Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects

MainTalkAstronomical objects
(Talk)Eclipses
(Talk)Article ratingsImage reviewPopular pagesMembersWikidata

Project-independent quality assessments

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy § Project-independent quality assessments

"Hottest planet" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Hottest planet has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 6 § Hottest planet until a consensus is reached. Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

List of minor planets: 624001–625000 nominated for deletion

@ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor planets: 624001–625000, the scope of which affects many of these list pages.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

& @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meanings of minor planet names: 623001–624000.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on redesign of the Starbox

...is underway at Template talk:Starbox begin#Broader redesign of apparent-magnitude and color-index entries. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

I propose we split articles on comets such as Halley's Comet or Comet Hale-Bopp into separate articles such as 1986 approach of Halley's Comet and 1997 approach of Comet Hale-Bopp. There are articles on the 2004 transit of Venus and the 2012 transit of Venus. That is why I think they should be split. DementiaGaming (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Halley's Comet § 1986 is six paragraphs long. I do not see a need to have a six-paragraph stub, nor do I think the existing article (at 100k) is so large that it needs to be split. Hale–Bopp's article is half that size and doesn't really have an "approach" section, making even less of a need to split. Primefac (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of 2MASX J22550681+0058396 (and many other stubs by User:Galaxybeing) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2MASX J22550681+0058396 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2MASX J22550681+0058396 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Parejkoj (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I've also nominated many other articles created by User_talk:Galaxybeing, and there are more yet to delete. We'll see if the author responds. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Removal of cited material and original research

An editor (pinging @InTheAstronomy32:) is removing quite a selection of cited material from star articles, effectively because they "know it is wrong". Example at EV Carinae, but many more cases. The response to any reversion of such changes is an instant re-revert in all cases. So, WP:OR or valid filtering of sources? Lithopsian (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I am following Wikipedia:Editing policy, by removing inaccuracies in articles. Just because something is sourced does not mean that it is accurate. About the reverts, i will stop reverting your edits every time (and other edits) and start discussion InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

In fact, there was nothing wrong with my edits. I was merely correcting inaccuracies in articles, which is encouraged by editing policy. Reverting others' reverts (with a proper edit summary explaining my edit) is not disruptive, in fact it's a productive way of editing, and does not creating edit wars, because if my revert is reverted I will simply take no action. When editing these articles, I did not insert my own thoughts (or any unverifiable information) into the articles and therefore did not violate the WP:NOR policy. I will close this discussion because no futher discussion is required. There was no problem at all. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

First, @InTheAstronomy32: you are required by policy to engage with the community and answer questions when they are raised. You may not unilaterally close discussions either.

Second, removal of sourced material based on a 'I know it's wrong' type of reasoning is not valid. If there is a valid source, the content should remain, until and unless there is consensus that the material is inappropriate, or that the source is outdated/misunderstood or whatever, or a more accurate source provided that contradicts the sourced material.

This is general advice that applies to every article on the encyclopedia. I haven't looked into any of the specific reversions. If you're called on it, slow down, have a discussion, and establish consensus. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok then. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

My edits weren't just "removing content that I think is wrong": Actually i was removing inaccurate and outdated information in articles and prefering newer ones, and it is encouraged by the editing policy. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

This discussion should maybe happen on the article's talk page, but why do you think Anders et al. (2019) is incorrect, and what citation would you use to replace it? You left the ref for the metallicity; why is that less outdated than the mass in this case? Separately, why is it referred to as "starhorse" in the ref? - Parejkoj (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The mass of EV Carinae of 5.36 M_☉ is highly inconsistent with masses of another red supergiants (see Category:M-type supergiants). Basically any RSG will have a mass larger than 10 M_☉. A star with a radius of 1,168 R_☉ would be required to have an inital mass larger than 15 M_☉ (see this page) for exist. StarHorse is the algorithm that generate these masses, but create a lot of unreliable values like 3.61 M_☉ for V354 Cep, 4.89 M_☉ for KW Sgr or 6.3 M_☉ for BI Cyg, which are all highly underestimate. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)