Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) |
Spacepotato (talk | contribs) |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 120: | Line 120: | ||
::Logically it's hyphenated, but hyphens are often dropped from set expressions. So it's a judgement call. Since one editor at least got upset about the en dash, any objection to me moving the article to [[pre-main-sequence star]] per what appears to be the majority of sources? The old illogical title was IMO too subject to misparsing as a "pre-main" star, as Headbomb apparently misparsed it. — [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 20:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC) |
::Logically it's hyphenated, but hyphens are often dropped from set expressions. So it's a judgement call. Since one editor at least got upset about the en dash, any objection to me moving the article to [[pre-main-sequence star]] per what appears to be the majority of sources? The old illogical title was IMO too subject to misparsing as a "pre-main" star, as Headbomb apparently misparsed it. — [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 20:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::The literature has a mix of "pre-main sequence star" and "pre-main-sequence star" (also, "main sequence" is occasionally capitalized.) The expressions "pre–main sequence star" and "pre–main-sequence star", with an en dash, also occur but are rather less common. This shows you that astrophysicists do not spend their spare time reading style manuals. [[User:Spacepotato|Spacepotato]] ([[User talk:Spacepotato|talk]]) 02:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:10, 4 February 2011
Main | Talk | Astronomical objects (Talk) | Eclipses (Talk) | Article ratings | Image review | Popular pages | Members | Wikidata |
Astronomy Project‑class | |||||||
|
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, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Portal:Mars' FPR
Mars has been nominated for a featured portal review. Portals are typically reviewed for one week. During this review, editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the portal from featured status. Please leave your comments and help us to return the portal to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, portals may lose its status as featured portals. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GamerPro64 (talk • contribs)
Exoplanet articles
I suggest that extrasolar planet information be kept in their respective star's article. There are articles on planets that contain only 2 sentences, when they easily have more information in their respective star's article. I saw this on Kepler-9b and Kepler-9c. I am sure there are many, many more in the same boat. I suppose there are a few that merit their own articles, including HD 80606b, but alot only have a few sentences.atomic7732 04:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support- I have seen this too, and I agree entirely. Reyk YO! 06:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment—A problem with that approach is the clutter that occurs when you have multiple infoboxes in the same article.—RJH (talk) 15:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- You wouldn't need multiple infoboxes. Alot of the info is the same in the infoboxes. What may be needed is a revised infobox, but the planet data table seems to suffice. atomic7732 19:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'd just like to throw this question up and see what replies it may garner: In your view, what is the issue with short articles? I've seen this argued to death for years, but I'd be curious to see the replies within the context of this project.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)- One issue is readability. For systems with more than one exoplanet, the reader is going to want to know about all of them and if they're separate articles they'll have to go back and forth between them. Reyk YO! 22:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- There is no use of having an article on something that has never been imaged, and never had any spectral analysis. There is so little information, it could easily be put into the star's article. As said above, it would also be easier to read if it was all in one place. atomic7732 16:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Proposed merger of Index Catalogue into New General Catalogue
I have started a merger discussion at Talk:New General Catalogue#Merger proposal. All input and opinions welcome. Reyk YO! 01:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Help with designation abbreviations
Scorpius X-1 has a slew of ambiguous abbreviations in its infobox's Other designations section. If you look at this nifty tool, you see all the ambiguous abbreviations in red (2A, RE - twice for some reason, XSS, 3A, 2U, 3U, and 4U). Could someone help decipher these abbreviations? Thanks, --JaGatalk 06:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- SIMBAD is a great tool for figuring astronomical object designations, while some others have internal links (i.e. here on Wikipedia). So here we go (I cover all abbreviations, not just those you pointed out, though those are first):
- • 2A is from “The Ariel V SSI catalogue of high galactic latitude (|b|>10) X-ray sources” (all external links are to ADSABS, the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System abstract service);
- • RE is from “The ROSAT Wide Field Camera all-sky survey of extreme-ultraviolet sources. I. The bright source catalogue”;
- • XSS is from “RXTE all-sky slew survey. Catalog of X-ray sources at |b|>10°”;
- • 3A is from “The Ariel V (3A) catalogue of X-ray sources. I. Sources at low galactic latitude (|b|<10 °.)” and from “The Ariel V (3A) catalogue of X-ray sources. II. Sources at high galactic latitude (|b| > 10 °)”;
- • 2U is from “The UHURU catalog of X-ray sources”;
- • 3U is from “The third UHURU catalog of X-ray sources”;
- • 4U is from “the fourth UHURU catalog of X-ray sources” (surprised?!);
- • V818 Sco means it's the 818th variable "star" to receive a designation in the constellation Scorpio (note that there are no V1, V2,... as they are replaced by R, S,...: see Variable star designation);
- • 1XRS 16170-155 is from “A catalog of X-ray sources”;
- • INTEGRAL1 21 is from “The First IBIS/ISGRI Soft Gamma-Ray Galactic Plane Survey Catalog” made with the satellite INTErnational Gamma-Ray Astrophysics Laboratory;
- • INTREF 685 is from “High-energy sources before INTEGRAL. INTEGRAL reference catalog”;
- • X Sco X-1 seems to me like just a corruption of “Sco X-1”, the abbreviation of Scorpius X-1, or it may be for something like “X-ray source in Scorpio named X-1”;
- • 2EUVE J1619-15.6 is from “The second Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer source catalog”;
- • KOHX 20 is from “Correlation of hard X-ray source positions with globular clusters”;
- • 1M 1617-155 is from “The MIT/OSO 7 catalog of X-ray sources : intensities, spectra and long-term variability”;
- • and finally, 1H 1617-155 is from “The HEAO A-1 X-ray source catalog”.
- The frequent repetition of 1617, 155, and anything similar (16170 or 15.6 for example) stems from the position of the object (right ascension 16h 19m 55.07s, declination -15° 38′ 24.8″) in the sky.
- Hope this answers your question!
- Best regards,
- CielProfond (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- That was perfect. Thanks for all the info! --JaGatalk 08:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- 'X Sco X-1' is the SIMBAD designation for the object, and it means exactly what you said ('X ray source with the name Sco-X1'). Almost all SIMBAD objects have names that start with some sort of designation indicating the type of object e.g. * = star, V* = variable star, gB = gamma ray burst etc. Objects which are only detected at some wavelengths, or where it's unclear what the physical nature is (or it's a composite object), often have named derived from the wavelength at which they were first observed (hence the X here). The full list of object types is given here. Modest Genius talk 18:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- That was perfect. Thanks for all the info! --JaGatalk 08:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Date formatting
I'm having a concern with an editor regarding his understanding of a supposed "international date convention" that applies to astronomy articles. He's basically claiming that all astronomy articles should be using dates of the form "21 April 1990", rather than retaining whatever the author originally chose (the latter per WP:DATERET). Is anybody else aware of this? I have not seen such a convention and I don't recall a discussion on the topic taking place here. Thus far he has not identified the location of this Wikipedia convention, but in theory it could impact a lot of astronomy articles.
The article is History of supernova observation, and he has modified all date formats in apparent violation of WP:DATERET. After he twice reverted my reverts, I began a discussion at Talk:History of supernova observation#Change in date format and left a message at User_talk:Thorwald. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Kin Endate
The page on Kin Endate, a Japanese asteroid hunter, was deleted back in Feb 2010 for lack of notability. I'd like to bring it back - I definitely feel he meets the notability criteria. He's got 593 discoveries - in the top 25 - and recorded the first known images of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9. Precedence has it that asteroid discoverers are notable because "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Every other person in the top 50 has an article, so I'm pretty sure it'll pass.
I've created a draft at User:Pi.1415926535/Draft of Kin Endate; I've also got a bunch of external links and old versions there. I would love if anyone could offer improvements, especially anything that'll solidify notability. Thanks ! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Here was the brief discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kin Endate. I'm not certain whether finding rocks in space merits notability by itself, but we seem to have a number of such articles anyway.—RJH (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I can't find the exact article right before deletion, but I've looked at the Wapedia article (copied from slightly before deletion) and old versions, and it appears that the old article was missing everything significant about him - his extremely high discovery total, the Mars-crossing and Trojan asteroids he found, and his SL-9 images. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well I think you've made a good faith effort to build the article, and the Shoemaker-Levy 9 images probably make it sufficiently notable. The only citation that may be a little suspect is the MySpace link. You might want to move that to an external links section. Otherwise, based on past experiences with the AfD process, it should pass muster once you've got the citations formatted.—RJH (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I can't find the exact article right before deletion, but I've looked at the Wapedia article (copied from slightly before deletion) and old versions, and it appears that the old article was missing everything significant about him - his extremely high discovery total, the Mars-crossing and Trojan asteroids he found, and his SL-9 images. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll have to format the citations myself; apparently the {{Cite google book}} template is not yet bot supported. The "My profile" has useful bio information (it's a legitimate personal site, fortunately, not Myspace) so I relinked that under the name of the full site. I'll move it to article-space either tonight or tomorrow. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Nice work. I think the shopping list of sources you've got that haven't found their way into the draft article yet are more than enough to establish the notability of this person, as well as flesh out the article. Reyk YO! 03:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Normally sources need to be independent for verification. Since the bio information is not from an independent source, you might want to clarify that in the wording. E.g. "Kin Endate says that he is...".—RJH (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Article has been created: Kin Endate. Thanks to everyone for the advice! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Bitil Guilderstrone
Bitil Guilderstrone (talk · contribs) appears to be a number vandal, changing numbers willy-nilly and replacing one constellation with another, doing vandalous null edits (performing vandalism and then reverting it)
I caught some weird stuff in one article and then checked the history, saw some more of the same... This needs someone to verify every contribution of Bitil's. Good thing he/she is inactive now.
65.93.14.196 (talk) 12:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Hiroshi Kaneda
The article on Hiroshi Kaneda, a prolific discoverer of asteroids, contradicts itself on one point; please see the talk page for details. (An importance rating from someone with subject knowledge also would be appreciated.) Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- MPC is the official clearinghouse, and he hasn't had any discoveries in 10 years, so I'm thinking the giant list-table is just missing a pair of his discoveries. If we can find an official list of his discoveries than it'd take me 5 mins to find the missing pair, but I don't know where to find such a list. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'd be tempted to just add an {{Expand list}} template. Tracking down the missing two objects would be a bear.—RJH (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, if I can get a list of all 705, then it would actually be pretty easy. Just copy-paste it into Excel, and compare entries with the list from the current article. Unfortunately, I can't find such a list on the IAU MPC site. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'd be tempted to just add an {{Expand list}} template. Tracking down the missing two objects would be a bear.—RJH (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Constellation family
I should have done this days ago, but it slipped my mind. There is an almost week old AfD going on over Constellation Family here. It is quite a discussion already, but I thought some of the editors in this project might be able to add new points of view. James McBride (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up. I've added my bit, and I just did some major consolidation of the sources in the article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
hyphenating 'main sequence'
Usually proper names are not hyphenated when attributive, but common names are. I'd expect "main-sequence star", "O-type main-sequence star", etc. The refs seem to vary on this. Has there been a conscious decision to leave out the hyphens? (I've added en dashes to "pre–main sequence star", per WP:ENDASH, but if 'main sequence' is hyphenated, that would drop: "pre-main-sequence star".) — kwami (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- "Type-O main sequence star" I don't think I've seen "main sequence star" hyphenated or dashed. And "Type-O" / "Type O" / "O-type" / "O type" / "O Type" / "Class O" / "Class-O" / "O-class" / "O Class" / "O class" is dependent on author. 64.229.101.119 (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- NOTE: There is a discussion at WT:Manual of Style on whether WP:DASH should be deleted, since it promotes WP:Original research by mandating forms not used in WP:Reliable sources. 64.229.101.119 (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- "O-type"/"Type-O"/etc is a compound
- "main sequence" is a noun, so "main sequence star" is a star on the main sequence, hence attributive use of "main sequence".
- Using prescriptive English grammar will not work, since this is technical terminology. I've see the yelling and screaming when English-nitpickers screw up technical terms at WT:MOS. 64.229.101.119 (talk) 04:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- IMO this reeks of WP:FORUMSHOPPING combined with a deep lack of actually understanding grammar and WP:POV pushing. It's pre-main star, as in pre-fabricated, and it's O-type star, as in Tennessee -class battleships. "Pre–main" is just wrong, and WP:DASH does not in any way suggest this, hint at it, or otherwise endorse it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it doesn't right now, but before you took it out a few minutes ago there was a point 5 in WP:ENDASH saying that en dashes were to be used in "compounds whose elements contain hyphens or spaces", which is why Kwami put "pre–main sequence star".Spacepotato (talk) 07:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Kwami him/herself put that there about two days ago, and there's about 5 active threads on the WP:MOS about dashes (and there is no proposal to remove the section as the IP mentioned). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Before Kwami's edits, it was to be used "Optionally, in compounds whose elements contain hyphens or spaces", which was added, without the "Optionally", on 9 Oct 2010. The addition was based on the Chicago Manual of Style, which appears to specifically recommend the construction "Post–World War II" (with an en dash). Spacepotato (talk) 07:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- I took out the hyphens part, as it seldom disambiguates and most style guides recommend against it. The use of an en dash to prefix an open compound, however, is standard typography (and not just according to the CMOS), and has been for at least a century.
- "Pre-main sequence star" would mean a sequence star that's pre-main. I've seen several variants on this; several of our refs use "pre-main-sequence", which arguably is more standard. "Pre–Main Sequence star" would also be standard typographic convention. But there are plenty of idiosyncrasies in tech terms, so I figured I should ask here. — kwami (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Before Kwami's edits, it was to be used "Optionally, in compounds whose elements contain hyphens or spaces", which was added, without the "Optionally", on 9 Oct 2010. The addition was based on the Chicago Manual of Style, which appears to specifically recommend the construction "Post–World War II" (with an en dash). Spacepotato (talk) 07:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Kwami him/herself put that there about two days ago, and there's about 5 active threads on the WP:MOS about dashes (and there is no proposal to remove the section as the IP mentioned). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it doesn't right now, but before you took it out a few minutes ago there was a point 5 in WP:ENDASH saying that en dashes were to be used in "compounds whose elements contain hyphens or spaces", which is why Kwami put "pre–main sequence star".Spacepotato (talk) 07:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- IMO this reeks of WP:FORUMSHOPPING combined with a deep lack of actually understanding grammar and WP:POV pushing. It's pre-main star, as in pre-fabricated, and it's O-type star, as in Tennessee -class battleships. "Pre–main" is just wrong, and WP:DASH does not in any way suggest this, hint at it, or otherwise endorse it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Looking at a few refs, I see "pre-main-sequence star" (the most logical punctuation) in Stellar Evolution and Nucleosynthesis (2010), Accretion processes in star formation (2000), Asteroseismology (2009), The Physics of Astrophysics: Gas dynamics (1992), etc. That would appear to be the most common punctuation. But when it comes to stars in the main sequence, both "main-sequence star" and "main sequence star" are common. (The latter of course literally means a main star, not a star in the main sequence, but there's little danger of ambiguity, so it doesn't matter much.) — kwami (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, "main sequence" seems to be the most common usage, but there are online dictionaries that use "main-sequence" and even one that mixes the two forms. Note that "zero-age main sequence" also appears, as well as "zero-age main-sequence" and "zero age main sequence". It's a jungle out there.
- I do get a little weary of the endless style format flip-flopping that goes on. It doesn't add to the net level of useful information, so it feels a lot like background noise.—RJH (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Logically it's hyphenated, but hyphens are often dropped from set expressions. So it's a judgement call. Since one editor at least got upset about the en dash, any objection to me moving the article to pre-main-sequence star per what appears to be the majority of sources? The old illogical title was IMO too subject to misparsing as a "pre-main" star, as Headbomb apparently misparsed it. — kwami (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- The literature has a mix of "pre-main sequence star" and "pre-main-sequence star" (also, "main sequence" is occasionally capitalized.) The expressions "pre–main sequence star" and "pre–main-sequence star", with an en dash, also occur but are rather less common. This shows you that astrophysicists do not spend their spare time reading style manuals. Spacepotato (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Logically it's hyphenated, but hyphens are often dropped from set expressions. So it's a judgement call. Since one editor at least got upset about the en dash, any objection to me moving the article to pre-main-sequence star per what appears to be the majority of sources? The old illogical title was IMO too subject to misparsing as a "pre-main" star, as Headbomb apparently misparsed it. — kwami (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)