Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

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

Multiple issues with List of largest exoplanets

Hi,

There is an ongoing discussion in the talk page of the List of largest exoplanets, regarding the accuracy of large radii calculated from the luminosities of young planets surrounded by dust, usage of artist's impressions, and miscellaneous notes. The specific discussion can be found in Talk:List of largest exoplanets#Multiple issues. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 21:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging this section, as the above talk page could use some more opinion on the value of artists' illustrations. - Parejkoj (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding lists of solar eclipses

Hello astronomers! I have already posted this on the Teahouse, but I was told to ask you guys instead. I am working on a list of all of the solar eclipses visible from Canada, and I have a question regarding how the list entries are classified. What exactly determines if only a "sliver" of the subdivision was in the path of the eclipse (and would therefore have a dagger next to its entry)? Is it subjective, or is there a concrete definition? Thanks! ✶Antrotherkus✶^✶talk✶ 20:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Link to draft for reference. Primefac (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

To answer the question, though... I don't know if that's particularly useful information. Is it really relevant to know whether something passed across the entirety of Nunavut, half of it, or a quarter of it? I wouldn't bother including that information, and would probably make the argument that such information could be removed from any existing articles (though I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise). Primefac (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion the vast majority of these eclipse articles are not notable, amounting to data, not knowledge. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, and AFD has supported that opinion for the most part, but that's somewhat of a different discussion. Primefac (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if you think that my draft isn't that great. I'm mainly just copying from the already-existent list of solar eclipses visible from the United States, meaning that I am using the same key (daggers included) as that article. ✶Antrotherkus✶^✶talk✶ 18:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Never said the draft wasn't great, I just don't see the "sliver" information being particularly useful. Primefac (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Epoch (cosmology)

"Epoch" seems to be used in astronomy to mean a point in time, eg the first instant of a calendar. In cosmology it seems to be a synonym for "era". Does anyone have a reference to this effect? "I have seen it used ..." is not helpful because we can't cite our own experience its not exactly verifiable ;-) Johnjbarton (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean "this effect?" It's just a difference in use of a term. In astrometry, epoch is the date of the observation (Julian Epoch Year), in cosmology it's "that period of time" (e.g. the epoch of reionization). I'm a bit surprised at that redirect, but I guess it's reasonable. - Parejkoj (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I meant: Does anyone have a reference discussing how the word "Epoch" has a different meaning in cosmology? Johnjbarton (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The word epoch covers both definitions. I don't think it's unique to cosmology. Praemonitus (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The third definition: "(chronology, astronomy, computing) A specific instant in time, chosen as the point of reference or zero value of a system that involves identifying instants of time." matches Epoch (astronomy) which says

• In astronomy, an epoch or reference epoch is a moment in time used as a reference point for some time-varying astronomical quantity.

The close connection between cosmology and astronomy would have lead me to think the same word would have the same meaning. That's why I was surprised. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Exception for WP:Toosoon and WP:SOURCES?

In this edit to Hubble's law @Banedon added content based on an unpublished and uncited ArXiv paper:

• Freedman, Wendy; et al. (12 August 2024). "Status Report on the Chicago-Carnegie Hubble Program (CCHP): Three Independent Astrophysical Determinations of the Hubble Constant Using the James Webb Space Telescope".

The claim added is very mild. Bandon has made the case in Talk:Hubble's law that this source should be allowed.

Since I routinely revert additions based on newly published papers let alone ArXiv preprints, I would like consensus on this exception. I would say the exception is based on the consortium of authors being a form of review, the YouTube video review, and the mild nature of the claim.

Please respond on Talk:Hubble's_law#Update_potentially_needed_for_Hubble_Tension_section?. Thanks.

(Posted to WikiProject physics and astronomy) Johnjbarton (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Freedman's group do good work, and are probably correct, but we should wait for publication and some citations, just like we do with everything else. - Parejkoj (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

List of star systems within 500-550 light-years nominated for deletion

@ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of star systems within 500-550 light-years   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not surprising that the lists of nearby star systems has kept expanding, because where do you cut them off? Praemonitus (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the cut-off is now 500 light years, with the outermost being List of star systems within 450–500 light-years. The outer lists are fairly short, so we could even merge the ones from 100 to 500 ly. But it's probably not worth the bother. Praemonitus (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Also, not bothering gives more room for expansion.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

A formal RfC against Universe Guide

So for context, I first noticed this questionable source regarding Theta Muscae, which I then reached out at WT:ASTRO for a note, and made me realize this source has been cited in multiple existing articles and is a worse problem than I thought. A past discussion on the RSN confirms this as an unreliable source and a personal blog website of N. John Whitworth, who has superficial background in astronomy, if at all (as one can see upon the poor grammar and science fiction-like writing of the site). However, that particular discussion was quite unfruitful and did not follow the proper method on launching an RfC investigation that should have classified this as a deprecated source and discouraged its use on Wikipedia.

This time, however, I wanted to launch a formal RfC against this website. It is very popular and appears mostly on the top of Google searches, so it would be inevitable that time and time again this farce blog will be used as a source for astronomy articles. I however did not have the tools to look for articles on where this website was used as a source and make a more solid complaint, as I believe 40 articles is an underestimation. I also don't know much about the history of how this website had been cited, so if anybody out there has the technical skills to outline this, maybe you can help out. It would be greatly appreciated.

That's all. I am having quite a bad day right now after staying all night, and I became more mad upon looking at this website's entries. SkyFlubbler (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@SkyFlubbler: Why not do this at RSN? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Special:LinkSearch may be helpful. Yes, this is clearly an unreliable source and shouldn't be cited. SevenSpheres (talk) 02:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey, this is exactly what I was looking for, thank you. I think I'll be writing one now. I'll go back here once it's finished. SkyFlubbler (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

100% not a reliable source. Please do file for it to be "officially" listed as such. There are a few other such bad sources used on some pages; I've listed some of them on here in the past. I don't think any of those had as wide a use as this one though. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it is an unreliable source, full of inconsistencies and wrong data. 21 Andromedae (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed here also. Universe Guide is just an amateur site, in all senses of the word. Skeptic2 (talk) 09:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

There's a claim in Saturn, a Featured article, which is cited to "Universe Guide". It needs at least a better source and perhaps a rewrite. See the opening line of Saturn#Atmosphere. Most of the other occurrences seem to be in less prominent places; they all ought to be fixed eventually, but this one sticks out in particular. I'd be concerned that any website source since 2009 could have just copied that claim from here, and I haven't yet had time to sift the literature for more trustworthy numbers. XOR'easter (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Comet C/2023 V4 (Camarasa-Duszanowicz)

Please will a specialist review this draft with a view to accepting it or offering the creating editor advice]] 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this comet is notable. It received little coverage outside the usual databases (not even dedicated astronomy news sites mention it). --C messier (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Archaeoastronomy

Archaeoastronomy has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Astronomical units

If you have any opinions about whether AU should be converted to SI units, please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Astronomical units. (To keep the discussion in one place, please don't reply below). -- Beland (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Artemis 1#Requested move 4 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Artemis 1#Requested move 4 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Radius calculation discussion

There is a discussion about NML Cygni and how to best calculate its radius. Please join in the conversation at Talk:List of largest stars § NML Cygni. Primefac (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Moon discussion

There is a discussion at Talk:Moon#External links that editors might be interested in joining. Otr500 (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Merging Theia (planet) into Giant impact hypothesis

I have proposed merging Theia (planet) into Giant impact hypothesis, see Talk:Giant-impact_hypothesis#Proposal_to_merge_Theia_(planet)_into_this_article. Participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)