Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Archive 6

message: I was about to create a List of Supernovae, after seeing that there weren't too many supernovae listed in :Category:Supernovae and thinking that a list of them would be nice, when I googled to check the completeness of the category and found . After coming out of the shock of seeing just how many supernovae have actually been discovered (I was thinking ~100 at the most), I started wondering: what's the notability that supernovae require to have an article on Wikipedia? We obviously can't have articles about them all. Mike Peel 17:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Though it isn't the criterion I had in mind when I started thinking about this, I would say that only those individual supernovae that reach naked-eye brightness have a chance to be notable enough to rate their own article.  1987A certainly does.  1054 (the Crab supernova), yes, though it arguably belongs as a subheading in the article for the Crab Nebula and not by itself as a supernova.  SN 1572 (Tycho's) and SN 1604 (Kepler's) warrant articles too.  Having just added a paragraph about 1972E to the history of supernovae observation article, I would say it does not merit its own article, even though it might have in the '70s and '80s when it was a key example and leaned very heavily upon by everyone doing supernova physics. Most of the others that appear in that list of supernovae seem to me also likely to be figurative flashes-in-the-pan, that is, interesting only in the context of current events, and in a few years they won't be worth separate articles of their own.  BSVulturis 19:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: (after edit conflict) Maybe this list represents the "most notable" supernovae in the "historical" sense. With this I mean the supernovae that expanded knowledge about these objects or astronomy as a whole. For example, the first supernovae found to be outside of our own galaxy, the first with a light curve measured using photographic methods, a.s.o.. Also, the "standard" types maybe part of this list as they were defined, historically. Hope this helps. Awolf002 19:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I'm planning on putting the following articles up on AfD: SN 1986G, SN 1994D, SN 2003B, SN 2004dj, SN 2005B, SN 2005bc, SN 2005cs, SN 2005df and SN 2006F. None of these seem to be notable, either historically or scientifically; if I'm wrong, please let me know. Mike Peel 19:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember perhaps that notability is not subjective, nor is notability the same as fame or importance. If we can find a peer reviewed scientific paper written about the supernova, and at least one other published work (say a webpage) about the SN, then I think we can say that it is notable, even if you do not consider it important (e.g. from a historical perspective) or famous (e.g. that it achieved naked-eye brightness). If a scientist has gone to the trouble of writing a paper about it, then it most definitely is "worthy of being noted". Some of the above supernovae do have papers written about them. Others do not. Perhaps we should AfD those that do not. Richard B 20:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you mean to disagree with BSVulturis. ;-) Awolf002 20:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed this.  Dr. Submillimeter 20:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading WP:N, I guess I drew the line too high, and as that language stands, the other supernovae are notable enough. I have reservations about that policy, but that's a different topic. BSVulturis 21:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If that is the case, then Hypernova is in dire need of an update. At the present it says that "No hypernovae explosions have been definitively observed, and the explanation has fallen from favor as it has become clear that gamma ray bursts are beamed into very narrow opening angles of less than 1% of a sphere, so that ordinary supernovae can power them." Mike Peel 21:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Feel free to choose and add an appropriate warning template to the article.  Dr. Submillimeter 21:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have now retracted my nomination of the category for deletion. Mike Peel 21:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that categories and lists are used in different ways and we should not mix these two concepts. All notable supernovae should have an article in WP and be in the :Category:Supernovae, as discussed by Richard B above. However, a list would be a special article for supernovae that are "special" in some way, I would submit. Anything wrong with this approach? Awolf002 21:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only that, based on past experience, in producing a "list" it's generally a good idea to have the inclusion criteria well-defined and sufficient restrictive to keep the page manageable and verifyable. (Unless you want the page to pass through the AfD mill in short order.) Personally, however, if a supernova is suitably notable then I'd like to see it included on the "History of supernova observation" page instead, or perhaps on a "recent results" page. — RJH (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supernovae 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 16:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This association/project page/policy proposal seems to violate Wikipedia is not a Social Club... and the Wikipedia:Birthday Committee by my interpretation *is* a violation of WP:NOT. 70.51.8.123 09:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: Hi, I just nominated Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector to be a Featured article candidate.  Hopefully, you all think that the article is excellent and can support it. ;) But if not, please offer constructive criticisms on how it might be improved, which will be much appreciated.  Thanks very much for your help!  Willow 10:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector is now FAC

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric universe (concept). Comment as you will. --ScienceApologist 14:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Of possible interest

message: I put the Moon article up for peer review again to see if there is anything else needed for FA. Please comment. — RJH (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moon PR 

message: Should some of the entries on the WPAO Worklist be moved to a WP Astronomy worklist? These appear to be candidates for a relocation:
* Astronomy
* Big Bang
* Cosmology
* Hertzsprung-Russell diagram
* Hubble's law
* Main sequence
* Standard candle
* Star formation
* Stellar evolution
* Stellar population
* Universe
A case might also be made for these:
* Black hole
* BL Lacertae object
* Bok globule
* Comet
* Galaxy
* Galaxy cluster
* Gamma ray burst
* Giant Molecular Cloud
* Globular cluster
* H I region
* H II region
* Neutron star
* Open cluster
* Planet
* Planetary nebula
* Protostar
* Quasar
* Red giant
* Star
* Stellar association
* Supercluster
* Supernova
* Supernova remnant
* Variable star &c.
* White dwarf
* Wolf-Rayet star
as they are general topic pages rather than specific objects. — RJH (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and move all the terms if you want.  (Is "HI region" a real term?  I always hear about HII regions but never HI regions.)  Dr. Submillimeter 20:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must admit that before now I've never heard the term "H I region" either. But there is an Encyclopædia Britannica article on the topic and it gets 16,300 ghits. — RJH (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that the second list should appear at both wikiprojects. 70.51.9.51 06:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...which means they'll need to be maintained in both locations. It's too bad wikipedia doesn't have an automated means to handle quality tracking; it would make this process much easier. Anyway I copied the list over to the Astronomy worklist and let this one alone. The later is somewhat out of date, however. — RJH (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It does. See Template:Physics and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Physics articles by quality for an example. I'll set up a system like this for this WikiProject, and the other astronomy ones, when I get the time... Mike Peel 21:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: HI Region used here, Cache abstract, thanks, CarpD 10/1/06
It has been suggested here that the banner  be merged with  and  into a hypothetical  banner. This would take a good amount of work, that i'm willing to take on (with help, hopefully!). Comments welcome here. Mlm42 09:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worklist? 

message: I decided to stop procrastinating/making a queue of things that need doing, and actually do something. I've set up Template:WPAstronomy, which can be placed on the talk pages of astronomy articles using . An article can be marked as an astronomical object by using . Note that all articles marked as objects will appear as being part of WP Astronomy and WP Astronomical Objects, which I thought would be the best approach; if not, I can create a seperate template for astronomical objects. Ratings can be done as described at Template:WPAstronomy/usage.
A bot should come along and create pages listing the articles sometime in the next 24 hours; I'll provide links to them here when they've been created (or keep an eye on :Category:Astronomy articles by quality and :Category:Astronomical Objects articles by quality; the pages should appear in there). These pages will subsequently be automatically kept up to date by the bot (updating approx every 24 hours).
I operate a different bot, Peelbot, which should be able to do automated tagging of article talk pages with this new template, if people want. I need to put in two requests if people want me to do this; one to update the software I'm using so that it can support the object tag, and another to get approval to do the tagging using a bot. I would then need a list of categories and/or pages that need tagging. Mike Peel 22:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: HI Region used here, Cache abstract, thanks, CarpD 10/1/06
It has been suggested here that the banner  be merged with  and  into a hypothetical  banner. This would take a good amount of work, that i'm willing to take on (with help, hopefully!). Comments welcome here. Mlm42 09:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:WPAstronomy]] 

message: I recently put a "confusing" banner on two sections of eclipse cycle, but this has been challenged by someone who appears to be the person who wrote the sections. Would someone please be so kind as to weigh in with an objective third opinion? Also, I was considering placing the same confusing banner on the subsection "Saros series" of Saros cycle, so I'd appreciate it if someone could consult with this topic as well. Lunokhod 15:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Eclipse cycle]]: confusing, or not? 

message: This stub list article is up for AfD. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of smallest stars.) Personally I don't have an issue with that page going away. It's difficult to see why it would be notable. But I thought I'd make mention in case there's an objection. — RJH (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of smallest stars]] 

message: Supernova is the new Science Collaboration of the Month. Good work! NCurse  work 06:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science Collaboration of the Month 

message: Comment here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph Juergens. --ScienceApologist 18:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD of interest

message: Please see the "Astronomical coordinate templates" section of Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 7. Thank you. Mike Peel 18:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominated for deletion 

message: From the above comments, it seems that people here don't realise what can be done with templates using parser functions. These enable the use of if (and more complicated) statements in the templates, which mean that optional parameters can be used. When no value is given to an optional parameter, it won't appear in the infobox - and by that, I mean both the parameter and the value. It will appear as if the parameter doesn't exist, until someone looks at the template call commands. This can be good or bad; it's good as the infoboxes look cleaner, but it's bad because visitors to the page won't know that the parameters need to be filled. The latter can be avoided by giving the parameter a null value (e.g. a "?"), which forces it to be displayed.
As nothing beats a real-life example, take a look at Template:Infobox Space telescope. When no parameters have values, the infobox looks like the one on the right of that page. For an example where some, but not all, of the parameters have values set, see COROT. Hubble Space Telescope, on the other hand, has many more of the values set.
This means that there is no need to split infoboxes into multiple templates, as has been done with the star template (which I'll have to redo at some point, methinks). It also means that there's no need to create multiple infoboxes for similar objects that have slightly different information available for them; the extreme would be having a single infobox for all astronomical objects, but that would be an awfully complex template, so grouping objects in terms of "Galaxy clusters", "Galaxies", etc. works much better.
The big disadvantage with this type of template, though, is that the templates tend to get very complex, and can't be easily edited by those that aren't familiar with them. For an example of this, see the code behind Template:Physics.
Hopefully all of the above makes sense. Any questions? Mike Peel 23:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an incredibly useful feature.  I would like to see it added to the galaxy and galaxy cluster templates (once this discussion is finished).  I do agree that the code may be formidible to some people.  It would be bad if, for some reason, Mike Peel stopped working on Wikipedia and no one else could disentangle the code.  Desptie this, I am still in favor of adding the complex code to the infoboxes.  Dr. Submillimeter 23:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Makes a lot of sense. Yes, I think #if statements make multipart templates unnecessary. For an "end user" a single template is considerably easier. That outweights the complexity of the template itself.--JyriL talk 23:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Moving categories into templates could categorizing much easier, especially in the case of stars and asteroids, which have multiple subcategories. For example, if a galaxy is listed as "spiral" in the infobox, the category changes automatically into :Category:Spiral galaxies instead of :Category:Galaxies. In a similar manner, the correct constellation category would be selected automatically. #if statements make selecting the right catalog category easy (e.g. if for example the  parameter is not null, the article is listed in the :Category:NGC objects category).--JyriL talk 23:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Another drawback to the parser function is an apparent built-in limit on the number you can include on a page. (Beyond that amount you start experiencing errors, as we did with the long worklist page.) — RJH (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the auto categories, be alert to need to do sorting.  For example, if NGC cat is automatically added, the category entry needs to be four digits, i.e. 0343 for NGC 343.  This comes up in other ways too, for example the Andromeda I to IX galaxies need good sorting.  WilliamKF 00:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Category sorting is a problem, but managing the categories in thousands of articles manually is time-consuming and tedious job.--JyriL talk 16:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the categories are not tied to a template, that frees up the possibility that a user with editing software (such as WilliamKF) or a bot can sort the categories.  I would prefer that to binding the categories to the template.  Dr. Submillimeter 17:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates using parser functions 

message: Please see User:Mike Peel/template (permalink) for a proposed update to Template:Comet. I'd recommend comparing the example given with the template currently in use at Halley's Comet. Comments/suggestions? Mike Peel 11:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Comet 

message: I have proposed that Template:astro-stub be renamed to Template:astronomy-stub. Please comment at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/January/7. Thanks. Mike Peel 10:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming astro-stub to astronomy-stub 

message: Earlier Discussion moved to Template talk:Infobox Planet. Mike Peel 17:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see rather important differences in the sets of parameters. This does not look like a good idea to me. Awolf002 00:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thinking about it some more, I agree with you with Template:Comet; that should not be merged into Infobox Planet. I'm less convinced with Template:Extrasolar Planet; I've actually already coded the three important template differences (detection method, longitude and time of periastron); see Template:Infobox_Planet#Exosolar_Planets. Mike Peel 10:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, we can give that a try. I'm just a bit "put-off" by the complexity of  Template:Infobox Planet. Who is going to understand and maintain an even larger, merged template? Awolf002 12:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Would this be applicable to moons and rings as well as planets?  Dr. Submillimeter 23:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Probably not rings, but definitely moons. I've actually been working through the moon pages converting them to this template (previous to this, they've had wikicode infoboxes, not a template); for examples of it in use, see Phobos (moon) or Moon. Mike Peel 08:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we could avoid using the term "natural satellites" if the template does not apply to both rings and moons.  However, I do agree that, with only a few exceptions, most of the lines in the templates for planets and moons are similar. Dr. Submillimeter 09:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm wary that the template currently uses the word "Planet" to describe pretty much everything that goes around the sun or another object, given all of the recent arguments over the definition of this word of late. Hence I've been trying to think of an alternative word. The best I've come up with so far is "Natural Satellite" (Ckatz's suggestion of "Infobox Small, Medium, or Large Lump of Rock, Gas, or Ice, possibly Spherical, that May (or May Not) be a Planet" is sadly a little clumsy, and doesn't roll off the tongue that easily). Do you have any suggestions? Mike Peel 09:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  I think that we should use the same template for the Sun infobox, so maybe something like SolarSystemObject or PlanetaryObject would be appropriate. Lunokhod 11:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I haven't looked into it yet, but I was planning on using Template:Infobox Star for the Sun, once it's complete. I don't know how similar the template parameters are yet, though. Mike Peel 11:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I liked the name "PlanetaryObject".  It communicates that the object is planet-like without actually identifying it as a planet.  Dr. Submillimeter 19:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Infobox Planet]] 

message: In working on Protoplanetary nebula I see that there is confusion on the naming (see article and its references) and that some propose using the term Preplanetary nebula instead.  However, the idea has not caught on broadly yet.  What do folks think about making Preplanetary nebula the preferred term on wikipedia to avoid the confusion issues cited in the article?  WilliamKF 00:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A title search on "preplanetary nebula" versus "protoplanetary nebula" at the ADS Abstract Service (with the "synonym replacement feature turned off) shows that "protoplanetary nebula" is preferable.  "Protoplanetary nebula" has been used in the titles of 121 papers; "preplanetary nebula" has been used in 22.  Dr. Submillimeter 10:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A Google Scholar search gives 819 results for "Protoplanetary nebula", and only 83 for "preplanetary nebula" (and asks me "Did you mean: "protoplanetary nebula"  "). That confirms Dr. <mm's findings. It is not for us at Wikipedia to try to rename something (or help in renaming something), so I would recommend sticking with Protoplanetary nebula for the article's name until preplanetary becomes more popular in the literature (if it does). Mike Peel 11:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about "proto-planetary nebula" (639 hits). It makes clear that the prefix "proto-" refers to "planetary nebula", not just "planetary" (cf. "protoplanetary disk"), which could be misleading.--JyriL talk 16:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A title search at ADS Abstracts turns up 104 titles with "proto-planetary nebula" versus 121 with "protoplanetary nebula".  It does not appear to be a style choice by an individual journal, either; ApJ has used both.  Dr. Submillimeter 17:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protoplanetary nebula vs Preplanetary nebula

message: Please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 11. Mike Peel 20:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:Planet Infobox/(22543) Ranjan is still in use. You'll need to deference that to avoid an objection from me. ;-) Otherwise it looks good. Thanks! — RJH (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for pointing that out. I thought I'd put the new infobox onto (22543) Ranjan, but it seems that I forgot to press save before closing the window, or something. :-/ It's fixed now. Mike Peel 21:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planet Infoboxes TfD's 

message: As some may be aware, plasma cosmology has been the subject of a few disputes here at Wikipedia. The article was recently rewritten. Come and judge, edit, reference, and comment on it. --ScienceApologist 01:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plasma cosmology live!

message: Should Cubewano be named that, or Classical Kuiper Belt object? A discussion on this on the talk page of that article came up with no consensus. The latter name gets over 1000 hits on Google Scholar, while the former only gets 13. Additionally, "cubewano" gets 13,000 normal Google hits, while classical Kuiper Belt Object gets 155,000. Hence, I think that the article should be renamed. Any comments? Mike Peel 11:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Twotino was turned into Resonant trans-Neptunian object a while ago.  Perhaps cubewano should also be turned into a redirect?  Dr. Submillimeter 17:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cubewano]] 

message: It has been proposed that Lunar year be merged with Lunar calendar. Please leave your comments on the talk page. Lunokhod 13:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Lunar year]] with [[Lunar calendar]] 

message: I have proposed the Basin Groups article for deletion. Please leave your opinion at the appropriate page. Lunokhod 10:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Basin Groups]] article proposed for deletion. 

message: I've nominated 50000 Quaoar as Good Article, and have received a review noting various things that should be done to bring it up to GA status. I've started work on some items but need help on others (especially referencing). So if anyone can help on improving it, it would be much appreciated. Thanks! - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 21:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  50000 Quaoar - GA work underway, help please? 

message: As the subject says: are Burpers the same thing as RRATs? Mike Peel 18:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  RRATs emit short radio bursts (2–30 milliseconds, cf. ).  The only object called a burper, GCRT J1745-3009, emitted radio bursts ~10 minutes long. Spacepotato 20:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've been talking to someone who works in the subject (mainly on RRATS), and they hadn't heard of the name - although they did know of the source. I'm currently leaning towards redirecting burper to GCRT J1745-3009, rather than trying to put this through AfD. Any comments? Mike Peel 22:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I anticipate that the results of an AfD would be to turn it into a redirect.  Hence, turning the article into a redirect would be best.  We also have :Category:Burpers.  Would you like me to make the category disappear?  Dr. Submillimeter 23:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you can, then please do so. Otherwise, it can just be passed through WP:CfD. Thanks. Mike Peel 23:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I depopulated the category.  Wait four days, and then I will mark the category for speedy deletion.  Dr. Submillimeter 09:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The category has now disappeared.  23:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. Mike Peel 08:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are [[Burper]]s [[RRAT]]s? 

message: Mike Peel 10:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Comet Hyakutake]] 

message: I noticed that the starbox templates had been modified to use units of "a", which is apparently the SI unit for year (presumably from annum.) (I switched them back temporarily until I could get some feedback.) While I'm hardly against the use of the metric system, it seems to me that "mas/yr" is the widely used units for proper motion. Units of "mas/a" is likewise pretty obscure to me. It also seems like "a" could be confused with semi-major axis. Likewise an age in units of "a" is also obscure; it looked like a typo. Is there a consensus on which is preferable? Thanks. — RJH (talk)
: I think that the proper abbreviation for annum is "an", not "a", and they seem to be exactly the same thing (i.e. 1 mas/yr = 1 mas/an). I'd say keep as mas/yr (wikilinked to an appropriate explanation, or alternatively mas/yr), as (as far as I know) that's the current standard way of putting it. At the least, years are used everywhere on this planet, aren't they? Mike Peel 23:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Contrary to popular belief, there is no SI unit for year! "annum" is commonly used in geology, though as a geologist, it is never clear to me if this means "years" or "years ago." NIST suggest just spelling the entire unit when it is not standard, so I would go for replacing "a" with just "years". Lunokhod 23:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Years (abbrebiated as yr) are commonly used in astronomy, even if they are not officially SI units of measurement.  Dr. Submillimeter 09:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. — RJH (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: An is French for year... which is why I think it shows up as an so often. 70.55.85.124 11:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: At some level, this anal-rententive definition for year is not necessary.  The differences are much smaller than 1% for most of the described units for year.  We could probably just use "yr".  Dr. Submillimeter 17:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I said, "I agree that it is better to use "yr" in an infobox" because using "a" is too obscure for readers of a general reference like Wikipedia.--mikeu 18:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SA units for "year" 

message: A question that seems to recur every so often on the Moon page is: Where do I find information about Earth's "other moons"? Of course, Earth only has one natural satellite, but there have been a handful of objects that have been discovered that can be descibed either as a quasi-satellite (which has the same orbital period, but different eccentricty) or as a co-orbital moon (which has the same mean distance from the Sun as the Earth, but orbits in a horseshoe orbit about the Earth). It think that this information should be collected onto a single page, but I have no idea as what to call it. Does anybody have a suggestion that is not factually incorrect? Lunokhod 23:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's always Quasi-satellites and co-orbital moons of Earth, although it isn't that catchy. Mike Peel 23:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Orbital companions of Earth? - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 01:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Moons of Earth would seem to fit the bill... then redirect Earth's moons, Earth's natural satellites, Natural satellites of Earth, Co-orbital moons of Earth and Quasi-satellites of Earth to it. 70.55.85.124 11:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that "Moons of Earth" is a factually incorrect phrase. Lunokhod 12:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it turns out, that's true, but the question is not absurd.  See Longo & Morris May 1986 Astronomical Journal vol 91 pp 1238-1241, on a sensitive search for other, small, natural satellites of Earth in close direct orbits. BSVulturis 16:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Could this be covered at near Earth asteroid?  Dr. Submillimeter 16:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Dr. Submillimeter. Most of the suggestions above would make excellent headings for a new section there. If it grows too large and takes over the article, it can always be split off later. Spiral Wave 20:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earth's "other moons" 

message: I have nominated the Astroboxes for deletion; please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 28. Thanks. Mike Peel 22:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astrobox templates up for deletion 

message: (This message copied to WP:Astronomical objects, WP:Space, and WP:Astronomy)
Hey!  I was looking around for groups of articles to nominate as a Featured Topic, and I came across Upsilon Andromedae, b, c, and d.  All four of these articles are GA class, and together fulfill every requirement of a FT, except that none of them are Featured Articles themselves.  If one of them, preferably Upsilon Andromedae itself, was promoted to Featured Article, then the Topic as a whole would most likely pass FTC.  So, if anyone wants to shoot for that, have at it!  Also, if any members of this Wikiproject know of a group of articles that fits the criteria, then please nominate them!  Thank you!  --PresN 18:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Astronomy Featured Topic 

message: Please leave your comments on the talk page. Lunokhod 00:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that an astronomical object or category of astronomical objects? Else: NOPE-Negative-Nix-Njet-No! Rursus declamavi;  21:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Independent evidence for human Moon landings]] into [[Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Accusations]] 

message: Please leave your comments on the appropriate page. Lunokhod 20:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article up for deletion: [[Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings]] 

message: I posed some questions on the "Talk:Jupiter" page and I was hoping for some feedback. If it isn't too much trouble, would the members of this project mind taking a look and sharing their opinions? Thank you. — RJH (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no interest expressed, so I'm implementing significant (Bull in a China shop) changes to the article. Hope the results are satisfactory. — RJH (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions about Jupiter article 

message: Hereby I humbly request the Community for permission to merge the stubby article Apis (constellation) with the more advanced article Musca (constellation). The reasons are covered more indetail on the talk page of Apis, but in essence my opinion is that "Apis" was the old name for the constellation which today is named "Musca". Rursus declamavi;  22:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it.  However, please use inline citations (e.g. footnotes) to reference the material.  Dr. Submillimeter 09:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, that's a good habit. Rursus declamavi;  09:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, done. Rursus declamavi;  10:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for merger: Apis+Musca = Musca 

message: Andromeda-Milky Way collision has been nominated for deletion.  Please go comment.  Dr. Submillimeter 23:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The result of the discussion was keep.--mikeu 16:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Andromeda-Milky Way collision]] nominated for deletion 

message: The article the Rudolphine Tables sezz that Tycho's and Kepler's all star positions are in Tabulæ Rudolphinæ, but does this catalogue (meaning: the tables, images or UTF-8 text) exist on the Net? Same for Johannes Hevelius' star catalogue. Anyone that knows anything?? Rursus 10:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tabulæ Rudolphinæ online entries 254-268. Om nåt skall göras ordentligt, får man göra det själv. (Rursus'es telltale) Rursus 20:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wanted: Tabulæ Rudolphinæ star catalogue/Hevelius star catalogue 

message: This is hopfully the last time... Go to the talk page to leave your opinion. Lunokhod 16:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings]] into [[Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Accusations]] 

message: The planet infoboxes have been modified to use "a" to indicate "year". While technically correct and useful in scientific communications, this is non-common usage and most readers are not going to understand what it means. It seems equally non-helpful to abbreviate "day" as "d" — RJH (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The other astronomers that I know and I use "yr" for year.  That would be preferable to "a".  I see less of a problem with using "d" for day.  Dr. Submillimeter 17:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "a" is non-standard usage. Even in geology, one only uses "ka, Ma, Ga", and never "a". As there are no SI units for year (and I don't think so for day either, though I should check), I would vote for either "year" or "yr", and "day". Lunokhod 17:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  I'm inclined to agree. Rursus 20:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you. By the way, the Jupiter article is a FAC nominee again. So far it seems to be on the way to a successful FA promotion. — RJH (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has been promoted. — RJH (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The abbreviation "yr" is simply easier to understand.  Moreover, it is used by many professional astronomers, including me, and the Astrophysical Journal and Astronomical Journal do accept "yr" in articles.  Moreover, the abbreviation "yr" is easily understood by non-astronomers.  Dr. Submillimeter 10:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "a" for year 

message: ==== Use the ISO 31-1 suggested symbol a ====
* Support. In my opinion, the presence of a link (to "year") means any "confusion" on a novice reader's part will be momentary, and he will learn something from the experience. Sticking to the English abbreviation lessens the universality of the infobox, in contrast with the other measurements. Urhixidur 13:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For the year 

message: * Support. In my opinion, the presence of a link (to "year") means any "confusion" on a novice reader's part will be momentary, and he will learn something from the experience. Sticking to the English abbreviation lessens the universality of the infobox, in contrast with the other measurements. Urhixidur 13:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use the ISO 31-1 suggested symbol '''a''' 

message: * Support — Avoids confusion as the abbreviation is clearer to most readers and "a" is not widely used. (My brain keeps wanting to interpret "a" as semi-major axis, for whatever reason.) — RJH (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use the English appreviation '''yr''' 

message: ==== Use SI symbol d ====
The day is listed in Table 6, Non-SI units accepted for use with the International System of Units.
* Support. Seems a no-brainer to me. Urhixidur 13:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For the day 

message: The day is listed in Table 6, Non-SI units accepted for use with the International System of Units.
* Support. Seems a no-brainer to me. Urhixidur 13:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use SI symbol '''d''' 

message: I have just started a Solar System portal, at Portal:Solar System. Feel free to contribute. Atomic1609 14:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good initiative. Membership? Rursus 14:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There probably should be a solar system project page as well. As it is now, there is a Moon project, and martian geography, but that's about it. Lunokhod 19:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think Lunokhod was saying that the section "WikiProjects" has only those WikiProjects in them?? But now there is more so it really doesn't matter. Branson03 18:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad, it was already there, oops! Branson03 18:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:Solar System]] 

message: Exploded Planet Hypothesis has been AfD'd. 70.55.84.23 06:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exploded Planet Hypothesis 

message: Large pathetic galaxy is up at AfD. Please comment if you have any interest. Chrislintott 07:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ROTFL, sorry I missed that! Was that a name of an article really? :-) Rursus 11:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Large pathetic galaxy]] 

message: An emphemerides ("aspects") of 2 Pallas was introduced by anonymous user 85.74.29.233 on July 7, 2005. Judging by the contributions, it looks like this user did the same for other asteroids. My feeling on this is that an ephemerides doesn't really belong in wikipedia. Since I can't find a suitable reference I'm thinking of removing it from the 2 Pallas page. Does anybody have an objection to this, or a good alternative? Thank you. — RJH (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think most people support this.  Also, see the discussion on similar emphemerides up above.  Dr. Submillimeter 15:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: e.g. I support removal of these tables. They serve no useful purpose as far as I can see, clutter the articles, and are often out of date. Anyway, would you use ephemerides seen on Wikipedia without checking the source first? Deuar 17:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I can only believe these tables are none too useful for planning an observing/photography session. Probably it's there mainly for astrology usage. So we could always include the Horizons online ephemeris link instead. — RJH (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly do not believe the tables were for astrology myself.  They were probably created by someone who wanted to show off their ability to program an ephemeris-calculating tool.  User:Lunokhod has had some problems dealing with people like that.  Anyhow, the link looks like a much better alternative.  Dr. Submillimeter 22:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be. Many of the web references I found on the subject of asteroid ephemerides seemed to be related to astrology, so I just assumed... If the data is legitimate astronomical information then possibly it would make more sense to transwiki it to wikisource, for example. There is an astronomy category. Would the name "Asteroid aspects" be suitable? — RJH (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asteroid ephemerides 

message: I have proposed merging :Category:Free astronomy software into :Category:Astronomy software.  Most of the software listed in :Category:Astronomy software is also free, so the subdivision does not seem appropriate.  Please go state any opinions you have at WP:CFD.  Dr. Submillimeter 22:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Free astronomy software]] 

message: I've completed pass 1 of the edit of Black hole discussed in Talk:Black_hole#Possible_restructure? Please check it for errors, inconsistencies and serious omissions. For comparison, the previous version of the article is at Philcha. Talk:Black_hole#Please_review_the_recent_edits states the objectives of the edit.
I've also asked Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics and Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy to review Black hole, and I'm informing these projects that I've asked Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects to review Black hole.
 Dr. Submillimeter commented that Black hole is too long, and I think that for each major "entry point" article WP needs a plan which defines how much detail goes where (Talk:Black_hole#Please_review_the_recent_edits).
:My $.02 worth: I agree with Dr. Submillimeter, in that the article seems to be trying to cover too many different aspects of the subject. The current sections 1-6, 8, 11, and 13-18 appear to be the core topics. Sections 9, 10 (and possibly 8) could be an article on black hole astronomy, while sections 7 & 12 are interesting from a "What if?" perspective. Also the article as a whole has too many lists that should be prose. — RJH (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that a more general overview should sit at black hole, and subarticles should be created for astronomical black holes, black hole physics, history of black holes, black holes and quantum physics. 132.205.44.134 21:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most black holes are "astronomical black holes".  The only things that may not be "astronomical" are some tenatively-indetified things found in particle accelerators (according to the article).  I would suggest placing a higher-level summary of "astronomical black holes" (without using that term) at black hole and simply using supermassive black hole, intermediate mass black hole, and stellar mass black hole.  To some degree, this is already done, but maybe it can be cleaned up a little.  Dr. Submillimeter 22:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, but I don't believe this approach would significantly reduce the length of the main article. The usual method is to create daughter articles and apply a summary style to the main page. I was just contemplating how that might be done in the context of the current structure. — RJH (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please review "Black hole" article

message: The planet article has been neglected of late, and it would probably be a good idea for multiple people to read and edit it. It is classified as a core topic, recently had its "good article" status revoked, and on the whole it really needs some clean up. So, I am asking anyone who has some spare time to come look at it, give their opinions, and possibly make a few edits. Thanks--Vsst 03:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planet 

message: These pages have appeared at WP:AFD. 132.205.44.134 23:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. The entire AfD process is an exercise in inconsistent cynicism and dealing with snide remarks from aggresive individuals. People will rally to keep unsourced, non-encyclopedic content (*COUGH*crap*COUGH*) and then a handful of people will toss out perfectly good material that has been many months in development. Sometimes it seems like it's easier to deal with stuff like this quietly rather than going through the gauntlet. Anyway I was WP:BOLD and modified these pages to be entirely astrology-specific, as I'm guessing that the on-line ephemeris information is probably much more useful for those interested in astronomy. It looks like the "Aspects" tables have already been yanked from the minor planets pages. Hopefully this doesn't offend anybody here. — RJH (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortunately, they've been deleted. 132.205.44.134 22:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Could someone delete the links from the Mars, Uranus and Pluto pages? They seem to be protected. 132.205.44.134 22:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  planetary aspects 

message: The article for Beta Pictoris is quite small, and while not quite a stub, is pretty pathetic for such an important object. It could do with some serious expansion. SIMBAD lists a lot of scientific papers which would be good references. Chaos syndrome 19:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beta Pictoris 

message: The Earth article is up for a Featured Article Candidate again. It has been reformated to appear more like the other planet articles and the reference list has been significantly expanded. Please take a look and leave your comments. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earth FAC 

message: I propose that this WikiProject should work on the Uranus article as it is now the only article within the Solar System featured topic that does not have good article or featured article status. Atomic1609 22:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'd be interested, but at present I'm preoccupied with expanding asteroid belt. — RJH (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uranus 

message: I just made a request to move Ptolemy Cluster to Messier 7.  "Messier 7" and "M7" are used far more often then "Ptolemy Cluster".  I had never even heard of the alternate name until I encountered the article while working on disambiguation pages.  Please go voice your opinion at Talk:Ptolemy Cluster.  Dr. Submillimeter 11:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to move [[Ptolemy Cluster]] to [[Messier 7]] 

message: A whole lot of asteroids appear to have these ephemerides sections attached to them. See asteroids starting at #10, and continuing on and on and on. 132.205.44.134 21:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These lists are horrible.  Just delete them.  (They only go up to asteroid 96.) Dr. Submillimeter 00:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I completely agree. — RJH (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  aspects of asteroids 

message: A few people have been categorizing astronomers by religion; see :Category:Astronomers by religion.  I have nominated the category tree for deletion.  I personally think this is a bad idea, as religion has no influence on the careers of any astronomers that I know.  Please go voice your opinion here.  Dr. Submillimeter 09:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it occurred to me that the astronomers I have known at the Vatican Observatory are probably influenced by religion more than average, although they are exceptions.  Still, for the vast majority of astronomers that I know, religion generally does not influence their careers.  Dr. Submillimeter 10:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization of astronomers by religion 

message: I just nominated :Category:Greek and Roman astronomers to be renamed :Category:Roman astronomers.  Combining the Greeks and Romans together just seems confusing.  Also note that :Category:Greek astronomers already exists.  Please go voice your opinion at WP:CFD.  Dr. Submillimeter 00:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Greek and Roman astronomers 

message: Is there any object to a migration of the category :Category:Astronomical units of length to a slightly broader group called ":Category:Astronomical units". That would allow the inclusion of topics such as Angular diameter, Solar mass, Solar luminosity and so forth. — RJH (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, perhaps it would be better if you supercat it? It fits under :Category:Units of length. 132.205.44.134 22:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's appropriate to have an astronomy-specific sub-category of units of length due to the uniqueness of some of the values. Added CFR entry under Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_12#Category:Astronomical_units_of_length. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Astronomical units of length 

message: User:Smkolins has proposed that meteoroid be renamed meteor 132.205.44.134 22:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the proposal?  I did not see in at Talk:Meteoroid.  Dr. Submillimeter 10:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RM#Incomplete and contested proposals. It was originally a speedy proposal, but someone contested it. 132.205.44.134 21:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meteoroid → Meteor  

message: Planetary mass type is now nominated for deletion. I basically nominated the article because it uses neologisms and appears to include original research.  It is also redundant with the well-referenced material in planet. Please go comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planetary mass type. Dr. Submillimeter 08:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also note that subterrestrial has been nominated for deletion.  Please go comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subterrestrial. Dr. Submillimeter 10:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Planetary mass type]] nominated for deletion 

message: Hi. Intrested to discuss? Then go HERE! Rursus 10:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for merger Celestial Atlas into Uranography

message: *Planetary formation→ Nebular hypothesis Solar nebula → Nebular hypothesis - Serendipodous 20:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:RM for the suggestion.
70.51.11.38 03:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solar nebula renaming 

message: See WP:SFD, User:BlueEarth created the stub type template:planet-stub/:category:planet stubs 132.205.44.134 23:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  stub-type ''planet-stub'' has been nominated for deletion 

message: User:Rsduhamel proposes that micrometeoroid be merged into meteoroid. 132.205.44.134 15:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be a problem with micrometeoroid, in that it confuses micrometeroid and micrometeorite. 132.205.44.134 15:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Micrometeoroid merge to meteoroid 

message: Because Neptune is an A-class article, I started a peer review for it. Feel free to review it or address some of the criticism so it can become a featured article candidate. The Solar System featured topic (currently the only Astronomy-related featured topic) is almost all featured articles and this makes it one step closer. — Pious7TalkContribs 19:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neptune Peer Review 

message: Is anyone familiar with these categories?  According to their descriptions, :Category:Extrasolar planets is used for stars with one planet, while :Category:Planetary systems is used for stars with multiple planets.  In plain English, however, "planetary system" would usually refer to any star with a planet, and "extrasolar planet" would refer to planets (not stars).  Would people object if I reorganized these articles following my above interpretation?  Another option would be to rename one or both of the categories to more clearly indicate their contents.  Dr. Submillimeter 20:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So this would turn "Planetary systems" into a star category, and "Extrasolar planets" only contains articles of planets themselves? 132.205.44.134 22:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  An alternative might be to have a "stars with planets" category, but that sounds dorky.  Dr. Submillimeter 22:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds ok to me. 132.205.44.134 22:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Extrasolar planets and Category:Planetary systems 

message: Uranus was been nominated for the Article Creation and Improvement Drive and needs support. As it is the one planet that is not a good or featured article, voting for it to keep it alive (and then helping improve it when it is selected) will help strengthen the one Astronomy-related featured topic. — Pious7TalkContribs 20:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Uranus]] on [[WP:ACID]]