Portal talk:Astronomy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the portal about Astronomy.
Content dispute discussions should take place on the appropriate article's talk page.

For discussions about general portal development, please see the WikiProject Portals talk page.
If you are a regular maintainer of this portal, please add yourself to this list.

Astronomy: Astronomical objects

	Astronomy portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
	This page is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

Portals

(Rated High-importance)

	This page is a portal. Portals are within the scope of WikiProject Portals, a collaborative effort to improve portals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PortalsWikipedia:WikiProject PortalsTemplate:WikiProject PortalsPortals articles
???	This portal has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
High	This portal has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	See also: List of Portals
	This portal is manually maintained by Marshallsumter. Please contact these user(s) when you plan to make significant changes. This portal's subpages have been checked by an editor, and are needed. Please take care when editing, especially if using automated editing software, and seek consensus before making major changes. Learn how to update the maintenance information here. (February 2019)

Archives

/Archive 1 (2005–2007)
/Archive 2 (2008 –)

Featured portal

I think it has reached a good standard and should be a featured portal. --Extra999 (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 6726, NGC 6727, NGC 6729, IC 4812 and NGC 6723

Cluster picture

Hi, I just wanted to tell that I uploaded one of the newest images of NASA's WISE project to WikiCommons. It shows NGC 6726, NGC 6727, NGC 6729, IC 4812 and NGC 6723. Unfortunately I forgot to give it a catchy name and to be honest I have no idea for a name either. Maybe one of you can rename it and has a great idea for use and name. Hive001 contact 15:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The name is almost perfect, and should be kept. But in order to easier find the pic on commons, it needs categorization, f.ex. astronony, IR, globular clusters, dust nebulae etc.. I'll see what I can do. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 06:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly already done, obviously. I strictified star cluster to globular cluster and added reflection nebula. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Astrological signs?

I propose that this new box be removed. Let's not confuse astronomy with astrology. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the same as well. extra999 (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing. Pseudo-science has no place in a portal pertaining to a natural science. I reverted the addition twice, on the basis of its being off-topic and irrelevant. Each time it came right back. The originating editor was warned about edit warring and invited to use this talk page. A consensus for removal seems to be developing here. If that proves to be clearly the case, the astrology addition should be speedily removed. We might want to give the discussion a little time, to allow others to comment, but not too much time. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

all Signs in Astrology but 12 signs (30°+ 30° ...=360° of Ecliptic or zodiac) are in astronomy and Astrology. -- Hamedvahid (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomers do not employ "signs" and astrology is not part of astronomy. Readers looking for information on astrology will find numerous articles and Portal:Astrology. A section on astrology does not belong here. Hertz1888 (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Copied from Hamedvahid's talk page] The problem is that the astrological signs are at best tangentially related to the science of astronomy. The astrological signs are distinct from the constellations (e.g. the constellations are crossed by the ecliptic in segments of various length, while the signs by definition divide the ecliptic into equal segments - not to mention that there exists the thirteenth ecliptical constellation, Ophiuchus, which does not correspond to an astrological sign). [This is discussed further in the article zodiac.] In general, astronomers regard astrology as pseudoscience. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact This Astrological sign are the signs of starting the seasons of the year such as Spring (Vernal equinox) - Summer (Revolution Summer) - Autumn (autumnal equinox) - Winter (Revolution Summer). And are months of an almanac Astronomy. They are more astronomical. To a lesser degree. Astrological. Hamedvahid (talk) 09:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is "almanac astronomy"? Perhaps you mean that some almanac (which one?) included both astronomical phenomena and astrological signs. That doesn't mean that astrological signs are used in astronomy - it means that its author has conflated astronomy and astrology. (Indeed, in the past astronomy and astrology were largely indistinguishable.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The very distant past. Hertz1888 (talk) 08:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok. I agree. tanks you for helping me. exquse me to i can not speake English vell. Hamedvahid (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsar and Collapsar model

I am requesting input from those "in the know" about the difference between a collapsar (a stellar-mass black hole) and the collapsar model (a model of hypernova formation), if any. There is currently ambiguity in how these terms are used in astronomy articles. A clear definition should be established. What is the consensus opinion of the following?

The word collapsar, short for collapsed star, was formerly used to refer to the end product of stellar gravitational collapse (i.e. a Type II supernova), a stellar-mass black hole. The word is now sometimes used to refer to a specific model for the collapse of a fast-rotating star, as a hypernova.

Attention also needs to be given to the articles linked above, but also to related articles and redirects to these articles, Thank you for your help. Senator2029 “let's talk” 08:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

spectra of stars

I recorded some spectra of stars. They are listed on [1]. Some are quite usable, and I'm hoping to add more with improved quality in the future. Anyway, how do you like the idea of adding them to the articles about each star? It would be helpful, to label some lines, of course. --Duff06 (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

test

NML Cygni

Question moved to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#NML Cygni -- Moxy (talk) 08:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody pay attention to the 'Did you know...' about AL-Khazini

The 'Did you know...?' linking to Al-Khazini may need attention due to miss-used sources by Jagged 85 in the article referred to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.85.227.134 (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Object naming convention

(Not sure if this is the right place for this question: feel free to move it if you know of a better place)

I recently created M82X-2 using the name found in both the Caltech and a NASA articles I used as sources. I also found there was an article on a similar object at M82 X-1. There is a link to this second page in the article on ULXs, where the name in the link is explicitly changed to M82-X1. I tried to find out if there was a convention on the use of spaces and dashes in such names, but was unable to find anything. It appears people just use whatever they feel like.

My questions:

Are there any standards on the use of spaces and dashes in names?
Should Wikipedia have one either way?

— SkyLined (talk) 13:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an astronomy buff, but the Web favors the space in M82 X-1 37-to-1 and the space in M82 X-2 79-to-1. M82-X1 occurs half as often as M82X-1, making that explicit change look dubious. Unless there's an authoritative science source to the contrary, it seems that's the answer. It also seems unlikely the Web would disagree with an authoritative source, especially to such a large degree.
As a practical matter it would seem desirable to visually separate the object from the galaxy, which M82X-2 does not do.
Even non-buffs like myself are familiar with things like Cygnus X-1, and I've never seen it as CygnusX-1 or Cygnus-X1. Its article is Cygnus X-1 and it notes a common abbreviation Cyg X-1.
And finally, here are a few reliable sources for M82 X-2. There are more available via Google Search. The first two below are NASA and Caltech, showing that they are not consistent in their use of M82X-2.

Univ of Cambridge Inst of Astronomy ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 12:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion. I'm not sure if a Google search qualifies as a standard though :). May I assume you agree with me that Wikipedia should have one regardless of whether one exists at all? I agree that M82 X-1 is easiest to read of the three options, and I also find it more logical in cases such as Cygnus X-1.

83.84.60.13 (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC) (SkyLined, to lazy to log in)[reply]

I don't think Wikipedia should have a stated convention in this area. We name things according to their common names, and we let the rest of the world worry about consistency in naming. If the world is inconsistent, we are too. In this case, the world seems to be fairly consistent in naming astronomical objects such as this one. 97% of the Web prefers M82 X-1 to M82X-1, and 98% prefers M82 X-2 to M82X-2. Those are overwhelming majorities, and an extremely high degree of agreement. Besides, do you know of any other case where Wikipedia has an explicit naming convention for something in science? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, we definitely do have guidelines on naming astronomical objects: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects) Modest Genius ^talk 16:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree with Mandruss' conclusions above. And while Google may not be considered authoritative, it does provide good insight into popular naming. If for some reason you're hesitant to make these changes yourself, SkyLined, I'll be more than happy to. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds very reasonable. I'd like personally there to be a naming convention, used outside of Wikipedia as well. I understand Wikipedia is not the right place to introduce one if there is none. I'll move M82X-2 to M82 X-2 for now, leaving a redirect and update the page that explicitly mentions M82X-1. (FYI. I was thinking along the lines of the Manual of Style on large numbers, where we there's been numerous discussions before deciding upon a Wikipedia wide convention on spacing, bracketing, etc... as implemented in {{val}}) — SkyLined (talk) 10:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A number is not the name of something, so COMMONNAME doesn't apply. That's an MOS issue, as you indicated. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is the wrong place for the discussion, it should be at WT:ASTRO (first choice) or WT:AST (second choice). -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The SIMBAD Dictionary of Nomenclature entry for X (scroll down to the second last entry) indicates that the scientifically correct way to write these is 'CCC X-N' where CCC is the (possibly abbreviated) name of the constellation or name of host galaxy, and N is a number. The page for ULX is even less clear, but says e.g. 'M74 X-N'. So, space before the X, and hyphen immediately afterwards. Modest Genius ^talk 16:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WISEPA_J132233.66-234017.1

When I typed in the letter W in search, then ^ this appeared. Owing to its strange title, I pressed to get the article, but only got redirected to a list of brown dwarfs. After inquiring, I learned from the article's most recent useful edition that this was about a brown dwarf, and the article was strangely removed as "non-notable" (without any prior discussion at Talk), and made into a redirect to List of brown dwarfs. I think this article should be reinstated. -Mardus /talk 02:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great set of photos in Commons

About 250 photos in c:Category:Files from Giuseppe Donatiello Flickr stream waiting to be used and categorized. Much more in Giuseppe Donatiello Flick but without the proper licence for Commons (maybe you can ask the owner to change the license). Furthermore please informe similar portals in other Wikipedias to help in the job JotaCartas (talk) 17:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add Citizen science to categories?

Can I add the category Citizen science to the list? CS has been involved with astronomy for many years; even more so in the recent decades with internet-based projects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Citizen_science . Richard Nowell (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have added CS category.Richard Nowell (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Status report from the Portals WikiProject

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals is back!

The project was rebooted and completely overhauled on April 17th, 2018.

Its goals are to revitalize the entire portal system, make building and maintaining portals easier, and design the portals of the future.

As of April 29th, membership is at 56 editors, and growing.

There are design initiatives for revitalizing the portals system as a whole, and for each component of portals.

Tools are provided for building and maintaining portals, including automated portals that update themselves in various ways.

And, if you are bored and would like something to occupy your mind, we have a wonderful task list.

From your friendly neighborhood Portals WikiProject. — The Transhumanist 03:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia links

I have a link from v:Portal:Astronomy to this portal. I'd like to put a link from this portal to v:Portal:Astronomy, suggestions? --Marshallsumter (talk) 03:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there are s:Portal:Astronomy and d:Portal:Astronomy! --Marshallsumter (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erde 2018 - 3,5 Milliarden Kinder und Teenies im Alter bis 25 Jahren (65 Prozent der Menschheit Jahr 2018)

Die Deutsche Bundesregierung, der Deutsche Bundestag im Berliner Reichstag, der Deutsche Bundesrat Leipziger Platz/Potsdamer Platz in Berlin plant eine weltweite Digitale Deutsche Schule Unterichtsfach Astronomie (Wissenschaft und Mathematik der Grossen Zahlen) zum Preis von 5 Milliarden Euro. Diese 5 Miliarden Euro sollen in die Gehirne der 3,5 Milliarden Menschen investiert werden. Deutscher Gesetzgeber:

Please see WP:SPEAKENGLISH --hulmem (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Degrasse Tyson

There is an ongoing discussion that may be of interest to the members of this board at [[2]] ResultingConstant (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to delete all portals

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to delete Portal space. Voceditenore (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible merger with Outer Space

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Outer space is discussing options including a merger into this portal. Certes (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anniversaries - updated

At NASA's website, this page contains several tables of anniversaries by month. Last nite, I gleaned several entries to update month of June. Anyone interested is welcome to add more anniversary dates for Astronomy portal. JoeNMLC (talk) 12:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Portal size

The portal is not a flex element and it goes out of bounds (when you view the portal in a small window, the view is so wide that a horizontal scroll bar is displayed). GoldRoger487 (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]