WT:WikiProject Astronomy

Is this notable? This seems to be mostly the work of Trevor Marshall, half the papers are unpublished/self-published, others are in stellar journals like MDPI's garbage Entropy. Others cited are Abhas Mitra, of MECO fame, and Zahid Zakir from some Uzbek center for astronomy I've never heard of before, that publishes their own journal.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah, this seems entirely non-notable: I'm seeing almost no citations to the linked papers. Fringe, even. Submit for deletion. - Parejkoj (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

PROD contested by article creator, who added additional sources, per User talk:LaundryPizza03#shell collapsar. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 10:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:They added two copies of the same source, which I can't verify to be directly relevant ot the topic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::Lots of those are from terrible sources. Neslusan? Preprints, predatory journals, local journal. Edwards? More MDPI journal.

::But I suppose all in all it's enough to show notability. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The {{tl|disambiguation}} template allows for topic-specific arguments. Should we add one for 'astro'? I.e. have a :Category:Astronomy disambiguation pages. Praemonitus (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

An 'ISBN / Date incompatibility' error started showing up on star articles that reference Star Names by Richard Hinckley Allen. This appears to be a false positive, per the discussion here. Hopefully it will be addressed at some point. Praemonitus (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Andromeda Galaxy#Requested move 18 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

The mass groupings of stars are described on both Stellar mass#Properties and Star#Formation and evolution. However, the two are not consistent with each other. I'm seeing articles where later B-type stars are described as "massive", but only according to one of the articles. Praemonitus (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:I'd be very suspicious of the stellar mass section. It appears to have only one reference to support the first five paragraphs, and that reference is about planetary nebulae. I can't find anything in it to support the 5-10 mass range or the claim about supernovae. Lithopsian (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:: In looking at various sources, there appears to be a lot of inconsistency about the mass ranges. I'm not sure how to handle that. However, most sources agree that massive stars begin at {{solar mass|8}}. Praemonitus (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:Conventionally a 'massive star' is one that will explode as a supernova. Unfortunately that definition does not map neatly onto mass or spectral type, because it depends on metallicity, rotation, mass loss from stellar winds etc. For most purposes, the boundary is taken to be 'about 8' solar masses, which is approximately a B2V star when it's on the main sequence. However there's a bit of wiggle room in that number and it's also common to see 'OB star' used as a shorthand, despite most B stars being below that threshold. I suspect that's where the confusion has arisen. I don't have a good reference to hand, but a good place to start might be the [https://massivestars.org/ IAU Commission on Massive Stars]. Modest Genius ^talk 14:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

What to do about the article Atmospheric circulation of exoplanets. It purports to be about exoplanets and yet it says nothing about any exoplanets. It is just a general discussion about atmospheres of planets. Fdfexoex (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:Merge into Exometeorology. The topic is not (yet?) encyclopedic and only repeats material better covered elsewhere.

:The article is based on one secondary reference,

:* {{Cite book |last=Showman |first=Adam |title=Exoplanets |last2=Cho |first2=James Y.K. |last3=Meneu |first3=Kristen |date=2010 |publisher=University of Arizona press |isbn=978-0-8165-2945-2 |editor-last=Seager |editor-first=Sara |series=The University of Arizona space science series |location=Tucson |chapter=Atmospheric Circulation of Exoplanets |editor-last2=Dotson |editor-first2=Renee}}

:which to me reads like a research program proposal, background based on solar system, speculation on exoplanets. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I’ve posted a concern on the Talk page for the Venus article regarding a potentially misleading statement about the role of atmospheric drag and winds in Venus' retrograde rotation. The line suggests that the atmosphere slowed and reversed the planet’s rotation, but this appears to be scientifically inaccurate or at least highly exagerated.

Could someone from the project please take a look and help assess whether a revision or clarification is needed?

Here’s the link to the relevant Talk page section: Talk:Venus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Venus#Clarification_on_atmospheric_influence_on_Venus'_rotation)

Thanks in advance for your time.

Crok29 (talk) 09:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:I think this is fixed up. Interesting! According to good sources the residual rotation is a competition between gravitational tidal forces on the planet and atmospheric tides, much stronger on Venus because it is closer to the Sun and because it has a very massive atmosphere. The way I understand it, gravity tidal forces arise because the inside of the planet relative to the Sun is just a bit closer than the outside. Under intense solar radiation, the inside of the planet's atmosphere is heated and less dense than the outside. Thus the gravitational force on the atmosphere opposes the planetary differences. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

While browsing pages for Enceladus and Mimas, I noticed some astrological symbols listed in the infoboxes for both, attributed to [https://suberic.net/~dmm/ Denis Moskowitz]. After some digging, some of the symbols Moskowitz has designed in the past, such as those for Orcus, Quaoar, and Makemake, have been accepted into Unicode as astrological symbols for those bodies. However, his symbols for many other moons and minor planets in the Solar System don't appear to be recognized by any significant authority -- [https://suberic.net/~dmm/astro/ his personal website] and the Wikipedia article Astronomical symbols are the only places I can find evidence of them in use at all. Additionally, some astrological symbols I found in infoboxes, such as the one for Io, are apparently neither widely recognized nor designed by Moskowitz.

All in all, I'm somewhat doubtful of the encyclopedic value of including these additional symbols, apart from the Unicode-accepted ones for Orcus, Quaoar, Makemake, etc. Could someone else take a look at this? Hdjensofjfnen (talk) 08:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:One additional comment: for Io and the rest of the Galilean moons, it seems that the astrological symbols were adapted from Moskowitz's work to be lowercase by Wikipedia user {{u|Kwamikagami}} with little explanation. This seems spurious at best. Hdjensofjfnen (talk) 09:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::i don't think they belong in the infobox; as you say, they're not notable

::the lowercase forms are mentioned on his website, i didn't create them — kwami (talk) 09:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Could you provide a source for that? It's not clear from a cursory look at the page. Hdjensofjfnen (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::it's on the 'sightings' page — kwami (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:This seems familiar to me - wasn't there a previous discussion that decided to remove these symbols? I couldn't find it in the archives of this page, maybe it was on another talk page. Anyway, if the symbols aren't in widespread use, I don't think they should be mentioned in the articles, regardless of whether they're in Unicode or not. Modest Genius ^talk 10:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::yes, i think we've been here before

::the DP and main asteroid symbols are in widespread use. the others are not. — kwami (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::What is the evidence for this claim?AstroLynx (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::eg mainstream astrological software, use by NASA — kwami (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I am not aware of any NASA astrology software, let alone that uses these symbols. They're a space agency, not a source of horoscopes. Modest Genius ^talk 10:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::two sources -- 1, the most common astrology software; 2, NASA public-outreach explaining what a dwarf planet is — kwami (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Do you have links for each of those, where the symbols in question are clearly visible? Your assertion is too vague to verify. Modest Genius ^talk 14:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::[https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/infographics/what-is-a-dwarf-planet/ Here] is a poster from JPL-NASA that uses dwarf planet symbols for the objects accepted in 2015.

:::::::::and [https://www.astrolog.org/astrolog/astdwarf.htm here] is an orbital simulation from astrolog that uses them for the bodies now accepted as dwarfs [search for 'Orbit paths of the Seven Dwarfs displayed in Astrolog' for the animated simulation and 'Every sign has a classic visible ruler and a modern invisible co-ruler' for a static list]. astrolog is the most popular astrology software, and has been around for going on 35 years. it's about as respectable as such things get. i asked the author once if he had any plans to add the salacia symbol, and he said there was insufficient use in the community to justify it — kwami (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Excepting the symbols for the Sun, the Moon and the Earth, I almost never see any of the other symbols used in the astronomical literature. The astrological symbols have their place and use in astrology books, astrological tables, astrological software and WP pages on astrological topics but I do not think that they belong on WP articles on astronomy.AstroLynx (talk) 09:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::they do belong in articles on the bodies. yes, astrology is hokum, but as a general encyclopedia we still cover it. and regardless, they are used in astronomical sources, if rather uncommonly these days. you'll still see them as labels in graphs, for example. — kwami (talk) 10:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::For the planets, the first few discovered asteroids, and Pluto, I agree{{mdash}}there's also definite historical significance there in play. For (some of) the dwarf planets, maybe{{mdash}}I'd assume that their astrological symbols would be used in astrology, given how I occasionally come across astrological sites mentioning those objects. But for giant planet moons? I doubt there's even enough astrological use to justify their inclusion, considering how rarely moons come up in astrology from what I've seen. I'd happily be proven wrong here, though. ArkHyena (they/any) 12:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::i don't think anyone's arguing for the moons - they're not notable except for our own. — kwami (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::: I agree the symbols are relevant for historical significance. I've seen older publications that included symbols for early asteroid discoveries, for example. As long as they can be reliably cited, I don't have an issue with including such symbols. It may even spark an interest in some readers. Praemonitus (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::that was my thought. a lot of people are interested in astrology, and others in symbols; by addressing them, we might introduce some readers to actual astronomy. we don't need to engage in pseudoscience to do that. — kwami (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::2060 Chiron also appears in many horoscopes (why that of all things?) as a key-like symbol. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::when chiron was discovered, it was the oddest thing found in the outer solar system since pluto, and the press claimed it was the key to understanding the ss, so astrologers made a big deal of it - same reason early-discovered tno's are used more than equally important tno's discovered later — kwami (talk) 06:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::Ah, found the relevant discussion: Talk:Planetary_symbols#Regarding the moon symbols. Hdjensofjfnen (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:I've just realized that {{u|DenisMoskowitz}} actually has a Wikipedia account with a few edits in the last year, so I'm pinging him here to see if he could provide any clarifications or insights. Hdjensofjfnen (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::Sorry for the slow response - I don’t always notice my notifications. I made these symbols originally for my own amusement and have been pleased that some of them have caught on. I trust the Wikipedia community to determine whether they belong on these pages and will not agitate for or against them. Thank you for reaching out. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:Based on the consensus reached here, I've removed symbols from the infoboxes of Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, Mimas, Enceladus, Tethys, Dione, Rhea, Titan, Iapetus, Ariel, Umbriel, Titania, Oberon, Miranda, Triton, and Charon. Because there's still some discussion at Talk:Planetary_symbols#Regarding the moon symbols on whether covering Moskowitz's symbols in articles at all gives them undue weight, I've kept references to these symbols in the text of these articles for now (all of the articles I checked have one paragraph on Moskowitz's symbol for that moon). Hdjensofjfnen (talk) 02:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::i think if we remove the symbol from the box we should remove its explanation in the text; seems only consistent — kwami (talk) 02:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I suggest that the part about evolved stars in bipolar outflow is transfered to bipolar nebula because it is about the same kind of object. Among professional astronomers a bipolar outflow is a young object seen in CO or as HH object. Hobbema (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Observations and explorations of Venus#Requested move 14 May 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 21:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:Lol, I missed the message and posted the same today :) Artem.G (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi all! There is an ongoing discussion about renaming the article Observations and explorations of Venus to Exploration of Venus: I think it's simpler, observation is part of exploration, and all other planets have articles titled "Exploration of ".

Please comment if you have any thoughts, all votes are welcome! Talk:Observations_and_explorations_of_Venus#Requested_move_14_May_2025

Artem.G (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Please see on-going discussion at Talk:Oort_cloud#Wikipedia_needs_to_lock_in_"hypothetical.". Johnjbarton (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I wrote the voice 227711 Dailyminorplanet in my sandbox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Uranatmi/sandbox) but I can't publish the entry, is there anyone who can publish it? Can someone explain to me how to do this for future entries? Thank very much. --Uranatmi (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:Per WP:AUTOCONFIRM you can't move pages until you have reached a certain number of edits. I will note that you have some structural issues with your draft - your second template is not named, and you have a number of blank references. I suggest you fix those first.

:Another issue is that I'm not sure this minor planet meets WP:NASTRO, which means your draft won't be accepted anyway. Primefac (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I have nominated Dwarf planet for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 02:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)