Wikipedia talk:Notability (astronomical objects)/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Time for at least a one-liner about exoplanets?

Probably more new articles are being created about exoplanets than any other type of astronomical objects, perhaps more than all the rest combined. Maybe this guide should say at least something about them. The four guidelines about naked-eye visibility, inclusion in catalogues of interest to amateur astronomers, multiple non-trivial published works etc., fail to apply to any except a scant handful, and known before 1850 is of course a non-starter. On the other hand, the implicit assumption that "every exoplanet is notable" needs to be put to bed. There has been one attempt to create a separate guide to notability for exoplanets, but the RfC was declined with the decision to add a section here. Hasn't happened. Not really my field, but surely someone can come up with something? Lithopsian (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Point 3 of the criteria (multiple none-trivial publications) applies, and rightly so. Any exoplanets which do not meet that threshold should be taken to AfD. In my view there's no need to add an explicit exoplanet criterion, but an exoplanet example would be a good idea. I'm sure we can come up with two suitable exemplars: one notable, one not. Modest Genius ^talk 11:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Modest Genius here. No need for a specific criterion, but an example would go a long way. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I've added two examples. Modest Genius ^talk 11:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

So @Headbomb: took my non-notable example and redirected it to the already extant WASP-56. That's well spotted, but the star doesn't meet our criteria either so should be deleted. Or am I applying a different standard here? Modest Genius ^talk 20:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Well if the star isn't notable, have the article deleted. But if the article exists, it's a good example of what to do with non-notable exoplanets. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I've prodded WASP-56 for deletion. Pinging @Casliber: who created the original stub. Modest Genius ^talk 14:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

By definition thes systems have been studied in a bit of detail. So I'd say all stars with planetary systems are keepers. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Which definition would that be? I searched for sources to establish notability for WASP-56b without success. The only remarkable thing about the star is its planet, so it has the same problem. Do you have any evidence of coverage that meets our notability criteria? If not, I'll take it to AfD. Modest Genius ^talk 15:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

No evidence has appeared, so I've prodded the WASP-56 article. Modest Genius ^talk 11:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd forgotten that there was a previous disputed prod, so this is now at AfD instead: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WASP-56. Modest Genius ^talk 12:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

This is the whole exoplanet problem that I'm trying to get past. When there were only a handful of exoplanets, it was pretty clear that they were all notable. Now that there are a few thousand, that idea is getting stretched. When our technical abilities reveal that the vast majority of stars have planets, then it becomes obvious that not all of them need a Wikipedia article. Now is the time to draw the line and decide which we should write about. Lithopsian (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

My thinking was that most stars with planets would have had at least a couple of references discussing them and their systems in detail...however the material on this one does look slim. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

An example: today I made an article on LHS 1140 with LHS 1140b as a redirect for the planet. There are plenty of non-academic sources for this one. But should the article be on the planet, or the star? The star would not be notable in itself if it were not for the planet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd say the star as the planet is a component of the star system.Also, the discovery etc. involved observation of the star mainly Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with bundling one or more planets into an otherwise non-notable star (system) article, but there are at least one or two voices who would want it the other way round. The exoplanet-specific infobox does include summary stellar information so it doesn't strictly require a star article if there is nothing interesting to say about the star. Lithopsian (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I am sure that by compiling all data one could come up with more info about any star than any of its exoplanets. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The example of LHS 1140 begs the question of whether stars that are not notable in themselves should have an article only because they have a notable planet. Having a single article under the name of the star is one possibility, but there are already many cases of a star article separate from one or more exoplanet articles. The arrangement of infoboxes should also be considered. There is the almost universal starbox, but separate planetboxes which allow for the inclusion of some information about the star. Which should be used if the article is about a notable exoplanet and non-notable star? Break convention with every other star article? Expand the starbox template? Should we consider "star system" articles to make it clear that exoplanets are included? So many questions... Lithopsian (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Given the issues with WASP-56, which somehow survived AfD, I've swapped it out for another non-notable example: HAT-P-40 b. Modest Genius ^talk 11:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that is an absolutely terrible example. That planet has only recently been discovered. It is much too soon to say that it will not receive additional coverage in the future. Further, the planet has been recommended for further investigation, so there is a real degree of probability that it will get more coverage in the future. We don't want examples that are likely to go out of date, which this one is. What you would want is an example that had received no further coverage despite being discovered a long time ago. Apart from that there a danger of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby further research does not take place on this planet, or editors refuse to accept that future additional coverage is sufficient, because Wikipedia has officially labelled this planet as "non-notable" in an extremely prominent place. We would not allow "here is a specific example of a person whose BLP should not be created" in WP:BIO. I don't see why exoplanets should be different. Finally, experience shows that the usual effect of putting a specific example of an allegedly non-notable topic in a guideline is to provoke editors into creating articles on that topic (and re-creating them if they get deleted) as a way of sticking two fingers up at the guideline. Frankly, it is arguable that the existing coverage already satisfies GNG, which is less restrictive than NASTRO, and sooner or later editors very likely will argue that the example is a mere local consensus. Putting examples of supposedly non-notable topics in guidelines usually creates needless conflict. James500 (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing terrible about that example (HAT-P-40 b). It's a very good example in fact. Currently, that object is nowhere near notable. Age of discovery doesn't matter, per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Which space rocks, or which stars become notable in the future depends on future research. If you want to remove that example, all you have to do is show that HAT-P-40 b meets WP:NASTRO. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The only way to find out whether a topic is notable is to create it and see what happens at AfD. The fact the examples section of the guideline expressly states the planet is non-notable would arguably make it impossible to create it in the first place. And it is a rotten example, because it satisfies GNG, which doesn't contain any of the bizarre nonsense in this SNG. James500 (talk) 04:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

HAT-P-40 b most definitely does not pass GNG. If you think it does, create the article and have it pass AFD. Or come up with a different example, more suitable to your liking.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

But how can anyone create an article on the planet when NASTRO specifically names that specific planet as one that must not be created? There is a procedural issue. It would have been better to have chosen an example that has already failed AfD. James500 (talk) 05:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The text of the guideline is also misleading about the number and type of sources. It says the planet has been included in 'several databases and catalogues', but actually the planet and star have been included in 21 papers between them according to SIMBAD. That is more than "several" and don't think that a paper like "HAT-P-49b: a 1.7 M J planet transiting a bright 1.5 M {sun} F-star" can be called a catalog or a database. James500 (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Another problem is that, if an article was created, having a blue link to it in this guideline would tend to disproportionately attract hostile attention from hostile editors to any AfD that did take place because it is a non-neutral notice in a non-neutral venue. It would cause editors to show up at the AfD who would not otherwise do so, skewering participation towards a those with a particular point of view. James500 (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Easily, you just have to show that HAT-P-40 b meats WP:NASTRO, and papers on HAT-P-49 b don't count for anything as far as HAT-P-40 b is concerned. As for papers, they need significant commentary on the star/planet as an individual entity, being listed in a group of 500 other similar planets/stars only show that general class of similar planet/stars is notable. If HAT-P-40 b is subject to significant commentary as an individual entity, then it becomes notable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

That said, if you want to bring a different example forward, go right ahead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree HAT-P-40 b doesn't currently meet GNG nor the rest of the NASTRO guideline. That said, it sounds like a valid concern that if HAT-P-40b gains substantial coverage in the future without this project page's editors noticing, the example will become erroneous and possibly confusing. Maybe add in "As of 2017" or "As of March 2018" to make it clear the project page is only using it as an example based on its pre-April 2018 coverage. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll be quite happy to reassess and/or switch the example if HAT-P-40b attracts future attention, but right now it is nowhere near passing GNG or NASTRO. The arguments that it does are rather undermined by citing a paper on a completely different exoplanet as evidence. I think it's fine to have add 'as of 2018' but otherwise the example is a good one (of course I'm biased because I picked it). Modest Genius ^talk 13:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

SIMBAD and NED

In WP:NASTCRIT we may want to make specific mention of SIMBAD and NED regarding whether those are suitable vehicles for establishing notability. Praemonitus (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

SIMBAD in no way establishes notability. It contain ~9.1 million objects. There is a reason we mention the Messier/New General Catalogues as comparison points. Unsure of what you are referring to with NAS however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant NED (typo); I've updated the mentions. All I'm saying is that we could state a consensus about this for future clarity. In Criteria #2 or #3, for example. Praemonitus (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I feel this is sufficiently addressed by "Being listed in comprehensive databases and surveys such as 2MASS or 2dFGRS isn't enough for notability." SIMBAD and NED aim to be comprehensive. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, but some editors may not interpret the sites that way. Both of the listed examples are surveys, rather than comprehensive relational databases. Praemonitus (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I suppose we could always add them as examples, but I wouldn't want an exhaustive list to be enshrined in policy. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Added. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

That is acceptable. Praemonitus (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree this is a sensible addition. Modest Genius ^talk 12:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC about independent sources for academic biographies

An RfC which might be of interest to watchers of this page has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#RfC about independent sources for academic notability to decide the following question:

Current wording: Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable.
Proposed wording: Academics/professors meeting one or more of the following conditions, as substantiated using multiple published, reliable, secondary sources which are independent of the subject and each other, are notable.

Shall the wording in the section Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria be changed to the proposed wording above?

Editors are welcome to join the discussion. -- Netoholic @ 23:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Nearby objects

I've just tagged UGPS J0521+3640 for merging into List of star systems within 25–30 light-years. I'm assuming that just being within 30 light years of Earth doesn't make an object inherently notable enough for its own article? I see every system on List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs does have an article; is there a particular cutoff for notability based on distance alone, or should we ignore distance and just consider that an expected coincidence? -- Beland (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Correct, being nearby does not in itself convey notability. Such stars often (but not always) attract follow-up study, which might make them notable. In this case, I was unable to find any substantial coverage beyond the discovery paper in 2011, so I agree that merging to the list is appropriate. Modest Genius ^talk 12:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the double-check. -- Beland (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Objects with Flamsteed designations

The article Flamsteed designation says it's a catalog of naked eye objects, but several objects like 20 Camelopardalis and a bunch I've tagged for merging into List of stars in Aquarius have Flamsteed designations but have apparent magnitude above 6.5, which apparent magnitude says isn't visible with the naked eye. Is the Flamsteed designation article wrong? Am I missing something? -- Beland (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Magnitude 6.5 is not an absolute limit; it's just a typical limit for most people. (See Curtis (1903).) Some sharper eyes can see fainter stars, particularly when observing in excellent conditions. That being said, my experience is that many stars below magnitude 4–5 aren't all that notable. It's just a rough guide. Praemonitus (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Flamsteed was working with a telescope [1]. Although he may have intended to catalogue the positions of naked-eye stars, there are quite a few errors in his catalogue (e.g. 34 Tauri), so it would not surprise me if he included a few stars that were not quite visible to the naked eye (and vice versa). The HR catalogue has a much better-defined faint limit. Modest Genius ^talk 12:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

There are Flamsteed-designated stars down to well below magnitude 7.0. Most of the Flamsteed objects that aren't in the Bright Star Catalogue tend to have very little published about them. A few in WP have already been redirected to relevant star lists despite WP:NASTRO. Quite a few more have notability tags. Lithopsian (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Good advice, and the cited sources were very helpful; I've added them to Flamsteed designation and apparent magnitude. Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Notability of NGC objects

I understand how the Messier catalogue objects are notable. After all, there are only 110. But are all NGC objects really notable (according to criteria 2)? There are, after all, more than 7,000 of them.To be notable, an article still has to be subject to significant coverage (note 1 on the criteria), but a large percentage of NGC objects don't have any sources dedicated to them but are merely listed in SIMBAD or in large tables. So should there be a clarification next to criteria 2 that some NGC objects aren't notable? This was discussed here [2], but it seems no consensus was reached and the notability guidelines themselves looked a bit different back then. An example of what I'm thinking about is this [3], where perhaps the most notable mention is [4]. But there are better examples for NGC objects where no article exists yet where is pretty much zero reference outside of databases. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I've raised this before. Clearly not all NGC objects are notable, but I wasn't able to establish consensus for a change to the criteria. Lithopsian (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that, but certainly this [5] can demonstrate to people that the phrase containing NGC objects can be confusing, even being erroneously cited as a reason for keeping the article. I'm going to raise this at WP:Astronomy to try to get more participants to reach some sort of consensus. Sam-2727 (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

How about we presume that they are all notable in the guideline. This will keep it simple. Anyone that wants to claim otherwise for an AFD should prove that the object has not been studied. But just being an NGC object is not in itself a reason to keep. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• So there isn't any confusion, this is what I'm proposing changing criterion 2 to:

  The object is listed in a small catalogue of high importance (e.g. Messier catalogue, Caldwell catalogue). Being listed in comprehensive databases (e.g. SIMBAD or NED) and surveys (e.g. 2MASS or 2dFGRS) isn't enough for notability by itself.

  I removed the "historical importance" part as well, because NGC objects aren't just "historically important." The NGC identifier is still used today a lot too. If someone finds a catalogue of pure historical importance, I suppose that could be added to this, but most catalogues of pure historical importance are of stars visible to the naked eye or other famous stars/objects that are obviously notable. While I'm proposing changes, though, where the guidelines say

  supported through independent reliable sources

  it might be better to change to

  supported through significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources

  as this seems to be what the point of that sentence is. That is, to say that an astronomy article still must meet the general notability criteria, even if it meets the criteria of the WP:NASTRO. Sam-2727 (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I also think what User:Graeme Bartlett is saying is also a good point. So maybe instead of the second revision I put, maybe replace "it probably qualifies for a stand-alone article" with "it should be presumed to be notable, unless the object fails the criteria of WP:GNG". Sam-2727 (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to chime in with an opinion: the NGC contains most, but not all fuzzy things visible in a moderately sized telescope in the northern hemisphere, and some, but certainly not all in the southern, plus a bunch of mistaken entries. That does not seem like a good criteria for notability for each entry, without other independent sources. - Parejkoj (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I think we should clarify "catalogue of high historical importance" as there must be a very limed number that could be listed and have all members notable. This is subject to opinion, so I think we need to discuss exactly which catalogues are included. eg is Henry Draper Catalogue one of these? Fifth Cambridge Survey of Radio Sources is likely not a collection of all notable objects. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

To respond to Graeme Bartlett, I would say that the Henry Draper Catalogue wouldn't qualify to be "of high historical importance" as the catalogue contains over 200,000 stars. This is larger than the amount of NGC objects, so they certainly aren't notable. But the Henry Draper Catalogue highlights why I think that phrase should be removed entirely. Not all astronomical object from a catalogue of high historical importance will follow standard notability guidelines, (except for perhaps Messier which is already listed). When evaluating each object of the catalogue on a case-by-case basis, someone can just refer the other notability guidelines. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

There's a lot of objects in the HD catalogue that won't satisfy the notability criteria. Heck there's quite a few non-notable stars in the HR catalogue for that matter. For catalogues I think you want to at least limit it to manually-assembled lists, and possibly to ones not built using photography. Praemonitus (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, any notability criteria should probably exclude entries in the NGC catalogue that are mistakes, such as stars, coordinates that correspond to no object, etc. I see a couple example of articles of "NGC stars", like NGC 84. Loooke (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Looking at what people have said so far, it seems that most agree that NGC shouldn't be included in the notability criteria, so would it be appropriate for me to remove it for now, pending a future discussion on what exactly should be included? (i.e. if there is to be a historical importance section at all?) Sam-2727 (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Most people who bothered commenting, which is no more than a hanful of editors, and which do not overrule the overwhelming consensus of last time. NGC objects are all notable, and have all been subject to significant follow up studies, and represents exactly the sweet spot in the notability threshold. That doesn't mean all NGC objects need to have their own articles. Only that deletion isn't the best outcome for NGC objects. Mistakes/non-existent objects, for instance, can all be lumped into one article / redirected to a list explaining the object isn't real. See in particular "Although some objects might qualify for a standalone article based on this guideline alone, it may still be best to create redirects to a more general article." Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

"NGC objects are all notable": they may all be notable to astronomers, but as I have previously pointed out, they certainly don't all satisfy the WP:GNG; I've confirmed it directly. As far as I'm concerned, we can not make that claim in this guideline.

I previously added a list of all remaining NGC objects that do satisfy WP:GNG here: Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Natural_sciences#NGC_Objects. Praemonitus (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

They are notable, period, for both historical reason and for amateur astronomy. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

If they don't satisfy the "significant coverage" requirement for WP:GNG, then they are not notable. Period. "For the purposes of this guideline, notable means having attracted significant notice in the spirit of WP:GNG." You can't ignore this guideline then claim to support the consensus of this guideline. Praemonitus (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

"Significant notice in the spirit of WP:GNG" and they have. The NGC itself is that coverage, on top of every subsequent study of the NGC objects, collectively and individually. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

As you well know, the original discovery of an object does not constitute sufficient coverage. If there is subsequent coverage that satisfied WP:GNG, then I agree that makes it notable. Praemonitus (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Dreyer didn't discover these objects. Dreyer followed up on reports and compiled them into a collected work. The NGC itself is subsequent coverage. As are later revisions of the NGC, such as the RNGC. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Regardless, it needs to satisfy the "No inherited notability" criteria of this guideline. Existing in a mass compilation does not satisfy this criteria. It is only an indicator that it may be notable. Praemonitus (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb:, I think your arguments apply more to the NGC catalogue as a whole, which are obviously notable, but individual objects can't just inherent notability from the notability of the catalogue. To say otherwise would be against the "no inherited notability" section of WP:NASTRO.

Let's just take an example. I just looked up a random NGC number, 631 for this demonstration. A google search comes up with nothing besides the usual autogenerated sources, and a search on google scholar comes up with near zero sources (although some articles show up as mentioning NGC 631, these are just erroneous pings by google). Can Headbomb or others explain how this can be classified as notable under the general criteria, or somehow an exception to the general critiria? As a side note, thank you Praemonitus for making that list on requested articles. I've actually used that list quite a bit. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

IIRC, the NGC objects were added to the list of inherently notable astronomical objects because that gave roughly the same number of galaxies/nebulae as there were stars in the HR catalogue. That makes a certain kind of sense, but I agree that many of the NGC objects don't have substantial coverage in the GNG sense. It's not clear to me whether that's a substantially larger fraction than otherwise non-notable stars in the HR catalogue. Modest Genius ^talk 12:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

No comparison. 99%+ of the HR stars have sufficient coverage to write a sensible article. About a third of them already have articles, and mostly better than stubs. They're naked-eye stars, after all, bright enough to be well-observed in all but a handful of cases. The NGC objects are entirely different, almost always faint, often never observed except as part of generic surveys. A significant number of them either don't exist or are actually stars. Again around a third of them have Wikipedia articles, but they are almost all stubs. I think that suggests a distinct lack of sources for all except a small number of NGC objects. Other than the clause in WP:NASTRO that the NGC catalogue is in its entirety considered notable, there is no chance these objects would ever merit an article. Lithopsian (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for those numbers? I'm sure at least some NGC objects are notable e.g. NGC 4993. Modest Genius ^talk 10:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The NGC objects are of high-historical interest and of high interest to amateur astronomers. That's why they're notable. Every one of them will have had multiple studies on them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

You keep saying that. I think what you mean is that the NGC catalogue is of high historical interest and of high interest to amateur astronomers. Many of its individual entries are neither. Your final statement is just bizarre. Please point me to the multiple (non-trivial, as per WP:NASTRO) studies of, to take the example already given, NGC 631. Lithopsian (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Easy, see the NGC catalog entry for NGC 631 and [6] (references, most of which surveys, but again because this is an easy-to-observe galaxy featured in several catalogs). It was discovered by Albert Marth in 1864. And yes, the NGC catalog is of interest to amateur astronomer. It's, after Messier and possibly Caldwell, the catalogue of predilection for amateur astronomers. Which means that its entries are of interest to amateur astronomers. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

If you want something more specific, the Catalogue of Discordant Redshift Associations, by Halton Arp discusses it alongside NGC 632 [7]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Most (maybe all?) of those references are large surveys or catalogues. They do not count for notability unless there is substantial commentary on that particular object. A single sentence by Arp, as part of a footnote to a different object in a catalogue, is not substantial commentary. (It also doesn't help that it's a catalogue that most astronomers regard as crazy, see Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies.) Modest Genius ^talk 10:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I did a random sample of NGC objects, finding that the proportion that are notable according to the general guidelines is likely below 50%. This suggests that if it was said that all NGC objects are inherently notable, then a majority of them wouldn't have reliable sources mentioning anything beyond generic properties inherent of all discovered astronomical objects (magnitude, occasionally metallicity). I understand the "amateur interest" in these objects, but that isn't a substitute for the existence of reliable sources. List of NGC objects already exists. If what is found supporting these objects is nothing more than data in that list (or data that could easily be included in an added column of that list), then I see no reason to create articles for all of the objects. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I've been going by the heuristic: if there's a Hubble image of the object, then it's probably notable. It seems to work most of the time. Alternatively, this list has verified notability. Praemonitus (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

This discussion petered out, but I think it's fair to say there is substantial doubt that NGC objects are always notable, even if we couldn't agree on other types of source or exactly which NGC objects do meet the threshold. Although I still have concerns with the rest of the entry, I think we should remove explicit mention of the NGC from NASTCRIT #2 and leave it to AfD to decide whether individual articles meet the criteria or not. Modest Genius ^talk 13:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

That would be OK, but it leaves a gap for an example of a catalogue of "high historical importance". It would be good to give one that is inarguable. Lithopsian (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Lithopsian, move Messier objects from "of interest to amateur astronomers" to "of high historical importance"? Sam-2727 (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

It would leave one example for each Sam-2727 (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

That works for me, though I would switch the order so Messier goes first. Modest Genius ^talk 17:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Modest Genius and Lithopsian I just implemented the change. Will leave a note on WP:ASTRONOMY. Sam-2727 (talk) 04:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The Herschel 400 Catalogue might be another example. Praemonitus (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

SNGs and GNG

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability on the relationship between SNGs and the GNG which might be of interest to editors who watch this page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I don't believe these guidelines are in conflict with the GNG. It is specifically worded to that end. But thanks for the notification. Praemonitus (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Notability of objects visible to the naked eye

The criteria section of this page implies that any object that is or has been visible to the naked eye is notable. One way of interpreting that would be to say the object is notable if some specific person claimed to have seen it with his or her unaided eyes (with a reference). But I don't think that is how people generally interpret this criterion. Instead, I see pages that state an object was visible to the unaided eye without citing a specific instance when someone saw it. That's fine if there's a general agreement on how bright an object must be in order for it to be clear that someone could have seen it without optical aid. I think the criterion should be modified to specify a specific magnitude limit, for example "brighter than magnitude 6.5 in a visible band", to establish notability based on brightness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PopePompus (talk • contribs) 05:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I haven't really seen this be an issue, since the notability must still be supported by independent sources. It's just a vague guideline. Praemonitus (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Might be an issue now: [[8]]. Lithopsian (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay. According to Fujiwara and Yamaoka (2005), ancient star catalogues generally just went down to magnitude 6, and didn't define the magnitude system for fainter stars.[9] What I'd like to suggest is that below magnitude 6.0 (not just 6.5), the likelihood that a star is notable decreases significantly and we should rely more directly on WP:GNG below that point. Proposed rewording:

• The object is, or has been, readily visible to the naked eye. That is, the object was of visual magnitude 6.0 or brighter. For ordinary stars, this usually includes objects with an HR catalogue identifier.

Praemonitus (talk) 05:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think there will be a broad consensus about what is readily visible. Readily visible begs the questions by whom? and where?. I think if naked eye visibility is going to be a criterion, then it should be defined precisely, even if the choice seems arbitrary to some people. I'd be happy with 6.0, 6.25 or 6.5; but I think a choice should be made.PopePompus (talk) 05:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
  • In my mind that means it's not just visible to a few people with arbitrarily sharp eyesight. Yes I'd be okay with setting a hard limit, but it should fit with the goal of this guideline to help people determine notability. I certainly see a number of articles about stars above magnitude 6.0 that I'd consider non-notable per WP:GNG. (E.g. HD 16028, HD 82205, HD 88809, ...) Particularly true of deep southern stars. Praemonitus (talk) 15:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would be WP:WIKILAWYERING to the degree of arguing that 'visible to the naked eye' means 'one person once claimed to see it, even though no-one else can'. If we must set a numerical limit, I vote for 6.0 in the V band, though that also has the potential for argument if different catalogues list the same source with magnitudes either side of that limit. But tbh that might be WP:CREEP. Modest Genius ^talk 17:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

It looks like setting the limiting magnitude to 6.0 has a consensus, or at least has no strong opposition. We can always set it to that and then re-discuss if it causes an issue. Praemonitus (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Part of the reason for picking 6.5, or perhaps the main reason, is that it corresponds almost exactly to the contents of the Bright Star Catalogue. That's convenient, but also there is a decent amount of coverage for almost every star in that catalogue. Lithopsian (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Heuristically, I find the availability of studies that make substantial remarks on individual stars decreases significantly at lower magnitudes (below ~5), even for members of the BSC. There's also a marked decrease for southern stars. For many of them you can build a brief article based on data sources, but the rationale gets shaky. Praemonitus (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I was WP:BOLD and took the measure of adding an explanatory footnote. Feel free to modify if this is unsatisfactory. Praemonitus (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Reducing the threshold for notable publications amount from 2 to 1

The proposal: Allow to be created star or planetary pages with one reference publication mentioning object in plain text (not in table or list). Motivation for change:

• Dramatic increase of data throughput of astronomic science instruments in last 10-20 years have resulted in larger fraction of wide-area survey data and "lucky imaging" data compared to predominance of targeted observations data in the past. Therefore, targeted observation papers are becoming less frequent and prominent. It is no longer reasonable to require 2 targeted observations for single object, end even less reasonable to assume each targeted observation will be expanded to separate publication.Trurle (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• The methodology of exoplanet discovery papers have changed. Since 2014, it has become a common practice to aggregate independent data from 2 instruments (most typically transit data and radial velocity data) in single discovery paper, producing a much more reliable and informative result. Therefore, each paper of newer sort is equivalent to 2 papers of previous epoch.Trurle (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

This would be a significant change to "Note 1: These criteria do not supersede WP:NOTABILITY, they merely supplement and clarify it within the context of astronomical objects.", since allowing only one source where WP:NOTABILITY requires multiple would mark a significant difference rather than merely supplementing and clarifying. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• That's a no go for me. Objects that are only notable when part of large surveys are not notable. The class of object studied is notable, sure, but not the individual ones [unless individually studied]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

What we're supposed to be doing to support notability (per WP:GNG) is provide credible secondary sources. The discovery paper shouldn't be enough to establish notability, although it's important for reliability. Praemonitus (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. This would be a blatant breach of WP:GNG and WP:IS - those are policies that this guideline cannot overrule, even if we wanted to. You also seem to be misunderstanding the current WP:NASTRO - two papers that simply mention an object in their text do not make the object notable. The current guideline requires 'multiple, non-trivial published works' in 'independent sources'. Those could be popular media reports, follow-up papers by different groups etc. but the coverage must be substantial and independent of the people who discovered the object. Modest Genius ^talk 12:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Condensing the guideline

A while ago, a user @Staszek Lem: concerned that thius guideline is too verbose, containing wordiness and information redundant with WP:GNG. Here's my breakdown by section:

1. Basic notability
   1. No inherent notability: A large portion of this section is a re-run of GNG, but the comparison to WP:NGEO is crucial. It does miss an important point that billions of objects are known are such objects, vs. around 25,000 cities and towns in Sweden.
   2. No inherited notability: Entirely redundant with GNG and WP:NASTCRIT#2, although it does expand on it.
2. Criteria: One paragraph on "independent" should be dropped. Unsure about the 3 notes at the end of the section, which should be converted to standard footnotes.
3. Failing all criteria: Redundant with the deletion policy. Cut.
4. Special cases
   1. Failing basic criteria but possibly helpful in another article or list: This information is repeated 3 times in the article.
   2. Failure to explain the subject's notability: Redundant to WP:FAILN. Cut.
   3. Insufficient sources: Redundant to WP:FAILN and the previous subsection. Cut.
5. Examples
   1. Extrasolar planets: These examples aren't necessary, are they?
   2. Dealing with minor planets: Specific examples should not be focused upon. No opinion on the remaining content.
   3. Objects named after famous individuals or characters: Probably not necessary? Should it be mentioned in passing somewhere else?

Maybe Staszek Lem can explain it better. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I see no issue with some repetition of WP:GNG. It puts the topic in context and makes sure there isn't an end-run excuse during AfD. Remember that editors may arrive here without reading GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 00:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I performed some cleanup, trimming, and re-organization. The length is comparable to other such guides. Praemonitus (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

There were some issues with repetition and organisation, though I don't think there's a problem with emphasising parts of the GNG. I've done an extensive copyedit of the guideline and rearranged some of the material. The examples are all useful, were added following discussions on this talk page, and should be retained. Modest Genius ^talk 18:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Discovery date

I think WP:NASTCRIT#4 should be deprecated. The date of 1850 is arbitrarily chosen and does not reflect any specific advances in technology. It doesn't even reflect any actual sources; an example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NGC 544, concerning an object discovered in 1834 that fails the other criteria and WP:GNG. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

1850 is the year of the first astrophotograph. Praemonitus (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I've explained that date in the guideline. Modest Genius ^talk 11:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Dropping the notability of objects visible to the naked eye

The proposal: To completely remove a notability criteria based on naked-eye visual magnitude. Motivation for change:

• The naked-eye magnitude is time, location and person specific, depending on both light pollution level, atmospheric particulate level, and person eyesight. 6.5 magnitude threshold is particularly useless because locations with limiting magnitudes above 6.0 are no longer reachable for urban or even rural dwellers.Trurle (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Many of the HR catalogue stars (i.e. 5th-6th magnitude) are poorly characterized, distant giant stars which are unlikely to attract any scientist`s or amateur attention in decades to come.Trurle (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Naked eye objects are amongst the most important to cover. You can debate what the exact brightness treshhold is, but getting rid of naked-eye visibility is a no go. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposal. I do think the limiting magnitude for naked-eye visibility should be defined, and I don't think it should be set to the value for which an object is barely visible from the darkest mountain summit on the Earth, by the person with the best eyesight, while breathing supplemental oxygen. 6.0 sounds like a good cutoff to me. There are only a few thousand objects brighter than 6.0; keeping this criterion won't result in an unlimited number of stub articles appearing. Consider novae - if you heard that two novae occurred in 1955, one of which was visible to the naked-eye, and the other was not, wouldn't the naked-eye object seem a little more notable to you, absent any other information?PopePompus (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem is what brighter novae will be more notable in 1955, but not in 2021. In my region (Japan) the naked-eye limiting magnitude is about 2.5-4.5 depending on location. Too much light pollution, and it is only getting worse.Trurle (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

There are still many places on Earth where the sky is dark enough to see a 6.0 magnitude star. It is sad that most of the world's population lives in places where no hint of the night sky's full glory can be seen, but I don't think that should influence an object's notability. Most of the world's population lives in places where the Magellanic Clouds cannot be seen, regardless of light polution; are they less notable because of that?PopePompus (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I have difficulty grasping your objection. Is it the same point i try to promote from beginning? What notability of astronomical object in modern world has lost connection to naked-eye visibility?Trurle (talk) 03:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Weak support 6.5 is the generally accepted cutoff for naked-eye visibility, so I'm unsure about your point on light pollution. However, your point on the Bright Star Catalogue is a good case against the validity of this criterion, since that DB contains about 9,000 objects. I'd like to know if there are any actual examples of an object visible to the naked eye that was found to fail WP:GNG. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Leave the criterion in, as it is a clear category of object that we can have articles on. Perhaps all those regular stars have been covered. Excluding obscure novae may be OK. But then again there is a good chance that a bright nova is going to get coverage in academic writings as well as newspapers. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I've no objection to the current criterion 1, or the limit of 6.0 mag, but the associated note 1 contradicts other parts of the guideline. Either these objects are notable because they're visible to the naked eye, or because they meet criterion 3. It can't require both, when the list says any single criterion is enough. Modest Genius ^talk 18:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

It is the WP:GNG criteria that must be satisfied. Satisfying this Criteria section doesn't make it notable; it's just an indicator of probable notability. Here's the previous wording: "If an astronomical object meets any of the following criteria, supported through independent reliable sources, it probably qualifies for a stand-alone article." I'm concerned that the softened rewording may enable editors who prefer to argue for a keep in an AfD. Praemonitus (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Right, I see you've now switched 'generally' back to 'presumed', which is fine with me. But it's still puzzling to have criterion that says, in effect, everything <6.0 is presumed notable but everything in the range 5.0-6.0 probably isn't. Modest Genius ^talk 11:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

My experience (after working on many star articles) has been that the likelihood of notability starts to drop significantly after magnitude 5.0, particularly for stars in the southern hemisphere. Thus I'm not clear that our heuristic is accurate. There was resistance just to increasing it to magnitude 6.0 though. I thought we needed some sort of compromise wording. Praemonitus (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

That comment someone made about something being barely visible from the darkest mountain summit on earth was pretty funny. BTW, that limit would be ~8.0-~8.5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtadesse (talk • contribs) 18:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on use of databases as significant coverage of astronomical objects

Editors may be interested in this discussion on the use of databases as the sole sources for standalone articles, including those on astronomical objects. JoelleJay (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Note that this discussion is primarily about GNG-based notability and would not affect notability derived from, e.g., appearing in the Messier catalog, but would ostensibly permit article creation based on appearance in any other scientific database. JoelleJay (talk) 23:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

This is somewhat concerning because a lot of near-Earth asteroids are not discovered until near the day of closest approach and getting the articles jump-started via databases is much better than letting the internet fearporn lead the topic and sourcing. A lot of short arc/risk-listed asteroids are best sourced to reliable databases and not someone trying to rush out a headline. -- Kheider (talk) 00:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't governmental space organizations be releasing this info first, though? I can understand the concern, and would think topics of scientific interest should chiefly be sourced to scientific publications regardless; an editor noticing the appearance of a new object in a database from a primary source shouldn't be the reason a standalone article is created any more than an alarmist lay report should be. JoelleJay (talk) 06:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Very few asteroids have any "scientific publications/press releases" written until months after they are discovered because the information is contained in the automated databases. -- Kheider (talk) 07:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Then these asteroids should not have an article unless/until detailed references are published. It's fine to use databases as sources of facts, but they do not confer notability. See criterion 3 and the 'establishing notability' section of this guideline. Modest Genius ^talk 10:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure this changes anything. Astronomical databases alone are not good indicators of notability; they, at least the big ones, contain many objects with no notability, but the information they have on those objects is reliable. If an object is or becomes notable because of popular news and the notability can be demonstrated that way, then surely there is no problem using the (primary) databases as reliable sources for information about the object. The discussion appears to be coming down extremely hard on synthesis of primary sources, where those primary sources contain only information that is largely inaccessible to the average reader. That doesn't seem very applicable to astronomical objects, and even from the pharmaceutical standpoint of the OP it is proving a contentious argument. Lithopsian (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it should change anything, either. I agree that databases alone are not (necessarily) indicators of notability, which is why they shouldn't be the only evidence of notability. My argument is simply that they shouldn't be used as the sole source to mass create articles; they're perfectly fine when there is other evidence of notability. JoelleJay (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

That ArbCom discussion is very TLDR. In what way would it affect this guideline? We explicitly state that "Being listed in a database does not make an object notable" and require sources that provide "significant commentary on the object". Modest Genius ^talk 10:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)