Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Astronomy and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

WT:AST

Archives: 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, 37, 38: 30 days

Astronomy Project‑class

	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
Project	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

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, 37, 38

Old WikiProject Telescopes talk

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by .

DYK

There are 4 DYK's in the project that are on the way, namely S Ori 70, Magellan Planet Search Program, HIP 79431 b and HD 156668. My question is this: would the DYK's automatically come up in the project's front page? Or do we need to edit them manually? --TitanOne (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The front page seems to require manual editing. Or rather, the page that the front page links to with a list of DYKs needs manual editing. There are quite a few DYKs in astronomy that are not on the list. I am rather surprised that a bot does not exist which will update the page, but so far as I know, there is not. James McBride (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed a bot that does an automatic listing of DYKs (and lots of other things, like FAs, GAs, etc...). See User:JL-Bot/Project_content. The DYKs (and others) will need to have been tagged with the Astronomy banner for this to work however. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the physics template for the bot to my sandbox a few days ago, and the bot just updated it, so I copied it over to the recognized content page. It is nice to have it up to date now, though I was surprised to see that most solar system bodies are not included, as they seem to only be listed under the Solar System WP. James McBride (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

S Ori 70 - hmm... the article notes a Sigma Orionis open cluster, but links to a Sigma Orionis (Sigma Ori) star system, which is not an open cluster. Not to be confused with the S Orionis (S Ori) star. Sigma Orionis Cluster does not exist as an article... Should this article be renamed to S Orionis 70 to expand the abbreviation?

SIMBAD does not come up with this star on basic search, but a coordinate search results in [1] "Mayrit 520267" as the brown dwarf [2]

70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the same issue I have when creating stars and exoplanets around them. What to follow? Is it Durchmusterung, Hipparcos or Draper? Normally I go with notability via press releases and/or scientific summaries from observatories such as KECK, Magellan, etc. --TitanOne (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Element articles

Whenever an element article comes up for PR or FAC, I think it is a good opportunity to put in suggestions about adding astronomy information. Currently Caesium is up for a FAC here. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exploration of Io Peer Review

Exploration of Io, is currently undergoing a peer review. Please take this opportunity to give the article a once over, submit a review, or Be Bold and help to improve the article. The article contains a significant section on the history of Io observations from Earth since its discovery in 1610. I hope to nominate the article for a Featured Article Candidacy in the next few days if all goes well. Thanks you, --Volcanopele (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exploration of Io has now been nominated for featured article candidacy. Please go to the nominating page to provide support, opposition, or your constructive comments. Thank you! --Volcanopele (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:HD and HDE objects

Category:HD and HDE objects has been nominated for renaming, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 23. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current moon Formating & Template:Current Moon

{{Current Moon}} and {{Current moon Formating}} have been nominated for deletion. These could be made into something useful, but are not now useful. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does the "Heat Death" Make Life Possible?

Does the "Heat Death" Make Life Possible? —Michael R. Donohoe
by Michael R. Donohoe Creationists get into trouble when they say that such complex order as life in a universe governed by disorder must be deliberate, an act of God. One thing that is pointed out to them is that entropy represents the statistical tendency toward disorder, not a rigid law somehow violated by every occurrence of order. I've noticed something that is not what Creationists claim, yet it doesn't seem to be acknowledged by science that I have been able to find. It could seem outlandish, yet with a little examination it appears irrefutable to me that evolution and life are in fact dependent on processes and conditions which by definition qualify as disorder. This even includes the ultimate state of cosmic disorder called the heat death in which it is assumed that all viable energy within the universe will have been expended. I want to mention that more than once I've been taken for a Creationist, and more than once people have assumed that I am one of these people who apparently do not believe that earth has limited resources, or who think that things like overpopulation, ozone depletion, pollution, and global warming are not real threats. Such assumptions are as far off-base as they could possibly be. On a science message board a man in England became livid at what I suggested. Somehow I guessed that he was a teacher. To be exact it turned out that he was a high school science teacher. Eventually he did an abrupt about face and declared that I was correct, yet he was no less hostile than he had been before. A number of people with a deeper understanding of science, such as a science writer I conversed with online and a friend who teaches astronomy, were surprised by my observation, but they did see my point. In the unauthorized collection of essays, The Theory of Everything, Stephen Hawking illustrates how the statistical tendency toward disorder demonstrates the arrow of time with a water glass falling off a table to shatter on the floor. He shows how this demonstrates time's directional arrow, time being a one way street, in that the glass will not reform up on the table like a film run in reverse. It's established in the scientific picture that stars produce the stuff that earth and life are made of. Stars are essentially immense hydrogen reactors. Hydrogen burning in a star can become oxygen as well as helium, and helium can be burned into carbon. The progression of star fuel, hydrogen, into these other substances, is the aging of the star. As the star is comprised of less and less hydrogen fuel and more of these substances, it is progressing toward what occurs when a red giant star goes nova and explodes, dispersing the stuff that life is formed from. Apply the arrow of time. Anything in a star that is no longer hydrogen fuel, such modified hydrogen as oxygen, helium, and carbon, will not revert into hydrogen fuel any more than a shattered water glass will reform up on the table. The stars that go nova also will not revert into the stars they had been. While earth could conceivably be swept into a new star form during a future nova, the stuff of which earth is made will not un-burn or un-explode, and happens to provide the basis for carbon-based life forms such as ourselves. Mixing is disorder. In the book, Chaos, James Gleick gives the example of a swimming pool with ink on one side and water on the other divided by a barrier. Remove the barrier and the pure water and ink will mix together into a disordered mess. In The Theory of Everything, Hawking gives the example of two types of molecules in a box, again, separated by a barrier. Simply remove the barrier and the two types of molecules in separate ordered states will mix together into one disordered mess. They will also not separate and reorder themselves. What if hydrogen and oxygen mix together? That's how we get water, which, like carbon, is very handy for such life forms as ourselves. My thinking is that ordered energy forms of the star and of the hydrogen and oxygen are lost, but that these ordered states must be lost, and become disordered, before new more complex forms of order can arise. I became curious about topsoil. Fertile topsoil is formed through similar processes to soil erosion. In the latter case that this is disorder is apparent. What about when manure, ashes, and plants and animals decompose and mix into fertile life-sustaining soil? For dust art thou, and unto dust shalt thou return. The individual plants and animals will not reform but will sustain future generations of flora and fauna, which can then revert into soil. Apoptosis is also known as programmed cell death. Our body replaces in the area of a million cells a second. If it does not do this as it should the result can be cancer. When, on the other hand, cells die more rapidly than they should it causes strokes and such diseases as Alzheimer's. The cells that die don't come back into existence like a shattered glass reforming on a table. Like the brake pads on a car, the cells must be replaced with new cells. Life barters with entropy, in the cycle of soil and plants and animals, and in the life, reproduction, and death of cells in our bodies. Evolution itself demonstrates time's arrow. Cells live and die within complex organisms that live and die within species that carry on, adapt, and evolve into new species, or become extinct. In the case of human beings, individuals rise and fall within cultures that carry on, evolve, or die out. So I don't expect to awake tomorrow as one of my Celtic ancestors or as an Australopithecus or a pro simian or a lung fish, or maybe even as part of a long dead star, any more than Hawking's shattered glass will reform on the table from which it fell. Heat loss is considered by definition to be entropy. Apply this to the fact that the death of stars is a loss of viable energy in the universe and a drop in temperature on a cosmic scale. The death of stars is a progression toward the hypothetical heat death of the universe. When standing before a mirror, consider the former temperature of the air around you as well as the walls and floor and ceiling and of the mirror, and, of course, of you, yourself. A great deal of heat loss, entropy, and disorder factor into that moment. The fact that all forms are finite, from shattered water glasses to exploding stars, makes evolution and life possible. Would you rather reside at room temperature, or on the surface of a star? If the heat death scenario is accurate, one result of this eventuality can be seen in your reflection. Organic processes also happen to be the heat death in progress. While it seems to strike many as counter intuitive, I don't believe that I am the only person to make this connection, yet I can't find any acknowledgment of it. You might think it would make an interesting aside when addressing disorder and the proposed heat death. Why does no one make any mention of this? I have two thoughts about why that might be. One is that in reductionism there is a tendency to view things as isolated occurrences; nature as the sum of it's parts. Stars, while undergoing the entropic process of aging, happen to produce the stuff that life is made of. While succumbing to entropy in the form of a nova, they happen to disperse that life stuff. In addition to this, if one is to view all of these events as disconnected happenstance, complexity and life can occur in a finite universe. Perhaps to make this connection would threaten an underlying bias in reductionism against any view of order as other than a purely random occurrence. I would not say that this observation is proof that a higher power is at work in nature, but I think it qualifies as an argument for the fine tuning of our universe and it does lend itself to the possibility that nature is more than purely random. Is what is classified as a statistical tendency toward disorder also a statistical tendency toward complexity that makes evolution possible, or maybe even inevitable? Is that why I never find any mention of this aspect of entropy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.136 (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is this crap? 70.29.210.242 (talk) 10:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a rambling quasi-religious manifesto, and appears off topic for this page. I support removal of this anonymous post.—RJH (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

or template collapsing it. de Bivort 18:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done.—RJH (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:MercuryOrbitResonance.gif

FYI, Image:MercuryOrbitResonance.gif has been nominated for deletion at FfD. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was transferred to commons as: File:Orbital resonance of Mercury.gif

There also exists still images: Image:Mercury's orbital resonance.svg and Image:Mercury's orbital resonance.png

70.29.210.242 (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Element books

WP:ELEMENTS started creating books on each individual elements. Since there are a lot of them, any help would be very much appreciated. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moon science

FYI, Moon science has been sent for deletion at AfD.

70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Adsabs

FYI, {{Adsabs}} has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TFD for {{Infobox crater}}

I have nominated the newly-created {{Infobox crater}} for deletion. (I first asked the creator to withdraw it.) Please see and participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Infobox crater. Summary: editors including some from WPAstronomy have already worked to alleviate confusion over unqualified use of the term "crater". The mass category renaming CFD for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 22#Category:Craters renamed 77 categories like "Craters of..." to "Impact craters of..." after volcanic crater articles were moved to subcategories of Category:Volcanoes. Let's not re-introduce that confusion. The template docs make no differentiation between terrestrial craters and those on other celestial bodies. Ikluft (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why it be a bad thing if all the crater templates were consolidated (along the lines of {{Infobox planet}}).—RJH (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After "Infobox crater" was deleted, a follow-up discussion in the village pump yesterday led to the creation of {{Infobox terrestrial impact site}}. Ikluft (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:X-ray astronomy

We have a new portal, courtesy of Marshallsumter. Portal:X-ray astronomy.

70.29.210.242 (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black hole

There's a notice at WT:Physics about Talk:Black hole, concerning people posting personal theories about the things.

70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A straw poll is now up at Talk:Black hole#Straw poll: talk page notice. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moon

I have nominated Moon for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate but I find that FA pages still need regular upkeep and improvements to satisfy the current criteria, or else they tend to get removed from the list.—RJH (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zero-energy Universe

FYI, there is a note at WT:Physics concerning the article Zero-energy Universe, and a possible need for cleanup of the article and its incoming links.

70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Solar system geography

FYI, someone created the Category:Solar system geography recently...

70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced living people articles bot

Your project uses User:WolterBot, which occasionally gives your project maintenance-related listings.

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. Here is an example of a project which uses User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects:

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket_articles/Unreferenced_BLPs

There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced living people articles related to your project will be found here: /Unreferenced BLPs.

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you

Okip 07:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Book clean up

As with articles, WildBot also goes through books and creates problem reports on their talk page (with details on the cause and effects of these problems, and what to do to fix them). There are currently 1 astronomy-related book that needs cleanup.