Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

Mars has been nominated for a featured portal review. Portals are typically reviewed for one week. During this review, editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the portal from featured status. Please leave your comments and help us to return the portal to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, portals may lose its status as featured portals. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GamerPro64 (talk • contribs)

The article Sun as an X-ray source seems very questionable. The first few sections seem to be pasted in from elsewhere in Wikipedia. It includes entire sections of original research. An example is the following (attempt to define the sun?):

The Sun is a naturally occurring physical entity, association (Sun plus its coronal cloud) or structure that current science has demonstrated to exist in outer space.^[1] Such an astronomical object may be only an astronomical X-ray object, but the Sun is also an astronomical visual object. Typically the 'Sun' refers to a single, cohesive structure that is bound together by gravity (and sometimes by electromagnetism).

There are many such dubious statements are scattered throughout the article. There is, moreover, substantial overlap (including outright duplication of content) with the marginally better article Solar X-ray astronomy. I think a merge of these two articles is appropriate, although probably an expert from this project should review the result because I sense that there is a lot of rubbish in Solar X-ray astronomy as well that I lack the expertise to pinpoint. The question is, what of Sun as an X-ray source is really worth keeping? Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Wow, I agree with your initial assessment. It's a painful article to read, and it looks like it was primarily written by somebody whose first language is not English. There's an overabundance of technical jargon and minutia. However, the topic itself of studying the Sun using X-rays is likely notable enough. Sounds to me like you've volunteered to clean it up, or at the very least recruit some people to rework it. For the time being, I'll stick some tags on it to flag its questionable content.AstroCog (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Don't we already have a much better article on that at Solar X-ray astronomy? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Good eye. Looks like this article is a prime candidate for deletion then.AstroCog (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

• It's now up for speedy deletion.AstroCog (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the comments! While I do not know if any of you are experts in X-ray astronomy (doesn't read like it, no offense), I do know which members of the WikiProject Astronomy are. Headbomb has already redirected Sun as an X-ray source to Solar X-ray astronomy. Since I certainly make no claims at being an expert at writing encyclopedia articles, would you prefer that I WP:RFC one of the other editors before adding further text to Solar X-ray astronomy? Marshallsumter (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

The Request for Comments process is a formal process for resolving disputes between users (usually). For content questions about a single article, the best thing to do is to start a new subsection on the article's talk page suggesting the changes you think should be made; people will respond there. That's pretty much what article talk pages are for. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

It turns out there may be more articles that need vetting, at least some of which are astronomy-related. The relevant thread is at this AN/I thread.

Articles that could use a quick check include, but aren't limited to:

• Cometary globule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Interstellar magnetic field (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Proposed for deletion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
• Radiative dynamo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Shell dynamo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Distributive dynamo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Fossil stellar magnetic field (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Proposed for deletion by User:Astrocog. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
• Io as an X-ray source (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hot intergalactic medium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Diffuse X-ray background (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Proposed for deletion by User:Astrocog. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
• Stellar active region (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Solar antapex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Proposed for deletion by User:bobrayner. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
• X-1 X-ray source (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Visibly dark X-ray source (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These are just the articles that are astronomy-related, that showed up in some form within his most recent 500 edits. There are many more in that 500 that should be vetted that aren't relevant to this wikiproject, and there are over 2500 edits this year (meaning this list should be treated as very incomplete).

These aren't necessarily bad articles, but there's concern over whether they represent verifiable content or synthesis/original research. Some of these also seem like content forks of more general articles (perfectly fine as section-expansions when kept in synch and referenced, but I have no idea if these are or aren't). They seem to be written conventionally, but with this many being produced in such a short time, it's probably also wise to take a few moments of due diligence with Google to double-check that they aren't copied from anywhere either (unlikely; the only reason I'm suggesting checking at all is the scale of the potential mess to clean up in the unlikely event there _is_ a problem). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Update: Another editor has created a full list here, to aid vetting/cleanup. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, coronal cloud looks like synth. He's taken a stellar feature and extended it to virtually the entire universe. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

There has been an ANI thread about this user's edits, and there is something of a consensus to delete his contributions. I have WP:PRODed several articles relating to astronomical sources. With this editor, I think the safest default stance is to delete on sight, project members might want to vet these to see if there is anything worth salvaging of these:

1. Astronomical visual source
2. Astronomical ultraviolet source
3. Astronomical neutron source
4. Astronomical infrared source
5. Astronomical gamma-ray source
6. Astronomical cosmic-ray source
7. Astronomical source

--Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

I had a look at a couple of these, and yes they're barely coherent synthesis. There's no reason why we should have articles on these things, given that we already have things like infrared astronomy. Modest Genius ^talk 14:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Category:Articles_created_by_User:Marshallsumter shows the articles created by this user, of which most have been redlinked (deleted). As such drastic actions have been taken, it might merit review by WP:AST to see if edits to other articles by this user are appropriate, or are also inappropriate.

76.65.129.5 (talk) 05:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well that was a harsh outcome. I hope it was the right thing to do. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Having looked at several of his articles, I think deleting the lot was probably the best way to cauterise the wound. Fixing the existing incoherent text would be more work that simply starting a new article from scratch. And that's before the WP:CWW and outright copyright violations are considered. Although many of those are articles we should have (e.g. Lockman Hole, Interstellar magnetic field, Orion–Eridanus Superbubble), I doubt Marshallsumter's creations would have been good places to start from. Let's hope he didn't ruin any other articles without us noticing. Modest Genius ^talk 21:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

The shortcut has a typo: it's WP:CWW, WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oops, sorry. fixed. Modest Genius ^talk 11:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

I just picked an article that he contributed to at random SN 185 and had a look at it. I ended up deleting over half of the article, including essentially all the material that he added. Most consisted of a meaningless list of X ray sources, with no indication how any of them related to the supernova, but there were also several self-contradictory statements and citations to non-reliable sources. Just about the only thing he added that I left in there was the image. Modest Genius ^talk 21:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

If there is interest, perhaps the group could add the most-needed such articles to the Wikipedia:Requested articles/Natural sciences/Astronomy and cosmology page? Those do get added from time to time. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

When I was relatively new to Wikipedia I split off four articles from X-ray astronomy. This was one of User:Marshallsumter's gargantuan creations at the time (Nov. 2009). The dates of the split are November 16, 2009 for three articles and November 18, 2009 for one article. Two articles listed below have been the most heavily edited by User:Marshallsumter since the split (according to the edit histories). I would appreciate it if project members review these articles since they are originally content created by User:Marshallsumter. Please delete, merge, or redirect as necessary. Reviewing just one of these articles tells me that I am unable to simply read these articles and give an assessment right away. I would have to do alot of digging to determine their accuracy. I suppose I should have looked harder at the content in the first place. Thanks in advance for your efforts. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

• History of X-ray astronomy (most heavily edited by M.)
• Astrophysical X-ray source {most heavily edited by M.)
• X-ray astronomy detector
• X-ray astronomy satellites

• I am going over History of X-ray astronomy and I will see if I can get that into shape. So the other three are up for grabs. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for including wikilinks to the source article in your split edit summaries. I will check back with {{Copied}}s after things have calmed down. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

This may be better as a subsection of #Questionable article: Sun as an X-ray source above. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, and done. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 04:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

This reminds me of the mess that CarloscomB (talk · contribs) created, except with much more verbosity and kilobytes of text. 76.65.129.5 (talk) 04:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yeah this an order of magnitude worse (hey pros don't hit me, its hyperbole!) --Cerejota (talk) 04:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

The contents of the category have been moved there. "Enjoy" :P--Cerejota (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

A question motivated by SN 2011fe: how should supernova types be rendered in the body of an article? With a san-serif font, "Ia" looks odd.

Some options:

• I, Ia, Ib, Ic, II, II-L, II-P, IIb, IIn (capital letter)
• 1, 1a, 1b, 1c, 2, 2-L, 2-P, 2b, 2n (arabic numeral)
• I, Ia, Ib, Ic, II, II-L, II-P, IIb, IIn (roman numeral)
• I, Ia, Ib, Ic, II, II-L, II-P, IIb, IIn (all serifs)

Melchoir (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure it's a good practice to be forcing a certain font family on the viewer. RJH (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, {{code}} and {{math}} are already widely used. Melchoir (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I don't know what looks odd about "Ia" in sans-serif font. I think we should leave it the way it is.AstroCog (talk) 11:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

'Ia' is standard nomenclature. It's not our fault that Wikipedia defaults to a font in which l and I are difficult to distinguish. In future it might not do, users can change to suit their own preferences, and anyone who re-uses the text would probably use a different font. I don't see supernovae as a particularly special case (if it was, wouldn't the same arguments apply to stellar luminosity classes?), so there's no more need to 'fix' the problem than in any other use of Roman numerals on Wikipedia. We shouldn't use incorrect designations to compensate for poor font design. Modest Genius ^talk 17:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Would it be possible to somehow launch a project to improve the astrobiology section of Wikipedia? I am a beginning editor, so I am wondering if this is necessary. Fraqtive42 (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Such articles would also fall under WikiProject Astronomy, so I imagine that there would be a high degree of overlap in content and users who are interested in improving the articles. However, it could be that a WikiProject could help give some focus and attention to those articles. I'm not sure how necessary such a WikiProject is, but I don't think I would object to its creation either. I recommend reading the guide to WikiProjects here.AstroCog (talk) 03:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

What you might consider doing is setting up a task force, as per WP:TASKFORCE, and list it under this WikiProject. For example, see the Constellations Task Force in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Science#Astronomy table. Once it gets going, the {{WikiProject Astronomy}} template could be updated to include an "astrobiology" field to flag those articles supported by that task force. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Are there a number of editors who would be able to contribute on a regular basis? I notice that you're very new here (contribs) - that's not a problem in itself, but the most practical way to improve articles, at least initially, is to get stuck in and start editing them. If a group of editors want a place to organise their existing work together, then that's the time to start a WikiProject or a Taskforce. But there's no point if no-one would use it. Modest Genius ^talk 20:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Astronomers, please comment at Talk:Interplanetary medium about the difference, or lack of, between Interplanetary medium, Interplanetary dust cloud and Cosmic dust. Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Seems we just caught the whole bunch of the disruptive editors in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BookWorm44. I'm going to comb their edits over the next few days, but there were a lot of socks and a lot of edits, so help would be appreciated. This mostly affects Astrobiology, Big Bang, Quantum-Consciousness, Evolution and related topics, as well as a handful of history and religion topics. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

I just noticed that all the images at the top of every constellation article have been replaced by new ones from the IAU. Whilst they look pretty good, they also have IAU and Sky & Telescope logos on them, and I'm not sure of the copyright status of those images. They've been lifted from this IAU website, but are on Commons with CC licenses. The only discussion I can see about them is at Template_talk:Infobox_constellation#IAU_images. Anyone know why these were changed, and their copyright status? Modest Genius ^talk 14:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Help! I have justed tagged over a dozen articles created by editor Merovingian. These are all articles for minor planets, all discovered by the same person, and every one of the articles is virtually identical to the next, with the exception of the name. An example is the recently created article (27723)_1990_QA. I realize these are probably good-faith creations, but the user has already been warned by Sp33dyphil about such creations, and Merovingian even admitted that these objects were not notable by themselves. My suggestion is to stop these creations somehow and request that they be merged to an appropriate list. I have made this request on the editor's talk page, but I wanted to get some other astro editors into this discussion. We just can't possibly make a wikipedia page for every astronomical object out there! AstroCog (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

I saw this user had created a load of asteroid articles recently, but they seemed to be skipping lots out of a sequence. I assumed that meant they must have been moderately notable ones with at least one or two papers published on them, but confess I didn't check. Unless the individual asteroids have been the submit of direct study of that object we shouldn't have individual articles on them, an entry in a list article is fine. WP:OUTCOMES does indeed say that asteroids usually survive AfD, but a) that's not a policy and b) that isn't a desirable thing anyway. Modest Genius ^talk 19:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

WP:OUTCOMES seems to just say that comets and asteroids are acceptable as part of lists, but doesn't really say anything to the issue of individual articles for objects that have no other notability than being discovered. AstroCog (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

The problem is a little too large for me at the moment. I thought I could just tag a couple dozen of these stubs, but Merovingian has created hundreds, including sub-lists, which list specific ranges of the asteroid catalog. It's kind of ridiculous. I think once a resolution to this particular incident/editor has been made, I would like to propose some kind of policy, or at the very least, an understanding within the Astronomy Project, that individual objects need some notability beyond discovery to be article-worthy. AstroCog (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Wow, that's alot of articles. Is he using AWB or something? I think we might encourage him to create a Wikia, say minorplanet.wikia.com , and do this minor planet/asteroid/comet thing there? Then we could also transwiki other people's creations of less notable minor planets there. 70.24.247.40 (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

The user seems to be operating within their own private universe. See below. AstroCog (talk) 10:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

The user has the sysop bit, so he's an administrator. This means that he should know about policies, guidelines, and practices on Wikipedia. (though considering the discussion at WT:ASTRO... where another admin, Kwami, is running rampant, one wonders) 70.24.247.40 (talk) 08:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, this user seems to have an internal logic all to themselves. Here's their reply from my talk page (italics are my questions/statements to the user):

You said on Sp33dy's talk page that even you think they don't have general notability, so I'm puzzled why you are creating more article for them.

That's my own personal opinion... which cannot be any substitute for policy. Actually, to expand on what I think, I believe that the less significant minor planets still qualify for an article. As noted on Sp33dyphil's talk page, I quoted the policy. It is vague but I believe it is sufficient to justify my work.

I think the best alternative would be to merge the information into appropriate lists.

Those already exist, grouping the minor planets a thousand at a time. Unfortunately, some of them are out of date and contributors have not made any new ones recently. The later thousands pages look like construction sites where higher-number minor planets are just put there. I already have a user subpage for that.

Wikipedia cannot possibly be a catalog of every astronomical object discovered.

Cannot, or should not? On what basis are you making that judgment? See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not paper.

I have sent other such objects to AfD before, and they were deleted. I will do the same with these, unless evidence of significant coverage is provided for them

The Minor Planet Center and Small Body Browser appear to treat all objects alike. They're all listed next to each other, after all.

I've said elsewhere that some small minor planets have been named despite being completely run-of-the-mill. Deleting some while keeping others which are essentially the same is irrational. So far nobody has provided a credible argument against their inclusion outside of vague notability complaints. I have been working on Wikipedia's minor planet coverage for a couple of years now and have not had one deleted. Why start now? I'm just trying to complete this project.

Notability is moot in space. We have articles for far-off main-sequence stars around which are zero habitable planets. Why keep them and delete articles about minor planets in our own star system? --Merovingian

Obviously, I don't agree with this editor. Just because we can create thousands of articles for every minor planet, doesn't mean that we should. The editor is exploiting the poor language of the astronomy line in WP:OUTCOMES and the fact that there is no consensus policy on having an article for every object in space. Creating such articles is what follows from Merovingian's logic.

Another user recently added a PROD to one of the objects, which was removed using this rationale:

I've removed the PROD tag from this article. There is currently no consensus at WP:ASTRO over whether minor planets are inherently notable, but my thinking - and that of many others - is that they count as geographical locations and thus derive inherent notability. As such, deletion of this article is not likely to be uncontested, and it's therefore unsuitable for PROD.

Really? Now's the time for a consensus on policy, one way or the other. AstroCog (talk) 10:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Maybe it is time for test case AfD? Bulwersator (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

I agree, but I'd like to see what some other editors think. AstroCog (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Comment, I was asked to comment on this by Astrocog. I have absolutely no opinions about whether or not these articles should exist and meet WP:GNG, or whatever relevant guideline out there. Two suggestions based on my experiences.

• The first would be to have a "stub creation guide" for certain types of objects, detailing what to include, what to exclude, etc... We did this for WP:JOURNALS (guide can be found at WP:JOURNALS/WG, and accessed from {{journal-stub}} and {{WP Journals}}), with great success. This is my opinion as an editor, and as a member of WP:JOURNALS.
• The large-scale systematic creation of articles can be regarded as a bot task, and subject to bot-policy (see Wikipedia:Bot policy#Mass page creation). If the person creating those articles isn't communicating with you and isn't taking into account the concerns of the community, then they may be blocked as any malfunctioning bot would be. This is my opinion as a member of the WP:BAG.

• Hope that helps. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Errrr...I'd strongly oppose any suggestion that a good-faith, "meat" (for want of a better term) editor ever be treated the same as a bot, just because they're doing a task that a bot would be capable of. As for the subject of this discussion, my belief is that if the minor planets, asteroids, and such have verifiable, reliable sources, there's no reason why they should not have articles (while I do have a few problems with the response of the editor mentioned above, his WP:NOTPAPER stance squares with mine in this regard.) If there's a dirty snowball whose article can only say, and will always only say, "X is a Y of Z diameter made up of A" as a one-sentence stub, then by all means delete, but otherwise, I'd say keep. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

• The policy isn't for editors who do things bots would be capable of (all editors are capable of doing what bots can do, bots just do it faster and do not get tired), the policy is for users making editors as a bot would. Large-scale creation of formulaic articles is exactly that. There's nothing inherently wrong with it, but care must be exercised, otherwise you get a huge mess to cleanup, vet, etc... If that care is exercised, and article creation follow consensus, there's no issue. If it's not, then WP:MASSCREATION applies, and users may be blocked as any malfunctioning bot would. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Well, I can cite here entire "article": "(27723) 1990 QA is a main-belt minor planet. It was discovered by Robert H. McNaught at the Siding Spring Observatory in Coonabarabran, New South Wales, Australia, on August 19, 1990.[1]". "X is a Y of Z diameter made up of A" is way better Bulwersator (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I'd like to call attention to Wikipedia:Notability (geography), which, while an essay, I think well represents Wikipedia practice. In particular it says "Named geographic features are usually considered notable. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands etc. The amount of sources and notability of the place are still important, however. If little information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist for a named geographic feature, there is probably not enough verifiable content for an article. ..." I think this could be extended to objects in space as suggesting no separate article if all that is available from sources is orbital elements, magnitude, spectral class and discoverers.--agr (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

• This is pretty much my argument for the vast majority of these objects. There are thousands of these articles, and nearly every one of them is as trivial as the example Bulwersator just gave above. A handful of the minor planets will have follow-up studies and scientific interest beyond their initial discovery. Those are the ones I would consider notable enough for a stand-alone article. The rest I do not mind being cataloged in the "List of..." articles (although I raise an eyebrow even at those). Part of the issue I have here is precedent. The list of possible objects discovered, yet to be discovered and given a catalog name or number, is literally astronomical. WP:NOTPAPER or not, I feel the precedent to create a stand-alone article for every astrophysical object dilutes the usefulness of the encyclopedia. Merovingian's counter-argument that there are articles for stars which are just as trivial as his minor-planet articles is a kind of Tu quoque argument which I think ultimately fails. Those other articles also exist because there is a lack of consensus for an article creation policy for astronomical objects. I think such a policy should begin with the question "Is there significant coverage of this astronomical object beyond its initial discovery and physical parameter constraints?" I don't think such a policy would be particularly controversial, either. A difference between a river on the Earth and a Trans-neptunian rock is that the river is much more likely to be encountered or used by people, increasing the likelihood for notability. If a minor-planet is studied in some great detail by subsequent missions (e.g. New Horizons), then make an article for it. Otherwise, at best it belongs on a list. AstroCog (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately I am not convinced by either point of view as to whether or not these merit inclusion. However, I would like to point out that just by the mere fact that these objects have been observed probably means that there is a source or some sources that say this object exists. For example, the minor planet (27723) 1990 QA started this thread. Here is a source that backs up the existence of that object [1], along with other factoids that could be written into the article. I am guessing NASA has a similar type database, but I don't recall the name. An analogy might be Academic journals. These are deemed notable with an impact factor (a number) and being indexed in acceptable indexing databases. Even without an impact factor, the acceptable databases would allow for inclusion. Perhaps, the same should be said for cataloged astronomical objects. -- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

"The Milky Way is a barred spiral galaxy 100,000 light years in diameter containing 200–400 billion stars." from Milky Way and "A typical galaxy contains hundreds of billions of stars, and there are more than 100 billion (10¹¹) galaxies in the observable universe." from Star. It is important to protect Wikipedia from flood of single sentence stubs "<object name> is <object type>. It was discovered by <astronomer>/during <sky survey>" Bulwersator (talk) 06:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why? (That's a serious question, BTW. WP:NOHARM might be an argument to avoid in deletion, but when it comes to stubs like that...why not, exactly? Wikipedia is not paper, and I haven't heard anything about WMF running low on server space. So why is it so important to keep them out?) An astronomical body is rather different than, say, Pokémon type #8,296, or John Doe #6 billion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Stub quality articles about all stars - maybe? But substub spam is not helpful ("It is important to protect Wikipedia from flood of single sentence stubs"). For example it will cause problems during creating proper articles about astronomical bodies using bot Bulwersator (talk) 06:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Who says that these objects do not exist? I don't think anyone is disputing their existence. What I am disputing is their inherent notability beyond initial discovery. The academic journal analogy uses the fact that there is an impact factor for journals. This means that researchers beyond those who were published in the journal itself used ideas or cited articles from the journal. I know I'm reaching beyond the analogy here, but where is that for these orbiting rocks - that is, where is a source discussing something about these objects, apart from catalogs of physical parameters? The Bushranger said, "An astronomical body is rather different than, say, Pokémon type #8,296, or John Doe #6 billion." How? What makes a random M5 main sequence star, which is just one of several 10s of billions of them in the Galaxy, different from John Doe #6 billion? In this case, I'd say John Doe #6 billion has a greater likelihood of being notable. AstroCog (talk) 10:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Similar problem: 1 (number) is notable. 7 (number) - OK. 199 (number) - maybe. 1929 (number) - why? 191929299398485756352748826364647437 (number) - rather not notable. Bulwersator (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
• How? What makes a random M5 main sequence star, which is just one of several 10s of billions of them in the Galaxy, different from John Doe #6 billion? Simply put: A star is science. A planetoid is science. Pokemon #492 is WP:FANCRUFT (and should be in Bulbapedia, you have no idea how horrified I was to discover that article exists) and John Doe #6,000,000,000 hasn't done anything to establish his notability. If we want Wikipedia to be less of a laughingstock in certain quarters, we need more articles on these planetoids/asteroids and fewer on pokémon and Random Person Who Has A Youtube Account. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

This discussion should have been posted under Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects. It has been discussed before on several occasions, but no consensus was reached. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Seems that what WP:ASTRO need is a threshold for notability. I propose

• All objects visible to the naked eye.
• All objects listed in catalogs of interest to amateur astronomers (i.e. Messier catalogue, Caldwell catalogue), and of high historical importance (New General Catalogue, ...). This is the equivalent of being listed in a "selective" database for academic journals. Being listed in comprehensive databases and surveys such as 2MASS or 2dF isn't enough for notability.
• All planetary systems and their exoplanets.
• All objects that attracted non-trivial press coverage.
• All objects with n papers dedicated to them. (n ≥ 2 ?)

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

• • My comments in the above discussion notwithstanding, this is something I could get behind. It's simple, reasonable (only needing a determination for 'n'), and makes a whole lot of sense. Support. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Support (good job Headbomb). I think the selective catalogues is what I was trying to communicate with my analogy, and is now a usable criteria. The other criteria also define a threshold of notability. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Also I think the "non-trivial press coverage", and "all objects with n papers dedicated to them" are (each or both) a vital demarcation. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

• • Support. Naturally the threshold will be subject to revision when notable objects are presented that don't satisfy the threshold. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. Per my comments above. --agr (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. This is congruent with my arguments from the previous thread. We'll have to agree on what n is for papers, but I would say even 1 paper which studies an object beyond its basic physical parameters is grounds for possible notability. AstroCog (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
• Semisupport I would choose (n≥5) for papers. I would not say that all planetary systems and their exoplanets are notable to Wikipedia standards. It's been quoted that there are now in excess of 500 exoplanets, and that will only grow. It should be treated just like minor planets. They go into a list, and then if otherwise notable, they get an article. For pure arbitrariness, lets say the first 100 planets and 100 planetary systems get a free pass on notability, since 100 is arbitrary but common cutoff in the world at large. Those after that need additional notability. The first few planets and planetary systems got extra press coverage, and scientific scrutiny, as we discover more, these get less and less mention and study. 65.94.77.207 (talk) 04:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think IP 65.94.77.207 has a valid point by proposing to treat exoplanets just like minor planets after the first 100 for the reasons given. However, I am not sure of the requirement for five or more papers. Perhaps I would have to see this set of guidelines in action to give my opinion on that. I really don't know if it's too high, or not high enough, or too low. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

• "about one-third of FGK stars are predicted to have at least one terrestrial, habitable-zone planet." via bad astronomy Bulwersator (talk) 05:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Weak oppose for now. It needs to say "all confirmed planetary systems and their exoplanets". The ruling about the number of papers required should allow for studies of limited sets of related objects that include non-trivial details about this object (which is less restrictive than the criteria of having a dedicated paper). Could we include asteroids that have been examined in detail by radar mapping? I'd also like the criteria to include all minor planets discovered before the widescale use of photography. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • I'd assume that any minor planet discovered before the "use of photography" would have been extensively studied by now, and those with radar mapping would be covered in the "papers dedicated to them" criteria. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
• Comment, rather than support/oppose in bulk, I think we really should list what we agree with, and what could use some tweaking. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Comment. I agree with all the criteria Headbomb proposed. I think most modifications so far suggested are reasonable, such as having a threshold for papers. Again, I'll say the only restriction I would impose with papers is that the additional papers should be non-trivial studies of an object beyond the initial discovery and constraining of initial physical parameters. For example, with exoplanets, there's going to be so many confirmed exoplanets, but how many will be followed up with more studies? An exoplanet that had follow-up observations about its atmospheric properties would be close to consideration for an article. What is better is for an object to get significant coverage from more than one research team (e.g. Kepler's SNR). I actually don't like the criteria suggested which says the first 100 confirmed exoplanets get a pass, because I don't think every one of them will have significant coverage beyond initial discovery.AstroCog (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Comment the previous discussion from 2010 on exoplanet articles suggests merging planets into their parent star articles. 70.24.247.61 (talk) 04:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Saul Perlmutter, Brian Schmidt and Adam Riess are all sharing the Nobel Prize for their observations which confirmed the accelerating Universe. We should keep an eye on their associated pages for possible updates, improvements...and vandalism.AstroCog (talk) 10:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Could someone look at reconciling / merging the old article accelerating universe with the recently created accelerating expansion of the cosmos? Though recently created (mainly by just two editors), the second article is actually longer. However it also suffers from formatting and style problems. Now that the accelerating universe has won the Nobel prize, people are going to be looking for this information and it would be nice have things be cleaned up and merged as appropriate. Dragons flight (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the first article is shorter, but is more efficiently formatted. They must be merged, so that there aren't two articles. I'll put helping on my to-do list.AstroCog (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply