Template talk:Starbox begin

message: Would it be necessary to include dex as an alternate unit for log g? This unit is sometimes used (e.g. Tannock et al 2103.01990) and it would be useful to have a conversion between dex and cgs. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 18:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: dex isn't a unit as such.  It is an abbreviation of sorts for decimal exponent, indicating that the number is the decimal exponent of the actual value.  Looked at another way it is the logarithm of the value.  Technically, such numbers are unitless but they are often followed by an indicator of the system of units used for the original value, since the logarithm of a value in light years is obviously different fro the logarithm of a number of miles.  log(g) for the surface gravity of a star is almost universally the logarithm of the cgs value, ie. in cm/s2, perhaps not the units you'd expect.  This usage is explained at surface gravity.  dex units in general are not well-explained anywhere I could find in WP.  There is decimal exponent which redirects to common logarithm but it doesn't say anything about "dex" exactly.  There is dex, but that dab page doesn't say anything either.  Lithopsian (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decimal exponent units for log g 

message: Please remove the interlanguage link fr:Modèle:Astrobox catalogue in Template:Starbox catalog. It points to a deleted target. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 09:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Primefac (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 9 July 2021 

message: In Template:Starbox detail, please remove the two interlanguage links at the bottom of the template. fr:Modèle:Starbox détail points to a deleted template and es:Plantilla:Starbox detail redirects to a template with different function that is linked to the appropriate English template by wikidata. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Terasail[✉️] 11:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

text: also removed from the template documentation page. And thank you for the good catch! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 11:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 15 July 2021 

message: The  template generates urls to several common astronomical databases.  It uses the now virtually-obsolete http:// prefixes.  Although many websites automatically redirect requests to the secure https:// equivalent, some, including Simbad do not.  This can cause warnings in some browsers, and the websi page may not even display.  Please change each instance of "http://" to "https://".  Lithopsian (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Primefac (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 31 August 2021 

message: For , the documented 'pm_footnote2' parameter, which references the second set of proper motion rows, has not been implemented. It should update the 'prop_mo_ra2' and 'prop_mo_dec2' rows in the same manner as the 'pm_footnote' parameter updates the 'prop_mo_ra' and 'prop_mo_dec' rows. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Primefac (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 15 January 2022 

message: There's a problem with Exoplanet Encyclopedia reference. I guess they changed the structure of the website at some point. Unfortunately, they no longer have pages for the stars, but for the planets. For example, HR 8799d is http://exoplanet.eu/catalog/hr_8799_d/ (note also that they are still using http:// not https://). I'm not sure the best way to deal with this. I guess this reference should be removed from the star infobox and added to the planet ones instead. Although this is a bit awkward since the other references are all for star. AstroMark (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exoplanet Encyclopedia 

message: Replace the current version of Template:Starbox astrometry (that talk page redirects here) with the current contents of User:RandomCanadian/sandbox2. This adds a  parameter to add a reference for the distance at the appropriate place (diff of the difference). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  22:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: References between the numeric value and the units is a known issue throughout the starboxes, but consistency is probably more valuable than trying to make it "right" for just one case - see pm_footnote and parallax_footnote which intentionally place the reference before the units.  I have fixed the documentation page, there is no dist_footnote2.  Lithopsian (talk) 13:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked at the other starbox templates, and none of them seem to be having the refs at the wrong place. If it's a known issue with this one, then it's a relatively easy fix, and if the footnote parameters are explicitly present, they might as well be at the right place - see diff.  (or somebody else if they notice this first): same routine; replace current version of Template:Starbox astrometry with contents of my sandbox (i.e. diff linked above). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  17:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: . P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 19:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

text: Take a look at any star article instead of code-reading, and maybe we can stop making piecemeal changes that aren't really improving these templates.  Try Sirius, it has a fairly complete set of fields.  At the top of the template, it says "Before making modifications to this template, please discuss the proposed changes on the WikiProject Astronomical objects talk page. Thank you.", that's so that these questions can be ironed out before they hit thousands of star articles.  If you do that, you *will* get feedback, but that's a good thing, right?  Lithopsian (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  As regards the astrometry box, Sirius was an instance were the existing parameter was unused when it should have been used... Now it shows that an additional parameter might be necessary for radial velocity (and really, that's not something complex to add - you literally add  at the appropriate place after the unit). The rest shows this was just horribly designed to start with - it might be far simpler to just put the unit abbreviations in with the description (i.e. have "Temperature (K) // [whatever][ref]" instead of the current "Temperature // [whatever][ref](K)". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  21:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

text: Horribly-designed or not, it is what we have and thousands of articles used it.  Any wholesale re-design would likely need an associated bot to edit the articles and nobody has been ready to take that on.  There was an attempt a few years back to rewrite the multiple starboxes along the lines of a simplified infobox, but after consideration of all the edge cases (eg. multiple instances of one starbox template such as  or  within the starbox begin/end nest) and a lack of agreement about which fields could be dropped, it all ran into the long grass.  There are some instances where multiple values (eg. for a binary or variable star) are placed in one starbox field, with all except the last one having to include the units, and some instances of fields that need units but where the template doesn't provide them (eg. period_unitless in ).  Very messy - take a look at Eta Carinae for examples, but like I said: if you're not going to fix them all then making some of them different isn't really helping.  In related news, the  template intended to be used inside  has problems with placing references after the commas, although it is relatively uncommon to have references nested inside the template.  See Antares for an example.  Lithopsian (talk) 11:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Redesigning starbox detail to avoid the ref issue and have minimal changes was a rather minor affair (which would not require a bot at this time), see User:RandomCanadian/sandbox3 (the only parameter that's still tricky is the age, but for consistency I guess I could do like the others). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  17:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

text:   - false, as a merger/replacement with  was rejected a few years back, despite a successful merger of the planetbox begin series into  at a similar time. I am more than capable (and willing) to have my bot perform the merger, but no one wants it (apparently) despite starbox's many shortcomings. Primefac (talk) 07:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can make wholesale improvements, then propose the new design at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects.  I can see some issues ahead with that layout, for example in , but with a bit of thought maybe it can be all worked through.  Better yet if it doesn't need a bot.  I did think that we could do without a bot by making the existing templates become wrappers for a new set of starboxes, but that's probably going to be more trouble in the long run.  Lithopsian (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 1 April 2022 

message: This template uses  tags which reduces font size in already-reduced infobox text, not allowed per MOS:SMALL. MB 18:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: .  there are no "small" tags in this template, but this is a centralized talk page for other templates. There were ten sets of "small" tags in the  template, so I removed them. Did you mean that template? or did you mean a different template? P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 19:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , actually, I got here from  which has them. MB 19:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I thought. These are among several related templates that apparently use tables to splice together. I'd like to hold off changing any others so we can perhaps hear from other involved editors as to whether or not these templates should continue to violate MOS:SMALL, and perhaps why they do in the first place? P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 19:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

text:  thought to ask for guidance. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 20:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think it's going to harm the layout to remove those particular small tags, but you could remove the bold face to balance it out. Praemonitus (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

text: I don't know why they are like that, but I do note that the majority of them are "symbols" such as Ω for the longitude of the ascending node of an orbit, and as such are bold and less tiny than they might otherwise be.  I hadn't really noticed them being small, but my browser is configured with a hard lower limit on font sizes and that was nudging them up slightly.  Again, there is a project page that will get much more attention than posting directly here.  Lithopsian (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment - I have my browser set so I can fit as much text on the screen as I can comfortably read. I can make out normal infobox (85%) text just fine, but this smaller text is a problem. I think there would need to be a very good reason (which I can't imagine) to ignore MOS:SMALL here. MB 22:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 3 April 2022 

message: Change https://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-id?Ident= to https://simbad.cds.unistra.fr/simbad/sim-id?Ident=; SIMBAD now uses the latter URL although the former still works. nussun (talk) 07:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Primefac (talk) 09:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update SIMBAD link 

message: The template has a field called metal2_fe, equivalent to metal_fe but for the second component.  This is inconsistent with the naming of the other fields, for example rotational_velocity2 or age_myr2.  Some articles have used metal_fe2 and no entry appears in the infobox.  Some articles may well still be doing this.  A field called metal_fe2 should be added, with identical output to metal2_fe.  I don't think it needs to be too clever about handling edge cases where both fields are used, but only one line should appear in the infobox even if both fields have values (or maybe two since a visible indication of a mistake will get fixed?). Lithopsian (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Primefac (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  unfortunately the 'metal_fe2' entry now shows up when it hasn't been assigned a value. For example, see the infobox for Epsilon Virginis. Praemonitus (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: . Primefac (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 14 June 2022 

message: In the Gaia era, we are getting parallaxes sufficiently accurate that they stretch the number of significant figures used for the calculated distances in the starbox, or at least the margins of error on the distances.  See TRAPPIST-1 for one case where the margin of error is barely 0.01 parsecs.  There has been an attempt to hardcode the distances to values calculated from the parallax which I think was inspired by a desire to have three decimal places instead of two.  Obviously this would only be applicable to the closest stars.  Proxima Centauri may be the most extreme case, where the distance is currently showing as 1.30197 ± 0 pc, which isn't really giving the whole story.  I'm not sure why it is getting rounded to straight zero, since I calculate the margin of error as 0.0001 pc and the margin of error on the light years is shown to four decimal places.  Does it make sense to nudge the number of significant figures up by about one place in those cases where the parallax accuracy merits it?  Lithopsian (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any significant space constraints on the field, so I'd say yes. Praemonitus (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precision of the distance fields 

message: Contrary to the documentation, omitting the visual magnitude in Template:starbox observe does not omit the row in the table, instead leaving a row with the parameter name. For Template:Starbox observe 2s, an example can be seen below for a binary star where the visual magnitude of one component has not been reported:
|- "text-align: center;"
! style="text-align: center; background-color: #FFFFC0;" colspan="2" | Observation data
|-
| Constellation
| Draco
|- style="vertical-align:top"
 
|-
| colspan="2" style="text-align: center" | A
|-
| 
| 
|-
| 
| 
|-
| 
| 11.41
|-
| colspan="2" style="text-align: center" | B
|-
| 
| ~
|-
| 
| ~
|-
| 
| 
|- "text-align: center;"
! style="text-align: center; background-color: #FFFFC0;" colspan="2" | Observation data
|-
| Constellation
| Draco
|- style="vertical-align:top"
 
|-
| colspan="2" style="text-align: center" | A
|-
| 
| 
|-
| 
| 
|-
| 
| 11.41
|-
| colspan="2" style="text-align: center" | B
|-
| 
| ~
|-
| 
| ~
 –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is only the case for appmag_v1 and appmag_v2 in .  It works fine for appmag_v in .  Either omitting the appmag_v field or leaving it empty will cause the row not to display at all, as is standard for almost every field in the starbox templates.  In  and , leaving the appmag_v fields empty causes the row to display with no value, while omitting it completely causes the row to display as shown in the example.  I'll have a go at fixing these.  Lithopsian (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've edited both  and .  They should be working fine now.  Shout out if you see any problems.  Lithopsian (talk) 14:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starbox observe for component of unknown visual apparent magnitude 

message: The url generated for the EPE field is https://exoplanet.eu/..., but this fails.  I think it is because there is no secure server for that site.  The same url without https:// seems OK and gets directed to a non-secure page.  Lithopsian (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exoplanet encyclopaedia (EPE) not working 

message: I would like to add the following:
For Starbox orbit:
* Epoch (not periastron epoch)
* Longitude of perihelion ϖ (I see that researchers don't really use arg of periastron and ascending node separate like in PSR J1946+2052)
* Rate of periastron advance \dot \bar \omega (apsidal precession, significant for binary neutron stars)
For Starbox detail:
* Spin-down period \dot P (spin period derivative commonly expressed in seconds per second; essential for neutron stars)
* Surface magnetic field B (commonly in Gauss units, useful for stellar remnants such as white dwarfs and neutron stars)
* Characteristic age (age since formation from supernova, used in neutron stars_
Nrco0e (talk) 05:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for additional parameters to Starbox orbit and detail 

message: So that this doesn't get abandoned: Do folks prefer a template with always sub-grouping, two templates one with sub-grouping and one without, or a template with a parameter that tells whether to subgroup, or something else? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: The template contains the line:
:{{#if:|Extrasolar PlanetsEncyclopaediadata
The exoplanet.eu site no longer supports direct links to star systems, and doesn't have unique pages for star systems. The only way to get this link working is to make a default archive.org link, but this is not recommended as the data will be outdated. Recommend removing exoplanets.eu from this template, the site is for planets afterall. -- GreenC 02:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Support: yes, that has been dead and irrelevant for a while now. Praemonitus (talk) 05:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

text: If it doesn't work anymore and can't be repaired, it should be removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: . Primefac (talk) 07:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notification: exoplanet.eu dead  

message: For reasons I can't discern, the title row of the  template isn't being centered. I also think "Angular distance" should be linked and the "Observed separation (projected)" label should be simplified to "Projected separation". Praemonitus (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be sorted now, I think the main issue was the code being written wrong, but trying to shove everything onto one line probably didn't help either. Primefac (talk) 07:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starbox relpos title isn't centered 

message: The  template frequently includes the primary designation of the star (and its variations) as well as a list of other identifiers. For this reason, shouldn't the template be simply titled 'Designations' rather than 'Other designations'? Praemonitus (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of template:Starbox catalogue