Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Archive 5

message: Debates on dwarf planet and asteroid names have spilled over into Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (astronomical objects).  As best as I can tell, this debate would benefit greatly from a planetary scientist with a Ph.D. who can provide credible professional input.  Someone should also contact the Minor Planet Center and get information from them (or get them involved in Wikipedia).  (I'm just an extragalactic astronomer, so I am not going to get involved further in this debate.) George J. Bendo 08:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that! I thought that they should at least be aware of what was being changed if they wanted to change it. Vanished user talk 14:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The debate is in the right place.  I just think the debate could benefit from people with more professional experience with asteroids. George J. Bendo 14:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, well. Give it a few months to settle down, then re-vote on the issue if it turns out to be unworkable? Vanished user talk 14:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I suppose. But the bits about how it's a personal offense to a lump of rock and all the other anthromorphosizings are kind of scary. Vanished user talk 15:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: One of the problems with asteroid names, is that they are generally named after someone or something notable - and unless it is described as going to hit/pass very close to the Earth, or has been visited by spacecraft - the vast majority of minor planets virtually never appear in "popular" media. This means that, whilst NGC 5005 is at NGC 5005, very often, something else is at just the name part of the asteroid on wikipedia. Even Vesta is a disambiguation page, and is perhaps one of the best known asteroids. Some, like Juno links directly to the goddess. The minor planet articles generally have to be disambiguated. Besides, it'd be a huge task to change a few thousand article titles, and countless thousands of links to them! Richard B 19:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debates on dwarf planet and asteroid names 

message: It attempts to be an overview of how the MPC handles names, the process, and the history (expansion and clarification of Minor planet number). It could really use a look-over by an astronomer, since I'm about to be trounced by the non-astronomers if I got this wrong. Vanished user talk 18:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Minor planet names]]

message: User:Cool Cat has proposed to rename Eris/Xena's moon. 132.205.44.134 00:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be inconsistent with the naming convention of the multitude of other moons listed on the natural satellite page. Why use two words when one will suffice? — RJH (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dysnomia (moon)]] → [[Dysnomia (natural satellite)]] 

message: Just to stir up conversation a little...
I have been working on trying to clean up the galaxy groups on Wikipedia lately.  I currently have four categories (:Category:M51 subgroup, :Category:M101 subgroup, :Category:NGC 6703 group, and :Category:Galactic groupings) nominated for deletion, and I would like to rename the Coma cluster of galaxies and Leo I group of galaxies pages.  It also looks like more work on the categories is needed; Wikipedia currently contains three categories for the M96 Group and three categories for the M66 Group.  (Can you guess which categories correspond to each group?)
On another note, in a brief discussion with WilliamKF, I came to the conclusion that Wikipedia may need two galaxy cluster templates: one for extended nearby clusters (where group boundaries, centers, and redshifts are hard to define) and one for Abell clusters, compact clusters, and distant clusters (where group boundaries, centers, and redshifts can be clearly defined).  What do other people think?  (Is anyone out there?) George J. Bendo 00:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just proposed renaming :Category:Leo cluster as :Category:Abell 1367.  (I have the sense that this seems too esoteric for people.) George J. Bendo 19:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't really have any strong opinion on the first topic, other than to ask that the templates have a consistent appearance (color, format, order, row tags where they match, &c.). For the cluster name, "Abell 1367" seems to make more sense if only because it receives many more ghits (16,000 versus 137 for "Leo cluster".) — RJH (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galaxy group work 

message: After briefly looking over the Field of the Nebulae article, I figured out that it is probably talking about the Virgo Cluster, although I am not 100% certain.  I did a Google search on both "Field of the Nebulae" and "Coma-Virgo Cloud" and found very little except for a few articles that say the same thing as what is written in the Wikipedia article.  (One of those articles may be the source for the Wikipedia article, but I can't tell.)  NED and the ADS Abstract Server do not return any information when I do a search on either "name".  The term certainly is not used often, and it probably should not exist as an independent article in Wikipedia.  My questions are: 
#Should this be deleted or turned into a redirect to the Virgo Cluster?
#If it should be turned into a redirect, can I just do this myself?
George J. Bendo 00:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about proposing a merge, if the article really needs to exist and become a redirect. From your description, though, I would go the WP:AfD route. Awolf002 01:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess my vote would be to go the AFD route as well. I've never heard the term used before and multiple queries outside of Wikipedia turn up no results. (www.answers.com uses Wikipedia as a source) I am nearly positive that it would fail WP:N if it was put to an AFD debate. If you decide to change it into a redirect however, I am not aware of any reason why you could not do that yourself. --Nebular110 01:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I'd just check WP:redirect and go ahead. But if deletion is preferred, then I'd just  it and paste in a brief explanation. It's usually less painful than AfD's in clear-cut cases like this.  — RJH (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If somebody removes the prod we can always take it through for an AfD. That is usually more than sufficient in cases when a rational deletion criteria is presented. (Although I've had some negative experiences with that process, so you never know for certain...) — RJH (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 132.205.44.134 removed the PROD on the last day.  He/she/they/it provided references indicating that "Field of the Nebulae" is the Virgo Cluster.  Would anyone mind if I turn Field of the Nebulae into a redirect to Virgo Cluster while noting the (obscure) name on the Virgo Cluster page in the infobox? George J. Bendo 07:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD: [[Field of the Nebulae]]? 

message: Someone has proposed renaming Moon as Luna or something else (possibly Moon (natural satellite)).  This is as silly as the asteroid rename discussion a couple of weeks ago.  However, it is not as silly as the older proposal to rename Moon as [[Moon (moon)]. Please go to the talk page for Moon and voice your opinion. George J. Bendo 17:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This requested move died a quick and painless death.  It was closed less than one day after being proposed.  The opposition was so overwhelming that an administrator invoked the snowball clause to close the debate. George J. Bendo 21:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed rename for [[Moon]] 

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 23:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: I have some more administrative requests for galaxy group/cluster pages pending:
*I have a proposal pending to move HCG 87 group of galaxies to HCG 87.
*In undoing some of the chaos of Hurricane Devon, I have submitted a request to merge :Category:M96 group, :Category:M96 subgroup, and :Category: Leo I group into :Category:M96 Group and :Category:M66 group, :Category:M66 subgroup, and :Category: Leo Triplett into :Category:Leo Triplet.  ("Triplet" will be spelled without a stutter.)
*To give the group categories a more uniform appearance, I have proposed speedy renaming the :Category:Centaurus cluster, :Category:Fornax cluster, :Category:Norma cluster, and :Category:Perseus cluster pages.
I am still tracking down information on half of the groups and clusters in Wikipedia.  I might tackle the "Ursa Major North Group" and "Ursa Major South Group" next. George J. Bendo 18:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I figured out that the "Eridanus Cluster" is more commonly referred to as the "Eridanus Group" (although this is an example of an object that lies in the gray area between galaxy group and galaxy cluster).  I have therefore proposed renaming :Category:Eridanus cluster as :Category:Eridanus Group. George J. Bendo 19:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More galaxy group work 

message: The Canes Venatici Cloud article has been tagged as needing professional help for a while now.  I did a little bit of research on the "Canes Venatici Cloud", and I am finally able to make some sense of it.  This article seems to be written using the term in the context it is given in a 1982 paper by Brent Tully.  As far as I can tell, only Tully's works and a few amateur websites that copy his 1982 paper use "Canes Venatici Cloud" in this sense.  However, it appears that astronomers are more likely to use the term "Canes Venatici Cloud" to refer to the Canes Venatici I Group (currently called the M94 Group on Wikipedia), as revealed by searches on the ADS Abstract Service, the SIMBAD Astronomical Database, and the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database.  I recommend that Wikipedia makes "Canes Venatici Cloud" a redirect to the M94 Group page, although I would like to note that this is ultimately an obscure term.  What are other people's thoughts?  (I have noticed that my work on galaxy groups has become increasingly esoteric for Wikipedia.  I do not know if I expect a response.)  George J. Bendo 15:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess if I were looking to do something along those lines I would first check the "what links here" list and see if it would make sense to modify all of the pages (not in user space) to use M94 Group instead. — RJH (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the other stuff in the "what links here" are galaxy groups that are supposed to be part of the Tully version of the Canes Venatici Cloud.  These links were presumably added by someone involved with creating the awful Canes Venatici Cloud article.  I could easily remove these links or rewrite them to point to the Local Supercluster/Virgo Supercluster article instead (which would be much more appropriate).  George J. Bendo 17:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I have finished converting the article into a redirect. George J. Bendo 13:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A leftover item from the redirect work: The redirect Local Cloud no longer makes sense.  I cannot think of where to redirect a search for "Local Cloud" either, so I have nominated the redirect for deletion. George J. Bendo 12:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Local Cloud could instead be the article title for the Tully version. 132.205.44.134 23:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tully does not use the term.  The term is more likely to refer to a cloud within the Milky Way (as a search with the ADS Abstract Service reveals).  The term could be used in this sense, although Wikipedia may already have an article that already describes this somewhere. George J. Bendo 07:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic article: [[Canes Venatici Cloud]] 

message: I have nominated :Category:Barred disc galaxies for deletion.  The logic for this nomination is simple:  this category is redundant with :Category:Barred spiral galaxies and :Category:Barred lenticular galaxies.  I just wanted to explain the nomination here in case anyone asks (and feel free to disagree with me).  George J. Bendo 12:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Barred disc galaxies 

message: I finally nominated W cloud for deletion.  Please go here to vote on the deletion.  In my opinion, this is one of the most bizarre articles on Wikipedia (although it is real).  I use this article as a joke among other professional astronomers.  (We need entertainment while testing the equipment for the Herschel Space Observatory.) George J. Bendo 00:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: W cloud has been deleted.  I will be nominating the correspinding category for deletion shortly. George J. Bendo 18:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article for Deletion: '''W cloud''' 

message: After studying the reference material available for the Ursa Major South group of galaxies, I have come to the conclusion that it is part of the M109 Group (with the final page being named "M109 Group"). 
Currently, the Wikipedia article relies on material from the "Atlas of the Universe" page, which is not peer-reviewed.  I checked Hyperleda, the reference within the Atlas of the Universe page, and I found that the reference gives results that are different from the Altas of the Universe page.  This means that the Atlas of the Universe is a bogus reference on this topic.
I then checked the article by Fouque et al. (1992) which uses the term.  Fouque et al. may be the only refereed paper that uses the term "Ursa Major I South" for the group.  Apparently, many of the galaxies in the Fouque et al. "Ursa Major I South" group correspond to galaxies listed by the Nearby Galaxy Catalog and by Giuricin et al. (2000) as part of the same group as M109 (NGC 3992).  The Giuricin et al. results are particularly robust; they used three different algorithms for group detection and derived similar results from all three for the M109 Group.  I therefore think that Fouque et al. are probably in error and that the thing currently listed as the Ursa Major South group of galaxies should be merged with the M109 Group.
Before I undertake such a merge, what do other people think?  Please respond by 17 Nov, at which time I will undertake the merge. George J. Bendo 16:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I received no comments on this in three different forums.  I am moving ahead with redirecting Ursa Major South group of galaxies to M109 Group.  Note that the LGG Catalogue specifically identifies UMa I N and UMa I S as belonging to one group and that the results from the LGG Catalogue are representative of the other group catalogs.  The merge is therefore justified.  George J. Bendo 10:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: As a consequence of the merge, I have nominated :Category:Ursa Major South group for deletion.  George J. Bendo 10:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible merge between [[Ursa Major South group of galaxies]] and [[M109 Group]] 

message: Soon after someone created :Category:Extraterrestrial natural disasters to include things like moonquakes, Venusquakes, and the Great Red Spot, I nominated the category for deletion.  The debate on the category is almost split 50/50 in favor of deletion and could use additional votes.  (In my opinion, this looks like a really bad category even if it is renamed.  Everything from Arp 220 to Copernicus Crater could fall in this category.) George J. Bendo 14:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any votes to keep the current category, although there are some proposals for a rename. Perhaps the various quake articles could be merged into a single article on extraterrestrial quakes? That would leave just the red spot article. — RJH (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The votes to rename were effectively saying to keep the category.  I honestly think that the category, even renamed, is still ineffective. George J. Bendo 19:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True. But most of the Wikipedia admins seem like pretty reasonable and rational people, so hopefully common sense will rule. — RJH (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and the category is history. — RJH (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial category debate: [[:Category:Extraterrestrial natural disasters]] 

message: Hello,
I just nominated the Olympus Mons article for the Article Creation and Improvement Drive because I think that that article deserves to be class A. I thought this nomination might be of some interest to you all. Thanks! S.dedalus 07:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Olympus Mons]]

message: Is Hurricane Devon still a member of this project? He's on the list, but he doesn't have a user page anymore (so there is no userbox), and he's still blocked. 132.205.93.88 04:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I boldly removed him from the Wikiproject.  Also note that someone named AstroHurricane001 has joined the project.  I have currently drawn no conclusions on this new person.  It could be someone who has interests similar to Hurricane Devon's and simply chose a similar user name, or it could be Hurricane Devon using a new name.  George J. Bendo 16:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurricane Devon? 

message: I'm not a member of this project, but I was wondering about the article Green Fireballs.  Is that within the scope of this project?  If so, would someone like to comment on it?  Bubba73 (talk), 23:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's more for UFOlogy... or possibly weather..., just MHO. 132.205.44.134 00:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought the fireballs were meteors.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with 132.205.44.134.  This is something better handled by a pseudoscience group than an astronomy group.  George J. Bendo 08:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is listed with the Pseudosciene and Rational Skepticism projects, but they are pretty inactive.  I thought someone here might want to have a look.  But thanks anyway.  Bubba73 (talk), 14:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green Fireballs? 

message: Just for people's information, I changed my name from George_J._Bendo to Dr. Submillimeter.  Google was returning my userpage as the first or second item in their searches.  I just wanted those searches to turn up my real-life work first.  Dr. Submillimeter 08:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an interesting choice in naming. Considering the kind of bad jokes you might potentially receive on your talk page from now on (consider the number of sophmoric users Wikipedia has). 132.205.45.206 02:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Username change 

message: Just what is WikiSky.org?
What kind of information is it supposed to provide?
(and should we ask for a /transwiki/ process for articles that do not meet notability criteria here to be transferred there?)
132.205.45.206 02:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiSky.org 

message: Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#Galaxy. — RJH (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Galaxy]]

message: user:Voortle has nominated Moon for renaming. 132.205.93.33 01:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As an additional note, User:Voortle is the same person who gave us the unpopular Category:Quakes and Category:Extraterrestrial disasters, and he also created a couple of articles (Venusquake, Marsquake, and one or two others) without citing references.  I would say that his edits to astronomy articles need to be watched carefully.  Dr. Submillimeter 09:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moon → The Moon 

message: User:RandomCritic has been building standalone subpages of various astronomical object pages that used to be the sections "in fiction", and created a global category to dump all of them in (rather like his use of the hypothetical extrasolar astronomical object category), instead of using the existing subcategories. I've since corrected the rather ugly concatenation. 
See :Category:Astronomical locations in fiction, and it's component template Template:Astronomical locations in fiction (I see no need for such an unwieldy template that is a list rather than a navigation aid - it contains every article in the category, and they are not much related). As the preceding category system was developed to separate real, fictional usages of real and fictional astronomical objects, and place them in the correct heirarchy positions in the fictional locations and astronomical object trees, I've already cleaned up the heirarchy. (Note: :Category:Locations in fiction is an umbrella for articles dealing with real locations in fiction) 
132.205.93.33 04:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of RandomCritic's work on galaxies has been quite useful.  The Andromeda Galaxy article by itself could easily be overwhelmed with a list of fictional references to the galaxy.  Piling the information into a new article instead is much better.  Dr. Submillimeter 09:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that his work on galaxies has been nice. It's just collapsing of categorization into one messy container that bugged me. As he was the advocate for it in the hypothetical objects, and had quite a few edits onto the template, and as creator of most of the "in fiction" articles (and sole editor)... my heads up was directed mainly at his "in fiction" article categorization. 132.205.44.134 23:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well I'm guilty of creating the Template:Astronomical locations in fiction template. My goal in creating the template was to reduce to a minimum the amount of fiction cruft, er... content on the astronomy topic pages. I felt that an inter-link template would redirect the fictional efforts toward separate pages; presumably through topic consolidation(?). (But I do not agree that the articles are unrelated. Space-based science fiction tends to feature interplanetary and interstellar travel, so the links are quite natural.) However I would have no objection with it being replaced by the category :Category:Astronomical locations in fiction. — RJH (talk) 17:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The template could be listified. The lack of cohesion of the template's contents is rather ungainly. I have no opposition to the creation of "in fiction" articles, just the formerly rather bad way they were going about being categorized, and linked together in the template. 132.205.44.134 23:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps it could be split into several more relevant templates: template:Stars in fiction :template:Solar System in fiction :template:Galaxies in fiction :template:Planets in fiction, which would link to categories instead of articles. ? 132.205.93.32 23:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: On another note, we don't have a corresponding :Category:Fictional astronomical locations for completely fictional locales (all the subcats of astro-locn-fict cat have complementary categories for completely fictional creations (ie. :Category:Fictional planets goes with :Category:Planets in fiction) 132.205.93.32 23:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created the corresponding category for you. Zzzzzzzzzzz 02:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:RandomCritic and fiction edits 

message: I have made a complex request to move Draco (on the ancient Athenian) to Draco (lawgiver) and Draco (disambiguation) to Draco.  In my opinion, more people are probably going to be looking for the constellation (or possibly a fictional character such as Draco Malfoy) than the Athenian.  I think this move has been overdue.  Please cast a vote if you are interested.  Dr. Submillimeter 09:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a good idea. Did you inform Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Greece and Wikipedia:WikiProject Law? 132.205.44.134 23:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not know that those projects existed.  I will inform them if you or someone else has not. Dr. Submillimeter 06:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I left a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Greece, but I did not think that leaving a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Law was appropriate.  I also informed Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter.  (According to a Google search, Draco Malfoy is almost as relevant as Draco the Athenian.)  Dr. Submillimeter 07:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Draco move has been approved and completed. —Doug Bell talk 11:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complex Draco move 

message: Xammer has created Template:Earth's location.  This may be vaguely useful, but at the moment, it honestly looks lame.  The last four entries are "Universe · Multiverse · Space · Spacetime".  Do we need these last four entries?  Do we even need this template?  Dr. Submillimeter 20:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does look,... less than desirable. I'm certain the ordering at the right end of the template would be open to lots of revision (things past Universe) due to differing POV on that. It also seems to be missing some things... like a galactic arm, etc. Perhaps it could be a talkpage template instead of an article template... 132.205.93.32 23:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've replaced space and spacetime with omniverse at the end of the template, because the article "Space" is not relevant - it is about something else, and "spacetime" is not a location.  Perhaps observable universe should go in before Universe. 132.205.93.32 23:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted "multiverse" or "omniverse" after "universe".  We have observational evidence for everything up to "universe" but no observational evidence for "multiverse" or "omniverse".  I made several other comments on the template's talk page.  I would like to be conservative in terms of what is put into the template (i.e. I would like to see terms routinely used in professional astronomy, and I do not want to see too much inane subdivision, such as adding "observable universe").  I am about to call in ScienceApologist to deal with policing the template.  Dr. Submillimeter 00:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Earth's location 

message: Large pathetic galaxy is up for deletion at AfD by user:Rampart. 132.205.93.32 04:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The AfD debate reached no consensus.  This object (which is incorrectly named) is real and significant; an entire Astrophysical Journal paper was written on it.  The article just needs to be repaired.  Dr. Submillimeter 18:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Large pathetic galaxy]] is up at AfD 

message: Looking at the posts here and in Wikipedia: WikiProject Physics, I see that a lot of people here could provide useful comments in the discussions at the Physics WikiProject and vice versa.  I would like to encourage people from both projects to look at the other project's talk pages more often and to participate more in cross-topic discussions.  (Unfotunately, Wikipedia: WikiProject Astronomy is not used as frequently, but that could potentially be another useful forum someday.)  Dr. Submillimeter 21:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely prefer the look of the WikiProject Physics page. It's avoiding those unwieldy boxes with the unappealing coolish hue. No offense intended to anyone. — RJH (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I may remove the boxes (as well as much of the other useless stuff) sometime in the future.  Dr. Submillimeter 18:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of communication between WikiProjects 

message: Recently, a new topic Observing the Moon was created in the domain of the Moon WikiProject, but unfortunately, not much progress has been made. Is there anyone here involved with observational astronomy who would like to help out? Thanks. Lunokhod 23:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with [[Observing the Moon]] 

message: I notice that Wikipedia contains some old templates that are no longer used.  For example, see "What links here" for Template:Astrobox observegal; the template is not used for anything!  Would anyone object if I brought up some of these old and unused templates for deletion?  Dr. Submillimeter 16:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not I. That looks like a suitable candidate for a . — RJH (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the  template, since it's not being used at all and is only linked on talk pages. Somebody can  if they object. — RJH (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a template, not a category.  Will db-catempty work? Dr. Submillimeter 18:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey, it worked! Dr. Submillimeter 07:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. Yes it doesn't look like they have a speedy delete template for a template. — RJH (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of old and unused templates? 

message: Asking if this can be added to the template.  Although, I am unsure if it should go under the other section.  Thanks, CarpD 04/21/06
:Maybe not.  Additionally, maybe some items should be removed from the template.  The template should try to unite a few similar topics for easy navigation, not collect topics on random articles that may be marginally related to each other.  Thois template looks like it could easily be expanded to include every Sun-related article in Wikipedia if not watched carefully.  (See the discussion on Template:QED at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics, for example; that template has been nominated for deletion.) Dr. Submillimeter 09:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Helium Focusing Cone]] be added to [[Template:The Sun]] 

message: After feeling my stomach churn for months whenever I looked at Hurricane Devon's "dwarf barred spiral galaxy" (which identified the Large Magellanic Cloud, among other objects, as such a galaxy), I rewrote the article using references.  The article is now located at dwarf spiral galaxy.  I may also attempt to expand the article to include some discussion on the history of the search for these objects.
Also, I have proposed that both :Category:Dwarf barred spiral galaxies and :Category:Unbarred dwarf spiral galaxies should be merged into :Category:Dwarf spiral galaxies.  I have seen no references that formally identify dwarf spiral galaxies as barred or unbarred.  Keeping these two categories encourages original research, which is a violation of Wikipedia policy.  Dr. Submillimeter 18:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it make any sense to merge all the individual dwarf galaxy articles onto the main dwarf galaxy page? I can't see the sense of having lots of "short" (pardon) articles on a similar topic when just one longer article would do. — RJH (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest leaving the existing entries as separate topics.  As I have discovered through researching dwarf spiral galaxies, those galaxies need their own page to at least describe the phenomenon and the detection of the phenomenon.  Dwarf elliptical and dwarf spheroidal galaxies are also worth discussing separately from irregular galaxies, simply because the star formation activity and stellar structure is different between the two classes of objects.  However, I recommend against creating a "dwarf irregular" page, as most irregular galaxies are dwarfs.  (Maybe the dwarf irregular categories should be merged into irregular categories?)  Dr. Submillimeter 18:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dwarf spiral galaxy]] revised 

message: I have nominated :Category:IAU planet debate for deletion.  I still think the topic is worth discussing on Wikipedia (although I would prefer to have a logical rather than an emotional debate about the topic).  However, I do not think the category is useful for organizing articles related to the subject.  The category seems very open-ended; anything that is remotely related to the topic appears to be included.  This is why I have nominated the category for deletion.  Dr. Submillimeter11:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:IAU planet debate nominated for deletion 

message: (50001) 2000 AK15 was prodded by user:Windymilla on Dec 4. 132.205.93.204 05:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article doesn't demonstrate compliance with WP:N, and it's barely even a sub-stub. It can always be created again in a more comprehensive form. — RJH (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (50001) 2000 AK15 

message: Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#Stellar_classification_-_.28LeDrew.29. — RJH (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Stellar classification]] - (LeDrew) 

message: Full moon cycle has been proposed for deletion. Please leave your comments on the appropriate talk page. Lunokhod 00:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Full moon cycle]] proposed for deletion 

message: I found list of astronomical topics on Wikipedia today and immediately thought that it should be nominated for deletion.  The article is simply an indiscriminate list of astronomy topics with no encyclopedic value.  Moreover, the list is nigh-impossible to maintain properly.  When I saw that someone else had already made such a comment on the Talk page, I decided to nominate it immediately rather than attempt further discussion.
After nomination, another editor pointed out that this article was once used to track changes to astronomy-related articles.  The editor then suggested that the page should be moved out of the article namespace and should be taken over by an appropriate WikiProject (presumably this one, since Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy and Wikipedia:WikiProject Space are inactive).
What are other people's opinions on transferring this list to this WikiProject?  I really think it is a bad idea; the project already includes subpages (such as the "Astronomy Collaboration of the Week") that are inactive and not maintained.  Dr. Submillimeter 12:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This needs clean-up. It is useful in the alternate navigation schemes that Wikipedia has, but it's a mess. 132.205.93.89 05:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about transferring the list to this project or WikiProject Astronomy? Dr. Submillimeter 10:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a good idea, if someone were willing to work on it... if not, leaving it where it is may prompt non-Project people who happen upon it to try to clean it up. 132.205.93.89 23:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we have a person who wants to maintain the list?  (The AfD seems to be bordering between "no consensus" and "delete".)  Dr. Submillimeter 00:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD: List of astronomical topics 

message: There is currently a debate about the high levels of original research in full moon cycle, new moon, full moon, and lunar phase that is being discussed at Village Pump. If you have an opinion on this, please let it be known there. Lunokhod 15:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The specific debate on this topic is at . EdJohnston 15:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate concerning no original research policy at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)|Village Pump]] 

message: This article is up for an Article Creation and Improvement Drive nomination. It looks like the article could use a longer introduction and many more citations. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 23:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jupiter]] 

message: The WP:Phys talk page is automatically archived by User:Werdnabot (see User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Howto); when a thread on that page has not been commented on for 18 days, then it's archived by the bot. Would a similar setup be of use here? Mike Peel 17:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the bot work properly?  It seems to have caused problems at WikiProject Physics in the past.  Dr. Submillimeter 19:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There have been a few hiccups. If a problem did occur, then it would only take two reverts to fix - one on this page, and one on the destination archive page. Mike Peel 20:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Werdnabot is not 100% trouble free. However at 114K I'd argue the current talk page is too long. I see that this page already has two archive files that must have been created manually. How about a couple more rounds of manual archiving, while we wait for Werdnabot to stabilize?  EdJohnston 05:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatically archival this page? 

message: The astronomers here may want to review the subtle debates about "inline citations" over at Wikipedia talk:What is a good article?. And, if you have not already done so, you may want to review Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines. If this project is in consensus on this, then please consider adding this project to the list of those subscribing to the principles of the guidelines. linas 04:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which debate on Wikipedia talk:What is a good article? do we want to review?  I see nothing titled "inline citations". Dr. Submillimeter 14:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he means the Citation method discussion. I'm trying to learn more about this kind of thing myself; right now, for example, the reference list section of spectral classification is a real hash of conflicting sequences.  BSVulturis 16:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Oops, no, it's Wikipedia_talk:What_is_a_good_article#Wikipedia:Scientific_citation_guidelines. BSVulturis 16:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a good article? 

message: Per WP:ASR, "click here" phrases (as seen in  and possibly elsewhere) should be avoided, to allow for easy printing and forking of articles. --Eleassar my talk 12:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Click here

message: I have started a policy discussion concerning how much an equation can be changed before it becomes original research on the talk page of WP:NOR. If this topic interests you, please let your opinion be known. Lunokhod 17:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equations: Original research and verifiability 

message: I created a shortcut WT:WPAO to link to the present talk page. Let me know if another spelling is preferred; the 'WT' part is standard. If no-one objects I'll make an additional shortcut WP:WPAO for the main project page. For comparison, math is WP:WPM, physics is WP:Phys, chemistry is WP:CHM. Mediawiki seems to ignore case when you type a shortcut. EdJohnston 20:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Case is important; for examples, wp:wpm and WP:PHYS don't work. Mike Peel 21:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Correction: shortcuts entered into the "search" box on the left don't mind which case you use (you can even use mixed case), so long as the shortcut that was originally set up is all caps (i.e. WP:Phys doesn't work properly... someone should fix that at some point). Entering the shortcuts as wikilinks or in the site address do depend on caps, though. You have to use the all-caps version there (exc. WP:Phys). Mike Peel 23:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. To summarize your findings, it appears that any shortcut typed in the "search" box with 'Go' is converted to all caps before looking up. When a shortcut is entered as a wikilink, in article text, it is searched using the actual case entered. It happens there are now actually *two* shortcuts, WP:Phys and (thanks to you ) WP:PHYS. So the astronomers should choose an all-caps shortcut to avoid these mysteries.  Thus WP:WPAO would in fact do the job, and could be entered with 'Go' in the search box in any combination of upper and lower case. EdJohnston 03:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There are now two shortcuts: WP:ASTRO and WT:ASTRO, for the project and talk pages respectively. I changed the spelling of one of them for for consistency, because WP:ASTRO was created by User:Worldtraveller in May 2006, but apparently not used much, since there was never a box for it on the Project page. Yes, this means we beat Wikipedia:WikiProject_Astronomy to the best shortcut! Let me know if you disagree or would like a further change. EdJohnston 16:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: WikiProject Astronomical objects was created in August 2002.  WikiProject Astronomy was created in August 2006.  Hence, some of the items related to WikiProject Astronomical objects are labeled "ASTRO" (such as the userbox and the WP shortcut) because they were probably created before WikiProject Astronomy came into existence.  (In my opinion, WikiProject Astronomy also does not seem as functional as WikiProject Astronomical objects, but no one else shares that point of view.)  Dr. Submillimeter 21:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortcut created