Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Notability threshold

Per MOS:DATERET, it is my understanding that we should be retaining the date format with an article. However, user {{User link|Nrco0e}} appears to be imposing a day-month-year format across minor planet articles. An example is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%28248370%29_2005_QN173&diff=1140564505&oldid=1140451902 this edit]. Was this agreed upon by this WikiProject or perhaps WP:Astronomical Objects? If not, it seems perhaps questionable. If it is a consensus, then it should probably be documented on WP:ASTROSTYLE. Praemonitus (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Praemonitus}} I admit I wasn't aware of the MOS:DATERET rule. When I made that edit that you linked here, I thought that date formats were already standardized for minor planet articles (since I've seen and edited many other minor planet articles that use the dd-mm-yy format), and also that it would be fine to change the date format of an article if it appears neglected with very infrequent edits. The latter decision is obviously wrong now that you mention it, but whether to take action on my past date format changes (and decide if there is a standard date format for minor planet articles), that definitely needs discussion.

::{{ping|Nrco0e}} Oh, okay. Praemonitus (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:Right now, I'm indifferent about date formatting, as long it isn't too difficult or varies too much from article-to-article. I'm somewhat obsessive-compulsive when it comes to formatting, which is why I strongly adhere to consistent and organized date and reference formats (I admit I'm guilty of unreasonably enforcing that way of formatting in articles I've significantly contributed to, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hippocamp_(moon)&diff=prev&oldid=1267858297 like in this edit of Hippocamp]). For example, I find dd-mm-yyyy and mm-dd-yyyy confusing because I easily mix up the dd and mm numbers, which is why I prefer spelling out the month. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 06:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:: In terms of date formatting, each article is an island onto itself. Each just needs to be self-consistent and follow the earliest style. (The use XXX dates templates are helpful.) Changing the date style usually requires gaining consensus on the talk page. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:: Regarding dd-mm-yyyy and mm-dd-yyyy formatting, the WP:CITESTYLE policy only allows the yyyy-mm-dd format for numeric dates. Praemonitus (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Apparently there was a discussion here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_7#Template:NGC_objects:7500-7840 (with minimal participation and no consesus result) in which {{u|Beland}} proposed (and decided) the merger of the navboxes with 500 items in larger navboxes with 1000 because after the removal of red links the navboxes became smaller.

The problem is the removal of all red links (I suppose) was done under the assuption the red link objects don't meet WP:NASTRO. That assuption is wrong. There are still many NGC objects (I'm quite confident more than majority of red links) that meet NASTRO but are red links. Will all these been added one by one every time they are created? Is this practical? Red links help Wikipedia grow. C messier (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:The above-linked discussion is not the one that decided that the 500-range templates should be merged into 1000-range templates. That was Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 January 19#Template:NGC objects:501-1000, and I was the proposer but not the decider nor implementer.

:I removed red links so that editors wouldn't feel the need to create articles for every NGC entry, including those that are non-notable which would just have to be deleted again. Many of the existing links go to redirects, and also need to be removed from the nav templates. Yes, if any new NGC articles are created, they would need to have links added from both the list of NGC objects and the nav templates.

:If we wanted to simplify housekeeping, I would recommend just dropping the nav templates. They don't show up for readers on mobile devices, and we already have the lists, which provide more context and can be used for navigation to interesting objects. -- Beland (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

::Many of the users who contribute with new NGC articles are new users that won't restore the links in the lists (which are incomplete) or the navboxes. Using the lists for navigation is more cumbersome than a navbox. There is also no guaranty that this will stop the creation of non-notable objects more than missing notable. C messier (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:::If you want to go through and carefully re-add only the objects that pass notability and remove the redirects that should never get made into articles, I would have no objection. Putting back links that should never get made into articles does not make much sense to me. -- Beland (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

::::In the interest of closing this task out, I have added probably-notable objects in the lists Praemonitus mentioned below. -- Beland (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• At one time I went through the entire list looking for NGC objects that are at least potentially notable, then added them to: Wikipedia:Requested articles/Natural sciences/Astronomy and Cosmology#NGC Objects. The list used to be much longer, but the newly created articles have since been delisted. Praemonitus (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:LocationOfEarth-ImageMap has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 11:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

There is talk of stopping citation bot from adding bibcodes to citations. Please commment. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I have nominated Redshift 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 04:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I've encountered what I take to be a wiki technical bug, and I'm not sure who to present it to. The alphabetical categories in :Category:Stars with proper names are wildly out of order, to the point that if there's a pattern at all, I can't see it. Is there a way to fix this? Moonreach (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:The pages in that category use sortkeys to sort by the proper name, which isn't always the article title. Some of them might also be missing sortkeys. Other categories like those in :Category:Astronomical catalogues of stars can appear "out of order" for similar reasons. SevenSpheres (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::Most of the ones I looked at had the proper name as the sort key, but the article title appearing in the category list is different. So that's how it's supposed to be. Wouldn't be surprised if there are also missing sort keys on some of them: they would appear to be in alphabetical order by the article title when that title isn't the proper name. Lithopsian (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

: Something that could be done is to add :Category:Stars with proper names to the redirect page and (possibly) remove the same from the linked article. Thus, Acamar instead of Theta Eridani. Praemonitus (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I've been experimenting with the '[https://randomincategory.toolforge.org/#Random page in category]' tool. Here's a few examples:

• [https://randomincategory.toolforge.org/?category=Bright_Star_Catalogue_objects&category2=Durchmusterung_objects&category3=Henry_Draper_Catalogue_objects&category4=Hipparcos_objects&category5=Objects_with_variable_star_designations&server=en.wikipedia.org&cmnamespace=&cmtype=page&returntype=subject Random star]
• [https://randomincategory.toolforge.org/?category=Active_galaxies&category2=Barred_galaxies&category3=Dwarf_galaxies&category4=Elliptical_galaxies&category5=Irregular_galaxies&category6=Lenticular_galaxies&category7=Spiral_galaxies&category8=Ring_galaxies&server=en.wikipedia.org&cmnamespace=&cmtype=page&returntype=subject Random galaxy]
• [https://randomincategory.toolforge.org/?category=Exoplanet_stubs&server=en.wikipedia.org&cmnamespace=&cmtype=page&returntype=subject Random exoplanet stub]
• [https://randomincategory.toolforge.org/?category=Minor_planet_object_articles_(numbered)&server=en.wikipedia.org&cmnamespace=&cmtype=page&returntype=subject Random numbered minor planet]
• [https://randomincategory.toolforge.org/?category=NGC_objects&server=en.wikipedia.org&cmnamespace=&cmtype=page&returntype=subject Random NGC objects]

Have fun. Praemonitus (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:Cool, i will place this in my userpage. 21 Andromedae (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:B Centauri b#Requested move 20 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 06:19, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

128 new moons of Saturn were found yesterday, and thus the article needs some serious work for updating. I'm a bit exhausted to go through all of the data and format it into readable prose, so if someone out there could be of assistance to updating the list and the data, that would be much appreciated. 108.160.120.147 (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

: Somebody sure doesn't like paragraph breaks.[https://yoast.com/paragraph-length-check/] Praemonitus (talk) 05:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I would appreciate someone looking at water on Mars. Thank you. T g7 (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Another editor proposed this for deletion. I'm just the messenger. Bearian (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

A request to lowercase 'Galactic Center' is being discussed and may be of interest to participants in this project. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

A discussion to change our naming conventions for articles about moons is happening at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (astronomical objects)#Proposal to change naming conventions for moons. You are invited to participate. Renerpho (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Jodrell Bank Observatory has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

The IAU have recently reorganised their website and deleted many old press releases. This has led to lots of broken links on Wikipedia. I have replaced several of these with archive.org links from the wayback machine but there may be others that I have missed. Fdfexoex (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

: If the reference are in a {{tl|citation}} or {{tl|cite web}} template, I believe bots should handle the archival updates automatically. Praemonitus (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::Bots did not automatically fix any of the broken links I fixed so I don't know what you are talking about. I've found a few more broken links on the IAU article itself with no sign bots are going to do anything about it. I was mainly interested in fixing the links about planet definitions so I will leave the fixing of the IAU article to others. Fdfexoex (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::: One such tool is the User:InternetArchiveBot. I don't know why it didn't work in your case, but you could ask on their talk page. Praemonitus (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:IM-1#Requested move 9 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 13:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

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)

Why are {{tq|Instruments that are used for celestial navigation, surveying, or time keeping}} rated as bottom in importance? Although celestial navigation today is largely relegated to historical interest, as recently as 50 years ago, the instruments used were at the cutting edge of technology and essential for land, sea, air, and space navigation. The bottom category in other areas includes "junk", "crank", "mysticism", "Pseudo-science" and topics "that have no scientific basis." Surely the technology which helped get the Apollo missions to the moon doesn't fall into that? Nor the time keeping instruments which verified special and general relativity? RoySmith (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:Where are you seeing that? Because I'd certainly consider things like astrolabes and sextants to be at least mid importance. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:37, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::Apollo PGNCS I guess. A horrible title is a good reason. No one who does not already know that topic want to read such an article. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Headbomb See Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Importance ratings#Equipment RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::That same table lists "Obsolete ... instrument types" as "low importance" which is a staggering brush-off to history. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Well for the three examples given, I agree that they're on the low side of importance for astronomy. But those are effectively amateur astronomy inventions/instruments (copyscope), highly localized clocks (Cranmer Park), or obsolete instruments that were never widespread in their use (Backstaff). The summary "Instruments that are used for celestial navigation, surveying, or time keeping" is highly misleading. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Just for some context, what got me here was when Neptune All Night was rated as "bottom". I'm sure @Praemonitus was acting in good faith, but I suspect he was led astray by {{tq|Bottom: trivia, cultural myths, documentary and educational programs, and pseudo-science topics.}} I'm struggling to understand why trivia, myths, and pseudo-science are lumped into the same bucket as documentary and educational programs.

:::::It also boggles my mind that Sextant is rated "bottom". For centuries, the sextant was the single most important navigational tool for mariners who wanted to venture beyond sight of land. It was also one of the most important practical applications of astronomy, after perhaps having a calendar that was accurate enough to tell you when you should plant your crops in the spring to avoid having your entire civilization starve to death the next winter. RoySmith (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::: Has the sextant ever been used for astronomical purposes? I doubt it. Why then would it be anything except 'bottom'? It's 'bottom' to me. The precursor to the sextant, the Astrolabe, was used for astronomical purposes and hence this is rated higher. I was the editor who pushed for an 'Education' category on the importance ratings page (over at least one objection), and would accordingly now rate Neptune All Night as 'low'. Doing so pushed a bunch of previously 'bottom'-rated articles up to 'low'. Praemonitus (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I'm not sure how you define "astronomical purposes", but see Sextant (astronomy). RoySmith (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::: You linked to Sextant, then to Sextant (astronomy). Are you conflating the two? As is says in the latter, "These instruments differ substantially from a navigator's sextant in that the latter is a reflecting instrument". Praemonitus (talk) 05:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::The current rating system for equipment is silly:

:::::::::* Low: Obsolete and low importance instrument types. Minor instrument variations. Planned instruments that are not yet operational, or were cancelled before completion. Equipment for hobbyists and amateur astronomy.

:::::::::* Bottom: Instruments that are used for celestial navigation, surveying, or time keeping.

:::::::::So "Low" really does seem to be "low importance" but "Bottom" appears to be "We hate these kinds of things". An outsider cannot fathom why these particular instruments would be singled out for derision. I tried fix it based on the list of examples, but @Praemonitus disagreed. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I've been thinking on this for the past day, and pretty much came to the same conclusion. This is an importance scale. "How important is topic X to the study of Astronomy". There's tons of things that aren't important to astronomy at all. Baseball. Granola. Taylor Swift. Orangutan. And for all of those, we do the logical thing; we ignore them. So why do we need to call out some specific set of things as not just of no importance, but something that we feel the need to explicitly label as unimportant? The answer seems to be, as @Johnjbarton says, "We hate these kinds of things". We hate Sextants? And apparently our hatred is so deep we call out Bris sextants as well? It's not even like I had rated Neptune All Night as "High" and somebody had to talk me down from that. It wasn't rated at all until it got the "Bottom" rating, to wear like a scarlet letter. RoySmith (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::: I disagree with your assertion. Saying "we hate these things" is a straw man argument. It's not an expression of hate, but rather a suggestion of lack of significance for improving it as astronomy topic. There are plenty of other reasons to improve those topics, but doing so doesn't contribute to this WikiProject. Have a look at the other WikiProject ratings for Sextant; they are mid to high. I'd say that's more than good enough to encourage improvement, which is what those templates are really about.

:::::::::: Why are we even hashing this topic? Doing so is not contributing to the improvement of real astronomy articles. It's just scratching a personal nit. Praemonitus (talk) 03:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::"Real" astronomy derives in large part from celestial navigation. See for example:

:::::::::::* Seidelmann, P. Kenneth, and Catherine Y. Hohenkerk, eds. The history of celestial navigation: Rise of the Royal Observatory and Nautical Almanacs. Springer Nature, 2020.

:::::::::::* Howse, Derek. "Navigation and Astronomy the first three thousand years." Culture, Theory and Critique 30.1 (1986): 60-86.

:::::::::::* Kwok, S. (2021). Celestial Navigation and Exploration of the Heavens. In: Our Place in the Universe - II. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80260-8_5

:::::::::::Johnjbarton (talk) 03:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Hmm, well "Real" astronomy also derives in large part from astrology. That's then, and this is now. Yes, the history of astronomy is not of bottom importance. But we're not talking about the historical Sextant (astronomy), we're discussing the navigation tool. Praemonitus (talk) 05:22, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::When I learned to use a sextant, it was in a class given at the Hayden Planetarium. If they considered the topic important enough to put on their educational schedule, I have to assume it was of some interest to "real astronomers". I've recategorized Sextant. RoySmith (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I see NASA has [https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/suntime/sxtnt_tchr.pdf instructions for how to build a sextant] on their web site. But I guess NASA is just a bunch of cranks and mystics? Lots of [https://www.astronomy.com/space-exploration/the-story-of-the-apollo-sextant/ cranks and mystics] at Astronomy (magazine) too? And I never did trust [https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AAS...24117006Y/abstract the pseudo-science] being pushed by the cranks and mystics at the American Astronomical Society And, man [https://www.bu.edu/astronomy/files/2016/01/angles_distances_2015.pdf those cranks and mystics] at the Boston University Department of Astronomy should stop wasting time with this garbage and do some "real science". And don't get me started about [https://observatory.astro.illinois.edu/early-astronomy/ the cranks and mystics] at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign who really should stick to building fake computers for movies and leave the real science to the real scientists.. RoySmith (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::: Yes, NASA promotes science, including non-astronomy topics. Not everything to do with astronautics is relevant to astronomy. I also took a look at [https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AAS...24117006Y/abstract Yi and Bartlett (2023)], and nowhere does it actually mention astronomy. As for "Astronomy 102 Lab 1 — Measuring Angles and Distances in the Universe", that's about astrometry, not navigation. The "History of the Observatory" article is about history, not celestial navigation. None of your arguments make a case for the modern sextant being a tool for astronomy. At best it might encourage an indirect interest in the stars, but so too does science fiction. That's only good for a bottom rating in my mind. Anyway, I really don't care if you changed the rating on the sextant. You're making a mountain out of a molehill. Praemonitus (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::Talk:Sextant says it is bottom-importance, and has since 2012. SevenSpheres (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I've notified the editor, RJHall, who applied the rating to the "Sextant" article of this discussion. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:Celestial navigation was largely relegated to history until just recently. I'm not sure that will continue to be the case with ever-increasing intentional actions against GNSS. See "GPS jamming". Jc3s5h (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

What should we use as a description for the "bottom" rating of Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Importance ratings#Equipment? It currently reads {{tq|Instruments that are used for celestial navigation, surveying, or time keeping}} which I think is too broad, so I changed it to {{tq|Instruments of no scientific importance}} which in turn was reverted. RoySmith (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:Nothing except pseudoscience machines. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

: For the present day, machines that are not used to perform astronomical observations. That would include the current list. Saying "Instruments of no scientific importance" is much too broad, because the focus needs to stay on astronomy. It would be better to say, "Instruments of no importance to observational astronomy, such as devices for celestial navigation, surveying, or non-astronomical time keeping". Astronomical clock is borderline; I'm not clear why it shouldn't be bottom, but I suppose it can be used to plan astronomy observations. The Messina astronomical clock is probably borderline. Praemonitus (talk) 16:33, 13 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)