primefac (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a weird streak over the image of Venus. --JorisvS (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The image I used was the satellite image from NASA, it's the bit where the satellite didn't go over. I might be able to find another complete one, I just didn't like the lower-quality version in the original. Primefac (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would make it look better. --JorisvS (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this meets the majority of the above comments. Everything is lined up, Pluto has been shifted, Rhea/Oberan switched, and the top row is sized properly. Primefac (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it belongs in a book or encyclopedia or something. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 22:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still think Pluto is out of place in the current comparison, but it looks way better than it used to! --JorisvS (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like Pluto there as a nice right-hand bracket. Plus, Charon appears on top, so it's more than appropriate to have Pluto on the bottom. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 00:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Charon were the reason to include it, we should include all four giant planets, because their moons are in here. What good reason really is there to include it? Sentiment isn't. --JorisvS (talk) 10:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The description says it's for "Solar System objects smaller than Earth", so including the gas giants would change the scope of the image. Including Pluto wouldn't. I'm not one for sentiment, but I don't want to swing too far in the opposite direction either and actively reject its presence. Pluto's a thing, people know about it/of it, and it's nice to know how big it is compared to everything else. Simple as that. If nothing else, it helps illustrate where on the size-spectrum a dwarf planet sits. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 13:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Preach it, Brother Reding! AstroCog (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the title says satellites. I'm not against Pluto's inclusion in a comparison like this one, but if included other objects in the presented size range should also be included. --JorisvS (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point. There are several satellites lined up and Pluto is a combo-breaker. But there are also three planets in there, so people will understand its not just about satellites. And the reason for adding Pluto is because it is a very well known object. There is no point in adding other similar sized bodies that nobody has heard of Tetra quark (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At least Ceres and Vesta with Dawn. Eris is also a candidate because it led to Pluto's "demotion", though it has no real usable image, but maybe that can be solved akin to Pluto. Then, if three of the five IAU dwarf planets are included, why not all five? --JorisvS (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If 5 can fit, sure, if Primefac doesn't mind adding them >.> ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 15:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm only seeing it now, but could a better image of Europa be used? And maybe we could also use higher-quality images of Earth, Mars, and Mercury? --JorisvS (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too late, it's already done. I may update the image with higher-res images if I can find them, and/or add more bodies, but no guarantees. Primefac (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiMedia:User:SteinsplitterBot/Possible copyvios wasted no time, it seems. Just wanted to let everyone know. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 21:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the possible copyvio about it?? --JorisvS (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not overly surprised, it's very similar to an image that already exists. It's a bot that flagged it, though, and when a human actually looks they'll see it's a derivative work (which is perfectly acceptable under the licence it was created). Thanks for the heads up, though, Tom! Primefac (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up

I'm thinking of putting this ~~image~~ work of art up at each satellite's page, and maybe some of the planets' pages, as long as:

a size-comparison image doesn't already exist
there's a good spot for it
it doesn't make the page look cluttered
there aren't already a lot of images on the page

Decreasing in size (for the lazy) (not struck = missing some kind of size-comparison):

Satellites: ~~Ganymede (moon), Titan (moon), Callisto (moon), Io (moon), Moon (moon?), Europa (moon), Triton (moon)~~, ~~Titania (moon)~~, ~~Rhea (moon)~~, ~~Oberon (moon)~~, ~~Iapetus (moon)~~, ~~Charon (moon)~~, ~~Umbriel (moon)~~, ~~Ariel (moon)~~, ~~Dione (moon)~~, ~~Tethys (moon)~~, ~~Enceladus~~, Miranda (moon), Proteus (moon), Mimas (moon), Nereid (moon)

Planets: ~~Earth, Venus, Mars, Mercury (planet)~~

Dwarf planets: ~~Pluto~~

Anyone object/want to help? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 14:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can do, I'll be sure to strike through what I've done to make things easier. Primefac (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like most are FA'd and need very little work... Titania (moon) is missing an Earth-Moon-moon comparison image, which would fit with the other FA'd moons. I'd like to make that one myself, please :) ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 16:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like making Earth-Moon-moon comparisons is the way to go for the satellites. I struck the ones with a size-comparison image. I'll make them! ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 16:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enceladus starts using the British Isles as a size comparison, so I'm thinking that's the way to go for the smaller satellites, alongside an Earth-Moon-moon comparison until they start becoming ≲ 10-20 px (using the pixel scale of the Earth in the other FA'd moon articles as a reference). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 16:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Earth-Moon-moon might be difficult with the really small ones like Nereid and Mimas, British Isles is a good comparison. Primefac (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enceladus is still just doable, though already pretty borderline. I think I'd prefer an Earth–Moon–Enceladus comparison over the Earth–Enceladus comparison presently in the article. --JorisvS (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also think the Pluto–Earth comparison could be improved, especially if the Moon would be included. --JorisvS (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. I'll do Earth-Moon-thing comparisons for things ≧ Enceladus, probably later today & tomorrow. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 17:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are doing an awesome job by adding the size comparison pics in the articles. Keep it up! Tetra quark (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tetra. All done with Earth-Moon-things ≧ Enceladus in File:25 solar system objects smaller than Earth.jpg now. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 20:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Size comparisons for Solar System objects smaller than Enceladus

At the standard image size of 250px, the typical Earth-Moon-thing comparison image shows Enceladus as only 8px wide in its article. It's not much use using the same format for the smaller moons, so we've got to figure out a nice comparison format for the smaller satellites, maybe by combining the ideas behind the TNOs and the British Isles comparisons. Since this is not a small undertaking, getting a WikiProject Astronomy consensus seems like a good idea before someone (Primefac?? :) starts working on it. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 20:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to make the images. We should definitely have a consensus about what comparisons we're making, but also we need to figure out what Commons already has to avoid unnecessary duplication. My vote (to keep this talk page from getting huge) would be to create a Worklist subtopic to keep track of everything (assuming there are enough interested people to make such an undertaking worthwhile). Primefac (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the smaller bodies such as Enceladus and Mimas, perhaps a better comparison image would be to use Mars or Ganymede as the largest object in the image, rather than Earth. I suggest Ganymede since it is the largest moon, and Mars because I'd guess that most people know the rough relative size of it compared to Earth. StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of reappropriating the large-format comparison to use as the small-format. What if we combine this with a country (or something else, maybe even Enceladus itself) by putting the Moon where Earth normally is, since it's smaller than Ganymede (which works to our advantage in this case; Ganymede is starting too big in my opinion), then put another common-ish object where the Moon normally is? The United States is too large (25% wider than the Moon), but the British Isles are at least at the scale we're looking for. I'd say people have a better idea of the size of the British Isles than of Mars (plus Mars is too big anyway). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 14:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simply enlarge the Moon and don't show the whole Earth. Leave just about 1/4 of it showing on an edge. Another idea is to compare the size of the smaller moons with a country or continent. You get a satellite image of, say, England, and use it as scale Tetra quark (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like that, enlarging it and not showing the whole Earth. I think it best shows the relative sizes. A comparison with a country may also be useful, but it doesn't show the relative size of the satellite compared to Earth and the Moon and I don't think people will know it intuitively then. --JorisvS (talk) 12:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's for small objects, don't show the Earth at all. Overlay the object on the Moon, showing it against the mare, giving it something familiar to compare against. These objects are small enough that the numbers alone are meaningful in a human sense: most people have travelled far enough to have a good sense of how far 400 km is. Tbayboy (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest if you put a sub-image showing a zoom in portion. I don't support the use of countries, because 1. This is astronomy, not geography, and 2. Not everyone knows a size of a definite country, and 3. Not everyone lives in England to know its size. Just an example, I live here in the Philippines, and Tetra quark himself says he's in Brazil. So using England as comparison would be unfamilliar to us. SkyFlubbler ^(talk) 13:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zoom won't be necessary; if the Moon is 100px the smallest body (Nereid) will be 9-10 pixels, large enough for a Wiki image. Primefac (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about the United States? Most readers live there Tetra quark (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the U.S., and I think that using any country would be a bad idea, since they're all irregular in shape, making it harder for readers to discern the actual size. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, this comparison of Enceladus and the UK

is more illustrative than the image Tom.Reding added, in my opinion

Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 19:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enceladus is a big jump (in smallness) from Tethys and starts the parade of smaller objects. Since it's a transition between "large" and "small" (relative to the Earth-Moon-thing format) it's nice having the large-format comparison next to what will be the small-format comparison (whatever it is) on that page. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 13:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think both the Enceladus–Earth–Moon comparison as the Enceladus–British Isles comparison add value for our readers. For the smaller satellites it would be the same. --JorisvS (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FLC for Savilian Professor of Astronomy

If anyone can improve the astronomical content of Savilian Professor of Astronomy, then please comment at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Savilian Professor of Astronomy/archive1. Thanks, Bencherlite ^Talk 07:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three new stubs

They could use a bit of help, if you have the inclination. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

article quality bot?

Hi, can someone tell me how often the bot runs? The one that checks the articles for quality and upgrades their rating from stub-class to C-class to B-class? Thanks. Lehasa (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no bot (that I know of), though I often take the uncategorised articles and give them a ranking. Primefac (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can a bot possibly know whether an article is good or not? I am confused Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 00:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tetra quark, you'd be surprised what well-trained computers can do. However, in this instance it's the real-life humans who do article rankings.Primefac (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac:Now that I think about it, an article rating bot would be very helpful. People's ratings are completely arbitrary and no one ever changes the it after the article has been improved. For example, I posted the banner of my Cosmology WikiProject on talk pages and almost blindly rated them. Actually, I mostly just copied the ratings of other wikiprojects Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 00:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article rating bot would need to know the subject matter to assess the articles properly other than for pure English form and grammar, and whether sources exist or not (and possibly if the exact terms occur in the source) Though that doesn't stop people from writing journal article bots that spit out gibberish that gets past peer review and published into reputable academic journals. Actually, many people who rate quality of articles seem to blindly copy the quality rating over from existing banners (ie. FA/A/Start/Stub). Somepeople even blindly copy the importance ratings over, though that is invariably wrong. There (is?/was?) a bot that runs that auto-copies stub-quality over to all banners but I don't remember which circumstances it runs under. I suppose a bot could be made to autoassess as stub , and if a stub is no longer a stub could autoupgrade to start class, but doing more than that probably wouldn't be worth the error rate. FA/A/GA-class articles require manually nominations and assessment subpages. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalize the "U" in "universe" or not?

Now that I've got access to AWB and its find and replace feature, I had the idea to ask you guys whether the word "universe" should be capitalized or not. A few sources claim that it is ok to write it either way, but the problem is that the word is found both capitalized and not in different articles and sometimes in the same article, so we must reach a consensus to choose the best way to use the word and stick to it.

In my opinion I'd choose to capitalize it, but of course, I can't do such a major change without talking about it before Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 00:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The topic has been open for 9 days at Talk:Universe, with no responses. An archive search for "capitalize" gives results from 2006, 2011, and 2013. Did you read through and consider those before posting? What are the major points? Which do you agree with and which do you disagree with? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 01:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom.Reding: It doesn't matter if I read through the archives. I have to ask for your opinions before making a significant edit Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 02:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tough one. When we are talking about our universe as the Universe, I believe that it should be capitalized, just as when we are talking about the Sun or the Moon. On the other hand, when we are talking about a universe as in the context of the multiverse or that a universe must have some qualities to support life. I believe it should not be capitalized, just as when we talk about a moon or a sun of a different planet. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

seems simple- the Universe, a universe. Bhny (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have the same problem with "moon"/"Moon" , "earth"/"Earth" , "sun"/"Sun" , "solar system" / "Solar System" / "Solar system". There are too many articles using "earth" to mean the planet instead of meaning dirt or ground. Ditto for our lunar companion -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Wow. There really are many missuses of the lowercase "earth". What is worrying is that I found those errors on popular articles like Saturn and Sirius. Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 06:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the above commenters have it exactly right: capitalise when speaking in terms of a proper noun, lowercase when speaking in general. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment, I'll check the articles and spot usage errors of upper/lowercase moon, earth, sun and solar system. Considering I'll be checking astronomy related articles, chances are that words like Sun and Earth should be capitalized most if not all the times.

And by the way, what if we retire the lowercase version of those words? Instead of using "a solar system", should we use "a star system"? It sounds more formal and more encyclopedia-like. Anyway, this probably has been discussed before Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 06:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The generic "solar system" is usually used to mean "planetary system" (a system of objects around a star or stars) and not "star system" (a system of star(s) which might contain other stuff) though; there also being "stellar system"... -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 06:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term planetary system refers to a planet and its moons orbiting it. There is the Solar System and there are other star systems. Solar, star, solar, sol, sun... star. Well, let's not get off topic. You know what I was trying to say Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 06:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Planetary system is a system of objects (planets and stuff) in orbit around a star. Which is how ESO uses it, Scientific American, Astronomy Magazine, Wired, Princeton University, arXiv, Caltech, etc. It is not "planet+moons", it is "star+planets" -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple reasons for capitalising (or not capitalising) Universe. Thus, AWB would be a very bad way to handle this issue, as it has to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Primefac (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: No, AWB is good at that. I basically have to find the term "the universe", check the context and replace with "the Universe". Or I can also simply find "universe" and check the context to see if it should be capitalized. Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 21:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support capitalizing Universe. I agree with Bhny. We talk about our Moon, and moons of other planets. We capitalize Galaxy when we are talking about our own, but other galaxies don't get the capital. Similarly, we should capitalize our Universe but not other hypothetical parallel universes. Reyk _YO! 06:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In line with several other editors, I support capitalising if in the sense of the one and only Universe, and oppose it in the sense of multiple parallel universes. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dondervogel 2: Fine, I guess that's the final decision then. Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 21:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are existing guidelines that cover this situation, even though they don't specifically mention the word "universe": Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Celestial bodies and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects). Is there any good reason not to adhere to the existing guidelines? --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW - Yes, I *entirely* support the comments presented by User:Gronk Oz above to adhere to the WP:MOS and related guidelines established earlier ( ie, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Celestial bodies & Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects) ) - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tetra quark: Could you explain exactly what you are doing in the 100+ edits relating to "universe" that you have done in the past few days? I see from this edit that you changed "the universe" -- but you didn't change "Einstein's static universe" or "the Einstein universe" or "model of an expanding universe" or the template that has "Age of the universe", etc. ... Also: you're not changing to Universe if universe is inside quote marks, right? I didn't see an example, but I know you've changed sun to Sun inside a direct quote, so I hope this exception has been considered. I do not see in WP:MOSQUOTE that such changes are prohibited, but I don't see that they're allowed. According to an earlier discussion "The Chicago Manual of Style says "Retain original capitalization, spelling, and punctuation in titles and quotations from early modern sources ...". Or take Oxford: "In quotations from printed sources the spelling, capitalization, and punctuation should normally follow the original" (with exceptions that don't seem to apply here). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--> It seems like all the edit summaries have called the attention of more people, which is understandable. I will try to answer to all of you above. First of all, I want you to keep in mind that I didn't edit those articles based on my preference. All I care about is to do what's more correct. As you can see, I asked here which way we should use the word and I didn't influence anyone in my message (although I left my opinion).

So, according to the MOS, it's ok to capitalize words like "sun" when they are in an astronomical context (As in "the Sun is a main sequence star") and it's not ok when it is not. The word sun, for example, can be used to refer to stars in general as well ("our sun is our primary source of energy". Implying -> there are other suns), and yes, it should be lowercased. When it comes to the word "universe", the same rule can be applied. There is the Universe (which means, the totality of existence) and there are other uses of that word that can refer to one universe in a multi-verse, or used in a philosophical way, or even when referring to wildly different things like "Miss universe". Even though MOS doesn't have an specific example that mentions the word universe, it's pretty clear the same rule should be applied, as everyone above my last message has agreed.

@Peter Gulutzan: that was a first step at changing the word. In the find and replace feature, I typed in "the universe", considering that pretty much all of the cases in which that term is used it refers to the Universe. If I hadn't put the "the" there, it would take a really long time to sort what words should be capitalized or not; that's why "Einstein's static universe" wasn't changed. I do intend to do more detailed edits soon. (Update: I've made the changes in a few articles. Take a look: Albert Einstein [1] Giordano Bruno [2] List of cosmologists [3])

And no, I'm not changing anything inside quotes, file links, templates, refs, link targets, and so on. I really may have capitalized the word "sun" inside a quote accidentally Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 04:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This approach to changes in Wikipedia adoption of style is what many editors soon learn editing can sometimes be a joke. In this case, a typical nitpicking editor finds a flaw in the AWB and exploits it. Worst, they deliberately find a common term not in the adopted procedure, then exploit it by enforcing or imposing some change for the sake of it. IMO, the changes being made here by Tetra quark are a deliberate attempt to stir the pot rather than solving a problem. From past behaviour, this individual seems more than happy to impose his views on others rather than doing so by actual consensus, and basically avoiding WP:GF.

Clearly, the adoption is as follows.

"Universe" with a capital 'U', refers to "THE universe" as a proper or given name. I.e. "The Universe is a big place."

"Universe with a lower case 'u' refers to universe when referred to as a place . I.e. "Travelling for future humans to explore the universe is difficult."

Other similar usages are;

"The Sun is at the centre of the Solar System."

"The sun shone through the window."

"The Earth is the only place in the solar system that is known to have life."

"The astronaut looked down on the earth from the International Space Station."

Carte blanc changes already made here by Tetra quark is tantamount to vandalism.

If you want to make such changes, you should wait a significant amount of time. Already half the contributors disagree with you, but you still went just change Wiki pages anyway.

As an long term editor, I will be using the usage explaining above, and will revert any changes imposed by this User.

Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who's disagreeing with Tetra quark('s edits) on this except you? I can only see people who agree with capitalizing if it is the one and only, but not in other cases. It looks to me that he saw the consensus and acted on it. You should try WP:AGF here. --JorisvS (talk) 09:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, @JorisvS:, read the main commented thread, about half of the replies have mentioned that there are almost as many exceptions to the "the Universe" rule as there are valid reasons, or that AWB should not be used for such specific updates. Second, @Tetra quark:, you waited a grand total of 20 hours before deciding that consensus was raised; we're one of the more active WikiProjects, but seriously, give us some time to discuss! You would have seen Gronk Oz' post about the existing MoS. Additionally, your blatant disregard for past precedent ("It doesn't matter if I read through the archives") is rather worrying and I completely agree with Arianewiki1 that your existing edits should be thoroughly checked and reverted if incorrect. I think it's great that you're enthusiastic and wanting to improve Wikipedia, but there is NORUSH to push changes through, which has been happened a lot lately. Primefac (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which thread? Besides, those things do not say anything about the consensus here that where it refers to the one and only it shouldn't be capitalized. --JorisvS (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are not listening regarding the problem. AWB has a direct warning about adopting its use I.e.

Consensus is really, really important here, because is effect users and the interpretation of text. A good example is your edit on Alpha Centauri, ~~where you~~, changing the sentence to read "On June 10, 2013, scientists reported that the earlier claims of an Earth-like exoplanet orbiting Alpha Centauri B may not be supported." (my bold.) Earth-like is plainly wrong, it plainly should be earth-like Where is the consensus to do that? (The article here is discussing universe not our home planet!)

My other minor issue is thaaft Tetra quark is likely to have English as his second language, after his native Portuguese. (I'm concerned with the implications of these changes. He has already admitted "I really may have capitalized the word "sun" inside a quote accidentally", which shows the dangers of this approach.

So please stop editing this carte blanc until the issue is properly sorted. Thanks Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I did some tracking on the example of Earth-like versus earth-like, which I wrongly attributed to JorisvS (talk). Although my point is valid, I'm incorrect to attribute this to his work. My humble apologies. (I'm having problems with sorting out these edits, as most naturally will.) It is struck out above in my earlier post. Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: Well, the thing is that Gronk Oz would not have commented if I hadn't made the changes. All the edit summaries have called the attention to this page, and the thing is that people will only leave a message if they have something opposite to say. Users who agree with the changes will not comment.

Also, this is an encyclopedia, and capitalization errors are serious problems. What concerned me the most was ambiguity. While editing, I stumbled upon several cases where the word universe when referring to the universe was indeed capitalized, so we had to choose a definite way to use the word. Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 15:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Arianewiki1: Ok, well.

1st: I didn't do anything based on my preference. As I said, I didn't try to influence anyone in my first message

2nd: You're wrong - "The astronaut looked down on the earth from the International Space Station". The word "earth" in this case IS capitalized. It is referring to our planet.

3rd: As I said above, all the edit summaries have called the attention of many people. The thing is that people will only leave a comment here is if they have something to oppose. When you say you will revert my edits, you're pretty much disregarding the dozens of people who are ok with them. Cheers, Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 15:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'-->

Tetra quark said; "Now that I've got access to AWB and its find and replace feature, I had the idea to ask you guys whether the word "universe" should be capitalized or not."

It sounds like a User with a new toy. AWB is not designed to do thing on a whim. The question is valid, but the drastic implementation causes drama to sort things out. Yet there are now +500 pages these changes have been applied to, and this includes 'earth', 'sun', 'moon', 'solar system'. This also applies to astronomical as well as non-astronomical subjects. I.e. J. Marvin Herndon. What is worse, these changes have been applied across references as well.

The first chance to discuss this is by Tetra quark 00:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC), but the changes were implemented just before 17:17, 16 January 2015, leaving less than 16 hours.[reply]

No one replied to his statement Talk:Universe on 22:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC), until Gopher65 at 12:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC) then Isambard Kingdom at 13:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC). Both advised to avoid doing so and advised on the problems with context. This left almost no chance to correct this.[reply]

Worst AWB has changed this to other words like 'earth', 'sun', 'moon', 'solar system', also WITHOUT ANY Consensus.

Why bother debating this, if the edict has already been implemented? Damage done.

Yet this is abusing AWB in clear violation of the usage policy of AWB.

Should this issue submitted be via WP:DRN ? Arianewiki1 (talk)

This is turning into personal attacks.If you are new to this discussion, please read the whole post to see what consensus we came to. The changes won't be undone because of one user. Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 16:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see. First. You accuse me on my talk that; "I didn't get in a content dispute. You were the one who started everything."

This is not the issue. You have implemented the AWB without any adequate consensus or agreement, and have total disregarded the consequence of your actions, even when you were advised of the issues and risks.

As for the quotes above.

1st: I didn't do anything based on my preference. As I said, I didn't try to influence anyone in my first message

That is not relevant. Influencing people is not the problem, it is the way you have damaged +1000 articles with AWB when you were expressly advised not to do.

2nd: You're wrong - "The astronaut looked down on the earth from the International Space Station". The word "earth" in this case IS capitalized. It is referring to our planet.

Just shows how little you comprehend the usage of these terms. It's an example of your opinion not the consensus view. (What is worst, is that you have changed a lot of references, which have the correct usage as published.)

3rd: As I said above, all the edit summaries have called the attention of many people. The thing is that people will only leave a comment here is if they have something to oppose. When you say you will revert my edits, you're pretty much disregarding the dozens of people who are ok with them. Cheers,"

So what. It also disregards the other who don't think it is OK, and whom you just ignored.

If you wish to defend your position, just go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard and make you case.

In the meantime, please don't revert any future pages with this specific issue until this is resolved. Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tetra quark said; :"This is turning into personal attacks. If you are new to this discussion, please read the whole post to see what consensus we came to. The changes won't be undone because of one user."

There is no personal attack here.

It is clear you are not listening or do not understand the problem here.

Stating there is consensus when there is not shows clearly that point.

Furthermore, my objection was the way you have done this, not necessarily because I object to the changes.Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Arianewiki1: I take this to be a very unambiguous sign that there is a clear consensus to capitalize "Earth", "Moon", "Solar System", and "Sun". Tetra quark's edits regarding this are appropriate. Maybe Tetra quark should have allowed more discussion time, but I understand why he went ahead: everyone who came here basically said the same thing about it.

Also, Arianewiki1, that AWB warning does not call for consensus, but for taking full personal responsibility. AFAICS, Tetra quark is doing that. So what if a mistake is occasionally made? Mistakes are bound to be made because we're all humans and we all make mistakes, whether we're using AWB or not. Also, "Earth-like" should be capitalized because it means "(being) like Earth", referring specifically to our planet. --JorisvS (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Section 3 of AWB says ""Do not make controversial edits with it. Seek consensus for changes that could be controversial at the appropriate venue; village pump, WikiProject, etc. "Being bold" is not a justification for mass editing lacking demonstrable consensus. If challenged, the onus is on the AWB operator to demonstrate or achieve consensus for changes they wish to make on a large scale."

Tetra quark violated this provision, probably deliberately by his actions, to avoid proper scrutiny.

Conclusive statement stating "...that AWB warning does not call for consensus, but for taking full personal responsibility, is plainly absolutely false.

An occasional error on one page is understandable. +1000 is tantamount to a deliberate provocative act, especially mad worst that no single editor could possibly fix it page by page with out almost months of effort - whose wicked effect was implemented by machine code.

If editors are given such things, and abuse the privilege defined precisely by the rules, they ought to be sanctioned for any abuse of them. Yet the rule seems to be punish the complainer and reward the transgressor for such violations. Achieving consensus is rewarded, even when another wantonly tries so desperately to conceal that someone might disagree. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would make a great deal of sense to turn this discussion into a broader discussion, through the Wikipedia:Request for comment system, to get input of those who may have more general linguistic knowledge than those editors who are specifically interested in this project and watch this page. Having said that, most of these terma, as I have already said at the WP:DRN discussion, are generic terms primarily and secondary names secondarily, and it would probably be better to go to WP:MOS or some similar more appropriate page to get broader input from the community, probably best received through RfC. John Carter (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Q. All the references that have these terms in them have been now changed. Most astronomical papers have all lower case or mixtures of them to make them unique. How are these going to be repaired now? Sources like the Astrophysical Data Service, for example are structured that way. Arianewiki1 (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re WP:MOS I decided to look if there was earlier discussion there. I found the original editor's explanation about Capitalization of celestial bodies for sun earth moon -- it was discussed on the talk page and some authorities (though not NASA) were consulted. I did not find any talk page discussion or edit summary explanation about the addition of solar system by this edit of January 9 2012. The latest arguments were about Capitalization of sun only two weeks ago. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CALIFA

While exploring DRAFTspace for WPCOSMOLOGY articles, I found an interesting astronomy draft article that might be worth saving, Draft:Calar Alto Legacy Integral Field Area Survey. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 06:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found some extra sources and listed them on the draft's talk page. There are also lots of Spanish ones but, because I speak no Spanish, I can't evaluate them for content or reliability. Even with the sources I found I still question the topic's notability. Perhaps it should be merged to Calar Alto Observatory. Reyk _YO! 08:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeeda, that's worth publishing Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 16:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]