Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Astronomical objects 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:ASTROWT:ASTRO

Archives (index): 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: 6 months

Archives

Topical archives

Table of asteroids 1 - Table of asteroids I
Example tables - p1 - Table of asteroids II
Example tables - p2 - Table of asteroids III
Archive 19 - Table of asteroids IV
Table of asteroids 2 - Table of asteroids V
Table of exoplanets

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 180 days are automatically archived by if there are more than 5.

Edit this box

Sharpless 29 and NGC 6559

This article describes NGC 6559 to be within Sharpless 29 but I am not sure how it would be handled as I am not familiar with the rules of the project or in what manner the two are connected. ✶Qux yz ✶ 15:32, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't been much published on 'Sh 2-29' (Sharpless 29),[1][2] so perhaps a redirect to this article makes sense. At least for now. Praemonitus (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is bothering me because there is a lot of vague wording but I wasn't able to find any clearcut definitions for what it was or what space the region inhabits. ✶Qux yz ✶ 13:32, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the shape of the Corona Borealis consteallation as presented

Greetings! It has occurred to me that even though the page Corona Borealis says that there are seven main stars in the constellation Corona Borealis, most pages regarding the stars in the constellation, such as Delta Coronae Borealis, Zeta Coronae Borealis, and R Coronae Borealis all show the star Iota Coronae Borealis as excluded from the main stars and instead show six main stars. I am not sure which direction should we unify the images towards. Pygos (talk) 02:48, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does "main stars" even have a definition? I suppose it depends on who is making the chart. Praemonitus (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Repost: Edit request(s)/discussion: Add a "Coordinates" field to the infobox templates

Greetings and felicitations. See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Archive 29#Edit request(s)/Discussion: Add a "Coordinates" field to the infobox templates. This will centralize the coordinates, making them easier to find (and edit if necessary), and bring the usage into line with terrestrial infoboxes. —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your help is needed at Interstellar object

A problem with the article interstellar object is being discussed at Talk:Interstellar object#Torbett (1986) is not a good reference. Any input would be appreciated. Thank you! Renerpho (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Natural satellite counter templates?

Should we have a separate template for each outer planet listing the number of its satellites? That way we don't need to keep updating the count in the articles, just the templates. (Or we could just have one template and use the planet name as a key word. E.g. {{satellite_count|planet=}}; 'planet=all' gives the total.) Praemonitus (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support the latter option. Does that include the various dwarf planets with moons? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, we could just change 'planet' to something like 'primary' or 'host'. Praemonitus (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User selection of multiple Infobox images

Hello to all. I just encountered a strange situation on a very well written B-class article, Alpha Centauri, where readers are presented with an infobox image of a star. But the image is without any labels or image annotation, so the editor included a link below the image (just under the caption or in the caption itself) that takes the reader out of the current page to another page or website that have an image which includes all necessary image annotations, which is unfortunate and could be annoyance for average Internet reader. However, with a little codding this annoyance (of leaving current page one reads) could be averted. Editor(s) who know how to create something similar to User selection of multiple maps could create the same option for this specific Infobox in regard of image(s) presentation - we could have same multiple choice (image "without annotations", image "with annotations", "xyz" image) via selectable radio buttons just like in User selection of multiple maps for different Infobox maps. Thank you for taking it into consideration. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:34, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That image is confusing, even with the labels. Praemonitus (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It really is. But my concern is that by clicking on the link I am being taken out of page and even website - that's could be averted by creating an option to include multiple images with radio-buttons. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:54, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomy-related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view

An astronomy-related discussion is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Notability of asteroid namings. You are welcome to participate. Renerpho (talk) 02:54, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is 469705 ǂKá̦gára even notable?

Copied from Talk:469705 ǂKá̦gára:

Considering that none of the references in the article appear to specifically be about this object, I have concerns that ǂKá̦gára might fail the notability criteria per WP:NASTRO, as it does not seem to have significant commentary in reliable sources. Should the article be redirected to List of trans-Neptunian objects? Its case appears to be similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/184314 Mbabamwanawaresa, where nothing about this object is notable besides it having a name and a moon. Thirtyfourninety (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems non-notable to me. Searches on ADS and Google Scholar show only one paper that mentions this asteroid (Grundy+ Icarus 2019), which includes it as one of a sample of 17 binary asteroids. One of the coauthors is the discoverer of the asteroid, so that's not an independent source anyway. There are no Google News hits, and I couldn't find any other evidence of substantive commentary. The other references in the article are databases, Grundy's personal website, or related to the myth it's named after, so do not establish notability. I would support a deletion nomination. Modest Genius ^talk 17:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I see. It doesn't seem to stand out from other similarly sized TNOs without any individual scientific studies. It seems that just because a minor planet has a name, that doesn't mean it should have its own article, considering that some other articles of named minor planets such as Mbabamwanawaresa had their articles nominated for deletion. Thirtyfourninety (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page is well sourced, well written, and concerns a legitimate astronomical object. One of those 'nothing broken' topics, although its not going to be a household name. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason to have an article, see WP:ITEXISTS and WP:NASTCRIT. Objects must also be notable and receive substantial non-trivial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the discoverers. Modest Genius ^talk 13:05, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following the discussion about 184314 Mbabamwanawaresa (and also the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/472235 Zhulong), I proposed a change to WP:DWMP at Wikipedia Talk:NASTRO. The guideline now states that such articles should indeed be redirected to List of trans-Neptunian objects (previously, it asked for them to be redirected to List of minor planets instead). Renerpho (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Q Velorum#Requested move 21 September 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Q Velorum#Requested move 21 September 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 10:33, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Need help expanding article

Hello hello

This is my first message here. During my stay at a hospital, I have found and worked on an article about a pulsar-white dwarf-white dwarf system (it also was said to have a Pluto-sized rock). However, I am met with a blockade when I try to expand new sections as I am less than proficient at writing paragraphs about a subject I am not familiar with. Therefore, I write this to hopefully find a couple of avid members who would write a couple of paragraphs about the stellar system and the formation of said system. Pancakes321 (talk) 11:28, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to join

Hi! I am Lutitium, I am seeking to join a wiki project and as I am interested In Astronomical objects I want to join WikiProject Astronomical objects. But I am a bit confused on how to join and how to make my articles a part of WikiProject Astronomical objects. Also in this project, do you only improve articles or create them as well?

Thanks and bye:D Lutitium (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[[3]]. Or just start editing. Lithopsian (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lutitium. This project does both: creates new astronomy articles and improves existing pages. It depends on your interests and skills. I'd take a look at the article alerts and the newly created article list on the main project page; that will let you see some of what's happening with this project. Praemonitus (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then how do I join Lutitium (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a club. You just participate, if you want. Praemonitus (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:NGC 884#Requested move 22 October 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:NGC 884#Requested move 22 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 14:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gigameters (Gm) vs. million kilometers

Is there an accepted convention for describing the distance of a satellite from its primary planet? I happened across S/2003 J 9, which states: It belongs to the Carme group, made up of irregular retrograde moons orbiting Jupiter at a distance ranging between 23 and 24 Gm.... Is there an encyclopedic reason to use Gm instead of the (more intuitive to my mind) million km? Thanks! ZenSwashbuckler 21:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, million km is almost always better, until we get to very large numbers, at which point we should use scientific notation, not the prefixes. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Is there anything to my concern about Template:Units of length used in Astronomy, then? If so, should I post it on a noticeboard somewhere? ZenSwashbuckler 16:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article review of Makemake

I have nominated Makemake for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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 "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 00:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another artist's impression

See Talk:Zeta Puppis#Artists impression to decide whether an image contravenes WP:ASTROART or not. Lithopsian (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe take a look at Kepler-1625, another one just added as I was typing this (edit: now replaced with an "official" artists impression, not obviously any more realistic, but from a reliable source so not our problem if it is just a random pretty picture). Lithopsian (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Kepler-1625b illustrations seems fine, certainly does not contradict WP:ASTROART as there is nothing speculative being represented. 21 Andromedae (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the orbital distance I thought the Subgiant star would appear larger. But that's just nit-picking on my part. Praemonitus (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly why the guideline was drafted: unless an "unofficial" artist's impression is unambiguously representing known data and nothing else (eg. a plain disc used for size comparisons), it isn't allowed. Nothing to do with whether you think it is speculative or not; it is, by definition, speculative unless it only represents demonstrably WP:RELIABLE facts. If we have to have a discussion about the relative sizes of objects in an image, the colour of an exoplanet, the shape of a star, whether there are star spots or not, then something is clearly speculative. Lithopsian (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One way we could process illustrations from a less reliable source is via WP:OR. I.e. one could tag it with a {{Original research inline}} template and add a '|reason=', although that is intended for text. Alternatively, we might need to create a new inline template for that purpose: {{Original illustration}}. The documentation can then explain how it violates WP:OR and link to WP:ASTROART. Praemonitus (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well meaning user, but I think we should be strict about this kind of thing. - Parejkoj (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about WikiProject banner templates

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

"This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale."

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 19:38, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)[reply]

Categorizing Skadi Mons

A few days ago the IAU/USGS announced that Venus's "tallest mountain" Skadi Mons is not a real geological feature. I feel like this article should be kept since there is some coverage about its former status, but I am not sure how to deal with the infobox and categories, which currently treat it as a mountain (when it really isn't). How should disproven geological features be handled? Please leave your suggestions and thoughts on Talk:Skadi Mons. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 07:50, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Need help cleaning up Jupiter trojan articles

(Transcluded from main discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Need help cleaning up Jupiter trojan articles. Please do not reply on this thread, go to the main one linked in red.)

Template:Largest Jupiter trojans and User:Rfassbind/Minor planet articles rewrites JT table are massive lists containing Jupiter trojan articles that were mass-created (or converted from redirects) by the now-inactive user Rfassbind back in 2017-2018. My main issue is that all of these were systematically written with the same copy-pasted writing style, which has odd quirks like italicizing the asteroid's name (like Demophon; other Solar System articles do not italicize names like this), capitalizing the phrase "Gas Giant", and calling Jupiter trojans "Jovian asteroids" (which is also not a standard term). Some of these articles (especially ones on smaller asteroids) may fail astronomical object notability guidelines and thus may need to be redirected, but I can't check all of these individually since there's so many of them. I can't clean all of these alone, so I would really like some help for that. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 02:38, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for 10 Hygiea

10 Hygiea has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 03:24, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for 2 Pallas

2 Pallas has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 03:24, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Puck (moon)

Puck (moon) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 03:24, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]