| Revision as of 16:31, 8 July 2011 editParejkoj (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,696 edits →Astrology?: more comments on Algol?← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:51, 8 July 2011 edit undoMakeSense64 (talk | contribs)4,127 edits →Astrology?: commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 130: | Line 130: | ||
| You are invited to join the discussion at ]. {{#if:|{{{more}}}}} ] (]) 09:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC) <small>(Using {{]}})</small> | You are invited to join the discussion at ]. {{#if:|{{{more}}}}} ] (]) 09:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC) <small>(Using {{]}})</small> | ||
| :Someone else care to comment on this? The Astrology section in ] was just significantly expanded, with what I could call some rather questionable statements. - ] (]) 16:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC) | :Someone else care to comment on this? The Astrology section in ] was just significantly expanded, with what I could call some rather questionable statements. - ] (]) 16:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :: I just reverted the changes and made a new section on the Talk page. It is a questionable development when astrologers start taking over astronomy pages with GA status, so more editor comments will be welcome. ] (]) 16:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:51, 8 July 2011
| Main | Talk | Astronomical objects (Talk) | Eclipses (Talk) | Article ratings | Image review | Popular pages | Members | Wikidata |
| This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Astronomical objects and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
.jpg){kind=small} | Astronomy: Astronomical objects Project‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
|
|
 Archives |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
| Edit this box |
| This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Astronomical objects and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29Auto-archiving period: 2 months |
Nearest star systems navboxes TfD
Hello, I've nominated the {{Nearest star systems}} and {{Nearest bright star systems}} templates (and associated subtemplates) for discussion at WP:TfD#Nearest star systems navboxes. Icalanise (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- This has been relisted in Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 April 16. Icalanise (talk) 11:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Has been relisted again at Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 April 27. Seem to be a lot of people saying "shrink and keep" without saying anything about where they think the line should be drawn. Icalanise (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'd like to suggest that we adopt an accuracy standard as the cut-off. The distances on the template are listed to three digits, which has an implicit accuracy of 0.1% or less. I think we should insist upon an error margin of no more than 1% for inclusion. Otherwise the template will require frequent maintenance. For comparison, on the RECONS top 100, the highest margin of error appears to be for 2MA 0939-2448 with an error margin of 2.5%. The lowest is Epsilon Eridani at 0.03%.—RJH (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Has been relisted again at Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 April 27. Seem to be a lot of people saying "shrink and keep" without saying anything about where they think the line should be drawn. Icalanise (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Result of TfD was that both the templates have been reduced to a 10 light year cutoff. IMHO the {{Nearest bright star systems}} template is now pretty much pointless, but going to hold off on renominating it until further decisions get taken. Icalanise (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- So... the old navbox templates still appear to be lingering around, per the example Groombridge 1618. Do we purge these? Regards, RJH (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Input requested on primary Mars time intervals
There was a question raised on the Mars talk page about whether the top level Mars time intervals should be called Epochs or Periods. The literature seems to be divided on the topic. Some informed input would be appreciated at Talk:Mars#Epoch vs. Period in geologic history section. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- The resolution was to use 'Periods'.—RJH (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Carbon giant
Carbon giant has been prodded for deletion. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- It got deprodded and is now at AfD. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Carbon giant. Icalanise (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- The outcome was a redirect to carbon star.—RJH (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Starbox header alignment changed
It looks like the alignment of the headers for the Starbox templates have been altered. Checking the Sirius article, the headers are now left aligned, with the exception of the starbox visbin sub-template. That makes it look a little squirrely. Possibly somebody has altered a style sheet? I don't see any other edits that would have caused the revision. Should we add a manual center-alignment to each of the sub-template headers to make them consistent again? Regards, RJH (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- I support making center alignment explicit. "Orbit" is still center aligned on Sirius. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 04:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Astroecology
This article was created a couple of years ago and was tagged as an essay. Parts of it seem legitimate and it is well sourced, but it may be in need of cleanup. Please take a look if you have an inclination. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
International Space Station
Is the ISS as bright as Venus, Brighter or comparable, how is the magnitude determined ? Is looking through a telescope at the ISS even astronomy ? is it an astronomical object ? We could use some help here. Anyone got 10 minutes ? Please come to the ISS talk page to help. Penyulap talk 15:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated International Space Station for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. This is about an effort to improve the article, and get some new ideas for this article. Penyulap talk 15:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Probably Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Spaceflight is a more appropriate place to discuss this. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Apparent magnitudes of NGC objects
There are quite a few NGC objects especially Nebulae, which don't have any apparent magnitude specified in the catalog. But the wikipedia articles mention the apparent magnitude. I think a careful review of these quoted apparent magnitudes is needed. For example:
- NGC 1435 mentions the apparent magnitude and refers to SEDS, but SEDS doesn't mention any app magnitude there.
- Flame Nebula says app magnitude is +2, with no reference.
I will expand this list as I find more instances.EPharaoh (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- NGC 1435: Barnard's original 1891 'discovery' paper gave V ~ 13, which may be where the info in the article comes from. However, this is for IC 349 only, is over a century old (even Barnard himself didn't consider it very accurate) and I'm not sure quite how large an area the NGC object covers. Herbig & Simon (2001AJ....121.3138H) give V=16.14 for the integrated light from IC 349. Earlier Herbig (1996AJ....111.1241H) observations gave V=16.14 for the central 2.1 arcsec, extending to 15.02 over 5", again both for IC 349. Since there's no clear boundary between the two, I wonder if the articles on NGC 1435 and IC 349 should be merged?
- According to the HCNGC (the ngcicproject.org), NGC 1435 and IC 349 are distinct. Here's the note by Dr Harold Corwin Jr:
- NGC 1435 is the part of the reflection nebula around Merope extending almost directly south by 10 to 15 arcmin from the star. For some time, I had thought that it and IC 349 (which see) are identical. However, reading Barnard's careful observations of the Pleiades in AN 3018 (where he announces the discovery of IC 349), it became clear that the IC object is actually a brighter knot in the larger Merope nebula, and very close to the star itself. Under normal conditions, Merope's light swamps the knot, so it is not surprising that it was not found until the keen-eyed Barnard turned the Lick 36-inch refractor on it. NGC 1435, however, is fairly easily seen on good nights with much smaller telescopes. I've picked it out with a six-inch, and I suspect that any good scope of four inches or more would give a view of it.
- EPharaoh (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- So in other words IC 349 is just a dense part of NGC 1435, exactly as I thought. Doesn't invalidate the idea of a merger. Modest Genius 19:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- No idea on the Flame Nebula, there were simply too many references (>700) for me to hunt through.
- On an entirely separate point, is it worth trying to get accurate numbers on the brightnesses of extended nebulae with no clear edges? It's extremely difficult to determine what the total integrated light for such sources is. Giving values for the surface brightness might be better, but in some cases no sensible measurement will be possible. Modest Genius 22:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Surface brightness and Visual magnitude are duals. If you know one, you can compute the other (assuming size is known). EPharaoh (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Except a) the area isn't known, because there's no clear boundary, and b) the surface brightness is not constant over the nebula. Modest Genius 19:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Surface brightness and Visual magnitude are duals. If you know one, you can compute the other (assuming size is known). EPharaoh (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- According to the HCNGC (the ngcicproject.org), NGC 1435 and IC 349 are distinct. Here's the note by Dr Harold Corwin Jr:
- For what it's worth, the following source gives a magnitude of ~7th for the Flame Nebula:
- O'Meara, Stephen James (2007). Steve O'Meara's Herschel 400 observing guide: how to find and explore 400 star clusters, nebulae, and galaxies discovered by William and Caroline Herschel. Cambridge University Press. p. 31. ISBN 0521858933.
- This source gives a magnitude of ~8th:
- Plotner, Tammy; Mann, Terry (2007). The Night Sky Companion: A Yearly Guide to Sky-Watching. Patrick Moore's Practical Astronomy Series. Springer. p. 3. ISBN 0387716084.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
- Plotner, Tammy; Mann, Terry (2007). The Night Sky Companion: A Yearly Guide to Sky-Watching. Patrick Moore's Practical Astronomy Series. Springer. p. 3. ISBN 0387716084.
- So perhaps the article could say "About 7–8"? But it might be more informative to tell the reader what type of scope they'd need to view it, which is described in multiple sources. Most other sources don't list a magnitude. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, the following source gives a magnitude of ~7th for the Flame Nebula:
Category:Types of planets
The category redirect Category:Types of planets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Astrology?
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Algol#astrology.3F. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})
- Someone else care to comment on this? The Astrology section in Algol was just significantly expanded, with what I could call some rather questionable statements. - Parejkoj (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- I just reverted the changes and made a new section on the Talk page. It is a questionable development when astrologers start taking over astronomy pages with GA status, so more editor comments will be welcome. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)