Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
MainTalkAstronomical objects
(Talk)
Eclipses
(Talk)
Article ratingsImage reviewPopular pagesMembersWikidata
WikiProject iconAstronomy: Astronomical objects Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

Project-independent quality assessments[edit]

Starbox[edit]

We know that many stars are so far away that, by the time their light reaches us, the stars themselves are long since gone. So, too, are the wikitext markup of templates, which echo out through the decades... anyway, what's the deal with Template:Starboxes? I guess there are a lot of infoboxes that are composed of individual templates. Is anyone interested in converting this to a module? I've never done this before but I would be willing to help. jp×g 02:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, most stars last for millions to billions of years, and their light normally reaches us in up to just a few thousand years. The starbox templates work okay as they are; no star system requires the use of every starbox template, so this level of flexibility is needed. Praemonitus (talk) 06:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly Template:Starbox observe 2s and Template:Starbox observe 3s can be merged with Template:Starbox observe into a single template that admits multiple sets of parameters. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 10:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Porting all that template code correctly into Lua, and then correctly updating the wikicode for all ~5,300 pages that use those templates seems like a royal pain in the ***.
I ported the various segments of {{Navseasoncats}} template code piecemeal into Lua, if only to not break the existing functionality. Because the scope of that template increased dramatically after doing do, I wish I had rewritten the Lua code from scratch. I don't see the same "issue" with the Starbox templates though, so subsuming the templates into Lua one at a time over time is probably the best way to do it.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Folks at WP:TFD can use bots for merging uses over. Of course, it depends on exactly what is being merged into what. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Replace 'Brocchi's Cluster' with 'Double Cluster'[edit]

On the level 5 VA talk page, I'm suggesting replacing Brocchi's Cluster with Double Cluster. Please comment on that suggestion. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Hottest planet has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 6 § Hottest planet until a consensus is reached. Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor planets: 624001–625000, the scope of which affects many of these list pages.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  11:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

& @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meanings of minor planet names: 623001–624000.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  23:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on redesign of the Starbox[edit]

...is underway at Template talk:Starbox begin#Broader redesign of apparent-magnitude and color-index entries. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting proposal[edit]

I propose we split articles on comets such as Halley's Comet or Comet Hale-Bopp into separate articles such as 1986 approach of Halley's Comet and 1997 approach of Comet Hale-Bopp. There are articles on the 2004 transit of Venus and the 2012 transit of Venus. That is why I think they should be split. DementiaGaming (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Halley's Comet § 1986 is six paragraphs long. I do not see a need to have a six-paragraph stub, nor do I think the existing article (at 100k) is so large that it needs to be split. Hale–Bopp's article is half that size and doesn't really have an "approach" section, making even less of a need to split. Primefac (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]