Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

message: A style question came up during a recent edit discussion: should infobox data entries preferentially use abbreviations or words? For example, 'Mly' or 'million light years'; 'AU' or 'astronomical unit'; 'Gyr' or 'billion years'; 'g/cm3' or 'grams per cubic centimetre'. In my mind the infobox should be kept compact by sticking to abbreviations, with the word usage being left for the article body. Is there a preference? Praemonitus (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, it's already covered by the MoS: "Where space is limited (such as tables, infoboxes, parenthetical notes, and mathematical formulas) unit symbols are preferred." Praemonitus (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Abbreviations

message: It's probably not an issue yet, but should we mention AI-generated illustrations? For example, "AI-generated illustrations should be avoided unless their accuracy is confirmed by an astronomy expert. The AI system may have been trained using copyrighted material, so the legality of such use is unclear." Praemonitus (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: New here so I don't know if it has already been covered in a more general guide or such, but I believe mentioning AI-generated images is a good idea. It's better to cover everything before it becomes a problem, than having to adjust it later in my opinion. AstroChara (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

text: The copyright rules for AI-generated images is commons:AI-generated media. If we prepare rules for objects that have never been photographed (such as exoplanets), gone millions of years ago (Theia, Mars with oceans), or just hypothetical (a terraformed Mars), they should be for any way to create such an image, be it AI, an artist's work or whatever. Cambalachero (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

text: I guess that artists and the astronomy experts are also trained using copyrighted material. Is the legality of the use of their work also unclear? Johnjbarton (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You're taking the piss, right? Primefac (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are misunderstanding the issue with source materials and AI. Artists in all genres and authors in all fields re-mix material. That's Standing on the shoulders of giants. The legality of that re-mix is never clear cut. That's why we have courts, law suits, and lawyers.  Furthermore, the legal onus is on the person who causes the material to be displayed, not on the creator. I can copy Monet in my home all day and night. Only when I sell my painting on the street will it be illegal. Similarly, the AI generation won't be illegal, uploading the image that infringes on a copyright will be. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

text: The legality of that is already established via the ramifications of plagiarism and the fair use law. No such ruling exists for AI; it's not even clear they can generate patents. Praemonitus (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion was copyright, not patent. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for stating the obvious. I was making the point that the legalities on the use of AI output are far from settled. Praemonitus (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

text: I do agree here. The morals and merits of AI art can be debated here endlessly, but the primary concern is that laws surrounding AI art (and really, AI anything) are young and volatile, and potentially subject to rapid near-future changes. It would probably be wise to at least require AI-generated material to be clearly marked as such. ArkHyena (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

text: As for the way an AI generates an image, unless there is an actual case law over that, I would dismiss the whole thing of "they used copyrighted images for training" as immaterial. The only thing that is truly relevant is the final image, the result of the prompt. If that image is derivative, then delete (or don't upload), under the same conditions we would with any other non-AI image. Cambalachero (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  My concern is that there is current controversy about the use of copyrighted web content for training, which may ultimately lead to take-down orders. Praemonitus (talk) 12:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Praemonitus: I like the way you worded this, and I agree with a fairly broad restriction on use of AI images without prior vetting and/or secondary sources. - Parejkoj (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: AI

message: The guide contained the following entry, which was removed with this edit:
: However, in general they should not be cited as a source for the infobox data because the information is subject to change over time and comes from multiple overlapping sources. However, they are useful as a stable reference for the other designations listing.
with the comment "I disagree, it is better to directly cite SIMBAD or NED as sources for the infobox, as it makes it easier to verify the information."
I have seen cited data removed from these sources, so they should not be considered stable. An example of this is the coordinate information, which is subject to refinement over time, with the old data being replaced. Instead, in many cases they do provide stable references that can be used to directly cite the data. Hence, I'd caution against using SIMBAD or NED directly.
Are there any concerns about this? Praemonitus (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: SIMBAD and NED

message: A few suggestions:
* I think it would be good to pick one symbol for astronomical unit, and I think right now we almost always use "AU".
* Surface gravity should probably be displayed in standard gravity units in addition to m/s2, and it would be nice to use "g0" instead of "g" to avoid confusion with grams.
* Conversions between multiple SI expressions should be discouraged (e.g. both km/h and m/s, which I do see).
* This section is a bit unclear on whether both SI and astronomy units should be used, or only one. In infoboxes (and prose where it's not excessive) I would argue for both. It's much easier to intuitively grasp huge distances and masses in AU, light-years, Earth gravity, Sun masses, etc., so very worthwhile to convert into these if necessary. I like the idea of converting to metric units as well because it allows intuitive comparisons across measurements - for example, how much bigger is the Earth than its orbit around the Sun? And as much as I want everyone to learn the scientific units from birth, it's a bit kinder to Americans who have come halfway and learned either metric or astronomy units but still haven't gotten a handle on the other.
* I'm agnostic as to whether metric or astronomy units should be primary where both are given via conversion, and I'm actually fine with just making whichever the cited source is using as primary for convenience. But whatever the rule is it should be made clear up front.
-- Beland (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Units

message: There is this List of missions to Mars, and there are three lists that are mostly duplicates, List of Mars landers, List of Mars orbiters, and List of artificial objects on Mars. I think both can be safely redirected to the main list without any loss of content, with a little merge from the third article (section on garbage on Mars). What do you all think? Artem.G (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the List of Mars landers has information columns that the List of missions to Mars does not, so there would be a loss of content on a redirect. Praemonitus (talk) 14:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: hmm, ok, valid point. But list of landers and list of artificial objects are almost the same, the only major difference is that failed missions are listed in the first list and obviously not liated in the second. Artem.G (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

text: I'd say any material unique to the subsidiary lists should be merged to List of missions to Mars; there's really not much point in having separate lists for landers, orbiters, and "artificial objects" ArkHyena (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

text: I do think having separate lists for landers and orbiters, alongside the general list of all missions, is reasonable. I think the "objects" list should be merged into the other two lists. The fact that orbiters have and will impact Mars is vaguely interesting for the orbiter list; memorials placed by landers is vaguely interesting for the landers list; but for the most part it's just a copy of everything else. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicated lists for Mars missions 

message: This is approaching a state in which the featured article review can be closed as kept, but could use some more attention. I recently left some review comments and was requested to leave a note here. Hog Farm  Talk 02:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/Galaxy/archive1]] 

message: I have heard rumors that wiki-sky, a.k.a. Sky-Map.org, have shut down permanently. The page has long been used by a number of templates, used in thousands of astronomy articles on Wikipedia, in the form of links to a sky map (see Messier 94 and Alpha Centauri as examples; the link to the "coordinates" is at the top of the page). The page is currently offline, and has been for a few days. If this is indeed permanent, as I suspect, then we need a replacement, and some rather high-profile templates have to be edited quickly. Renerpho (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a job for a bot. Praemonitus (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed User:Hamterous1 (discuss anything!🐹✈️) 16:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Yeah, i checked on mobile, and it didn't work. It did not load. User:Hamterous1 (discuss anything!🐹✈️) 15:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Hah! The site has just returned from the grave (meaning, sky-map.org is back up and running, and the rumors I had heard were just that). I've rarely been happier to look stupid. Renerpho (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It is running again! I checked it and it worked! User:Hamterous1 (discuss anything!🐹✈️) 02:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikisky shut down? (Affecting several important infobox templates) 

message: Currently, there is no :C:COM:WikiProject Astronomy, but there is alot of astronomical files and needs for categorization, file description, file name corrections, and perhaps building galleries. There are such wikiprojects on Commons, such as :C:COM:WikiProject Aviation. The 2024 Great North American Eclipse talkpage has also been having debates on galleries lately, so building galleries on Commons can alleviate that   -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if it will ever be a thing, but it doesn't look like it will become a Commons-based WikiProject anytime soon... User:Hamterous1 (discuss anything!🐹✈️) 22:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons based WikiProject Astronomy? 

message: I think you guys might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/IAU list of deceased members. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Being a deceased member of the IAU doesn't make someone notable. Anyone with a PhD in astronomy or related fields can join, a few years ago they opened membership to students studying for one. It's not some elite fellowship or award. (FWIW, I am an IAU member and don't pass WP:NPROF.) Some of the people on that list will turn out to be notable for other reasons, but I expect the vast majority are not. Modest Genius talk 10:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing biographies 

message: Sun may require an FAR if the concerns on its talk page are not addressed soon. 750h+ 10:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sun FAR 

message: There is a move discussion at List of largest stars for changing the name to . InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The result of the discussion was "not moved". Praemonitus (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well we can argue about this until we're blue in the face, but if you search on "List of largest known stars" it'll point you to the right page. I'd say, "good enough". Praemonitus (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move at [[List of largest stars]] 

message: PSR J1903+0327 says "A near-infrared companion, KS = 18 (2.22 μ), is observed in Gemini North images at its radio position..." What do "KS" and "μ" mean in this context? I see "μ" used in Reduced mass and Standard gravitational parameter but if it's one of those, I'm not exactly sure how that relates. This notation was in the first draft of the article added by , but they have not been an active editor for a few years, so I thought I'd ask here. Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 03:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a source for the Ks value. According to this article, Ks seems to be a line or band in the near-infrared. I'm not sure what μ is supposed to be; I assumed it was a different unit for magnitude but this pdf uses the symbol for proper motion. Since it's a binary companion, that seems to be what the symbol stands for, but I can't be certain. ArkHyena (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha! That means the "μ" is for micrometre, as a wavelength of 2.22 μm is in the infrared. Oh, and actually it's the center of the K band, according to that article. Based on the second source you found, 18 must be a magnitude. Excellent fact hunting! -- Beland (talk) 07:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to hear that you've found out what μ meant! I spent a bit too long digging up proper motion figures for the pulsar and was quite confused as to why none of the figures matched the 2.22 figure from the article. ArkHyena (talk) 08:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It should probably be listed as μm; I don't think I've ever seen just μ used. Primefac (talk) 11:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I already changed it to "μm" because that's what MOS:UNITSYMBOLS requires. Across thousands of articles I've fixed recently, I've seen a few instances of just "μ" that I also changed. As micrometre says, that was the official symbol until 1967. -- Beland (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

text:  "μ" alone should be micron, which is equivalent to micrometre -- 65.92.244.143 (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

text: Ks-band redirects to K band (infrared), but doesn't detail what Kx is -- 65.92.244.143 (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: An explanation would certainly be welcome if you have any interest in researching it. -- Beland (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The parenthetical Ks should just be deleted. If the ref does not explain it and we don't understand it, it's not verifiable content. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added an explanation with citation. See also Photometric system. -- Beland (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this Ks/mu notation mean? 

message: I've been finding some NGC object topics that were redirected to a list, but the list had no entry for that subject. Examples include NGC 6237 and NGC 6245. There are also redirects to pages with no information on the subject. An example of that is NGC 6057. I think the reader would expect to find something about the subject on the target page. Praemonitus (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Similar to my (probably to be rejected) deletion request list above, NGC 6057/NGC 6053 just shouldn't exist. It's not notable and all the entries for it are just catalogs. For things like that, just delete them. We can have someone add them to the list page if they want. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects with no information 

message: There is a contradiction between the content of the article and the talk page. While the article explicitly says that HR 5171 is contact binary, the latest talk page discussion says that it isn't based on a newer publication from 2019.  This needs to be fixed in the article. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[HR 5171]]: Contact binary or not? 

message: was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RX Telescopii. Please post your comment there and help deciding the fate of the article. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD nomination of RX Telescopii 

message: I have nominated Sun for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 750h+ 01:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sun]] FAR 

message: Template:Argo Navis (compact) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
-- 65.92.244.237 (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination for deletion of [[Template:Argo Navis (compact)]] 

message: Hello! I've started a discussion proposing some changes to the aforementioned template. Although this template is primarily concerned with planetary geology and Solar System-related topics, I invite you all to join the discussion and give your comments. ArkHyena (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to [[Template:Infobox feature on celestial object]] 

message: There is a requested move at List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs to move the name to List of nearest stars. Discuss the move if you want, to help the creation of a consensus. 
The discission is located at Talk:List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs#Requested move 31 May 2024. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move at [[List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs]] 

message: I've just uploaded an image of a vial of presolar grains, and while I've added it to Orgueil, I don't want to overwrite the image of Stardust since that's both a great image and more dramatic. It doesn't actually show any presolar grains, however, so I thought I could help remedy that. It also may be pertinent for AGB stars. I don't want to start slapping one of my own images all over a whole host of related articles, so any input on where this may fit best would be appreciated.
I will try and get an SEM image directly of presolar grains wider than 200px up at some point! Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Input on image for [[presolar grains]]