To-do list for WikiProject Astronomy: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2011-09-13 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Create and develop a requested astronomy article. Copyedit : Check for proper usage of "equinox" vs. "epoch" when discussing the coordinates of astronomical objects. Equinox refers to the precession of the coordinate system used. Epoch refers to the timing of an event such as an observation. Verify : For a minor planet article, compare the infobox data to a JPL Small-Body Database Browser query. For a star article, compare the infobox data to a SIMBAD query.

	Astronomy Project‑class
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

WikiProject Astronomy was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 14 January 2013.

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

Merged from old talk Old WikiProject Telescopes talk Topical archives Asteroid redirection 1 Category maintenance 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

So recently there has been an edit war on the Andromeda Galaxy article that seems to went unchecked betwen Daviddayag and CactiStaccingCrane (pinging them here in case) over the proposed lead image on the article, which seems to revolve around the issue of whether we should accept modified, neater images with additional data or just plain images as it was seen by visible light. I brought it here in the Wikiproject discussion to garner a wider audience.

Based on Daviddayag's summaries in this edit and this edit, he stated that his image was as follows:

• It was taken in true color.
• It is sharper and shows better contrast.
• H-alpha data was added, otherwise no significant changes were made.

On the summary of CactiStaccingCrane's edit, however, he pointed out that we should however use raw unmodified images with very little processing to avoid misconnceptions, citing examples in the articles about the Sun, Europa, and Venus.

They engaged in a string of edits which borderline violated the WP:3RR, however since the last edit was a few days ago I am not able to give a warning about it and it died down immediately. I reverted a section tothe talk page added by CactiStaccingCrane because I don't think that the talk page was the right avenue to do so, and because the section seems to be a personal and nonconstructive dispute ignition for me.

Regardless of the edit warring behavior, I believe this is still an important discussion to do and must involve community consensus.

Personal opinion: I have to go with CactiStaccingCrane's argument here. Yes, the image by Daviddayag may be crisper, higher in quality, more contrast, and is widely used, but the addition of the H-alpha data (which is deep red but here the wavelength seem to be modified to be more visible) to enhance nebulosity features, while a welcome addition, just makes it misleading. If we want to be truthful, we must use raw, unprocessed image data based on true color, and while Daviddayag's image is true color, the H-alpha data is not.

However, I do not agree with CactiStaccingCrane's edit warring behavior and he should have addressed this in their respective talk pages. He is a long-time user so I am surprised he did this.

But I would like to hear your thoughts about this. Regards! SkyFlubbler (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would prefer CactiStaccingCrane's image as it gives a more honest impression of what can be seen through a small astronomical telescope. AstroLynx (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your perspective. While impressive, the Daviddayag image has that processed image look. (This issue makes me think we should have our own MoS topic area guide, where we can cover points such as naturalistic infobox images. Cf. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Chemistry.) Praemonitus (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The top one, per WP:ILIKEIT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the bottom figure, it is more recognizable to amateur astronomers.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support CactiStaccingCrane's image per above, since it better illustrates the galaxy's true appearance in visible light. The other image can still be included elsewhere in the article. (On a related topic, is there really no natural color image of Venus without part of it cropped out?) SevenSpheres (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support, for the reasons above. The upper image is more beautiful and co,orful, but the lower one is more representative of how it looks like in visible light. I think the decisions here could have ramifications for the rest of the infoboxes of Wikipedia's astronomy articles.

The Space Enthusiast (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was me that replace the infobox image of Venus. I scoured Flickr and commons:Category:Photos of Venus by spacecraft and only found this B/W image of Venus, which I then reprocessed it to add the color channels. Sadly I don't think that a true non-cropped image of Venus has been taken yet. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or it may exist, but doesn't have a suitable license for use on Wikipedia. Praemonitus (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for my personal attacks and I think I should have been more calm with my responses. Personally, I think that the top image is a great image to illustrate the structure of the Andromeda Galaxy, and per above the bottom image should be placed at the infobox because it is a true appearance of the galaxy. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hi :)

h-alpha is visible without filters, it's just a way to enhance it.

but it is in the red spectrum, you can even see it with your eyepiece with a big enough telescope looking at the orion nebula.

anyway, thank you all for even talking about this. i'm very honored that my image is on wikipedia at all. Daviddayag (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We know H-alpha is visible to the naked eye; it's just that in your above image it was greatly enhanced more than it should be, which while it produces the effect of having nebulae in better contrast, sacrifices the accuracy. The human eye is more sensitive to 445 nm light (while H-alpha is 657 nm or something). That is why I prefer the second image to be the infobox image. We could however move your image to lower sections, as it is still a high quality image nonetheless. SkyFlubbler (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

so again, its not greatly enhanced. it was just captured with a f/2 telescope (11 inch in diameter).

I'm more than happy to show you the raw image captured by the telescope.

and if the h-alpha is the problem i can post the image without the h-alpha data at all. Daviddayag (talk) 06:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how much you insist that it is "not greatly enhanced", it is still a modification and not a true representation of what the naked eye would actually view on Andromeda. If you have an image without H-alpha enhancement, then place it here first so it can be checked if it is indeed accepted.

But that would be unlikely, since due to your unruly behavior in edit warring, I would recommend you to other users to check if you are still eligible to contribute here. SkyFlubbler (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like anyone who says that processed images are "misleading" doesn't know anything about photography.

My images are in no way edited, as opposed to lots of other astrophotographers i try to keep them as close as possible to the real data, i use photometric color calibrations to make sure my image are as close to reality as possible.

so i have two points to say here:

1. you can look at the hubble hi-res image of andromeda and see that the colors and nebulocity in my image is way closer to it than this very amateur image that you now chosen as the main image for Andromeda Galaxy (which btw so many people thanked me for my image there over the years).

link to hubble high res andromeda image: [1]https://esahubble.org/images/heic1502a/

2. every image is processed. and most of the times, way more than those, your phone for example does way more processing than what was done here.

I just use better equipment (11 inch telescope at f/2 config with a hyperstar lens), better filters (physical filters for h-alpha and uhc) and better astronomical camera (ASI1600GT which cools itself to -45 degrees c below ambient).

in summary, my image is closer to reality than what's currently there.

sorry if i offended the one who changed my image, that was no where near my purpose. and thanks for reading my comment.

appreciate you all. Daviddayag (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the bottom figure - images can be pushed in all kinds of directions re: false color, enhancements of certain wavelengths, etc. Lead images should look natural, not pushed, so that they do not require any explanation. Enhanced images can be used (and explained) in the body somewhere. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support for top figure. The bottom one has been clearly enhanced by the use of a an analog optical telescope. I'm guessing that a camera was used, probably a digital camera. Probably photographed under some kind exceptional viewing conditions!!! It's not at all what you would see, if you stepped out on a typical night and looked up at the sky in downtown Chicago. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 01:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Latest reverts

So apparently Daviddayag tried to revert my edits into the page again and insists of using his image because "it was used for the last 3 years" (see here), despite ZaperaWiki44's revert and the overwhelming consensus in this discussion. I do think he is not here to contribute to Wikipedia but rather make a self-promotion on his image while disregarding any accuracy concerns. Another revert on his part would constitute WP:3RR violation. SkyFlubbler (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, he's uploaded some nice images:[2], but WP:BRD, WP:UNCHALLENGED and WP:SELFCITE applies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, I appreciate it! Daviddayag (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i think this guy is just trying to make me look bad. i invested many many time and resources to succeed in capturing those images, and saying they're too "processed" is just wrong.

I try to stay as close to reality and hubble images (when i use hubble pallet) as possible.

my other astrophotographer friends say that i'm too conservative in my ways since they all use AI sharpening tool etc and i dont.

anyway, i would gladly give way to better images! i would be honored to be replaced by someone capturing with better equipment.

but in this case it seems like a very lazy image, taken with a cheap camera from soneone who just want's to push his image to wikipedia. Daviddayag (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For reasons I haven't been able to discover, the "low" rating for the ((WikiProject Astronomy)) template isn't working. This is showing up on the WP:ASTRAT as a large number of articles in the ??? column. Praemonitus (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's not just the 'low' rating. The talk:Big bang page displays an unknown importance for this WikiProject. Praemonitus (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A major update to Template:WPBannerMeta on June 22 perhaps. Asking at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually will ask at Template talk:WPBannerMeta. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It is odd though that the problem didn't occur with other WP templates. Praemonitus (talk) 04:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Always possible it did, but just didn't filter through the various wrappers. That, or we have some weird wrapper formatting that triggered it and others don't. Primefac (talk) 10:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the issue has been resolved (for now). Praemonitus (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi to everyone, I was looking at the List of geological features on Venus and it seems that the link Helen Planitia redirectes to the page that is in. Flatlandia (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are only about a dozen links on the page that aren't self-redirects... User:Anomie/linkclassifier is a great (and subtle) way to see these sorts of issues. Primefac (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. Should this links be changed or there are purposly like this? Flatlandia (talk) 09:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the List of craters on Mars, I think it would probably be a good idea to remove any circular links and only leave those that actually point to articles. Most of these features on Venus will never have articles about them, so wikilinking them from the list is rather pointless. I would also suggest removing the redlinks. Primefac (talk) 10:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thank you very much! Flatlandia (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was a WP:BRFA for a bot that would automatically clean up circular links, but it was abandoned by the operator. I had previously noted that they are also endemic in articles about exoplanetary systems. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does this subsection belong in the article where it currently is? XOR'easter (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's been removed now. XOR'easter (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Round and round we go. XOR'easter (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

agree with the removal, not connected to the First Deep Field. Artem.G (talk) 06:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See recent edits at the JWST page itself. XOR'easter (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, noticed it. IMO it's a bit too soon to include preprints on this early galaxies problem into every article, but I have little time for edit wars. Artem.G (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Same. XOR'easter (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone please check recent edits at Lagrange point#Physical and mathematical details. Some background is shown in comments by a new user and an IP at Talk:Lagrange point#L1, L2, & L3 Quintic Equations. Johnuniq (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked, they are correct, and the old version is wrong. Normally I wouldn't let that pass without a source, but since the old version was both incorrect and unsourced it's a net improvement. Tercer (talk) 10:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In Exometeorology, we render exoplanet names in a variety of ways, with or without spaces, sometimes as non-breaking spaces ( ) in one or both places. "Gliese 1214 b", "GJ 1214b", etc. Is there a canonical format these should be in? This is going to be on the main page tomorrow as part of the DYK section; it would be nice to have this cleaned up before that happens. RoySmith (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's too bad we don't have something like a MoS for astronomy where we could document this. Praemonitus (talk) 01:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current convention is to decide on a case-by-case basis which format is more common in sources. Databases such as the NASA Exoplanet Archive tend to always use spaces, while the form without a space is sometimes used in other sources, especially for designations from exoplanet search projects (e.g. WASP-12b) and planets in multiple star systems, where the planet's letter follows another letter (e.g. 16 Cygni Bb). SevenSpheres (talk) 02:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is something of a convention: exoplanets using designations from planet-identifying projects (eg. WASP and Kepler) don't usually take a space; exoplanets around stars with older designations (eg. Flamsteed or Bright Star Catalogue) have a space before the letter. Simbad appears to follow this convention which may be why we do also. Some other sources don't. Authors vary somewhat. There are exceptions such as exoplanets around the secondary in binaries, or circumbinary planets. Lithopsian (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have WP:NCASTRO for article titles, which covers this topic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikiprojects Solar System, Mars, Moon and Eclipses are largely abandoned. What if we turn them into task forces? Cambalachero (talk) 01:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support that. We already have task forces for Constellations, Cosmology, and Jupiter, so the precedent is there. I'd also be in favor of merging the ((WikiProject Astronomy)) and ((WikiProject Solar System)) templates. Praemonitus (talk) 01:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be part of the change. Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces explains in detail the difference between standalone wikiprojects and task forces. Cambalachero (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So what would we do about article talk pages that have both astronomy and solar system WP templates? We'll need to merge their parameter settings. Praemonitus (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we would need to merge both templates so that they show the same thing and use the same parameters (or make one a redirect to the other). The best way to remove duplicate templates from talk pages would be using a bot. Of course, this is something that should only be done if we get consensus for all this and some time has passed so that anyone interested may know about it (a week perhaps?) Cambalachero (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it before, it's pretty straight-forward. Can't remember if there's a dedicated bot for it these days but if not I can handle the technical side of this. Primefac (talk) 07:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Parham wiki (talk) 07:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Uncontroversial proposal. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've started updating ((astronomy)) to accommodate the new task forces. If someone else feels motivated (it's very low on my priority list) we'll need to shift over the various "WikiProject X" pages to "Taskforce/X" subpages (see for example Jupiter). Primefac (talk) 08:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is interested, I've opened Wikipedia:Peer review/Pulsar planet/archive1 to see if this article would work as a GA. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to eliminate some violations of MOS:NEGATIVE in certain templates and modules by replacing instances of U+002D - HYPHEN-MINUS with the prescribed U+2212 − MINUS SIGN. Presently I have my eye on some templates and modules pertaining to solar eclipses that feature a negative gamma value. An example of a relevant template would be ((Solar eclipse set 2004–2007)). An example of a relevant module would be Module:Solar eclipse/db/165, which populates ((Infobox solar eclipse)), as may be seen at Solar eclipse of August 12, 1673.

Correcting the character in the templates raises no functional concerns; I think the same is true of the modules because as far as I can tell this content is being used only as strings for transclusion. To be cautious, though, I’m asking if anyone is aware of an instance where Gam is being used in an actual value in a function in which the typographically correct character might present a technical problem. Please let me know if you do. (Pinging Tomruen and Frietjes, the primary contributors to the modules.) Cheers! —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 00:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure in detail. Myself I'm a minimalist and will write a keyboard hyphen for negative, so any other fancy symbols will be done by some other fancy person. I suppose there are cases where I prefer hyphens for negative, like copying data into Excel, it is annoying if it is not interpreted as a number. I'm not aware of calculations inside wikipedia, but anything is possible in the future. Tom Ruen (talk) 07:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that might be worth considering is passing certain values through ((val)) on certain templates, like infoboxes, which will convert hyphens to minuses automatically. But on something like Template:Solar eclipse set 2004–2007, the conversion should be done directly on the template. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, both. Headbomb, making the changes to the data tables using AWB would be quick work, but I certainly like the elegance of using ((val)) instead. If it were were being introduced at the template level, I could probably handle it, but the change would need to be made at Module:Solar eclipse, and I’m lacking Lua proficiency. Is this something you can implement in a matter of minutes? —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 11:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well that table doesn't invoke that module so... but as far as Lua goes, I'm useless. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

​I wouldn’t say the table invokes the module, but more the reverse. The way I’m reading the flow is ((Infobox solar eclipse)) invoking Module:Solar eclipse, which in turn imports data from the associated database of tables (of which Module:Solar eclipse/db/165 is one). Am I turned around? —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 13:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

jameslucas, having Module:Solar eclipse change the hyphen to a minus automatically before output in the infobox would be pretty easy. just let me know if you want me to add this feature. Frietjes (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

now implemented in Module:Solar eclipse/sandbox and tested in preview in the referenced article, so it is ready to be copied over to the main module at any time. Frietjes (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is excellent and much appreciated. Test in preview looked good to me too, so I copied the code out of the sandbox and took it live. New personal edit count in Module space = 1 🙃 —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 16:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb, if you have a minute, could you review the line I wrote to integrate ((Val)) into ((Infobox lunar eclipse/sandbox)). As far I as I can tell it works as desired, but the last time I felt even halfway fluent in templating was 15 years ago, and I might be missing a more elegant solution. Cheers! —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 01:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine. Don't know about more elegant, but it should do what you want. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hey, I've noticed that the "Formation and history" of the Andromeda Galaxy was fully rewritten today by FrançoisHam, who's probably "Hammer, F.,"; article by this author is now used as a source. It looks like COI, maybe somebody can look through the recent edit? Artem.G (talk) 14:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're perfectly right, though I'm not sure to understand the meaning of COI.

In fact, I have waited for years in looking to Wikipedia M31 english page that looks almost without recent references, while progresses with Keck, CFHT, Space Telescopes have provided so much new to our big neighbor. Notice also that wikipedia pages in other languages are often more advanced.

The part on M31 formation (how the galaxy got its shape and kinematics) was so far from our present knowledge that I cannot resist to modify it. As far as I know, nobody in the scientific community think that M31 has been formed through an ancient merger 10 billion year ago, while this is true for the Milky Way 5gaia-Sauage-Enceladus).

In case one think this addition I have made is not justified, please re-edit and cancel my doficiations.

Otherwise, I'd have the pleasure to add two videos showing the modelling of M31 recent merger, please see them at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz86Dd_L7HY (disk formation)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exetDytuUYQ (halo and giant stream formation)

(they are the most popular videos of the youtube channel of the Paris Observatory)

Regards,

Francois Hammer FrançoisHam (talk) 09:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

nice, thanks for clarification! I don't know what is the current view on the formation and the age of the Andromeda galaxy, that's why I asked it here. Artem.G (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that there doesn't seem to be consensus that Andromeda formed in the merger 2 billions years ago that you study in your paper. In fact one of the references you added, D'Souza, is clear that Andromeda already existed 6 billion years ago. Tercer (talk) 10:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure of this? Title of their paper is indeed "The Andromeda galaxy's most important merger about 2 billion years ago as M32's likely progenitor", i.e., in agreement with their quotation in the proposed text.

On the other hand, one may give some precision about how a galaxy is formed. It is under its present morphological shape and dynamics that we can say M31 to be formed 2 to 3 billion years ago. If you account for the star formation, one found (e.g., Williams et al.) a very large fraction of them have been formed much earlier, including during the first epoch of star formation (though it doesn't mean anything about the structural formation of M31).

Do you think it would be useful to add such cautionary sentences? FrançoisHam (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm certain, and I have zero tolerance for gaslighting. The paper differentiates between M32 and its progenitor, M32p, but does no such thing for Andromeda: it's always M31. Also, it explicitly says that Moreover, M31's disk and bulge were already in place suggesting that mergers of this magnitude need not dramatically affect galaxy structure. and Yet, M31 had already formed its bulge stars > 6 Gyr ago, long before M31's merger with M32p.

It's not about adding cautionary sentences. We are not going to say at all that Andromeda formed in the 2 Gyr ago merger if you're the only one defending that. Tercer (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're right to mention this, I have forgotten this sentence in the paper abstract, my fault. The major impact of the merger is to explain the disk heating, which represent a considerable change of its initial structure, as well as the fully re-instated young disk, 2 Gyr ago (all agree on this). The major disagreement is about the role of M32 which is considerably discussed by the whole community (see, e.g., https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018NatAs...2..705G/abstract).

The former text was mentioning 10 Gyr for the M31 formation: there is no scientist defending this, up to my knowledge.

I may change the text in a more balanced way (including about the meaning of when a galaxy is formed), and showing also the D'Souza & Bell opinion on M32. FrançoisHam (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing newer references to the Andromeda article. I think we should be a bit cautious about defining "when did a galaxy form", since that could be defined in a few ways (mass, mean stellar age, dynamics, last major merger). I don't actually know whether the literature has a preferred choice of definition for that. My Sparke & Gallagher isn't on hand right now; some have a reference handy? - Parejkoj (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, I agree with that (see my answer to Tercer), I suggest to introduce this (real) ambiguity. FrançoisHam (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The BRFA for this task is at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Credibility bot. Primefac (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals), which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Tercer (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At S/2004 S 24, the infobox image was deleted at Commons due to copyright concerns — Sheppard is not employed by NASA. This raises concerns about many other images taken by Sheppard of irregular moons in the Solar System, though non-free images would qualify for inclusion at the moons' infoboxes per WP:NFCC if there is no NASA-created equivalent. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most constellation entries end with an External Links section that includes a link called "the clickable [constellation name]". These go to a domain named <astrojan.eu5.org>. Currently that site is returning a "not available" flag. I noticed it a few days ago; when the link actually went dead I do not know. Perhaps one of you has already noticed it. It is not clear whether this is a hosting problem and the site will return, or whether the site has disappeared for ever. Three options occur to me: 1, wait to see if it reappears; 2, delete all links as being dead; 3, change the link to an archive version. Thoughts? Skeptic2 (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When a link is presented via a citation template, there's a bot that will update it to point to a Wayback Machine archive. I'd say that's the default solution. Praemonitus (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the next couple of months I will be helping to run some training sessions on behalf of WMF(UK) for members of the International Astronomical Union and Max Planck Institute on how to contribute to Wikipedia. I would like to invite WikiProject Astronomy members to submit any suggestions of points specific to this field that I ought to be aware of, or to raise during that training; any pitfalls professionals need to avoid, or pointers to identifying key topics for improvement or creation. Any other ideas, concerns or suggestions are also welcome. My rough notes to date on planning these sessions can be found at User:Nick Moyes/training. It includes a Google slides presentation that I plan to use, which is also under construction. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This might be related. The content of astronomy articles should be specific to the object and not sway too far out of the topic. See this previous version of Abell 1413, which has been an article chosen for a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment; the article has since been changed to better suit an encyclopedic tone. SkyFlubbler (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)3]][reply]

I am raising this discussion here to get more attention.

This has been a very long (probably 2 years now) dispute regarding the radius of this star, which has been controversial and the reasons for consensus are invoking WP:NOTRIGHT (which I do take a lot of issues with, see the discussion regarding this issue).

This has become a hot mess to deal with that I think this needs to be raised here on the Wikiproject proper. I highly recommend you to check and contribute to the discussion. SkyFlubbler (talk) 05:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]