Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Archive 7

message: Please comment about the proposed H-R diagram insertion on the star page here: Talk:Star#New_Picture. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion about H-R diagram on [[star]] page 

message: Template:Cluster contains some entries for quantities that are very difficult to actually measure (such as mass and physical radius) and at least one line which seems obscure (VHB).  After checking quite a few entries in :Category:Open clusters, it does not look like many quantities aside from the coordinates are ever listed.  Would people object if I trimmed the template down to just the constellation, RA, Dec, magnitude, distance, and other names?  Dr. Submillimeter 21:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Cluster 

message: user:The way, the truth, and the light has proposed that Pinwheel Galaxy be renamed Messier 101 to allow Pinwheel Galaxy to become a dab page. I think s/he wants Triangulum Galaxy to become primary topic of Pinwheel? 132.205.44.134 22:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Response at Talk:Pinwheel Galaxy#Requested move. The way, the truth, and the light 23:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have added 'Pinwheel Galaxy' as an alternate name, explaining that it also commonly refers to M101. You are misrepresenting me. As far as the other claims I'm not going to reply at this thread, which should never have been created. The way, the truth, and the light 08:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pinwheel Galaxy &rarr; Messier 101 

message: I added references to the article about Amalthea (moon), rewrote it and requested scientific peer review. So your comments and suggestions are welcome.Ruslik 10:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amalthea 

message: Constellations need cleanup. Anyone interested in participating in a new Constellations Task Force?? Said: Rursus 21:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you proposing that needs cleaning up, since WikiProject Constellations was folded into this wikiproject? I personally think that Chinese Constellations need work, since they are used in mass media references in East Asia, and popular astronomy articles. 70.51.11.143 22:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to suggest taking one of the most solid and well-constructed constellation article, such as Orion (constellation), and bringing it up to good article status... and perhaps even making it featured article. That'll produce a gold standard for the rest of the constellation articles, and it might even be an  interesting task. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constellations task force 

message: I'm confused about something. The  template uses the parameter z. On the galaxy pages, however, the values are listed in units of km/s (whereas z is dimensionless). Is it supposed to be (redshift) z or the radial velocity? If the later, why not use rv and link accordingly? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just think of z as an abbreviation for redshift, and do not worry about the units.  When the units are in km/s, the infobox entry usually specifically states this.  We also probably want to use km/s for nearby objects (where z becomes a very small value with little physical meaning to the average reader) and the dimensionless version for distant objects (where velocities in km/s stop making sense).  Dr. Submillimeter 20:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. I added a brief explanation to the  template page. — RJH (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galaxy template 

message: I have been having disagreements with User:The way, the truth, and the light over some of the language referring to the Triangulum Galaxy as the "Pinwheel Galaxy".  I have offered a compormise at Talk:Triangulum Galaxy#Compromise proposal.  Additional feedback from users (including users with anonymous IP addresses) would be appreciated.  Dr. Submillimeter 10:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute at [[Triangulum Galaxy]] 

message: Take a look at NGC 2264 and its associated pages (Cone Nebula, Christmas Tree Cluster, Fox Fur Nebula, Snowflake Cluster, and Philippine Nebula).  A lot of this is the work of  User:Acom.  At the very least, the images with added text look horrible, and the navigation template looks unnecessary.  It's also difficult or impossible to identify some of these things using SIMBAD.  Some of the objects appear to have names taken from NASA press releases, which is a bad idea (recall the problems with Large Pathetic Galaxy).  What are other people's thoughts?  Dr. Submillimeter 13:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Philippine Nebula is now up for deletion.  This was clearly a neologism, and the article contains no useful information.  A couple of these other articles may follow.  Dr. Submillimeter 14:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What is the process for deleting a template?  Is "ugly" a valid criteria :)  As far as the names are concerned, they look recent.  The names are certainly not "official" or even well known, but they do seem to be catching on. See:   I'd prefer to see all the articles merged into NGC 2264 with just a single infobox for 2264.  The rest of the material including images and description as subsections.  --mikeu 15:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was rather surprised to find Christmas Tree Nebula in SIMBAD.  Still I'd be tempted to merge them (except Cone) until such time that there is enough sources to write more than a stub and the specific names have gained more widespread use.--mikeu 15:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Templates can be deleted at WP:TFD.  I am inclined to merge the articles to NGC 2264 myself, but first I want to get feedback from other people and watch the AfD on Philippine Nebula develop.  Dr. Submillimeter 21:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've done a quick rewrite of the template so that it looks semi-decent. It should definitely be passed through WP:TfD if the articles are merged, though, which looks to be the best approach here. The images should ideally be deleted with extreme prejudice as soon as possible... Mike Peel 22:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Image:NGC2264.jpg and :Image:NGC2264 Name.jpg, both of which were formerly in the template, are now nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion.  Feel free to vomit comment. (Other images should also be nominated for deletion.) Dr. Submillimeter 09:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Image:Location NGC2264.jpg, :Image:Compare neb map.jpg, :Image:Location NGC2264.jpg, :Image:NGC 2264.jpg, :Image:Compare neb map2.jpg and :Image:Location NGC2264 2.jpg - are these actually free images? Does anyone know the source material that User:Acom and User:Z2 edited? 132.205.44.134 22:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Image:NGC 2264.jpg this is very ugly... 132.205.44.134 22:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that most NASA monikers for things should exist as redirects (or article titles) with mentions in the articles, as science writers will frequently use NASA as an authoritative source, and the common public uses NASA as one. 132.205.44.134 22:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The NASA nicknames (when they actually appear to be used as such) should indeed probably be kept as redirects.  However, recall the problem with Large Pathetic Galaxy, where someone wrote a Wikipedia article based on a press release that described a star cluster in the Milky Way as a "large, pathetic galaxy".  The creator of Large Pathetic Galaxy thought that this was actually the name of the object.  The actual name was something complex; I think it was a 2MASS designation.  Anyhow, the article was so awful that it was deleted.  Dr. Submillimeter 09:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Since this is one physical object, it may as well be one article. 'Cone' and 'Christmas Tree' appear to be established names for parts of the complex; the others should be kept as redirects only. The way, the truth, and the light 09:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Image:Compare neb map.jpg by User:Z2 still has the Philippines on it. If we're not using it, perhaps it should be deleted as orphaned image? Same goes for :Image:Location NGC2264.jpg. 70.55.86.83 15:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[NGC 2264]], its navigation template, and associated pages 

message: Apparently "Satellite" was renamed Artificial Satellite at some point. 132.205.44.134 21:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's now back at Satellite. The way, the truth, and the light 09:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artificial Satellite → (multiple possibilities) 

message: Having looked at a lot of images by user Acom... it seems as though he likes garish typography and loud clashing colors. Just about everything contributed is GFDL-self tagged. Exactly how much modification is required before IP rules say you've created something totally new? From my standpoint, it seems like the majority of contributions may be copyright violations (ie. if you sample sound in a rap song by messing with an LP on a turntable, you still have to pay royalties)... User:Acom's user page doesn't say much about him. 132.205.44.134 23:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like copyvio to me. I wouldn't mind if all his images were deleted. The way, the truth, and the light 09:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:Acom 

message: I have nominated Template:Satellites 0f 2003 EL61 and Template:2003 EL61 Satellites for deletion. 132.205.44.134 23:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TFD on Template:Satellites 0f 2003 EL61 and Template:2003 EL61 Satellites 

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)
replies: text: Both images by User:Acom (:Image:Form-PRG.jpg and :Image:TPRG1137.jpg) have been nominated for deletion.  These scientifically inaccurate images are harmful to Wikipedia.  Dr. Submillimeter 09:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The table also needs work, as it subtypes polar ring galaxies, without explanatory text in the article describing what the subtypes are. 132.205.44.134 22:25, 10 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)
thread_title:  Category:Terrestrial planets 

message: Speedy category rename is listed for :Category:Astronomy institutes 132.205.44.134 16:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Astronomy institutes to Category:Astronomical institutes and departments 

message: One user is making large-scale revisions to the Milky Way article's organization. Unfortunately it is not entirely clear that these are helpful. If you could, I'd appreciate it if you could comment on the article's talk page. — RJH (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind. — RJH (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Milky Way]] revisions 

message: Hi
I'm trying to sort out the mess at the end of the Oort Cloud article, and have put a potential rewrite on the article's talk page. Any feedback would be most welcome - I've read the literature in an attempt to sort this out, but the outer solar system isn't my usual territory. Chrislintott 18:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Oort Cloud]]

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: Solar system warming was sent to WP:AFD, and it looks like an edit/revert war in the history. 132.205.44.134 23:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD: Solar system warming 

message: The redirect Great Barred Spiral Galaxy has been nominated for deletion.  This is a leftover from the days of User:Hurricane Devon.  Please go comment.  Dr. Submillimeter 18:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect [[Great Barred Spiral Galaxy]] nominated for deletion 

message: I listed a image of the galaxy cluster Cl 0024+17 taken by the Hubble Space Telescope to see if it should be a Featured picture candidates or not, It is listed here Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Dark matter your input is appreciated. ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 02:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pear review request 

message: I requested scienific peer review of the article about Rings of Jupiter. Any comments are welcome.Ruslik 11:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rings of Jupiter

message: I've posted a peer review request of this (relatively) nearby binary star system (and Type Ia supernova candidate) at Wikipedia:Peer review/IK Pegasi. Comments appreciated. — RJH (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request of [[IK Pegasi]] 

message: Uranus has survived WP:ACID and is this week's collaboration. If anyone is able to help improve it, it would be appreciated. — Pious7 02:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Uranus]] is ACID's collaboration this week 

message: If you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects/RDLog, you can see that many more of User:Acom's images have been deleted or are nominated for deletion.  I just nominated :Image:El61moonsifo.gif and :Image:NeptuneMoonsinfo.jpg for deletion because of multiple problems (particularly the unreferenced information in the image captions).  It may be worth reviewing all of User:Acom's images to see if any of them are useful for Wikipedia.  Dr. Submillimeter 08:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no desire to save Acom's ugly images which have no chance of being accepted into any article. But I would say that you should have nominated all the images as one request, so anyone could comment easily (comments here won't be considered by the closing admin). The way, the truth, and the light 11:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The images do seem to be somewhat lacking in quality, aesthetic appeal or usefulness (although the last two might be useful on certain types of garrish web sites). There is a policy for combining deletion nominations (at least for AfD's) described here: :Template:AfD footer (multiple). But it does not appear to be relevant for images. — RJH (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could have done this as a multiple nomination, but the reasons for deleting these images vary enough that I though it would be appropriate to list them separately.  Listing too many things together can cause problems, as I have found at WP:CFD.  Dr. Submillimeter 11:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that's true. I've never been a big fan of the grouped deletion approach, although I can certainly see the need. — RJH (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More [[User:Acom]] images nominated for deletion 

message: The article about Amalthea (moon) has been listed as a good article now. Ruslik 13:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great; nice work! I am surprised to see that Io (moon) and Europa (moon) aren't GA'd yet, although they look fairly close. — RJH (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amalthea 

message: :Image:Location Monoceros.jpg looks like a scan from a book or map. I'm thinking  it's a copyright violation. 70.55.86.83 15:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Another image by this contributor, :Image:Location NGC2264.jpg, looks a little too professional as well to be GDFL. (Although I'd be hard-pressed to find the original source.) — RJH (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recognize the star chart used for :Image:Location Monoceros.jpg, and I have a print version of it, although I cannot recall its name at this time.  It is indeed a copyright violation.  Note that PP3 can be used to create star charts with no problems regarding copyrights.  This software has already been used to create the maps used in many articles about constellations; see Fornax, for example.  :Image:Location NGC2264.jpg looks like something related to the Philippine Nebula article that was recently annhilated.  The image is not being used, and it should probably be deleted anyway.  Dr. Submillimeter 11:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:Location Monoceros.jpg 

message: Found an unusual article, Planetary-size comparison, which in a previous incarnation was redirected as a fork. Looks like it might be cleaned up into a reasonable article for the Simple English Wikipedia? 70.55.86.19 05:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planetary-size comparison. The way, the truth, and the light 07:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planetary-size comparison 

message: This talk page is getting fairly unwieldy. It may be time for another archival of older topics. — RJH (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The January-April contents have been archived. — RJH (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archival? 

message: I nominated the article for FA status. Please, participate. Ruslik 13:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rings of Jupiter

message: It appears that this field has been added to the  box without discussion. (By user:BlueEarth.) It doesn't seem to be beneficial. I'm wondering if there was a reason why it has been added? — RJH (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More changes have been made to this template; this time adding space velocity. I think this may not be beneficial since space velocity is not readily available, but the fields are being displayed anyway. I temporarily reverted the template and invited the editor here to discuss the subject. — RJH (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The values for proper motion and radial motion are sufficient.  Note that User:BlueEarth is the same person who created subterrestrial planet, planetary mass type, and some other unreferenced articles that were quickly deleted.  Dr. Submillimeter 20:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Galactic coordinate and space velocity are sourced datas from SIMBAD and ARICNS respectively. The reason why I added these because the datas in wikipedia templates should be as many and complex as possible. Wikipedia is the best encyclopedias in the world! BlueEarth 00:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Is that's OK if I add space velocity back to the template? BlueEarth 00:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to these data.  Also, I think there's no particular need to ask before adding optional arguments to the  templates, within reason, as this has no effect on articles where they're not used.  (The space velocity field that BlueEarth added was being displayed because of a programming error—a pipe (|) was omitted after the first occurrence of space_v_w.) Spacepotato 01:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the same argument, there's no reason to ask before removing them from the templates either. To me, building consensus is a sanity check and helps keep things more stable. But otherwise, space velocity may be of some interest to the readers (although they'll surely be puzzled by the individual U/V/W values, rather than giving a net velocity.) — RJH (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The situations differ in that removing an argument from the template will remove it from the infobox wherever it is used.  I agree that removing an argument which is never used makes no difference. Spacepotato 22:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course if this hypothetical individual felt that the argument was not serving a useful purpose and was taking up unnecessary space on various star pages, then I doubt that he or she would regret not seeing it displayed. No matter. — RJH (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. I'm not opposed to including the space velocity, as long as it stays hidden when it's not in use. Sorry for the dispute. — RJH (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed galactic coordinate from the template. BlueEarth 21:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you heard anything about the J2050 coordinate system?  I haven't.  It's probably far off into the future.  Dr. Submillimeter 19:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True. For some reason I thought the coordinates were updated every decade. — RJH (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galactic coordinate (υ) and space velocity (S<sub>v</sub>) 

message: Wikipedia:Astronomer vs Amateur has been nominated for deletion.  Please go express your opinion if you are interested.  Dr. Submillimeter 15:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Astronomer vs Amateur]] nominated for deletion 

message: user:Astroguy2 has requested interstellar planetary mass object be renamed as rogue planet. 132.205.44.134 22:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  interstellar planetary mass object → rogue planet 

message: I have placed a template:notability tag on Speculation that Iapetus is artificial. 132.205.44.134 22:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it seems to be pretty much Cydonia Mensae-style wild speculation by a noted eccentric and conspiracy theorist Richard C. Hoagland. But it may still satisfy WP:N just through the level of coverage it has received. (20,700 ghits for "alien iapetus", for example.) A possibility would be to merge it with Saturn's moons in fiction. ;-) — RJH (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Cydonian plain has tonnes of alien autopsy type TV shows about it. I don't recall seeing such for Iapetus... perhaps we need a Moons of the Solar System in mythology... I agree with 132.205.44.134, in that it doesn't seem very notable. 70.55.87.222 18:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation that Iapetus is artificial 

message: The new datas: density and surface gravity have been added to Starbox detail by BlueEarth and Spacepotato respectively. BlueEarth 00:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I added surface gravity on May 28 pursuant to the discussion above. Spacepotato 00:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Density is mass divided by volume or mass divided by radius cubed. Density is related to surface gravity. The reason why I add density is because I want to or maybe used for classifying stars. BlueEarth 16:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While density may be easy to calculate, we cannot add every single possible quantity that could be calculated or measured to these infoboxes (see the discussion above).  If it is going to be included, the justification needs to be better than "I am using it for my own studies".  The quantity needs to be relevant to other people as well.  What are other people's thought?  Dr. Submillimeter 16:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Density seems a little problematic to me since it varies by radius in main sequence stars. So listing an average value may not really be telling the reader a whole lot. (Perhaps core density would though? But I'm not sure where you'd get that value, other than from papers on stellar models.) The density values might be of more interest for white dwarfs and neutron stars, but since they're degenerate bodies anyway those values can probably just as easily be described on those main topic pages. — RJH (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I now think that adding density to the template is a bad idea.  I am removing it from the template.  Dr. Submillimeter 22:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New datas in Starbox detail 

message: I added two new color indices: r-i and v-r. BlueEarth 00:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't seem like it would be a problem, although it probably won't be of much interest to most people. I think r-i was suggested during the original starbox discussions but it ended up being removed for some reason. — RJH (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New datas in Starbox Character 

message: There are two article on AfD that you may be intersted in knowing about:
* Blue dwarf (discussion)
* Planetary-size comparison (discussion)
--EMS | Talk 17:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles on [[WP:AfD|AfD]] 

message: Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Template:Types of nebula.  Dr. Submillimeter 09:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Template:Types of nebula]] 

message: This article has been nominated for FA status. Please feel free to leave useful comments. (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/IK Pegasi). Thank you. — RJH (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has been promoted to FA. — RJH (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[IK Pegasi]] 

message: The stub template :Template:Main-star-stub is missing an image.  Could someone fix this?  Also, is it necessary to have separate stub boxes for different types of stars?  It might be worth deleting this and using :Template:Star-stub.  Dr. Submillimeter 12:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image that is now missing was deleted from Commons yesterday under the rationale SOHO is an ESA / NASA collaboration and their work is generally non-commercial. I'm not entirely sure what the above is meant to mean, and why that alone is a good reason for deletion of the image. Richard B 13:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While NASA images are public domain, the same is not necessarily true for ESA images.  You may want to check the restrictions on using SOHO images.  (This is why I never upload images to Wikimedia.)  Dr. Submillimeter 14:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replaced it with a Hubble photo of Sirius that was already on the Sirius page. Feel free to replace it with something else. Richard B 17:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Main-star-stub 

message: The discussion on blue dwarf led to the article being deleted.  Following that, we still have a few articles with confusing common names.  I will propose to rename these in a couple of days, but for now, I would like to pose the following options for comments:
Option 1
:White main sequence star → A V star
:Blue-white dwarf → B V star
:Yellow-white dwarf → F V star
:Yellow dwarf → G V star
:Orange dwarf → K V star
Option 2
:White main sequence star → A-type dwarf
:Blue-white dwarf → B-type dwarf
:Yellow-white dwarf → F-type dwarf
:Yellow dwarf → G-type dwarf
:Orange dwarf → K-type dwarf
I prefer Option 1, as the name is unambiguous.  It is clear that the term is applicable to main sequence stars.  Another option would be to use "X-type dwarf star".  Please comment here.  The names chosen for these articles will be the basis for choosing names for the categories later.
Note that a few articles that correspond to terms commonly used throughout astronomy (such as red supergiant, red giant, blue giant, and red dwarf) have been written so that the terms apply to objects with multiple spectral types.  Those articles should not be renamed.  Dr. Submillimeter 13:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Option 1. Also I've had at least one complaint in the past about my use of "type" rather than "class". — RJH (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked how the terms are used in abstracts listed by the ADS Abstract Service.  "X-type" (with or without the hyphen) is commonly used to describe stars by their spectral type.  However, "class X" may be used to describe stars by their luminosity class.  Dr. Submillimeter 17:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. — RJH (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Option 1 is ideal. It should be done without haste. --ScienceApologist 21:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Option 1 looks better. 132.205.93.83 01:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star spectral class article renames 

message: I have submitted Io (moon) for a Scientific Peer Review.  Any comments on further improve the article, particularly along the lines of the points mentioned on the peer review discussion page, would be much appreciated.  Let's try to get another moon to featured article status (or in this case, back to featured article status).  --Volcanopele 20:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Io (moon)]] Scientific Peer Review 

message: More "Aspects" tables have been showing up on various asteroid tables. (They show on a wikipedia search for the keywords "aspects asteroid".) I believe there was a prior consensus that they would be removed as non-encyclopedic, among other objections. Anyway, hopefully nobody will object if I start ripping those out where I find them. — RJH (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it.  Dr. Submillimeter 23:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, at least for the moment. — RJH (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astrological aspects for asteroids 

message: See Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Merging astronomy and astrophysics.  Dr. Submillimeter 23:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging [[astronomy]] and [[astrophysics]] 

message: Tiamat (hypothetical planet) has been requested for deletion at WP:AFD by User:JoshuaZ. 132.205.44.134 02:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiamat (hypothetical planet) 

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: The table on the project page that lists articles and their ratings currently says that all our articles have no importance, and does not show any other possible importance ratings. I would fix this myself, but I'm not sure how one is supposed to go about doing so. Vsst 17:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus here is to avoid using the importance ratings.  Is your proposal along these lines?  Dr. Submillimeter 18:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I was not aware of the consensus to avoid using the importance ratings, but I have no problem with it. However, it is somewhat confusing to have a table that lists all articles as having no importance. Is there a way to edit it so that it does not mention any importance ratings, rather than listing all articles as having no importance? Vsst 18:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that table is maintained by a bot, but I don't know who controls that process. Personally I just stopped looking at the main project page due to the irritating format. ;-) — RJH (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table 

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: 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)
replies: text: Closed as status "keep" on the 22nd. — RJH (talk) 17:08, 24 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 16:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Callisto

message: List of astronomical topics and List of astronomical topics 2 have been nominated for deletion. Note list 2 is very very long and recently created. List 1 is what was used before the invention of categories. 70.55.91.131 08:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of astronomy topics]] 

message: Hi, I hope this is the right place to post this, 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)
replies: text: Well they do have fuzzy borders, so it probably depends on what you mean by "size". Perhaps some decrease in luminosity is used, such as the half-light radius for globular clusters? You might take a look at the NED entry and then query some of the external sources. The PGC, for example, gives an angular size of 1056.9 × 910.6 arcmin. A Vizier query of the "Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies" gives the log of the "apparent major isophotal diameter" (D25) = 3.81 (or 645.6 arcmin, which matches the listed value in the NED). The log of the "isophotal diameter ratio" is 0.07 (or a ratio of 1.17, which gives the smaller dimension of 551 arcmin). You should be able to use the distance estimate to compute a size. I'm not sure how to correlate the two differing angular sizes, however. — RJH (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Per this, with angular size=1056.9 arcmin and distance=160000 ly, I get 49582 ly, or about 50,000 ly after rounding off. With 645.6 arcmin the value comes to ~30,000 ly. There's no reason you couldn't document where you got the angular size and how you derived the actual size in the footnotes. — RJH (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a diameter estimate to the LMC article.  A similar edit to the SMC might be in order. WilliamKF 21:26, 23 August 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: Serendipodous suggests that Solar nebula be renamed Nebular hypothesis. 70.51.8.214 07:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion at: Talk:Solar_nebula#Move_request — RJH (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solar nebula → Nebular hypothesis 

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: 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: 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: It looks like a list that is redundant with entries under List of craters on the Moon, very incomplete and completely unreferenced. I'm not sure I understand the benefit. Perhaps if it were organized on the basis of profession or nation-of-origin it would provide a value add? — RJH (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:CFD]] on [[:Category:People with craters of the Moon named after them]] 

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)
replies: text: Personally, I don't see the point of the category... 70.51.11.13 07:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Extrasolar planets with unofficial names 

message: Some of the orbital elements that are listed for each of the planets appear a tad superfluous, at least in my opinion. They are:
*Semi-minor axis (b derived from a and e)
*Orbital circumference (derived from a and e)
*Orbital area (derived from a and b; hence a and e)
Is there a strong desire to retain these parameters? I'm not sure that they are providing benefit, but they are adding perhaps unnecessary bloat to the Planetary infoboxes. — RJH (talk)  —The preceding  signed but undated. 
:I think it would be nice to have semi-minor axis and orbital circumference, especially since I'd prefer not to dig out a calculator to figure it out each time. 132.205.44.5 22:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  When the value of the semi-major axis or ellipticity is changed (because of a reference update) is somebody going to re-compute the values? I'm trying to reference the orbital parameters on the Earth page, which come from some unknown source and are of unlikely precision. So both a and e will be changing. — RJH (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't a template autocalculate it from the values entered, or am I ascribing too much power to wikimedia templates? 132.205.44.5 16:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might like to have a look at what has been done over at the giant planets, using HORIZONS. Deuar 20:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes a template could be a beneficial, if feasible. Otherwise a citation should be necessary to demonstrate that the value was computed correctly. — RJH (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A citation seems excessive for what are simple mathematical mnipulations. In my experience, these sort of quantities are usually only explicitly given in amateur or educational sources anyway, which are on average no more reliable than wikipedia itself. If something is not crystal clear about the calculation it can be explained in a footnote. Deuar 12:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: They do add unnecessary bloat, and they're not the only ones; There is more discussion on these issues at :Template talk:Infobox Planet#Proposed cleanup/additions. However, 132.205.44.5 does have a point. Orbital circumference is particularly tricky to calculate, because an accurate value requires an elliptic integral (see ellipse#Circumference). Deuar 20:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some planetary orbital elements 

message: It appears that an anonymous individual has been adding invented names to some of the star articles. Examples include Proxima Ophiuchi (Barnard's star), Proxima Ursae Majoris (Lalande 21185) and Proxima Ceti A/B (Luyten 726-8). As far as I know these have no historical basis. But they do appear on the following unsigned web site: http://closeststars.com/ . It almost looks as if somebody has an agenda to promote these apparent astronomical neologisms... — RJH (talk)
:If there is no objection, I'd like to remove those entries. Anybody? — RJH (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll take that as "no objection". — RJH (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proxima whatever 

message: I added the four types of SNRs.  Looking for someone to review it to make sure I covered all the bases, as well as readability and format.  Thanks, CarpD, 8/24/07.
* David Darling also lists something called plerions. — RJH (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of [[supernova remnant|SNRs]] 

message: Added the different types of CVs in the discussion section.  I did not know how to incorporate it into the article, due to the article being unorganized.
*NASA learning center
Thanks, CarpD, 24/8/07.
:The article could use a back-link to variable star. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[cataclysmic variable|CVs]] 

message: I'm seeking consensus at MOSNUM talk for a change in the wording to allow contributors, by consensus only, to use unconverted metrics in scientific articles. Your opinions are invited. Tony 15:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  converting metrics in scientific articles 

message: What is the best way to cite information in an infobox? I personally prefer putting <ref> tags on each element, which is usually fine. Unfortunately, if you do this for calculated elements (e.g. putting a <ref> tag in the parallax field of a star infobox) causes the calculation to go wrong. Is it possible to extract the number part and drop the <ref> tag when doing the calculation? Chaos syndrome 21:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by the "calculation"? Is it something done automatically by the template? if so, a solution would be to make two paremeters in the template e.g. parralax and parralax_ref, the second being used only if a reference is actually known, in the format parralax_ref= ... . This kind of idea is used in :Template:Infobox Planet, but to generate collective references for a number of fields. Deuar 21:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's what I meant: if you put a value in the parallax field, the distance in parsecs and light years is automatically calculated. Well, thanks for pointing out the obvious solution... I was too busy trying to think of how to do it a "clever" way. Chaos syndrome 22:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infoboxes, references and calculations 

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 19:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out, I have added inline citations to it to address the issue raised. WilliamKF 04:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Great Comet of 1882