Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 1

message: Please add comments to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Redshift. Thanks, --ScienceApologist 23:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FAC

message: Please review Special:Contributions/Mlhooten and Special:Contributions/166.82.166.38. Uncle G 14:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Astronomical subjects

message: Transit of Venus is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 17:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Transit of Venus]]

message: Definition of planet is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 20:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Definition of planet]]

message: Hi, I wrote a short stub on morning width using a definition I found somewherew on the Internet. Could someone who actually knows sometihng about astronomy verify its correctness? Cheers, —Ruud 21:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a really obscure term that I have not encountered in professional astronomy.  It would be the type of term used in archaeoastronomy.  A web search truns up nothing.  I am uncertain if this is a real term.  You should at least reference the source of your information (or a source that you are certain did not copy Wikipedia) so that other people can check your information. George J. Bendo 22:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I got the definition from http://www.delorie.com/gnu/docs/gcal/gcal_90.html. I translated the term from German: "Besonderes Interesse verdienen auch zwei Texte über die morgenweite und die Bestimmiung des Azimuts aus der Höhe, weil in ihnen indische Formeln in geometrischem Gewand gegeben werden und es so aussieht als ob sie mit Hilfe eines Sinusquadranten berechnet wroden wären." The two texts mentioned here are 9th century Arabic treatises on astronomy. —Ruud 22:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Morning width]] 

message: John Dee is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 21:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[John Dee]]

message: Black hole is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 16:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Black hole]]

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.  B2T2 23:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: I just nominated :Category:Astrophysicists for deletion today, as it appears to duplicate :Category:Astronomers. The discussion on the nomination led into a discussion about whether "astrophysics" can be considered a subcategory of "astronomy".  My immediate perception as a professional astronomer/astrophysicist is that the difference does not really exist, as most astronomers use physics in their analysis.  When I do a Google search on "difference between astronomy and astrophysics", I get links to a bunch of "ask the experts" pages that seem to say the same thing.  This led me to look at the astronomy and astrophysics articles in Wikipedia.  Unsurprisingly, the two articles contain duplicate information.  Additionally, some of the things described in astronomy are physics oriented, and some of the things in astrophysics are not physics intensive.  Similar statements can be made for :Category:Astronomy and :Category:Astrophysics.  In my opinion, it looks like all of this stuff should be merged together.  What are other people's opinions? 
GeorgeJBendo 18:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have had colleagues, astrometrists, who drew sharp distinction between astronomy and astrophysics, and put themselves firmly on the astronomer side.  As they worked strictly with collection and analysis of positional data, I can see their point.  Lord Rutherford's famous comment notwithstanding, one can be a solid practicing scientist doing fundamentally important work without being a physicist. BSVulturis 23:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Astronomy]] versus [[Astrophysics]] 

message: Would your WikiProject like to endorse Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines? If so, please let those editors at that guideline know. --ScienceApologist 19:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientific citations

message: A discussion has started at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects on merging these two WikiProjects.  This project seems mostly inactive.  However, if anyone here would like to comment on a potential merger, please do so at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects. Dr. Submillimeter 20:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger with WikiProject Astronomical objects

message: :Migrated here from WP:AO
In the Stellar classification page, their are several sentences under the O-M class stars that have the (LeDrew) phrase.  They been there for a while.  I deleted the G star phrase and put citation for the phrase that (LeDrew) left.  I think that the information if valid, but no citation is on it.
* [] - is the date that I removed one of them.
Thanks, CarpD 09/12/06
:Perhaps it was intended as a citation? But I don't see a reference by LeDrew at the bottom of the page. The revision was made 2/8/2006 by anonymous user 69.152.226.14, if that's any help. — RJH (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Stellar classification]] - (LeDrew)  

message: This page has received a number of edits and inline citations over the past couple of months. It's just been given GA status and it's in the queue for SCotW. I think that now it's fairly complete, if not a tad bloated. I'd appreciate it if some subject matter experts from the Astronomy projects could give it a review and see if there is anything missing or erroneous. It would be good if the page can be brought up to FA, but I suspect they'll want the size reduced. To do that there would probably need to be separate pages for Type Ia and Type II supernovae. Any thoughts? Thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RJHall (talk • contribs) 21:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think separate articles on Type Ia, Ib, Ic, and II supernovae is warranted.  Also, the article should describe more about the use of supernovae for distance measurements.  Otherwise, it looked fine when I glanced over it. Dr. Submillimeter 22:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. — RJH (talk) 23:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Supernova]] 

message: FYI—These astronomy articles are up for an Article Creation and Improvement Drive nominations. — RJH (talk) 23:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this post includes a specific object (Jupiter), could you please cross-post this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects)?  Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 10:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jupiter]], [[Universe]] and [[Black hole]] AC&ID 

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)
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: 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: 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: There's a draft worklist available for the project. I attempted to prioritize pages in a reasonable manner, but opinions will undoubtedly vary so it will require some alteration (and expansion). — RJH (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just been discussing with Dr. Submillimeter about setting up a system like Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Physics articles by quality for this project, and sub-projects. Is there sufficient interest in getting a system like that up and running here? Mike Peel 20:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There appears to be a lot of redundancy with Astronomy topics. Would you just adopt the Physics article ratings where they appear? I could imagine there may be some discrepancy in priorities. — RJH (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worklist 

message: 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.
Additionally, I've added an astrophysics parameter to the template, so that only one template is needed on pages covering astrophysics subjects, which currently fall under both WP:Astronomy and WP:Physics.
The following pages list the articles tagged with the template:
* Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Astronomical Objects articles by quality, with log and statistics pages.
* Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Astronomy articles by quality, with log and statistics pages.
These pages will be automatically kept up to date by a 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 22:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest simply tagging everything under :Category:Astronomy (including the subcategories and their contents) with Template:WPAstronomy.  That should be simple enough (hopefully).  Dr. Submillimeter 02:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The :Category:Astronomy is probably in need of some cleanup, with many of the pages being moved to appropriate sub-categories. Also the subcategories are sorted oddly. — RJH (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do this occasionally.  I still do not know what to do with some of the articles.  Many discuss coordinate systems.  I see that a lot of the Moon-related gobbledygook that irritates Lunokhod is also creeping into the category; I will attempt to diffuse that stuff.  Dr. Submillimeter 22:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps an Astrometry sub-category would serve as a place to dump the coordinate systems articles, as well as topics like proper motion? — RJH (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have occasionally tried to make sense of :Category:Spherical astronomy and its subcategories, but I get confused.  I just want to dump everything into a "Category:Astronomical coordinate systems" and forget about it all.  Dr. Submillimeter 23:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I have started using this.  I notice that this template does not include an importance field.  Why?  Dr. Submillimeter 13:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't think it was needed. It's on the physics tag, but I've always been concerned that people will get upset if their pet pages are rated as low importance. If people want it, it's easy enough for me to add it. Mike Peel 14:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Priorities should probably be indicated through project pages.  I am happy with leaving importance out of the template. Dr. Submillimeter 14:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:WPAstronomy]] 

message: Please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 11. Mike Peel 20:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planet Infoboxes TfD's 

message: I've noticed that the article quality categories are getting populated by astronomy articles on individual objects. (I.e. within the domain of WP:Astronomical Objects.) In particular the :Category:B-Class Astronomy articles category contains a number of individual galaxies and planets. So mayhap we need to reconsider a merge again? Also does anybody why are there duplicate columns in the :Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Astronomy articles by quality statistics table? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The table was designed to have different importance ratings across the top. As we don't (currently) use importance ratings, all articles have an importance of "None". Mike Peel 23:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astronomy articles by quality 

message: I plan on merging Wikipedia:WikiProject Telescopes into this WikiProject in a week's time, as that project doesn't seem very active (apart from me), and it seems pointless to have it separate from this one. Please let me know if you have any objections to this. Thanks. Mike Peel 09:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. Dr. Submillimeter 14:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No objections here, other than a hope that the main WP page doesn't get too bloated. Perhaps there should be a link to sub-topic page to cover the telescope templates? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. There are still some links to WikiProject Telescopes around Wikipedia; I aim to remove these over the next few days. Mike Peel 14:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Telescopes]] 

message: I've tried to collate all astronomical templates into three categories: :Category:Astronomical templates and its' subcategories, :Category:Astronomical infobox templates and :Category:Astronomical navigation templates. I've also put together a list of all astronomical infoboxes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Space/Astronomy templates/Infoboxes. If I've missed any, please add them to the categories/lists. Thanks. Mike Peel 16:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astronomical templates 

message: Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#Citation systems.  This has major implications for everyone, including RJHall and his work on galaxy.  Dr. Submillimeter 08:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation systems 

message: Unfortunately, a site called Famous Astrophysicists have been copying Wikipedia articles in violation of the GFDL, Wikipedia's license.  In fact, they haven't even cited Wikipedia as the source of their content.  We've tried contacting them about this, but they've done nothing.  I would be grateful if contributors to any of the astrophysics biographies at http://www.famous-astrophysicists.com/index.html (make sure you contributed before the article was copied) would help out with this.  Only contributors to these articles can officially act.  What I'd like you to do is send a DMCA notice to their ISP.  There is contact information at Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Def#Famous-astrophysicists.com.  If you have questions, please ask; this would really be quite helpful. Superm401 - Talk 04:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright 

message: Here we go again. The main project page looks plain hideous now. Did we reach a consensus on the appearance chance, or was it updated by fiat? — RJH (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was me. I switched it to match the appearance of Portal:Astronomy. It can easily be modified; any suggestions? Mike Peel 17:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to relegate some of the information to subpages.  The "pages needing attention" box, for example, looks too long, especially compared to the length of the rest of the page.  Dr. Submillimeter 17:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I almost never visit the Portal:Astronomy, but I guess I would have the same issues there. My preference would be to just keep what's necessary and eliminate the boxes. When the browser is below a certain width the alignment pushes many of the more interesting boxes too far down the page, and the alignment looks positively hideous. (As does the drab, cool-hued colors.) I'd just like to see the frequently updated stuff near the top so I can check it at a glance. No offense intended. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll work on it some more. Would something more like Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics be better? Or are you really insistent on not wanting boxes? Mike Peel 18:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As a suggestion, something like Portal:Science would be really nice, in both the aestetic sense and from the point of view of functionality. I.e. using tabs rather than multi-column display (for the most part). Would that be acceptible? — RJH (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would be possible, but I would have thought we'd need a significant amount more stuff on the page to need something like that. As it stands, templates can easily be moved to another page; once the featured articles section builds up, so can that. Same with the list of members. Pages needing attention is now significantly smaller than it was, so I think that's fine on the main page. Mike Peel 19:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  At this point I've ceased to care. Bye. — RJH (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ugly format 

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. Help on improving it would be much appreciated. Thanks! - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 21:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  50000 Quaoar - GA work 

message: Comet Hyakutake has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are hereJeffpw 09:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Comet Hyakutake]]

message: Carl Sagan is also being reviewed as a featured article candidate.  (I have now tagged the talk page with the WPAstronomy template so that people will think to talk to us about the article.)  Dr. Submillimeter 00:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This message is incorrect - see below.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Carl Sagan]] is a featured article candidate 

message: The message above is incorrect - Carl Sagan is not a featured article candidate.
Carl Sagan has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Carl Sagan FAR

message: Might I suggest that one of the tasks for this WikiProject be to add definitions to Wiktionary? 70.55.85.124 11:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiktionary 

message: I have nominated the Astroboxes for deletion; please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 28. Thanks. Mike Peel 22:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astrobox templates 

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: It is nearly 11 months since we established this review process as a minimal process after we failed to reach consensus about a number of matters. During that time it has been largely left alone with nobody really keeping a close watch on it. A couple days ago I cleaned everything up. I archived old reviews, corrected the tags on talk pages and made minimal changes to the process based on what I had learnt. I also reviewed how it had operated. There were some reasonable reviews and some that attracted no interest what so ever, but I guess that is the case even with Wikipedia:Peer review. Some entries may have missed some attention since they were not properly formatted, or had no tag on the article's talk page and hence did not appear in the category. See Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review for my review and report on the clean up.
Of course, in hindsight, I wonder whether we, and particularly I, could have done better a year ago. In hindsight, does anyone have ideas how we progress this review process. To be worthwhile, it must attract reviews that perhaps would not go elsewhere such as Wikipedia:Peer review and it must attract expert reviewers to add to what might be achieved by the general Wikipedia:Peer review. If it can not do either, perhaps we should close it down and just encourage articles to go to Wikipedia:Peer review. Articles for review are listed on the science WikiProjects such as this one, but they are transcluded in so changes do not appear on watchlists. I have also added recent reviews to Wikipedia:Peer review in the same way that WikiProject reviews such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Peer review are added. In this way both review pages refer to the same page for the review discussion and hopefully more editors will be attracted. The key point is attracting expert reviewers who might look at Wikipedia:Scientific peer review but not look at Wikipedia:Peer review.
If you have any ideas on this, please add your views at Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review. --Bduke 02:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Scientific peer review]]

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 16:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Andromeda-Milky Way collision]] nominated for deletion 

message: I've tried to find any relevant redirects for my list of missing astronomy topics but could anyone have a look at it? - Skysmith 12:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of those proposed articles look like things that I would hesitate to include in Wikipedia. However, it is clear that some of the other items need articles. Are you open to the removal of items from your list? Also, I noticed several typos or capitalization problems (such as for Lick Observatory); I will fix these when I see them. Dr. Submillimeter 14:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you, that's what I'm asking. I'd like to remove the unsuitable topics myself to keep track of the progress but could you mark them? - Skysmith 16:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I corrected two of the entries under exoplanets which now point to existing wp articles.  I can't find anything for "Ophiuchi 1622" - where did you see this mentioned?--mikeu 04:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There have been a number of papers written on planetary mass objects in the sigma orionis star cluster.  In addition to S Ori 52 (on your list) there are also references to S Ori 56 and S Ori 60 .  Then there is S Ori 68  and S Ori 70 .  Some astronomners dispute the planetary nature of these objects .  Since very little is known about these objects it might be better to create a subsection in Sigma Orionis until more is learned about them.--mikeu 16:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think mikeu misunderstood the question; Ophiuchi 1622 is not Sigma Orionis.  I found some information on Ophiuchi 1622 at the ADS Abstract Service.  Unfortunately, the only information on this exoplanet candidate appears to come from preprints, not refereed scinetific articles. Maybe we should wait on creating an article until one of the papers is published.  Dr. Submillimeter 16:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm just working through Skysmith's list of exoplanets.  My Sigma Orinis post was not related to Ophiuchi 1622.--mikeu 17:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I did not read the signatures closely enough.  My mistake. Dr. Submillimeter 10:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Regarding the Tatooine (exoplanet) entry on the list, this 'kinda-sorta' refers to HD 188753 Ab. But it is not even a nickname (and certainly not a proposed name.)  There are some references  to HD 188753 Ab as being similar to the fictional namesake in that there would be three stars seen in the sky. There is a brief mention at Tatooine#Tatooine in Science which incorrectly inplies that this planet is named Tatooine.--mikeu 18:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. I picked those names during a astronomy lecture of the latest exoplanet finds and (apparently mistakenly) assumed that the papers had already been published. The best course could be to wait until they are. - Skysmith 06:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tatooine may be one to strike out of the list.  Dr. Submillimeter 10:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The existence of HD 188753 Ab is now in dispute.  See article.  --mikeu 23:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of possible articles 

message: There is a request for Solar system to appear as a Today's featured article--mikeu 19:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Solar System]]  

message: Hi all. There is an article I am working on, and have been, the University of Illinois Astronomical Observatory, that I think could benefit from some input from this project, though it's probably only partially related. There is a lot of information in the article pertaining to stellar magnitude and photometry, while I maintain more than a passing interest in astronomy I simply lack the expertise to ensure that the text in the section: 'Astronomical Significance' and beyond is fully accurate, and correctly written (so as not to contradict itself). I was hoping someone(s) would be able to look at it from this project and help me out. I really appreciate it and thanks ahead of time. : ) A mcmurray 12:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: University of Illinois Observatory

message: This vital article was demoted as a featured article in Nov. and failed a GA nom in Jan.  It is now a candidate for Wikipedia:Article_Creation_and_Improvement_Drive#Black_hole and has nearly enough votes to place it at the top of the list...--mikeu 00:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Black hole]] 

message: Hi, I contested a prod on the Aspects of Mars page, and have asked for a discussion here, is this info worth saving? regards sbandrews 11:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Aspects of Mars]]

message: Found these, several of them have been prodded. 70.51.8.30 06:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ephemerides

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

message: Hello!  This is to announce that several templates for automatic convertion between metric and imperial units and for displaying consistently formatted output have been created: , , , , , , , and .  Hopefully, they will be useful to the participants of this WikiProject.  The templates are all documented, provide parameters to fine-tune the output, and can be substituted if necessary.
Any suggestions, requests for improvement/features, or bug reports are welcome.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conversion templates

message: During my work on Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Articles I came across this article. Obviously I'll do my best to improve it, but it could use some tender loving care from people who know more about the subject than I do. - Mgm|(talk) 08:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bastille Day event]] 

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 22:06, 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 Astronomical objects to review Black hole, and I'm informing these projects that I've asked Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy 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).Philcha 22:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please review "Black hole" article

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: This has also been discussed for aspects of planets, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aspects of Pluto--mikeu 13:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  aspects of asteroids 

message: Has anyone noticed the proliferation of articles about transits visible from planets other than earth?  The Transit of Phobos from Mars is notable in that it has actually been observed.  I'm not sure the same can be said for the transit of earth as seen from jupiter.  What does everyone think?
:This at least seems to be presented better than the the ephemeris tables.  Still, these seem like non-notable random alignments.  Most of these (if not all of them) were created by User:Curps, who is inactive.  Maybe we can prod these articles?  Dr. Submillimeter 14:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually prodded one of the articles and then withdrew the prod, but for good reason.  See Transit of Saturn from outer planets.  Instead of just listing data, this actually discusses the phenomenon.  I notice that the others also contain some discussion as well.  Maybe these articles should just stay.  Dr. Submillimeter 23:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  transits 

message: Does anyone have a good reference for U V W Space velocities?  See my entry
at Talk:Celestial coordinate system --NealMcB 03:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  U V W Space velocities 

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 10:04, 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 00:17, 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: 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)
thread_title:  Meteoroid → Meteor  

message: Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings → Apollo missions tracked by independent parties- proposed by user:ScienceApologist. 132.205.44.134 23:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings → Apollo missions tracked by independent parties  

message: Template:Pluto spacecraft has been proposed for deletion at WP:TFD by user:Cop 633. 132.205.44.134 23:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Pluto spacecraft, Template:Neptune spacecraft, Template:Uranus spacecraft 

message: There are currently 32 articles listed at WP:MWA#Observatories that might be of interest to this project.  --Sapphic 20:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:MWA|Most wanted articles]] 

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: Equinox (astronomy), a redirect, has been proposed for deletion at WP:RFD. 70.51.11.38 03:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equinox 

message: User:Rsduhamel proposes that micrometeoroid be merged into meteoroid. 132.205.44.134 14:59, 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: I first expanded Space Interferometry Mission in November and spent a bunch of time expanding it today, I plan to take it to GA soon, maybe eventually FA. It needs copy edited which I haven't done myself yet but will, additional eyes will be needed. Any volunteers would assist greatly. Need help making sure jargon isn't used to much, I strived to keep it accesible to the layman, the sources were pretty dumbed down so it should be mostly good but may need some work at parts. Thanks in advance.IvoShandor 01:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now copyedited this article twice. IvoShandor 08:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: SIM PlanetQuest

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: That sounds good to me, although "Stars with planetary systems" could also work as a sub-category of :Category:Planetary systems. — RJH (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Extrasolar planets and Category:Planetary systems 

message: Big Bang has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
LuciferMorgan 14:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Big Bang FAR

message: There's a problem... someone changed the Miranda.jpg image to be some child actress.  Every place where there's supposed to be an image of the moon, she appears.  I don't know what to do in this circumstance -- should someone revert the Miranda.jpg image file?  Kier07 22:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it has been reverted. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miranda (moon) 

message: Constellations need cleanup. Anyone interested in participating in a new Constellations Task Force?? Said: Rursus 21:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constellations task force 

message: Apparently "Satellite" was renamed Artificial Satellite at some point. 132.205.44.134 21:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artificial Satellite → (multiple possibilities) 

message: I suggested a deletion of :Category:Star formation at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_6#Category:Star_formation. Please comment if you have an interest. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like there was enough opposition to this empty category that it will remain in existence. Shrug... it's no skin off my nose. — RJH (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CfD: Star formation 

message: Can someone take a look at Polar-ring galaxy? It seems to require some work. 132.205.44.134 23:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polar-ring galaxy 

message: :Category:Terrestrial planets - do we need this category? I wonder if we could confirm the composition of extrasolar planets that might be terrestrial anytime soon. 132.205.44.134 23:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth I'm neutral on the need for this. It's a fairly skimpy category, but it doesn't seem completely useless. — RJH (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Terrestrial planets 

message: Hello All - there was a lengthy and exciting conversation at talk:Gliese 581 c about the appropriateness and encyclopedicity of a particular artistic representation of the planet, and artistic representations generally. The solution we came to was to set up an image review page as part of the project, in which contributors could request an illustration for an article, then artists would generate drafts, and once they met community consensus they would be put into the articles. There is a very successful precedent for this system at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review - take a look at that, and our initial version of Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Image Review and see if you like it - we're ready for comments/revisions/and image requests! Cheers, Debivort 01:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first image is up for review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Image Review - weigh in if you like. Debivort 18:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artistic impressions and Astronomy Image Review. 

message: Speedy category rename is listed for :Category:Astronomy institutes. 132.205.44.134 16:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been moved to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 13 for an extended discussion.  Dr. Submillimeter 09:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Astronomy institutes to Category:Astronomical institutes and departments 

message: WP:Vital_articles#Astronomy is a lean listing of selected articles that are considered "vital" by a group of wikipedians. I find it useful as a place to focus some editing energy. But for the purposes of this group, might it be beneficial to build a "Vital astronomy articles" tree (with, say, 3-4 branches of depth) of broad-topic articles that should be in every public astronomy encyclopedia? (And sign the names of the contributors.) Once the list has reached a consensus, then it could be linked as a sub-article from the above section. For example, "Wikipedia:Vital astronomy articles".
At least half the current list of vital astronomy articles is oriented toward the Solar System. The Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded#Astronomy list seems equally biased. (Not that there's anything wrong with articles on the Solar System, mind you, I just think that many other astronomy topics should be covered to an equal level of quality.)
There are online astronomy encyclopedias against which such a list could be compared. (C.f. Eric Weisstein's World of Astronomy.) There's also the Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Worklist, which would provide a useful starting point. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, no interest. — RJH (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For your consideration 

message: Earth-Moon space Orbit comparison was prodded by User:Swpb on May 14. 132.205.44.134 22:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The content appears mostly redundant with Delta-v budget, and the later does a better job of covering the topic. — RJH (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earth-Moon space Orbit comparison has been prodded 

message: Up for AfD. — RJH (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AfD result was delete. — RJH (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zvezdno Obshtestvo Observatory 

message: Hello.  The article radio astronomy is not listed with one of this project's tags.  It seems to me that it should be listed.  Also, the article may need some attention.  Bubba73 (talk), 16:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  radio astronomy 

message: The Blue dwarf article is up at AfD here. I think this is one that needs input (one way or another) from you good people. My personal thought is that some of the edits to the article have confused the issue. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 02:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article reveals a problem with using common names for classes of stars.  I have started a new discussion on the topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#Do star spectral class articles/categories need renaming?. Dr. Submillimeter 08:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blue dwarf article at Articles for Deletion 

message: Wikipedia:Astronomer vs Amateur has been nominated for deletion.  Please go express your opinion if you are interested.  Dr. Submillimeter 15:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Astronomer vs Amateur]] nominated for deletion 

message: Chasma, Dorsum, Flexus, Flumen, Fluctus, Linea, Macula (planetary geology), Mensa (geology), Rupes, Tholus.
Personally, I feel they should be redirected somewhere... 132.205.44.134 22:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  a bunch of things were prodded because of transwiki to wiktionary on June 3rd 

message: Has anyone taken a look at Wiktionary? They seem to have a heirarchy for astronomy related words and names. 70.55.87.222 06:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Astronomy 

message: USer:Lofty created :Template:Types of nebula.  I generally do not like the idea of having a navigation template for "types" of nebulae.  The major problem is that most nebulae cannot very easily be divided into one or a few types.  A few objects, such as planetary nebulae, can be characterized as distinct objects, but most of the interstellar medium is diffuse.  Moreover, a broad number of terms may be applied to different parts of the diffuse interstellar medium, including reflection nebula, emission nebula, HI region, HII region, molecular cloud, dark nebula, etc.  Furthermore, classifying diffuse nebulae as "reflection", "emission", or "dark" nebulae is misleading, as many clouds may emit, reflect, and absorb optical light simultaneously.
I ultimately recommend deleting :Template:Types of nebula simply because it looks too problematic.  However, I would like other people's feedback first.  (At the very least, the plural form of "nebula" should be used in the template name.)  Dr. Submillimeter 09:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can certainly see your point about it being difficult to categorize individual nebulae. But this template only appears to be transcluded into general articles on those nebula types, rather than specific nebulae. (C. f. Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Types_of_nebula.) Wouldn't a navigation template be preferable to a series of "See also" links? But that being said, I have no personal attachment to this template. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For navigation, I think :Category:Nebulae would be more appropriate than this navigation template.  Too many things can be called "nebulae".  If all of the things that could be called "nebulae" were listed in this template (which would be appropriate), it would be large and unweildly to use for navigation.  Dr. Submillimeter 19:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Template:Types of nebula]] 

message: I nominated :Template:Types of nebula for deletion.  You can comment at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 14#Template:Types of nebula.  I really do not think that it is salvagable.  Dr. Submillimeter 13:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template nominated for deletion

message: I proposed renaming :Category:Historical astronomical instruments as :Category:Astronomical instruments, mainly because of the subjective issues with using the word "historical".  Please go comment at WP:CFD. Dr. Submillimeter 15:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know that historical implies any POV other than this was once used but no longer is. IvoShandor 17:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In this situation, "historical" could mean 50 years old, 100 years old, 500 years old, no longer used, obsoleted by other equipment, or featured in historical discussions on the topic.  This is a common problem with many Wikipedia categories.  See, for example, :Category:Historical cats.  Dr. Submillimeter 17:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, :Catgory:19th century astronomical instruments would be more appropriate if, one day, there were significant amounts of articles to populate said category? IvoShandor 17:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Dr. Submillimeter 19:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Wait until you've seen :Category:Animal deaths by year and :Category:Animal births by year. Really... Are there enough articles for any category such as these?  132.205.44.134 03:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you would like to see some very silly categories, look at User:Dr. Submillimeter/Humorous categories.  Dr. Submillimeter 08:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming [[:Category:Historical astronomical instruments]] 

message: I think we should have a sister WikiProject at Wiktionary, looking at that link further up the talk page... and this worklist on Wiktionary... But Wiktionary doesn't have much detail on how they handle wikiprojects (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:WikiProject) 132.205.44.134 00:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiktionary: wikiproject? 

message: Operation Moonwatch is up for deletion here .  It was a worldwide project of amateur astronomers and observatories improvised to track early satellite launches in 1957 and was the first to track Sputnik but somebody thinks it might be a hoax.... Nick mallory 23:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Operation Moonwatch]]

message: Here is a draft paragraph that I wrote for astronomy:
:Generally, either the term "astronomy" or "astrophysics" may be used to refer to this subject.  Based on strict dictionary definitions, "astronomy" refers to "the study of objects and matter outside the earth's atmosphere and of their physical and chemical properties"and "astrophysics" refers to the branch of astronomy dealing with "the behavior, physical properties, and dynamic processes of celestial objects and phenomena".  In some cases, as in the introduction of the introductory textbook The Physical Universe by Frank Shu, "astronomy" may be used to describe the qualitative study of the subject, whereas "astrophysics" is used to describe the physics-oriented version of the subject.  However, since most mondern astronomical research deals with subjects related to physics, modern astronomy could actually be called astrophysics.  Various department that research this subject may use "astronomy" and "astrophysics", partly depending on whether the department is historically affiliated with a physics department, and many professional astronomers actually have physics degrees.  Even the names of the scientific journal Astronomy & Astrophysics reveals the ambiguity of the use of the term.  
Comments would be appreciated.
:I am moving this into the astronomy article.  Dr. Submillimeter 12:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Draft paragraph for [[astronomy]]

message: I have integrated the term "astrophysics" into the astronomy article and adding the paragraph explaining how "astrophysics" is more or less synonymous with "astronomy".  Other users and I have incorporated most of the useful, non-duplicative material from astrophysics into astronomy.  It looks like astrophysics could now be turned into a redirect to astronomy.  I will do so on 25 Jun 2007 unless I receive strong objections.  Dr. Submillimeter 13:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. Until(1 == 2) 14:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I did this today.  I am still reorganizing astronomy (which still tries to describe all of astronomy rather than the field of study itself).    I also redirected astrophysicist to astronomer; astronomer was already written to refer to astrophysicist as a synonym.  Dr. Submillimeter 14:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ready to turn [[astrophysics]] into a redirect

message: I have again nominated :Template:Types of nebula for deletion.  The first discussion closed with no other comments to keep or delete this template.  I really think that this template is HARMFUL in that it suggests that nebulae can be divided into different "types" when no real classification system exists for nebulae.  It was generated by a person with no college education who, while well-intentioned, had not thought of the problems that this template could cause.  It should be destroyed.  
Please comment at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 25.  Dr. Submillimeter 10:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Template:Types of nebula]] nominated for deletion (second try) 

message: There are 100 red links to this guy on 66 pages. Someone wanna create the article?  Im trying to get rid of red links, but am not into astronomy Willy turner 09:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's frequently listed because he has discovered so many asteroids at Brorfelde Observatory in Denmark. His name is listed on some "Minor Planet Circulars" and a couple of other publications on ADS. Other than that there just isn't enough information available to justify an article. — RJH (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could/should the page be turned into a redirect to Brorfelde Observatory, then? Mike Peel 18:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What would be wrong with writing a short article on him?  Not all Wikipedia articles need to be long. Dr. Submillimeter 19:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that he has discovered so many asteroids makes him notable for inclusion, even if in a short article and who is to say that the definitive biographical source won't be published in two weeks or two years. IvoShandor 19:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It depends on whether the article can satisfy WP:N. One of the criteria is "significant coverage", which I interpret as coverage of the astronomer rather than the discoveries. If that can't be satisfied then the article may end up getting tossed via the AfD mechanism. Then again there are a boat-load of other such uninformative, sub-stub articles on "prolific discoverers of asteroids", so perhaps it's not really an issue. =) — RJH (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would defend this article on the basis that the guy discovered a lot of asteroids.    Dr. Submillimeter 19:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I did what I could with the available information. Unfortunately NASA ADS is showing multiple individuals as "Jensen, P.". — RJH (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Then again there are a boat-load of other such uninformative, sub-stub articles on "prolific discoverers of asteroids", so perhaps it's not really an issue.  <--  If you take a look at the articles in that search you will find some 110 articles containing the phrase.  Most of the articles that I checked on the first page of results only contained "(name) is a (nationality) astronomer" and  "He is a prolific discoverer of asteroids" as the entire content of the article.  Many of these articles were created by User:Curps, who is no longer active here, and many of these articles have not been expanded in 2-3 years.  These should probably be checked for notability, and then either expanded or deleted.  What kind of notability threshold should there be for someone who is only known for asteroid discoveries?  I would say that there should be a reference such as this one.--mikeu 18:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow. Nary a reference either. IvoShandor 10:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than seeing all of those pages deleted, a notion I had was to build a list-style page of people who discovered asteroids, showing their nationality, observatory (ID), operating period and possibly a count. List members with a page that satisfied WP:N can then be linked. — RJH (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That sounds like a good idea.--mikeu 22:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Poul Jensen (astronomer)]]

message: There's a new article on Stellar rotation that was requested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Hot/S4. I modified the  template so that the "Rotation" field is linked to this new article rather than Rotation. Please let me know if that is objectionable. I'm planning to add some more material to the article, so it's not quite up to snuff yet.
Another article requested on the hotlist of topics was Stellar magnetic field. The article has some content, but it's a big topic and there's plenty more that could be added. Please take a gander if you like. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to ''Template:Starbox detail'' 

message: Created this article, did not know what stubs needed to be added to it.  Thanks, CarpD, 30/6/2007.
:The generic "astronomy" stub works.  However, it is not entirely clear where the information came from.  I suggest adding inline citations to explicitly indicate the source of your information.  Dr. Submillimeter 06:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[East-Asian Planet Search Network]] 

message: I have a couple of additional questions on the material in astronomy where I would like some feedback:
*Currently, the article attempts to briefly describe everything in astronomy under headings such as "Solar astronomy", "Galactic astronomy", "Cosmology", etc.  Rather than do this, I think it would be more appropriate to describe the study of the objects rather than the objects themselves.  For example, the section on galactic astronomy would briefly describe how astronomers are studying stars, star formation, and the interstellar medium, and what types of questions they are asking in their research.  This is subtlely different from trying to describe the objects themselves.  What do other people think about doing this?
** There's value in both types of information, but my sense is that most readers would come here to learn about our understanding of the universe through astronomy. To me that seems consistent with the approaches taken with other core science pages such as physics, chemistry, geology and biology. I.e. a primary focus on fundamental principles. — RJH (talk)
***Actually, the physics article describes the subfields of physics rather than the actual physical concepts.  For example, the article mentions classical mechanics as the study of forces and motion rather than trying to describe Newton's laws, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics, etc.  Nonetheless, I will try to keep some introductory information in the sections. (Maybe an additional overview section is needed?) Dr. Submillimeter 07:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Help yourself. Most of the work I put in was just to get it up to GA status. But if you want to take it in a different direction then so be it. — RJH (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More work on [[astronomy]] article 

message: :Category:UV Telescopes has been nominated for renaming to :Category:Ultraviolet telescopes at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 4.  This seems so mundane and uncontroversial that I do not expect the rename to be a problem, but feel free to comment.  Dr. Submillimeter 21:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:UV Telescopes]] 

message: Galileo Galilei has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galileo Galilei FAR 

message: Constellations in popular culture has been nominated for deletion. 132.205.44.5 19:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constellations in popular culture 

message: User:Banno on July 12 2007 WP:PRODed cosmosophy. 132.205.44.5 18:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This term gets a few ghits, but it looks more like quasi-religious philosophy than actual science (as is claimed by the article). It may have originated with Rudolf Steiner during the 1920s. — RJH (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like scientific mysticism, like the marxist dialectic, social darwinism, intelligent design, or scientism. 70.55.88.166 21:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cosmosophy prodded 

message: List of asteroids was nominated for deletion at WP:AFD by user:Cerejota as listcruft: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of asteroids. 132.205.44.5 21:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of asteroids at AfD 

message: I requested peer review of Callisto (moon of Jupiter). Any comments are appreciated. Ruslik 16:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Callisto

message: discuss here  --mikeu 13:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed merger of [[Hypervelocity star]] and [[Runaway_star]] 

message: The List of astronomical topics has been nominated for deletion.  This list is truly unmaintainable.  Please go comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of astronomical topics (2nd nomination).  Dr. Submillimeter 14:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of astronomical topics]] 

message: Hi, I've asked this in another area, but haven't had any success in getting an answer, anyway, the Large Magellanic Cloud and Small Magellanic Cloud articles are in need of some attention. Specifically, nobody seems to know how big they are. There's been several contradictory and probably erroneous figures put up (some by me), ranging from 5,000 to 35,000 LYs (for the LMC). Now, in going through a few Websites I've found various estimates for the LMC, this site  says 39,000 LYs, this site  says "about 30,000 LYs", this page mentions the LMC being "about 7 kiloparsecs" which is about 23,000 LYs, this NASA page  says "Spanning about 15,000 light-years or so", etc. The Celestia Astronomy programme I have says the LMC is 32,000 LYs in Diameter. As for the SMC, well this site (listed above again)  says it's "3 kpc" which is about 10,000 LYs, this page  also says 10,000 LYs, while Celestia says it's about 19,000 LYs big. This page (again listed above)  ambiguously says it's "under 20,000 lightyears in diameter". So, as you can see it's all quite confusing, can anyone clear things up? Does anybody know the diameters of the Magellanic Clouds? Or at-least where to get the information? Thanks. --Hibernian 15:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The sizes of the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds 

message: Comets in popular culture has been nominated for deletion by user:Eyrian at 19:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD on Comets in popular culture 

message: Chaos syndrome has proposed that List of stars with confirmed extrasolar planets be renamed as List of published extrasolar planets. (though there also happens to be a List of unconfirmed exoplanets, which contains published but unconfirmed planets...) . 70.51.8.214 07:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of stars with confirmed extrasolar planets → List of published extrasolar planets 

message: Serendipodous suggests that Solar nebula be renamed Nebular hypothesis. 70.51.8.214 07:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion is here: Talk:Solar_nebula#Move_request — RJH (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solar nebula → Nebular hypothesis 

message: Astronomical names in popular culture has been nominated for deletion by user:Eyrian. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astronomical names in popular culture. 132.205.44.5 22:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:AFD]] on Astronomical names in popular culture 

message: Superforce has been prodded by user:Creelbm on 04:08, 31 July 2007. 132.205.44.5 22:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:PROD]] on [[Superforce]] 

message: Speculation that Iapetus is artificial has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speculation that Iapetus is artificial by User:Radiant!. 132.205.44.5 22:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:AFD]] on [[Speculation that Iapetus is artificial]] 

message: User:RobertG has nominated :Category:People with craters of the Moon named after them for conversion into the list List of people with craters of the Moon named after them. 132.205.44.5 23:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is somewhat redundant with the sub-lists under List of craters on the Moon. The later is a complete concordance, whereas the former appears to be lacking a couple of thousand names. — RJH (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:CFD]] on [[:Category:People with craters of the Moon named after them]] 

message: HI the main Hubble Space article is superb but the Telescope artice is quite poor indeed, Is there any way you could help write it professionally with references into a  GA encyclopedia article. I came acrosss it just now expecting to see another great article and was quite disappointed with it compared to other work on astronomy on wikpiedia. It didn;t even had a history -I've added it - it just needs condensing and structuring and a great deal of work. Thanks  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you?" Contribs 17:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Telescopes

message: :Category:Extrasolar planets with unofficial names was created by user:Zazaban on 15 August 2007 and then nominated for deletion by user:ProveIt on 18 August 2007. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_18#Category:Extrasolar_planets_with_unofficial_names for the deletion discussion. 70.51.11.13 07:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Extrasolar planets with unofficial names 

message: This article has just been created. I left the message below on the creator's page
"Hi, I'm no expert, but the subject of this article would already seem to have been covered in Star and the daughter articles Stellar evolution, Star formation and Main sequence. The content in this article should probably be merged into the relevant sections in Star and appropiate daughter articles. Exxolon 19:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Evolution of stars]] 

message: Great Comet of 1882 is currently under review at Wikipedia:Good article review. If any members would like help keep this a good article please see the comments on the Good article review page. T Rex | talk 19:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Great Comet of 1882

message: Are individual lunar eclipses notable enough that they should have individual Wikipedia articles?
Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/28 August 2007 lunar eclipse. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.
Discussions such as these usually last five days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article.  Peter G Werner 22:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD Nomination: 3 March 2007 lunar eclipse and 28 August 2007 lunar eclipse 

message: Uhm, I just visited the article dealing with the Big Dipper/the Great Bear constellation and the article doesn't seem to be inducted into this project. How come? Lack of quality? Or is it simply overlooked? --Broadbandmink 19:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be under WP:ASTRO WikiProject Astronomical Objects, as WikiProject Constellations was merged into that WikiProject... 132.205.44.5 02:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Alot of articles are not tagged, tags and WikiProjects post-date many astronomy articles. 132.205.44.5 02:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not inducted? 

message: Your participation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 0 would be most welcome. -- Jreferee (Talk) 17:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[January 0]] AfD

message: List of extrasolar planet extremes was nominated for deletion by Chaos Syndrome, and then delisted. The article has been greatly reworked though. 132.205.44.5 22:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD on List of extrasolar planet extremes 

message: This article is currently a FA candidate. Please, participate. Comments can be left here.Ruslik 13:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Uranus (planet)|Uranus]]

message: 2006 definition of planet has an ongoing renaming debate on the talk page, and several non-consensus renames over the weekend. 132.205.44.5 00:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 definition of planet 

message: True mass is a relatively new article I created (and a couple other editors have contributed to). Any help on it would be appreciated, and I'm also wondering if it falls under the purview of this WikiProject. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 22:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  True mass 

message: An article is up for deletion where a key claim for notability is that this person might have been the first to "successfully calculate the way to inject a satellite into a geosynchronous orbit" Some expert opinions and reliable sources on the validity of this claim would be appreciated. Tim Vickers 01:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD for [[Stanley Dunin]]

message: I nominated Callisto to FAC. You can leave your comments here. Ruslik 12:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Callisto (moon)|Callisto]]

message: Hi, this week Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals has selected Astronomische Nachrichten (aka Astronomical Notes) as our CotW. Perhaps members of this project would like to join in. Cheers, John Vandenberg 03:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration with journals 

message: Wikipedia:Most_wanted_articles#Astronomy has been updated using the 2007-09-08 data dump.  --Sapphic 17:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll bet you a donut that they're all asteroid-spotting observatories. — RJH (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably right.  It should therefore be easy for somebody who knows about such things to create a summary/list article that groups together all of them and explains what an 'asteroid-spotting observatory' is, and to then create redirects for those observatories that would otherwise not be noteworthy.  Since we have huge lists of asteroid spottings, it stands to reason that somebody might find it useful to have huge lists of asteroids spotted by individual observatories, and that such a summary page would be a good place for those lists.  --Sapphic 00:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can write a script to generate the (wikilinked) lists of asteroids discovered by each of the observatories listed in any of the huge lists of asteroids, if somebody else can write up a quick explanation of how asteroid spotting works and why some observatories have spotted so many.  I've started researching it myself but this isn't really my area.  I suggest starting a page at List of asteroid-spotting observatories or someplace else if that's not an appropriate name, and taking the list of observatories at Wikipedia:Most_wanted_articles#Astronomy and starting with that.  I'll create the redirects as well, once a page is in place.  --Sapphic 17:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Most_wanted_articles#Astronomy]] 

message: This article needs a rating or a good article review. I listed it at WP:GAC on September 16.  Thanks. - Jehochman  Talk 13:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Gamma ray burst]]

message: Hi! Eagle 101 and I and created a bot that would create articles on every asteroid we don't have articles on. Please provide your support or objection to the proposal here. Daniel Bush 17:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose The overwhelming majority of these asteroids are not notable.  There are plans underway to group together several asteroid-spotting observatories into a single summary/list page, since the observatories themselves apparently aren't notable enough to warrant individual pages.  So certainly the asteroids discovered by these observatories don't each deserve a page.  --Sapphic 18:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Asteroid bot

message: I recently nominated Dyson Sphere for GA status, and it was failed; however, it's close, and with some help we can get it there. In particular, the reviewers left suggestions on a few specific issues:
# An infobox would be nice; I don't know which one would be most appropriate, but someone here might.
# Needs additional copyediting (esp. per weasel words, redundancies)
# Needs additional sources
Thanks for your help. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't seem to have an article about the concept of a Niven ring (it redirects to the fictional set of stories / novel Ringworld)... perhaps that should also exist, as a concept separate from the story? 132.205.44.5 02:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dyson Sphere]] GA push 

message: Trojan planet was transwiki'd to wiktionary, and subsequently prodded by a bot. 132.205.44.5 02:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the prod and wiktionary tags. The article needs expansion, but clearly there is literature about the topic, and it could easily be an encyclopedic article. Debivort 03:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trojan planet was prodded 

message: * :Category:Asteroid discoverers has been proposed to be renamed to :Category:Minor planet discoverers
* :Category:Asteroid discoverers (observatories) has been proposed to be renamed to :Category:Minor planet discoverers (observatories)
:by user:Sapphic at 00:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  category rename nominations 

message: I just created SN 2005ap. It needs a lot of work obviously, just thought I'd let you guys know. --LiamE 13:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New page to add to project

message: Hey all - not too many requests at Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Image Review recently. What fraction of extrasolar planet articles have illustrations? Do we want to get this to 100% If so, I'm ready to help.de Bivort 04:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extrasolar planet illustrations 

message: The section on choosing measurement systems has been changed from:
:*In scientific articles, SI units are the main units of measure, unless there are compelling historical or pragmatic reasons not to use them (for example, Hubble's constant should be quoted in its most common unit of (km/s)/Mpc rather than its SI unit of s−1)
Into:
:*In scientific articles, use the units employed in the current scientific literature on that topic. This will usually be SI, but not always. For example, natural units are often used: ångströms (or angstroms) are widely used in such fields as x-ray crystallography and structural chemistry, and Hubble's constant should be quoted in its most common unit of (km/s)/Mpc rather than its SI unit of s−1.
Comments on this change are welcome at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Units_of_measurement. Thank you Tim Vickers 18:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One editor is objecting strongly to this change, some feedback from people writing science articles would be very helpful. Tim Vickers 17:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Change to Manual of Style on measurement systems

message: 17P/Holmes is on the main page right now in the in the news section. Now is the time for any comet experts and or enthusiasts to come out and make the article shine. Just thought I would drop a note here. IvoShandor 15:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 17/P Holmes

message: Gamma ray burst  is now a featured article candidate.  We need help, especially expert help, so this high importance can pass. - Jehochman  Talk 01:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gamma ray burst

message: How strong is the evidence for this being an intermediate-mass black hole?  The article seems to start off stating straight out it is one, and then cites all the dispute about said status.  Perhaps some more explicit hedging is indicated?  Alai 02:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Various sources still seem to say it "may be" a IMBH. So I'd say it's a candidate, rather than being definitive. — RJH (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[GCIRS 13E]] 

message: Until 26 July 2007 there used to be a "related changes" service which provided an up-to-date summary of every change made to an astronomical page on Wikipedia, and this represented the best tool available for combating vandalism on the Astronomy pages. Does anyone know what happened to this? On the deletion log it says "why not move it to the project that would have the most use for such a thing?"(see this), but I cannot find the related changes service on Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy. According to User:Sr13 the page was deleted on 26 July 2007. Does anyone know what has happened to the astronomical changes service (can it be found somewhere else on Wikipedia)?
Rnt20 14:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astronomical changes 

message: Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).
*List of basic astronomy topics
This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity 19:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice of List articles 

message: When I was your age, Pluto was a Planet has been sent for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/When I was your age, Pluto was a Planet. 132.205.99.122 20:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When I was your age, Pluto was a Planet at AfD 

message: This Scientific Peer Review project can hardly be called successful. While there have been a steady but small flow of articles submitted for review, the actual reviews have been either non-existent or in no real way different from those done through the standard Wikipedia:Peer review process. Some editors will recall that the project was started with an enthusiastic discussion about identifying expert reviewers through an elected board. Unfortunately as time went by, it became clear there was no consensus on whether we had a board, or on how it was to be set up or on what it was supposed to do. There was also a lack of consensus on what "sciences" we were covering, and on many other aspects. In the end we sort of lapsed into a minimal review process which has staggered on for about 18 months. I think it is time we decided what to do about the project. Unless people can come up with a new way forward and enthusiastically implement it, I think we have to declare that this project be no longer active in any sense and that editors should ask for review at WP:PR. I am posting this on the talk pages of the major Science WikiProjects. Please feel free to publicize it elsewhere. Please add you comments at Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review#Is this inactive?. --Bduke 01:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It proved useful for the Xenon article, but that may have been because the PR was advertized on appropriate Wikiproject pages. Perhaps there needs to be an automated notification system? — RJH (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All WP:SPR reviews are added automatically to some Science WikiProject pages. Glad to hear it was helpful, but was it also added to WP:PR? I think I was on wikibreak when it was added.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bduke (talk • contribs) 03:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Scientific peer review]]

message: Greetings! Can I bring this new article, Denis Denisenko, a Russian astronomer, to your attention please? He appears notable but the article clearly could do with some work (I have already attempted a cleanup). Thanks. --Malcolmxl5 05:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denis Denisenko 

message: The article has been nominated for Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive.Nergaal (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Dwarf planet]]

message: Astrosociobiology has been nominated for deletion. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astrosociobiology at AFD 

message: categories of Surface features of celestial bodies has been nominated to rename from cat:X on Y to cat:X of Y. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 9#Surface features of celestial bodies 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surface features of celestial bodies 

message: Dear Wikimedians,
This is a (belated) announcement that requests are now being taken for illustrations to be created for the Philip Greenspun illustration project (PGIP).
The aim of the project is to create and improve illustrations on Wikimedia projects. You can help by identifying which important articles or concepts are missing illustrations (diagrams) that could make them a lot easier to understand. Requests should be made on this page: Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project/Requests
If there's a topic area you know a lot about or are involved with as a Wikiproject, why not conduct a review to see which illustrations are missing and needed for that topic? Existing content can be checked by using Mayflower to search Wikimedia Commons, or use the Free Image Search Tool to quickly check for images of a given topic in other-language projects.
The community suggestions will be used to shape the final list, which will be finalised to 50 specific requests for Round 1, due to start in January. People will be able to make suggestions for the duration of the project, not just in the lead-up to Round 1.
* General information about the project: m:Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project
* Potential illustrators and others interested in the project should join the mailing list: mail:greenspun-illustrations
thanks, pfctdayelise (talk) 12:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[m:GIP|Greenspun illustration project]]: requests now open 

message: Royal College Astronomical Society needs cleanup.
In particular, it mentions "Comet Wilson 1987", which I can't track down. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Royal College Astronomical Society]] 

message: Venus has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
Serendipodous 15:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Venus FAR

message: There is a CFD discussion underway at :Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_December_15#Category:Physical_sciences regarding the relationship between, and possible merging of, two Categories: :Category:Physical sciences and :Category:Natural sciences. Thus far the discussion has attracted very few comments and it has been relisted. Two editors suggested asking for input from this Project, but as far as I can see there was no follow-through on that -- until now. So please give this some thought, and then share your thoughts at the CFD linked above. Thanks! --Bduke (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have just made a significant alternative proposal. Please take a look and add your comments to this important discussion. Cgingold (talk) 02:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for input re Science Super-Categories 

message: I propose a navigation template for various stars. They are currently hard to navigate.
Perhaps a 'constellation' navbox?
I just had this idea and its pretty raw.
-- Cat chi? 21:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stars per se might be huge. Constellations, with 88 of 'em, is more manageable but still unwieldy. Theoretically the categories should help. Is it unreasonable to assume readers can flick through categories? cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See :Template:Navconstel-all-open.  You might also want to see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Astronomy/Constellations_Task_Force.  --mikeu (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Massive categories are unnavigatable for me and navboxes are merely an alternative not a replacement to the categories. We can sort stars by constellation and by other astronomic means such as brightness or their location. Which method would be more useful to classify stars? We could create the navboxes based on who discovered the object in question. Galaxies can be clustered differently. I am no astronomer and merely want to provide technical help for the templates. -- Cat chi? 19:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: As for the constellations I drafted the following template () -- Cat chi? 19:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I can add it to the articles linked with my bot so no need to do that manually until an agreement is reached. -- Cat chi? 19:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star articles and navboxes - an idea by White Cat