Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Archive 8

message: There is a discussion at Talk:Milky Way about splitting the article in two, one for the galaxy, one for the nebulous band of light across the night sky. 132.205.44.5 23:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Milky Way (mythology) is now being considered for merging back into the main article, as it was decided not to split the article in two. 132.205.44.5 22:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milky Way 

message: List of extrasolar planet extremes was nominated for deletion by Chaos Syndrome, and then delisted. The article has been greatly reworked though. 132.205.44.5 22:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reasoning behind the reworking (actually, its just deletion of items that either weren't "extremes" or were potentially misleading) is in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of extrasolar planet extremes discussion. Chaos syndrome 23:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD on List of extrasolar planet extremes 

message: substar, substellar, substellar object should probably redirect somewhere... any thoughts? 132.205.44.5 00:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spacepotato made an article at sso on the 17th. So, should a redirect exist at substellar? 132.205.44.5 21:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  substellar 

message: This article is currently a FA candidate. Please, participate. Comments can be left here.Ruslik 13:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to have been removed, wiped and flushed from the FAC stack. I coulnd't find any comments in the history. — RJH (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been proposed again as a FAC. Spacepotato 22:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Uranus (planet)|Uranus]]

message: Most of User:Acom's images have come up for deletion at WP:IFD or are listed at WP:PUI as possibly un-free or copyright violations. 132.205.44.5 21:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:Acom 

message: I'm currently not part of this project, but I'm wondering whether or not the article on true mass would belong with this project or possibly the more general Astronomy project.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benhocking (talk • contribs) 16:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can bring it up at WP:AST, and WP:PHYSICS. To me, it should be at either of those WikiProjects. 132.205.44.5 21:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  True mass 

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

message: I have nominated this article as a FAC.  Feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/White dwarf. Spacepotato 02:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it's FA. Good job! — RJH (talk) 23:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[White dwarf]]

message: There are some pictures up for deletion right now because a user doubts that several pictures galaxies etc. of so high a quality can be taken with a $1000 camera.  I tend to agree, but I know nothing about this.  Any comments at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2007_September_11 are welcome. Thanks! Calliopejen1 23:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amateur telescopes are now capable of taking photographs of astonishing quality, thanks to the ability of merging a multitude of image frames. I have seen amateur shots of the moon on LPOD that have better resolution than the early lunar orbiter images. (See, for example: http://www.lpod.org/?m=20070924) So that user shouldn't be so sure of [her|him]self. — RJH (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "self-taken" astronomy photos 

message: I nominated Callisto to FAC. You can leave your comments here. Ruslik 12:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Callisto (moon)|Callisto]]

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

message: Trojan planet was transwiki'd to wiktionary, and subsequently prodded by a bot. 132.205.44.5 02:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was prodded by User:TexasAndroid, not by a bot. Anyway, it's de-proposed at the moment. Spacepotato 16:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trojan planet was prodded 

message: Each of the element pages includes a references link that points to reference break-out pages for each of the parameters. (C.f. Chemical elements data references.) It might make sense to do something similar for the planet and moon infoboxes. That way we have some baseline data and references that we can use for our standards. Right now those parameters get toggled around so much that I have strong doubts concerning their veracity. — RJH (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planet Infobox References 

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

message: Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).
*List of basic astronomy topics
This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity 19:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice of List articles 

message: The Eta Carinae Nebula article has been proposed to be renamed as Carina Nebula 132.205.99.122 19:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eta Carinae Nebula -> Carina Nebula 

message: When a star gets media attenion, as 55 Cancri, people are going to want a pronunciation guide. Could we maybe add a link under the "constellation" header in , , etc., that will take them to pronunciation? kwami 01:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead. Doesn't look like there's more than just those two to adjust. kwami 01:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why this change is needed. We don't have pronunciation links for other terms used on these pages. So why have one for the constellation name? I'd prefer to see that reverted. The pronunciation can be covered on the constellation's page. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The constellation pages only give pronunciations for the nominative. Knowing the pronunciation of Cancer doesn't help much with Cancri, as one of our readers complained. (They asked if the second cee was /k/ or /s/.) This way every star named after a constellation has a link to its pronunciation. As for not having other terms so linked, that's the norm in Wikipedia - most of the 20,000 pages which indicate pronunciation only do so for the name of the article. kwami 00:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not relevant to the constellation entry in the infobox, which in this case is not 'Cancri'. You are expecting the reader to deduce that the "pronunciation" link is relevant to the star name. Also the vast majority of stars are not named after a constellation, so the link in that case is irrelevant. So this argument is not working for me. — RJH (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pronunciation 

message: I've been making some major changes to force. There are a few things I could use help with:
*Writing a section on nuclear forces (strong, weak, color, etc.)
*Referencing (this is mostly formality, but anyway)
*Finding a good lead image.
Cheerio,
ScienceApologist 01:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major changes to force article

message: The redirect Charon (planet) (to Charon (moon)) has been nominated for deletion at WP:RFD. 132.205.99.122 22:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charon (planet) is at WP:RFD 

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

message: I've been working to get the Vega article up to FA quality, and I think it's getting into decent shape. Right now it's being peer reviewed and it's in the queue for a GA status. Useful comments and suggestions would be appreciated. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is now a featured article candidate. — RJH (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Article was promoted to FA. — RJH (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vega 

message: User:Harald88 continues to insist that certain extremely fringe publications that are only cited by the authors get included at tired light which was a proposal made by Fritz Zwicky o so many years ago and now has been consigned to the dustbin of history. As it is, these references look very much to me like soapboxing. I'm not sure if Harald is associated with Marmet, Masreliez , or Accardi, but he seems to be peculiarly convinced that their papers have relevance to physics beyond the astrophysics community where these cranks have received little to no recognition for their ideas. I would appreciate a third opinion on the matter as I cannot seem to get Harald to understand that these references do not belong in a legitimate encyclopedia. Thanks. Please comment at Talk:Tired light. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: I usually add a  tag to references of a questionable nature. — RJH (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tired light

message: Users of  may wish to know that it now has a field for the bibcode used by the Astrophysics Data System. Spacepotato (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{tl|Cite journal}}

message: NGC 88 has been nominated for deletion WP:AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NGC 88 132.205.99.122 (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AfD closed, article was kept. Spacepotato (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NGC 88 at AfD 

message: Characteristics	Characteristics
Test 1         	
 G2 V
 [A]
 K1 V
 [B]
Test 2         	
 A)
 0.24
 B)
 0.64
</td>
Test 3         	
 A
 0.24
 B
 0.64
</td>
Test 4         	
 0.24A
 0.64B
</td>
Test 5         	
 0.24A
 0.64B
</td>
Test 6         	
 A
 None
 B
 None
</td>
I've been pondering how multi-star data is presented in the starbox template. One of the ideas I had was to have a sub-template that would display the data for each component in a standardized form, with appropriate designators. To the right is an example of several different styles I tried out. Which, if any, of these styles would you prefer?
The other approach would be to set up separate starbox templates that could handle 2, 3, ..., n stars. But then it becomes difficult to align the columns.
Thank you. — RJH (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the problems I've run into with multi-column data is that when one of the fields becomes inordinately large, the table fills up most of the space for the article lead. This gives the article a hideous look, depending on the width of the browser, as the lead is pushed down below the table. So whatever the solution, I'd like to avoid that condition. For rows with wide cells, I'd like to be able to split the rows cells into 2(+) rows rather that always being forced into 2(+) columns. That's why I was thinking about having a single row template rather than re-defining the infobox. — RJH (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a function of the overall appearance of the infobox, not how it's implemented.  There is no reason a redesigned infobox could not present some entries in multi-row format and others in multi-column format, and, conversely, if a subtemplate were used to split one cell into two horizontally aligned subcells, it could be used to present all quantities in multi-column format, thus producing a wide starbox.  So, I believe the issue is how the infobox should look as a whole, which is why I'm asking you what your preference is for this.  The infobox on the right has a width of only ~320 px, which I think is not too wide.  The box in 55 Cancri now is somewhat wider (~370 px) but could be brought down to a width of ~330 px by reducing the nominal width of the designations section and reformatting the proper motion section. Spacepotato (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the appearance is acceptible for cases where all of the data is in columns, there are only two components, and none of the cell fields is too wide. Having the components as a column header does help reduce the overall width. On the 55 Cancri page, however, the primary determinant of the width is the proper motion field. If that field was cited, it would make for an even wider table. As it is the width of the starbox on that page is barely acceptible.—RJH (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions requested on sub-template idea 

message: The resonance on Plutino & Cubewano page states, 2:3 & 1:2, respectively.  Dynamical determination of the Kuiper Belt's mass ... states it is 3:2 & 2:1.  Doing a search on the internet with google pulls up the same.
* Plutino are 3:2, not 2:3
* Cubewano are 2:1, not 1:2
I did not change any data yet, just wanted verification on this.  Thanks, Marasama 23:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plutinos are listed as either 3:2 or 2:3.  It is just a ratio.  It just means that Neptune completes 3 orbits every time the Plutino (Pluto as an example) goes around twice.  Cubewanos are not controlled by any orbital resonance.  I have tweaked the Plutino article. -- Kheider 04:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect information - [[Plutino]] & [[Cubewano]] 

message: Does anyone want to rewrite this into a star article? F-IV is up for deletion as a non-notable band. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe there was some discussion before in this project about having articles on individual classes, and the consensus IIRC was against it. Having an article only on class F sub-giants probably wouldn't be very  beneficial, and it would likely get redirected to stellar classification.—RJH (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  F-IV 

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

message: This article is up for peer review here. A suggestion was made on the talk page about merging some of the artcile's content into Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, which is not as developed. What do you think? I was hoping to keep a consistent story about the star's main sequence evolution on the main sequence page, but perhaps that part should be thinned down? Any thoughts? Thanks.—RJH (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Main Sequence]] 

message: Venus has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
Serendipodous 15:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Venus FAR

message: List of asteroids/1–100 has been nominated for deletion. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note.  It is not just List of asteroids/1–100. The nomination is for all of the aprox. 1800 articles in :Category:Lists of asteroids by number.  --mikeu (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD on List of asteroids/1–100 

message: Vital for the survival of science textbooks as reliable sources about scientific statements:
Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!?#RfC: Can a science textbook be used to refute a pseudoscientific statement made in a movie even if the textbook is not about the movie and doesn't mention it? Does this violate WP:NOR policy?.
Please comment. We need to get consensus on this matter.
ScienceApologist (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: An important RfC