Knowledge talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Archive 4

8445:. If so, please try to re-read the article in its entirety. In my opinion, the article in the current shape reads as an incongruous history of present and past ‘events’. The proper encyclopaedic content still exist but become almost invisible. I would suggest to re-group and move to a separate article all non-encyclopaedic, event(s)-related content, including details and controversies about the circumstances of discovery, naming, classification, etc. All these were news at one moment in time but being a news archive is hardly the goal of the atronomy articles. The dependence on the discoverer’s page should also be reduced; as example, Name section contains a 8-line quote from the site! Is the discoverer page a ref the naming rules? His publications are the refs; he’s page is for the wide public – no need to duplicate it. I do not list all my concerns now; just wanted to see if what you think and if we have the will to reclaim this 7183:) and which should just be part of the main page. I would like to design it though with an eye to the number of members growing - the whole point I am trying to achieve with subpages is to coordinate easily and compartmentalize to make it more accessible to a great number of editors. RIght now it is easy to have everything on one page, since there are not a huge amount of active editors. But like Military History, they have 337 members. Permanent information that does not change a lot, such as guidelines for using templates and how to link to other parts of astro object pages should be on the main page, while information that is more of a subset of astroobjects that changes on a constant basis should (imho) be broken off as a sub-project. I will also look to see if there is a way to link subpages to the main page so that if you watch the main page you will also see changes to the subpages. Anyway, those are my thoughts for now. -- 3681:

used in Knowledge. As stated in the above discussion on the STScI Digitized Sky Survey, the copyright restrictions for those images renders them unsuitable for Knowledge. Images from the Sloan Digitized Sky Survey and the NOAO have similar restrictions. While the Hubble Space Telescope does take pretty pictures, it does not cover the entire sky, and its images are not always suitable for what I need, so it is not a replacement for these other surveys or archives. In light of these problems, it would be nice if Knowledge could reconsider its image-use policy. (For now, I'm just too afraid of the Knowledge copyright policy to upload any images that aren't my own.)

6553:. Each page would have to be re-worked to a standard, and re-organized. Please do not take my breakdown or naming of the individual pages to be any sort of final decision - I need comments on how best to organize these pages. Each one could have lists of objects that are not complete, as a good entry-project point for interested newcomers and a way of not doubling up on work for oldtimers. The Infobox page could also be re-made as a Template and added in any WikiProject main page as an insert, so there could be multiple entry points. There could also be lists of Peer Review articles and an overall catalog of what has been done. -- 1286:

beyond the infoboxes and literature list (and FA status, indifferent to some of us). Re: the list; we have TNO, Kuiper Belt, classical and scattered objects, currently dividing the content in somehow arbitrary way. I would suggest either to include all four (or five; plutinos are currently weak) or re-distribute the content to have a first-class, self contained TNO article (I would prefer the first alternative, we have plentiful of content after all). I’ve tentatively included these suggestions in your table. Please bear with my current TNO bias; these articles are not necessarily

5618:) to see if it is an accepted nickname. Both websites keep a list of commonly-accepted nicknames for many objects. It is especially unhelpful when people (especially SEDS) introduce "fun" names. Most people are going to be more familiar with the traditional names, and, as 132.205.93.88 has pointed out, multiple people may use the same "fun" name for different galaxies, causing confusion. (I really think that the SEDS website needs to be written better. They do not cite their sources, and it's difficult to verify their information.) 3705:, for example, is extremely difficult and requires paging through many lists of images with either "Messier" or "73" in their titles. (The one image of M73 that I did find is a near-infrared image, so it seems inappropriate or slightly confusing to use.) A search for anything beginning with "Arp" brings up huge numbers of images unrelated to astronomy. Advice on how to use the search engine would be appreciated, but I think the Knowledge organization needs to examine their search engine more carefully and fine-tune its operation. 1173: 705: 8842:. Whether or not Pluto or Jupiter is technically called a "planet" does not matter that much. What is important is understanding that Jupiter has a substantial amount of hydrogen and that it radiates more radiation than it received from the Sun but that it does not contain enough mass to trigger nuclear fusion. What is important is understanding that Pluto's chemical composition and orbit make it more similar to the Kuiper Belt than to either the Jovian planets or the terrestrial planets. 31: 8409:. I rewrote that article and the table listing the galaxies in the group. Note the uncertainty in the group identification; about five galaxies are listed by the three sources that I used, and about seven others are listed by only one or two papers. Please provide comments on this galaxy group list; I may revise other entries to look like it. (I just wish I could say more about the M74 group than its group membership. It seems like the article is devoid of scientific meaning.) 8820:), I do think that a lot of Knowledge editors are overly-passionate about their solar system objects. One person effectively accused me of trying to destroy the world's knowledge when I suggested that the 1826 Miller was not encyclopedic. Similarly, many of the arguments in the talk sections of Ceres, Pluto, and Eris look like they rely on emotion rather than logic. Heated irrational discussions like those are the kind of thing that could drive people away from Knowledge. 9214:. To some degree, these categories do serve a purpose; they do collect a lot of related false-detections and theorethical objects together. However, I really wonder if categories for hypothetical extrasolar objects are needed. For renaming other objects, I recommend using the current convention followed by Knowledge categories; for example, since a "Moons" category already exists, "Hypothtical moons" may be preferable to "Hypothetical natural satellites". 7678:

one of the thee? (Not sure if that is possible in wiki, to have calculated values.) It is nice to have a radius measurement to compare one galaxy to another to get a sense of their relative size, maybe we could work on the accuracy of this and agree on replacing it with the length of the Major Diameter as a distance. Related, maybe the Apparent dimentions line of the galaxy template should be replaced with Major and Minor Diameter as given by NEDS.

9010:

is preferable over the other. As for the variable used for distance in the template, I recommend using "dist_ly" just because switching to "dist" will cause a lot of blank fields to appear in the hundreds of Knowledge galaxy infoboxes (unless someone would like to write a bot to change all the "dist_ly" to "dist" in all the articles with the galaxy template). Please note that if I were creating this template from scratch, I would use "dist".

6397:

suppose a lot of the basic stats will be coming from Simbad and NStar. Right now, I have a list of objects within the Milky Way. I could contribute this, but siting sources would be hard, since I never kept most of them and a lot came from news sites. But, my time is also an issue, but maybe once a week is sufficient to start with. Maybe say all votes and nomination due every friday, else have to wait til next friday. And so on. Thanks,

6896:

other stuff. This is a work in progress, and if anyone needs a box to track anything additional, please let me know. I will be working on an instruction sheet so that if this style catches on, others may maintain it easily. I am in the process of learning how to format, so please bear with me. My ultimate goal is to gather all the branches of the study of Space into a master wikiproject. To that effect I have started

3354:. However, I do not know if I should add footnotes for every passage that was based on the NED website or if I can just leave a general reference. I am adding specific references to specific information retrieval in individual sources, but I was wondering if, to be technically correct, I need references for all 338 sources. (Comments on the technical aspects of the NED references would be welcome, too.) 7646:) reveals that the average Knowledge editor does not understand absolute magnitude either. Average magnitude is simply given in strange units that even most professional astronomers dislike, and it has little physical meaning. Its inclusion in Knowledge is therefore not useful. (If it were expressed in solar luminoisities, it would be better, but then the distance calculation is still problematic.) 3144:

The constellations template has "number of stars". If a casual stargazer were to look at that, it would be confusing, since it counts the stars greater than 3rd magnitude. It intuitively should indicate the number of stars in the pattern. The infobox should probably have a list of stars forming the pattern, as the graphic representation is not the easiest thing to read, and doesn't hyperlink.

1271:, with the idea of listing the topics we ought to prioritise and what their current status is. I just created a table for solar system articles, and will also add tables for galactic and extragalactic astronomy - unless anyone else does it first! Hope people will have a look and help out with a) making the list and b) getting some of the articles up to good or featured quality. 7776:

the categories are too big. I will try getting to adding links to the categories this weekend so the organization can begin - as categories are linked among themselves and according to the template, it will begin to take care of itself, so the whole will be easier to navigate. If anyone has issues with what I am trying to do please feel free to discuss them here. Thanks --

5899:. This is a well-used list; ADS abstracts shows that it has over 200 citations. These LGG numbers are recognized by NED and SIMBAD, although the two websites do not necessarily agree on the groups' identities. For example, NED thinks LGG 291 is the NGC 4631 Group, wheras SIMBAD thinks LGG 291 is the NGC 4736 group. (Garcia places NGC 4631 but not NGC 4736 in LGG 291.) 6990:, I have problems displaying this on my browser unless I display it in a wide (1024 pixels?) format. In a narrow window in Firefox, the black bars with the section titles on the left overlap the boxes on the right. In a narrow window in Internet Explorer, the content on the left appears at the bottom of the page after the content on the right. However, I do like 10192:. As best as I can tell, this debate would benefit greatly from a planetary scientist with a Ph.D. who can provide credible professional input. Someone should also contact the Minor Planet Center and get information from them (or get them involved in Knowledge). (I'm just an extragalactic astronomer, so I am not going to get involved further in this debate.) 4448:

true for a few other galaxy pairs that I have encountered in Knowledge. The pages for the pairs (if they are to be treated as pairs) should probably include two fact box templates to at least list the separate galaxy properties, although splitting the pages (and referring to the other galaxy's page when discussing the interaction) would be cleaner.

8299:). I want to remove the background colours and Object type names. And just have object symbols, as in the start charts (a la Tirion Star Chart). Then remove the links for the object types and just have them in the key at the top of the lists. I can also extend the key to include more types like globulars, planetaries etc. An example is in my 4455:(M51B) is a good example. Although the Knowledge page does not discuss this (yet), NGC 5195 is a good example of a low ionization nuclear emission region (LINER). The power sources for LINERs have been debated for a long time. In the case of NGC 5195, I would guess that this is powered by star formation (although I would have to go look at an 8824:

convenient professional references (NED and SIMBAD) list all of the "official" names for these objects, so anyone can check the names' validity. Moreover, everyone has been fairly level-headed in discussing naming conventions. Unfortunately, I do not know of a reference for solar system objects that is equivalent to NED or SIMBAD. I do like

1322:

professional or academic activity we could use with kids, friends, a fascinating book, soldering iron, telescope, a stubborn program, (you name it), to add, edit, keep up-to-date these articles. I’ve been with wikipedia for only 2 months so I struggle with an answer; still it’s .. addictive. I’ll be back when I sort out some answers. Cheers

7179:

that need to be worked on. Give me a day or so and i will start a new talk here at the bottom of the page without all this convo between us, with a proposed layout of sections and whatnot. Then we can vote on which parts should be subpages (i really believe the members box should be a subpage, so it can be kept on the membership page under

1580: 6093:

careful not to say that this is actually the case. Instead, he is considering a possibility implied by the data but not absolutely guaranteed. Additional observations are needed to verify his result. (Also note that the article is from a conference proceeding, which may not be peer-reviewed before publication.)

7159:

growth is to begin implementing it and see where it leads - a lot of what i am trying is new to me. Knock yourself out, or, let me know how you would prefer it done and explain the whole subst thing to me (i read the page but for some reason it isn't really clicking) and i will work on it myself. Cheers. --

9495:

Well, its about time I got in on this converstaion. I know I've been shaking things up a lot around here in order to get all the new hypothetical planet articles properly connected with other relivant tops, and I am happy to see that there is finally some discussion on what to do with this mess. With

9009:

The distance issue is hard to deal with. Professionally, I prefer Mpc, which is commonly used by professional astronomers and some knowledgable amateurs. The standard in Knowledge when I started working here was ly, which is also easier for the general public to understand. I am not certain if one

8596:

page would have all known brown dwarfs. Probably will take some time, but I would not mind doing it. Considering that I would probably use the data later in life, (ie. SCI-FI stories/games). So, it would not be a total waste of my time. Definately would need help, (mostly in verification), but it

8463:

I would suggest condensing the news-related items rather than shifting them to another page. (Maybe the hype can be toned down or deleted. For example, do we need personal quotes from Chad Trujillo on the name of the object? (This is funnier if you know that I know Chad.)) I also noticed that the

7677:

value to be grouped with the distance in lys and parces which can be used to derive the absolute magnitude from the visual one by substraction. I suggest this since that appears to be what astonomers commonly use. Perhaps the template could be written to calculate the other two distance values from

7672:

With respect to radius and magnitude, I don't support dropping these completely as the concepts they represent are useful for absolute comparisons of one galaxy to another. Perhaps we could have the template have the label for these be a link which explains what they mean in detail or replacing them

7466:

humorous. That could go. The sub-categories for comets could also be deleted. Some of the unusual star types should stay, although choosing which ones to keep should be decided by a stars expert. Type II suvernovae should definitely stay (and they should have a Knowledge page; type II supernovae

7069:

Exactly. That way you give flexibility to people who do not want to know about certain group projects or agendas. You can let them select the area that they are interested in and focus only on that. Things like pages regarding the membership, or the collaboration of the week. If someone has no desire

6756:

As a second thought, do you feel it necessary to have 4 categories? Would one page serve as well, by Alpha? Because if you are looking for a particular acronym, you just need to search the particular letter it is under. Maybe each entry could have a tag explaining what type of acronym it is, but have

6746:

I don't think it is necessary to highlight the letters - it seems like a lot of work for little reason. I checked some of the other acronym pages and at least the basic lists don't highlight. Ultimately, since you are the one donating the blood sweat and tears, do what you think looks best. But I for

6339:

have sections for performing peer reviews on appropriate subjects. Is there interest in this sort of thing for astronomical object pages? For it to work we'd need members of this project to be willing to step up and give some input on the nominations. What say you? Would you prefer to just stick with

6117:

How are the newer spectral types generally referenced? Are they put into the same tables as the classic spectral types? I think that the most common form of dividing the types up should be used. On a side note, why is there a brief listing of the types at the beginning of the rare section, only to be

5370:

For well-known galaxy names such as Andromeda and Whirlpool, keeping it at the current name would be my preference. Those are the titles that people are more likely to use in a WP/google search as well as a WP hyperlink. If a page doesn't have many entries in a "what links here" lookup, it's probably

5242:

are moderately well known galaxy names (such as the "Black Eye Galaxy" and "Triangulum Galaxy") and at least two of the galaxies are very well known by their common names ("Sombrero Galaxy" and "Whirlpool Galaxy"). Some of these names are even commonly used by the scientific community. For example,

5028:

Judging between which references to use for data is harder. The best thing to do would be to figure out where they get their numbers from and how reliable or accepted those numbers are. Unless you understand the subject material, this can be tough. If you have a choice between a scientific journal

4669:

I did not format the links, but I created three sub-pages for the worklist. It breaks the Solar System articles into Sun, The Inner Planets and Asteroid Belt, and The Outer Planets and Comets. This eliminates the oversize table, and allows for expansion later on if new articles are added to the list.

4602:

I cannot read the bottom two tables, either. However, if I click on the "edit" button for Extragalactic Astronomy, I can see the table clearly. (I set my Knowledge preferences to show me a preview of what I am editing before I make any changes.) Maybe the formatting issue is at the end of the last

3680:

1. Knowledge seems to have stringent rules on image use. The images apparently have to be entirely copyright free and not just available for non-commercial use with restrictions for commercial use. As a result, many of the great archives of publicly-available professional astronomy images cannot be

2751:

Article contains calculated temperature value and unreferenced radius value. Article claims the planet is "sometimes called IL Aquarii d" but this yields no results on Google other than the user page of the editor who put this designation into the article. Speculations about carbon dioxide atmosphere

2463:

Articles would be nominated primarily from the Worklist, but obviously any article related to Astronomical objects needing attention can be nominated. If others here are interested, and/or have a suggestions, I can set up the Collaboration page this weekend or next week (though it would largely be a

2251:

Well, I can see the point in categorising spiral galaxies that are seen face-on, as those are more spectacular to look at. There might even be scientific reasons to prefer to study a face-on, rather than an edge-on galaxy, or even the other way round (dust lanes etc). But I suspect that this property

1446:

project are not normally distributed, as this document points out, it generally recommends propagating them as if they were normally distributed and small—i.e., by placing the covariance matrix between the Jacobian matrix of the applied transformation and its transpose. I think this is a reasonable

9452:

to stay away from editing categories for a while and to study the current category structure in Knowledge. I pointed to this page and his own talk page in explaining that his edits are causing a lot of confusion and chaos that may harm Knowledge, and I asked him to be more careful in the future. I

7775:

The recently created table with universes, galaxies, is intended to be a master list to navigate the categories of Astro Objects from a single menu. Please review the table as needed and spot out any flaws in the overall structure. It may be that sub-templates are created for galaxies, stars, etc if

7757:

That is a valid point, and one that can be addressed on the main page. Under projects, or introduction, or somewhere. I think the project asa whole needs to coordinate and give direction to those who want to take part, and an instruction manual of some sort will be needed as the different facets are

7737:

OK. So here is my question. If this above information goes on the rename/delete log, does it need to be duplicated here in the talk section? If you Watch the R/D Log, then you will see the edit and go look to see what the heck George J. Bendo is doing this time. And you won't have to wonder what the

7168:

Basically, what it would do would be copy all the templates onto the main page. We basically end up with one page to watch instead of loads of templates, without destroying all the formatting and stuff that you've put in. However before this happens (if it happens), we should probably make sure that

6939:

How is it ugly? The reasoning behind the change is to group like projects, lists, etc in boxes that can easily be moved around, and also added to other pages as templates. Maybe there is a format issue somewhere, can you take a screenshot of how it looks and send it to me? If so give me a message on

6458:

as the basic page to set down the guidelines and standards? It seems like that would be the logical place to put any sort of standards. Also, as a sub-note, should the infoboxes page be broken down to provide links to different pages, one for each template? It is kind of cumbersome-looking to scroll

6055:

outnumber OBAFGKM stars, although I would need to see some good references to believe this. (Someone should add a reference to this claim in the stellar classification article.) Anyhow, perhaps "rare stars" is simply the wrong phrase to use. Maybe LTYCS stars could all be placed in a "cool stars"

5666:

The things HurricaneDevon did with images to infoboxes were pretty annoying, as his images usually were never sized properly. Though they now seem to be being deleted for the most part, so now there's cleanup to do to delete the images from the infoboxes or they'll have a missing image link instead.

4447:

Regardless, each of the galaxies in the example above can be treated as a separate object. The NGC catalog (as well as many other catalogs) give each object separate designations and list separate properties. A search on NED or SIMBAD will return information on the individual objects. The same is

3727:

I realize that the majority of users here probably would not be able to do much to about these issues, but, as I understand it, a couple of the frequent visitors to this page are administrator-like people who could convey these comments to the power that be. It would also be useful to know if other

3143:

Hmm... I just noticed something. Even though it has no value in an astronomical sense, in a stargazer sense, and as a reference to the general public, constellations really should list the stars that form the traditional pattern, and probably some information concerning the pattern / star positions.

2399:

now has a pretty good list of the most important articles on solar system and galactic topics. What's clear is that there's loads of unreferenced articles on even the most important topics. Does anyone want to have a push towards adding references to all of these? With a few people working on it,

1897:

An error range would be more mathematically accurate. E.g. Rigel is 4.22 ± 0.81 mas, or 3.41–5.03, which corresponds to a range of 199–293 (237-38 to 237+56). By contrast, 237 ± 45 is off at both ends of the range. The mathematical estimate is only nearly accurate when the error is much smaller than

164:

Well, like I say, the font enlarging was just an idea - the main point was to not have the object name outside the table it's supposed to be the header of. Not sure what you mean about caption format? I'd also be in favour of dropping the name at the top of the table as well - I can't think of any

9683:

Unfortunately, I do not see a good solution for dealing with the article's contents. It looks like Lilith has some importance in astrology but almost no relevance in astronomy. If you delete either the article's references to astrology or the article itself, the astrologers in Knowledge would get

9019:

As for the second point, I will keep that in mind. Pointing out the blatantly obvious in the infobox ("this galaxy has only one spiral arm!") could be useful, especially given the dearth of pictures available for Knowledge entries. However, as you have indicated, this information should already be

8539:

that was once labeled a dwarf galaxy. "Dark galaxy" is a term to describe a hypothetical galaxy made mostly out of dark matter. Abell 1835 IR1916 is a candidate high-redshift object that Knowledge claims has not been detected in follow-up observations. IC 5152 is an irregular galaxy that someone

8317:

If any of the target object pages get amended then people will have to edit the object lists also, which will lead to inconsistencies within Knowledge. Also since the lists are mainly for observers, distances are not that important anyway, users can always just click through to the object for more

7960:

seems to be concerned about a semantics issue. First, I would say that Uranus and Neptune are functionally similar enough to Jupiter and Saturn to all be considered under the same category, whatever that category is names. As for the category/page names, I would stay with "gas giant". Uranus and

7938:

What's the definition of a gas giant anyway? As far as I'm aware, there is no formal definition. The term "ice giant" is usually applied to Uranus and Neptune and seems to be well established... it refers to the large proportion of their mass which is made up of "ices" i.e. water, methane, ammonia.

7232:

references with useful information (and warnings about references with lousy information). I imagine that similar pages could be written for other subjects. I could also picture a page written with information on popular books that are frequently used as references with guidance on how to use the

7178:

Sounds good to me. I guess the first question to ask would be, what sections do we really need? How best to simply lay out the different tasks that are going on? We have the templates that Georgo Bendo is working on. The structure (or categories) of astroobjects. There should be a section for pages

7048:

Before we redesign the page again, we should probably think about what content we actually need there. Some suggestions I'm going to put in here: merge Intro, Scope and Goals into one section, get rid of the Structure section. The Links section doesn't seem to have much to do specifically with this

6523:

entries, since neither group may actually exist. However, I need to go through a laborious process to prove that they do not exist before I can put such a proposal forward.) Filaments, particularly the exact membership of filaments, may be even harder to identify. Knowledge should not attempt to

6092:

It looks like conference proceeding itself is from 2003 (relatively recent) but the comment on brown dwarf population does date from a 1999 paper (possibly a conference proceedings paper) by Neil Reid. Even though this does seem to endorse the idea that brown dwarfs outnumber normal stars, Reid is

5989:

Obvious galaxy groups and clusters should be included without question. Less studied groups should be included if they seem fairly well-defined. I wouldn't just dismiss problematic groupings, they should be mentioned somewhere (in individual galaxy articles, or in a some list of galaxy groups). And

4318:

open. If you have a moment, please could you take a look and see where else it could be improved to bring it up to FA-quality? (The French and German articles are already FA.) There's much more that could be included, but unfortunately the article size has passed the recommended ceiling. So some of

3785:

be desirable to sort by Greek alphabetizing rather than by English alphabetizing and I think we could do it by putting a number before the Greek letter in every category link. For example: ], ], and ]. But that would involve changing hundreds of pages and keeping them updated. Would it be worth the

3709:

Yes I agree it seems awkward sometimes to find images on wikimedia. Some of the category organizations are a little non-intuitive, at least to me. I'll often end up trying to drill down to the proper topic from the top level categories, rather than trying to do a search. But wikimedia is a separate

2514:

I've never liked the whole voting thing too much on collaborations. It seems to take up a lot of time and consign articles that 'lose' to ongoing mediocrity. How about everyone who's participating lists 5 articles they want to work on, and then we start with the article picked by the most people,

1957:

Again that looks nice, but at that distance and margin of error, I'm not clear how useful it is. I mean the error range is as large as the distance. Just rounding off the distance estimate and giving a tilde seems sufficient in most cases, I think. (But then I'm an old statistics dude, so there you

1687:

Looks like we agree to disagree then. I suspect that most users will only be interested in the distance estimate. The error term is extra upkeep that somebody will need to maintain. I know that when I get a new parallax for a star I am unlikely to go through and recompute the error on the distances

1653:

Above formula, of course, is only accurate for infinitesimally small error values. ;-) I obviously disagree with listing an error estimate for the distance when there is already an error estimate for the parallax. The error must then be propagated to four fields, rather than one, so it is redundant

339:

I think repeating the article's topic is not breaking any "rules". Remember, that the title is repeated at the beginning of the text in bold. I would prefer to keep the header, and I agree that it looks better "inside" the box. I disagree with having a color background "just because". Where it does

7083:

I'm not sure being able to do that is necessarily helpful. My experience is that the page doesn't get updated all that often, so splitting things up like this just means it is harder to add the project to your watchlist. Edit summaries serve perfectly well to state which topic is being dealt with.

6975:

What are these LEVELs? Do they really reflect the structure of what we are doing round here? Do they really need to be ALL CAPS? As far as I can tell, we don't really need the "Structure" section. And as for "Etheral, Dimension, all that crazy stuff!!!", I don't think I want. Maybe I'm getting old

6361:

Although I respect the concept, I lack the enthusiasm for working on peer review at the moment. Aside from simply wanting to expand many articles on important extragalactic objects beyond a few sentences, I am also busy working on other problems (such as deleting bad nicknames, moving articles to

5704:

I am uncertain these objects exist? I've only seen them in the Extrasolar.net forum. And the thread lead to the creation of those names, Grey Dwarf / Gray Dwarf. I've searched on Google and only found it in the Extrasolar and Knowledge and Hack sites of Knowledge. I'm asking that removing this

5516:

I have followed Hurricane Devon's edits for a while (after I found myself on his "to kill" list...literally) but have been unable to repair all the damage he created. The two issues you named, the dwarf barred spirals and the M104 group were both Devon's brainchildren so that probably should tell

4927:

were used; some people reading the Ananke article may think that Knowledge is referencing itself (although I can tell that it isn't). Besides, cutting and pasting refernces is not that difficult. I do it all the time. (I get a lot of mileage out of the Carnegie Atlas of Galaxies in my Knowledge

4443:

Whether some of these galaxies can be designated "primary" and "satellite" is not always clear. NGC 7752 is not much fainter or smaller in angular size than NGC 7753. If seen isolated in the field, it would not be called a dwarf galaxy. The case for NGC 1531 being the "satellite" of NGC 1532 is

3685:

Yes, I've had a few uploads get deleted even though I took the shots and loaded them under a Creative Commons license. The issue seems to be that wikipedia gets replicated quite a bit, including to commercial sites. So the image police are real sticklers for only including images with a definitive

2710:

I looked at the pages for Pluto and the Sun, and it just appears to be ephemeris data. I'm not sure that information that detailed is appropriate for an encyclopedia; so we'd probably get some complaints. Would we even care about occultations, say? Probably solar eclipses, transits of the Sun, and

2131:

Since there was no objection, I was "bold" and swapped in the new version of the astrometry template. Looks like this issue is resolved now. I've started updating a number of start pages to use the new template. (I.e. stripping out the distance fields so it defaults to the parallax computation.) —

1285:

Entirely agree with your statement that the project page is a turn off and with your suggestion to make it more attractive. Maybe we should (try to) define what we actually want to do (specific criteria for articles describing objects/classes of objects?). Admittedly, the aim for our articles goes

10277:

One of the problems with asteroid names, is that they are generally named after someone or something notable - and unless it is described as going to hit/pass very close to the Earth, or has been visited by spacecraft - the vast majority of minor planets virtually never appear in "popular" media.

7420:

I believe that maintain this list in synch with other articles will represent a lot of effort and the discrepancies will confuse the reader. In other words, to have an up-to-date list in one place seems a good idea at the time of the creation but a broad consensus is needed first as to why, what

6895:

I have created a new format for the main page of the project in order to try organizing the data and projects in a more efficient manner. Each box can be edited on its own, but the information can be better accessed by those wanting to only view that particular topic and not wade through pages of

6476:

page. I too would like a central place that lays out agreed-upon standards, and I think that such pages are needed before a peer review system is put in place. However, I would also argue that some of the infobox templates themselves need review and revision. (I personally would like to remove

5526:

You're right about the damage such editors can do. I never thought that making edits to astronomical articles would earn me death threats, but I can now count myself an alumnus of the Hurricane Devon "to kill" list. He's basically left a huge swathe of copyright violation, plagiarism and nonsense

3754:

The category links seem to vary between using numbers and superscript characters, which leads to poor ordering of articles in the list (take a look at the entries for the various Psi Aurigae stars to see what I mean). I suggest standardising on using the number characters for the links (primarily

1776:

Nice job. I did some playing around with the numbers and I think it's reasonably safe to say that the above formulation provides a decent approximation when the parallax error is at least an order of magnitude smaller than the measured parallax. It's when the error is of the same magnitude as the

10417:

templates: one for extended nearby clusters (where group boundaries, centers, and redshifts are hard to define) and one for Abell clusters, compact clusters, and distant clusters (where group boundaries, centers, and redshifts can be clearly defined). What do other people think? (Is anyone out

8889:

This leads to an issue of what people's opinions are on naming groups and clusters of galaxies. My personal preference is to treat them like proper nouns and to capitalize "group" and "cluster". After all, all words are capitalized for other place names that are proper nouns (such as "City" in

7585:

These distance problems make calculation of the physical radii and absolute magnitudes of galaxies difficult. Moreover, the distances in Knowledge are generally unreferenced, so it is not clear as to whether they even originate from a reliable (or up-to-date) source. However, I have additional

7437:

We have this page in wikipedia that attempts to categorize the various astronomical objects. But it looks like number of the links do not have pages yet, although they may exist under some other name. Also I'm not sure if some of the links are in need of a page. For example, some of the stars by

7158:

I'm not sure i understand the purpose of it. I don't have a huge issue with whatever format the page ends up at - i am trying to re-organize so it is more user friendly and easier to navigate. if my changed make it more difficult, i have no problem with others working on it. The best way to spur

6953:

It may be due to the way the boxes are all stacked in a single column on narrower width IE browsers. What I like to think of as the introduction box (with the pleiades image) is pushed way down to a later part of the page. In Mozilla the boxes overlap and collide with each other. It really looks

6396:

I would favor it. But, what really is strange is that the different languages of the same articles have different pictures. I suppose this peer review will only deal with the English (American/British/Australian) view. But, a good set of standards will be needed before the whole sha-bang. I

3841:

The ] links in the Psi Aurigae star articles appear to all be using superscripts. The reason the sort is incorrect is that numeric superscripts don't sort correctly in Unicode: the characters for superscripted 0, ..., 9 are U+2070, U+00B9, U+00B2, U+00B3, U+2074, U+2075, U+2076, U+2077, U+2078,

2762:

Article claims the planet has water clouds, contradicting Sudarsky et al. (2003) which suggests the planet would be cloudless, in favour of the popular website Extrasolar Visions. Habitable zone speculations unreferenced except for simplistic (and undocumented) calculations on Extrasolar Visions

1274:

Starting off this list made me think that actually the project front page here is not very instructive as to what articles the project actually works on - the lengthy displays of all the infoboxes are somewhat offputting. So I wondered what people would think about moving all that to a separate

154:

Enlarged font format may look fine in one browser but lousy in another, particularly if the name is overly long and expands the table excessively. There can be aesthetic issues with the color format of the other table rows, as well as cases where there is an image at the top. Finally the caption

9496:

more discussion and people working on the project, these categories and articles can only improve. I have started talks on many of the hypothetical planets asking for specific ideas on how we can make these articles better. Please visit them and leave feedback so wikipedia can continue to grow.

3676:

The new discussion on using images from journals prompted me to start this discussion. I have only been working on Knowledge for about a month, but I have now encountered a few general issues with using images in Knowledge that has become particularly frustrating from the standpoint of writing

2278:

Got edit conflict as I was saying that Hubble classification doesn't cover orientation! I don't see a need for categorising according to orientation. It will probably be mentioned in the article of the galaxy concerned, and I think that suffices. I wouldn't honestly see the need for articles

9701:

in the sky). If someone was motivated, they could study the history of the arbitrary assignment of importance to 1181 Lilith and place relevant information on the 1181 Lilith page. This would have to be done subtlely, however, so as to avoid giving the appearance of pushing a point of view.

8823:

Back to the topic: I would say that the names used for the articles should be names commonly accepted by the scientific community. Since I have been on Knowledge (and since HurricaneDevon has been gone), this has been handled rather nicely for stars, galaxies, nebulae, and star clusters. Two

7649:

I therefore recommend removing the "Radius" and "Absolute magnitude" from the Galaxy template. Their calculation and interpretation is simply very problematic, and their inclusion is not useful. I still recommend keeping "Distance" simply because distance measurements are easy to understand,

4544:

My vote would be in favor of splitting pairs into two seperate articles. As long as it is clearly noted in each article that the the galaxy in question is a member of a pair and there is a prominent link to the article regarding the companion galaxy, I don't see why this would be a problem. As

10247:

The reaction against the numbers is understandable. Most of the general public (any probably some professional astronomers like me) do not commonly see asteroids referred to by number (for example, we do not see the asteroid Vesta commonly referred to as "4 Vesta"). This still looks like an

7538:

The primary thing that bothers be in the template are the distance-related terms: the radius and the absolute magnitude. As it is, distances for most objects are difficult to calculate accurately. Many galaxies, particularly nearby galaxies, have their own individual motions relative to the

7242:

I think what would be good here is that things that are likely to change in the short-term e.g. rename/deleted article logs, worklists, etc. should be on the main page which is most likely to be watched by the largest number of people. Other things which are likely to remain in place for long

4419:

are two examples. In astronomical research, the two galaxies would still be treated as individual objects. They are given separate catalog numbers, and their optical disks are distinctly separated. They can even be researched as separate objects. (This is in contrast to something like the

3342:

for over a week. While, as of 16 Jul 2006, the article is still a work in progress, I would appreciate reviews of the article, with particular emphasis on the technical aspects of the article and the references. I am aware that I need to add some references (such as for the NGC 4618 entry).

1321:

Good start! I hope the 'goal' section will encourage people to add their goals, while of course not incompatible with the general wikipedia’s objectives, could go beyond. The section asks a simple question: why are we (I would expect a wealth of different answers) spending hours ‘stolen’ from

375:

I don't like the centred properties (e.g. Discoverer, Discovery date in the asteroid template), it looks messy. I'll agree that the heading is not prominent enough on the #2 style. Style #1 is ok (though it would be best to preview these in the context of an article to get an idea of how they

9886:

Unfortunately there is a lot of activity on wikipedia that seems pretty goofy at times. There are lunar craters with valid diacritic marks, and I don't think it would make sense to have them removed. The same should be true of any other astronomical objects; wherever the IAU sets the naming

7625:

The problem I have with the absolute magnitude is that it is hardly meaningful to most people except those who are very familiar with the magnitude system. The average reader cannot understand absolute magnitude. A quick survey of a few random articles that I have never (or hardly) edited

6677:. It is possible, I checked out the page, that it may be necessary to create sub-pages, but probably would be best to put them all on one page for now and see how it looks. Try your 4 groups, see if it makes sense, and then re-organize from there. Let me know if you want any help with it. -- 4169:

This looks like it is written for gravitational lenses within the Milky Way (things that the MACHO project would detect), not extragalactic gravitational lenses. Most of the parameters are not applicable in a scenario where a foreground galaxy (or a foreground cluster of galaxies) lenses a

7986:

If we do move the article to "giant planet" (not sure if I'd support such a move though), I still don't think we'd need separate articles for gas and ice giants... there isn't an official planetary classification system anyway: such systems are best left to science fiction writers for now.

7815:

Are there any other examples of subjects that occur in fiction that we can draw on? I doubt anything like space stuff. I think it is important to develop the standard - I don't know if I like the idea of including any actual text on the main article page. About the only place that would be

7799:

I think that a small (less than 1/4 article length) "in fiction" section is appropriate. If the section grows beyond this, a subarticle "X in fiction" should be created and split off. We should still retain the "in fiction" section in the main article, but keep it only to the most notable,

4424:, where the galaxies no longer have distinct, separate disks.) Therefore, as a general policy for people in the WikiProject Astronomical Objects, may I suggest that galaxy pair articles be split into separate articles until the galaxies themselves merge (in several hundred million years)? 5247:(including mine) use "Sombrero" in the title. I would support moves for M63, M83, NGC 3115, and NGC 5866 while taking a neutral stand or possibly opposing many of the others. (I personally like to refer to galaxies by their NGC number; I have problems remembering the Messier numbers for 9853:

Removing all diacritic marks from article titles does seem to conform to the "use English" policy, as diacritics are not part of the English language. (And the MPC list was designed to be transmitted via 7-bit ASCII, therefore not having diacritics, despite what Gene Nygaard thinks about

7359:

There's some redundancy, but mainly in the names. They present their information in a different manner, so they could probably be considered complementary to each other. I think the name of the list page is all wrong though, and it's liable to get moved to "List of solar system moons". —

6588:

I think there should be a page on this. When reading astronomical papers, a few instances where the paper does not define the acronyms. A person would probably come to Knowledge to search for it. I have a massive list, about 8 pages worth, of acronyms that I collected over the years.

2580:), that I've cut out or chopped down. I expect that I will be reverted, being as they are Trekkies who do this. The section exceeds in size and facts the size in a real SFU article. So we may need to pay attention to Trek-cruft in this article. I just wonder why they can't just make an 5807:

I will point out that smallest (in radius) does not have a one-to-one correspondence with least massive. Neutron stars are very small in radius yet they have a mass of 1.4-3.0 solar masses. However, I don't know if anyone is tracking neutron star radii (or any stars' radii except for

4789:

I just noticed that we don't seem to have mean orbital radius in the planet or minor planet infoboxes, and that they don't seem to appear in the articles themselves. It occurs to me that the average bloke would want to know this tidbit more than the semi-major or semi-minor axis size.

352:

with the same bgcolor (even if its grey) looks good to me. However, I feel that is just what I am most used to, not an objective design decision. It does certainly look bad, if there is nothing "in between" but filler space or the color changes (See both style #2 examples), though!!

8714:

knowledge. In other words, Knowledge is not here to present statistics and numbers but to present information that has meaning beyond the numbers. Besides, a transcription of all of the world's astronomical catalogs becomes silly after a while, especially for some things like the

5477:

Having said that, I would like to make a few gripes. First, it is incredible how much damage people can do to Knowledge. (HurricaneDevon was not the only person who invented galaxy names). I have spent a lot of time just renaming articles with stupid names ("Starfish Galaxy" for

6786:

That looks good. The information in the parentheses after each acronym("celestial object", for example) is a useful addition to the list. If you do not mind, I may comb through the list later and either revise some of the entries or delete some of the genuinely obscure acronyms.

2023:

If the expression evaluates to true then the parallax error is at least an order of magnitude less than the parallax and so the ± notation is a reasonable approximation. Otherwise don't bother with the ± and instead just indicate that the value is approximate. What do you think? —

8547:

The category page says, "This category serves as a reservoir of disproven galaxies, things whose status as galaxies is uncertain, and hypothetical galaxies." That seems overly broad and vague (which, given the jumble of stuff in the category, seems like an accurate assessment).

293:

Once that's done, and if its decided that it be kept, decide whether a TH cell with an all-column scope is a good idea. it goes against my gut instincts of what a TABLE should contain, but CAPTION is definitely the wrong markup (CAPTION should be a terse prose description of the

5237:

I originally made the requested move for M81 and M82 because those two galaxies' articles used obscure names for the article titles and because, after working with the galaxies for three years, I wanted to see them identified correclty. In contrast, some of the names listed by

321:

content, it looks like having a name of some sort is accepted practice, even though it's redundant and can seem a little silly (IMO). But I suppose the title at least has the benefit of clarifying any potential ambiguity if additional tables are added later. The examples in the

8551:

So, I am uncertain as to what to do with "Category:Uncertain galaxies"? What belongs in the category? What does not belong in the category? Do we need this category? Should we delete this category? (I am tempted to depopulate the category and then put it up for deletion.)

8183:

The list of users on the project page is handmade (I don't do the whole userboxes thing, and I'm on there). Hurricane Devon's been blocked multiple times, not surprising there are a few autoblock entries in there. See his talk page for an idea of what's been going on there.

2914:

When I first tried to import an image from the Digitized Sky Survey into Wikimedia, I was flustered by all the information i had to give to add an image. I'm going to try it again sometime when I have a lot of time, but it would be very helpful if someone wrote a "how-to"

5976:(but not limited to those groups), should either be deleted from Knowledge or statements should be placed in the entries describing the disagreement in the group identification (in which case the article tells readers that the group identification may not be very useful). 4882:

True, though when people discuss Pluto as (formerly) the ninth planet out from the Sun, they mean its mean orbital radius, and not its perihelion or aphelion. In my opinion, the general public generally likes to take an average, over trying to understand orbital dynamics.

2733:

Hello, I guess I'm back on the Knowledge again, though I am no longer actively editing articles. I've done a quick review of the articles dealing with multiple-planet systems (I may do a review of single-planet systems at a later stage). These are some of my observations.

4574:

page, the format seems to be all messed up down at the bottom. I'm not sure what happened, or if it's even anything we did. I looked way back in the history for that page and the same problem shows up. It might be a change in the wikipedia logic that is being used in the

9957:. Hopefully, Nygaard will focus his attention elsewhere (and learn how to spell my last name, which may not conform to Knowledge's "use English" policy). I am now happily working on revising some of the galaxy group pages and galaxy group categories. (Please see the 7790:

To keep all astronomical page good, I think any fiction items should be in the 'See also' at the bottom of each page. That way, we won't have a page that has more fiction item about the object vs. actual data. (object) in fiction. ie. Jupiter in fiction. Thanks,

8784:

I’m afraid we (at Knowledge/this project) will not be able to regulate the names for a few high-profile articles. The media frenzy on one hand and IAU are doing the job. Scientists with their "every Joe-friendly" interviews did not help either. I suggest we try to

7872:

That makes a lot of sense to me. Odds are that somebody who is interested in that material for a particular star would want to look up similar information for other stars. We can always just put a link to that page at the bottom of the appropriate star articles. —

3758:

Would it be better to organise Bayer designations in the constellation by order in the Greek alphabet rather than the order that the written-out Greek letters end up when sorted in the Roman alphabet? Not sure how this could best be accomplished, or if it would be

6998:

has remained on the "articles to expand" list in the information box, even though I expanded it somewhat since then. Maybe I should arbitrarily update this section? Also, should we check the members' list to make sure that everyone is still active in Knowledge?

2958:

Another part of the reason why I hesitated to insert DSS images into Wikimedia is because I did not know how much information to include on the image. For example, if I upload a POSS2/UKSTU Red image, I don't know if I would need to explain what POSS2 and UKSTU

2647:

I tried to bring this page up toward Good level, yet I can't help but feel that it could stand a bunch more improvements. It's currently undergoing a peer review and had some suggestions, but nothing of an astronomical nature. If you fancy a gander, the PR is at

8024:

in different ways, sometimes they are distinct groups, sometimes, ice giant is a subgroup of gas giant. Seeing as our article is at gas giant, and there being a diversity of opinion on whether gas giants cover ice giants or not, and the fact that ice giants are

263:

I would assume that the new style would also apply to Minor Planet. The Name inside the infobox (in bold, standard font) makes sense and looks good to me. To make the boxes more homogenous (and avoid a direct background colour clash) I would suggest taking the

2524:

That's essentially what we are doing now, though perhaps those listed articles that don't become the collaboration of the week would not be removed from the Collaboration of the week list (or we could list articles for several weeks based on a monthly vote.

181:

I had a look through the other WikiProjects to see how they are handling the same issue with their Infoboxes. The convention seems to be to include the title within the borders, in bold font (not enlarged), and using the color background theme of the box. —

5315:

have Sombrero in the title (about 50 in ADS by my count), and of those a little over half don't mention NGC 4594 or M104 in the title. My opinion is that Sombrero is in the same category as Andromeda: I'd support a move but leaving it where it is would be

4612:

I think it is a wikipedia issue. I can also read the table if i edit one of the sections. But if you edit the page as a whole, every table after Uranus in the Solar System is not viewable. It might be necessary to break the tables up onto different pages.

5287:

of the messier object articles to the format: "Messier x" for the sake of consistancy. If no one likes that idea, then I would say keep M64, M103, M63, and M31 as they are now because their common names are used more frequently than the catalog numbers.

5758:? It seems like there would be a lot of overlap. Also is anybody else bothered by the term "lightest star"? It seems ambiguous and it describes the name in terms of weight rather than mass. "List of least massive stars" seems preferable. (In which case 6811:], APMM is a goof. I use Simbad to answer the catalogs. Also, the list is of acronyms that I have are when I come to it in astronomical research paper & news sites. So, I am not physically searching for them, they are the ones that I bump into. 3750:

Can we clarify whether we want to be using designations of the form Mu2 Cancri or Mu-2 Cancri in article titles? Looks like the majority of articles are in the first form, but before I go on a page moving spree I'd like to get the community's view on

4900:

Currently, the individual articles/stubs on irregular moons of giants planets are typically without refs. I wondered if instead of painfully adding (usually the same) refs we could insert links instead, pointing to the reference sections of relevant

2691:

I would like to alert this community to the fact that Wikisource has decided to delete all reference data, some of which may be of interest to this project. This raises the question of whether some of this material should be hosted at Knowledge. See

6118:

expounded directly below? Shouldn't the information at the beginning of the section be weeded into the definitions below? Seems like redundancy to me. Or, they should be put into a table like under the Morgan-Keenan spectral classification table. --

5948:

The problem is that Tully, Garcia, Fouque et al., and Huchra & Geller do not all agree with each other very well on the identification of groups or group membership. Moreover, NED and SIMBAD do not agree with each other, as I described above.

289:

Decide whether we even need these extraneous headers. The page already has a H1 element of the same name. This is just a duplication of that data and provides no additional information. (Though on pages with multiple boxes maybe this would not be

4969:

For some of the content, I fail to see where it comes from, or it seems at odds with the current sources. Should we delete this part of the content? (the info could be correct at the time of the edit but the original author failed to provide the

117:

to try out a new look, which I think is an improvement (though I'm not sure whether the increased font size is really necessary). What does anyone think of it? If other people like it, the other infoboxes could be converted to the same style.

1679:

1. Users may not know that distance is derived from parallax; or, they may not care to take the trouble to calculate the probable distance error; or, Knowledge may provide a distance which is not parallactic but found some other way (e.g., for

9978: 7747:

The only problem I see is that the Rename/Delete log has to be watched (instead of the WikiProject page) to catch the updates. Other than that, I would stick to updating the Rename/Delete log. Are people here wise enough to figure this out?

7059:

Another point to consider is if we want the sections to be held in external templates. Doing this means that people who only watch the WikiProject page itself do not get updated if someone adds items to the various deletion/rename/etc lists.

9235:

has been removing all categories (parents) from many categories recently (see his history and "remove cats" edit summaries). It would appear that some article fixing may be mecessary. AFAIK, Knowledge requires that categories have parents.

5498:

exist; I certainly cannot find anything credible using Google. I might just ask a dwarf galaxies expert (i.e. Fabian Walter) for an opinion and then get the article deleted. Even more difficult is trying to figure out what to do with the

1461: 6524:

even create pages on individual filaments (if such objects have been identified), nor should an infobox be created. The creation of pages on such tenuous scientific results damages Knowledge's ability to function as a credible reference.

5527:

over the Knowledge. Fortunately, his spelling and grammar are so atrocious that it is instantly possible to tell when he's been doing copypaste jobs. I'd suggest that people be on the lookout for his edits - I've already had to revert the

3686:

source and no licensing issues. (Public domain is best.) I've had no problems using NASA images with the proper license, but there seem to be objections to the ESA license (so I've stayed away from using the SMART-1 shots, for example). —

3202:

There should be some prevalent fixed sets of stars used, since they were used for navigation, it would not help if each astrogator used different stars, and everyone got lost. The post Greco-Roman Arab sources should probably have some.

2827:

Article is inconsistent in its use of Mu and μ (written out as opposed to symbol). Infoboxes contain calculated temperature values from Extrasolar Visions and theoretical radii, without any indication that these are not measured values.

7386:

Wow wow wow, let me just catch up here, I don't have alot of time on my hands, so I can't complete this as quickly as I liked. Yeah ok, its a bit on the downside, but once I've completed it I change that format like you've suggested --

7578:, who used the "graininess" of the galaxy's bulge to estimate a distance. Both Ford et al. and Ajhar et al. calculated distances of about 9.2 Mpc, which is much lower than the values calculated using the Hubble law. (The referee for 3402:

What is the standard for arranging "External links", "See also", and "References" sections? I thought that it would be more logical for "References" to follow "External links", but I am new to Knowledge, so I could very easily be

6539:

as a main page, with links to the different types of boxes? If so, maybe we could move this part of the conversation to the talk page over there. I will prepare a sample main page for viewing sometime this evening if time permits

9137: 5218:

I support a renaming on all but perhaps the Sombrero as that is a widely used name. Having said that, renaming them would make the common name a redirect anyways so I can see renaming all to be the best option for consistency's

5322:

Of the 2,826 articles in ADS that mention M33, 528 have M33 in the title and only 10 have Triangulum in the title. Only one has Triangulum in the title without also having M33 in the title. I still recommend moving Triangulum.

7376:

Agree with RJH - plus, why the "3 of 63" "4 of 63" etc? THat seems a bit distracting. I think it would be more effective to have the first line for each planet have the # of moons, and just the number of the moon in each box.

9127: 9112: 7609:

simply have no clearly defined shape, and therefore application of a radius seems strange. (Some even clearly extend beyond the radii commonly given in various catalogs.) Second, most galaxies do not have sharp edges. The

1691:...unless there is some way to automatically derive/update the values through a macro or automated task, which there may be... ...I checked and it looked like we may be able to cook up something using the methods listed on " 6034:

There is a section called "Spectral types for rare stars". I beleive that spectral type L and T should move out, since brown dwarf out number normal stars, these objects are not rare obejects. What do you think? Thanks,

4527:

the current name seems fine to me, but just listing it under the primary works as well. The other naming scheme I found in the ghits was HD 80606-HD 80607. But that seems like an unlikely search expression for wikipedia. —

2440:, it seems like one way to help improve these articles would be to start a "Collaboration of the Week/Fortnight" here at WP:ASTRO. This would be modeled on the some of the many great collaborations here on Knowledge, like 10021: 10005: 9048:. I have ultimately decided to go replace the galaxy template with the template that I created on 20 Sep 2006, although I would have preferred more feedback. Please let me know if you strongly disagree with my actions. 8732:

Wherever possible I'd use categories rather than lists, unless you are presenting additional information other than a series of links. Knowledge is already awash in lists and they are difficult to maintain and validate. —

5517:

you a lot about the validity of the terms. The dwarf spirals "article" doesn't serve any purpose right now even if it is a legitimate term because there is only a listing of 3 galaxies there. Ripe for AfD right now imho.--

6070: 5627:

I agree that you should not have immediately deleted HurricaneDevon's edits. It's best to leave them alone until you can prove that their incorrect. Once you know that his information is invalid, then you should delete

1982: 1911: 128:

The style was different from the standard form being used for the other AO templates. I believe a consensus is needed before such arbitrary style changes are imposed. For now I've reverted it. The suggested look is here:

8129:

The term ice giant is becoming systematic in TNO papers recently given the problem of the ‘standard model’ to explain the origin of Neptune and Uranus. However, the popular term gas giant is still fine for all 4, IMHO.

7467:

are only one of the most important processes in the universe). In galaxies (my expertise), I would keep all red links except "ultracompact dwarfs". I would also keep dust disks, which could be renamed "debirs disks".

6379:. I think a peer review system should be enacted, but one that covers all space topics, not just Astronomical Objects. I think a standard should eventually be enacted within the metaproject. For now, I think regular 2949:. This does not quite fit any of the licensing options that Wikimedia offers in their pull-down menu. I also do not know how many details about the copyright need to go into the permissions in the text description. 9403: 9399: 9175: 9122: 6601:

should create the page. This could also be a useful guide for creating redirects or additions to disambiguation pages. Could someone who is familiar with Knowledge naming conventions suggest a good article title?

8789:

the content of the articles i.e. keep it compatible with the objectives of Knowledge, try to limit the gossip and keep the facts straight. I believe adding 6-digit number in front of all occurrences of Pluto is as

3875:

One thing I'm concerned about when using unicode to do the superscripts is whether all the numeric superscripts are commonly supported: 1, 2 and 3 definitely are, but as far as I know the other numbers may not be.

2990:

If you're using images from the DSS for research, teaching purposes and other non-profit activities, you may use them freely, and we only request that you acknowledge the source. Commercial applications require a

2252:

is already covered in the Sb, Sc, etc classification system (though I could well be completely wrong here). Yes, I was wrong, the S classification for spiral galaxies does not include any orientation information.

2098: 9994: 9364: 9117: 8534:

These objects have little in common with each other. Mayall II and Omega Centauri are clusters that the Knowledge pages claim might be the cores of dwarf galaxies. Andromeda IV is probably a star cloud in the

8483:, started looking up the individual entries and deleting the link to the category if the individual objects if they did not seem to resemble M102. (M102 is the thing in the Messier Catalog that could be either 5510: 4513:

Same thought as galaxy pairs for binary star systems, such as Sirius (Sirius B redirects to Sirius, make the primary or lower numbers star the main article and redirect the seconday or higher number star to it)

297:

Only then can we faf around with what colours to make it. IMHO the Eros box looks good with a yellow top, but the Orion Nebula box didn't look good with a red top. The nebula box doesn't look good at all to be

6634:

Maybe you can rewrite that webpage to improve its organization before Wikifying it? Some sections did not have headers, some links at the top of the page were broken, and the organization did not make sense.

155:

format is a widely accepted form for HTML tables, when it is included at all. (Personally I'd be all for getting rid of the name field altogether as it is redundant with the page title and text.) Thanks. :) —

9266:

has been reverting the CFR templates on the hypothetical objects categories. (which RandomCritic seems to subsequently delete all categories from, fracturing the heirarchy and making it hard to find things).

8384:

I have replaced the template. Most of the pages that use the template now look a little messy (because they are missing some information, including RA and Dec). Hopefully, this can be cleaned up over time.

7349:

page. Would someone else like to take a look and offer an opinion? If this turns out to require some sort of administration action, I would prefer that someone else do it. (Both pages also need references.)

5637:

While HurricaneDevon is a source of frustration, his actions have also served as a valuable lesson for me. I look to his work to see what he has done wrong, and then I endeavor not to repeat his mistakes.

4170:

background source. Maybe you can clarify the types of objects that this template may be applied to? (I don't want to see lots of pages on clusters of galaxies with weak lensing that include this template.)

2919: 5803:

I suppose "least massive" and "most massive" would be best. I did notice that both the "smallest stars" and "lightest stars" lists were created by the same person (or at least guest users with the same IP

3700:

2. Searching for astronomical images in the Wikimedia commons is very difficult. I often receive hundreds of undesired results and only one or two usable results. Searching for an optical image of M73 or

10290:

links directly to the goddess. The minor planet articles generally have to be disambiguated. Besides, it'd be a huge task to change a few thousand article titles, and countless thousands of links to them!

3087:

is being PRODed (up for quick and silent deletion). If anyone thinks it's worth having a deletion debate on, I suggest you change it from PROD to AfD. Or if its worth saving, just delete the PROD message.

1290:

in the bigger scheme of things but I’ve already argued otherwise. Finally, some brief review of the typical structure of an article in a given category would be useful, so we all play from the same sheet.

6012:

It sounds like other people want the groups left in Knowledge. I will do that for now. If I think a group page can be deleted, I'll do it on a case-by-case basis, but only later after I discuss it with

2269:(making clear that this is a random orientation thing), and then just linking the term from the respective articles? Or are there too many for that to work? :-) (Yes, I know there are a lot of galaxies). 248:

preference for having the title inside or outside the box, but I'm not entirely sure using the caption as a title outputs semantic HTML (I'd suspect table header cells are more correct for this purpose).

9352: 9340: 5447: 2061: 1172: 704: 9080: 5906:. This paper only has ~30 citations according to ADS abstracts, so it probably is not as accepted. Someone (possibly HurricaneDevon) may have found a list of groups of galaxies based on this list at 4622:

And by the way - I am going to play around with utilizing this format for other project type pages - I like the possibilities of laying out necessary work and organization in a good table like this. --

4155:

Here's a mockup of a template which could be used for gravitational lensing events involving stars. Might be useful for things such as articles on microlensing planets. Column labels and data from the

3894:

I've seen it listed both ways, as well as yet another format that used a space separator. I think the later form may be clearer, but I don't really have a strong preference—as long as it's consistent.

10120: 10014: 9156: 7965:

as well as other non-Knowledge pages still calls Uranus and Neptune "gas giants" even while acknowledging the icy composition. I do not think a move is warranted, but feel free to disagree with me.

6444:

Whether we call it standards or four-paragraph guidelines I feel we need them to make sure that the result makes sense, is up to date and can be reviewed... i.e. compared against the very standards.

5428:

spectra, not actual images? Or am I misinterpreting the "resynthétisé par Visual Spec"? That would explain that they are not protected by copyright, since the author has released the image, maybe...

1719: 8195:

Ok. I had a notion it might be made by bot, if it were, the list would be out-of-date and would indicate that had such a bot existed, it was not running. As such is not the case, everything's fine.

5983: 9091: 6775:

OK, I have 0-9,A,& B done. Tell me what you think. I tried to link the acronyms to the proper articles as much as possible. It also shows that we may have to create a few articles. Thanks,

1405:

Following this generally positive reception I've gone ahead and moved the temp page to the main page, and all the template information to a sub-page linked from the main page. Hope it looks OK!

10143: 10038: 6796:

OK, but about delete obscure ones. Let me know, if you need citation. I'll look for it. Some of those obscure ones I find time-to-time and have a hard time looking up of what they are. Thanks,

5283:

I would support moving a few of those, especially M83 and M33. I don't have a problem moving all the others as well but if we are going to do that, it seems like it would then make sense to move

2894: 9440: 7353: 5926:) that also identified galaxy groups, but these are much older papers. NED also recognizes these papers' groups, although I do not know that the groups designations can be used as search terms. 4716: 8151:

is on the list of members... but since his user page was replaced with a block notice, that would preclude him from having a userbox showing membership... is that list bot created or handmade?

5929:

Additionally, a few papers since the Garcia paper have also identified groups, but they tend to be specialized on specific types of groups (loose groups, compact groups, etc). Giuricin et al. (

8662:

Oh yeah, there has to be a minimum amount of that object. Ie. if there is only 8 known, that does not validate to have a list page. So, what would be the minimum number of objects? Thanks,

8276:. I would be grateful for any comments from this group. I intend to action George's comments and add a Star Chart to the Herschel page, in a similar format to the Messier/Caldwell ones, see 5912: 10086: 9873: 9393: 8413: 7425: 1254: 9408: 9379: 6772:. When I click to edit the page, it does not list anything for me to add a link. I'm not sure how to write it in. As for the grouping, I'll probably change to alphanumeric and add a tag. 2704: 1917:

to provide asymmetrical error ranges. For example, {{Starbox begin | name=Test star}}{{Starbox astrometry experimental asymmetric |parallax=3.02|p_error=1.28}}{{Starbox end}} will produce:

10339: 8874:

I just wanted to ask about naming groups and clusters of galaxies. The current convention seems to have been developed by HurricaneDevon, who seems to have used the convention applied by

8556: 8314:

Talking to George this is generally not accurate, or not cited. I've pulled all of the distances from Stephen James O'Meara, The Caldwell Objects ISBN0521827965, or from Knowledge itself.

5819:

I would also like to point out that any least massive star list will run into the problem that the difference between large gaseous planet and very small star becomes very ambiguous. The

4855: 8328: 7731: 7547:

cannot be easily applied to calculate distances. Moreover, the is still uncertain to 10%-15%. Calculating distances is therefore difficult, and careful measurements need to be made.

6280:

I have moved a number of other objects to their NGC/IC numbers, including some with valid "common" names that are not that widely used. Other's were just silly like the Pac Man Nebula.--

2617: 1341:

I'd suggest making the current WPAO page be a "main article" from the templates section of the new page, renaming appropriately. Otherwise it looks like an excellent start. Thanks. :) —

10260: 10196: 9798:

because the Minor Planet Center's list does not include the accent mark (probably for technical reasons). Anyhow, this all seems goofy, and I thought other people would be interested.

9316: 6071:

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:j0qcXs2LB18J:origins.colorado.edu/cs12/proceedings/oral/tuesday/hawleys_3xx.pdf+%22brown+dwarf%22+outnumber&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=8

1234: 9623:

That sounds like a good idea to me. A lot of catalogs could use similar redirects, since users are prbably not going to remember whether specifically to use "catalog" or "catalogue".

6994:'s efforts to reorganize the project page, which had become messy. What I would like to see is that some of the information is updated. For example, since joining Knowledge in June, 5103: 4238:. I've opposed it on the talk page, because it's far more likely someone is looking for a real honest to god star than the novel, IMHO. I think Variable Star should either redirect to 3651: 10442: 9869: 8423: 8389: 6830: 6791: 6639: 6104: 6017: 3823: 1409: 1279: 10231: 10058: 9858: 9627: 9582: 8947: 8850: 8118: 8090: 7991: 7969: 7943: 7929: 7247: 7237: 7153: 7140: 7127: 7101: 7040: 7024: 7003: 5544: 5535: 4207: 4174: 2911:). The copyright information on the STScI website says that the images can be used in non-profit ventures like Knowledge, so importing images from the website to here should be OK. 10044: 9728: 9075: 8968:

may disagree with this change. Does anyone else have any comment? If I receive no other negative feedback by 28 Sep 2006, I will update the template. (Next template: Supernovae)

8864: 8778: 8199: 8188: 8045: 7064: 6702:. A page named "Astronomy acronyms" would be expected to primarily a discussion page. If it is named "Astronomy acronyms", you can expect somebody at some point to rename it. :-) — 5952:

Therefore, my opinion is that Knowledge should not list galaxy groups except for a few clearly idenitified ones that have been very carefully studied. These exceptions include the

5671: 5642: 5601: 5099:. "Bode's Galaxy" and "Cigar Galaxy" may be accepted names, but in my opinion they are not as commonly used as M81 or M82. Please go to the talk pages for each galaxy and comment. 4482:

I would say this is a good case to just do it - split the galaxies into separate articles and reference each one in the other. I don't think anyone will have a problem with that. --

3130: 1223: 10270: 10219: 10206: 9457: 8468: 8134: 7210: 5657: 5033: 4944: 2154:

Pages linked from the following lists have been updated to use the new template by removing the distance estimates and allowing the template to compute distance from the parallax:

1978:

as large as the distance and I think it's good for people to know that. It would be useful to make clear how large the uncertainty is in an accurate and consistent way and I think

10098: 9706: 9218: 8802: 7915: 6490:

Infobox is a must. But recommend that the colors change. Rocky planets = brown, icy = blue, gas planet = gray. I think most people interpret the colors this way. (Rock/Ice/Mist)

5268:

I'd oppose moving Sombrero Galaxy, Triangulum Galaxy and Whirlpool Galaxy since they are quite well known. I don't really know enough about the others to have an opinion on them.

5073: 5051: 5017: 4917: 3379:

This doesn't really address your concern, but you can use the same reference multiple times by using a named reference. Thus for the first reference: <reference name="ned": -->

3224: 3102: 3065: 2289: 1326: 1308: 1295: 272: 8376: 3880: 3870: 3616: 3599: 3586: 3540: 3189: 3113: 2907:

to get free black-and-white images of the night sky. This would be a valuable asset to use in creating images for Knowledge pages of less-than-famous night sky objects (such as

2529: 2487: 10295: 10241: 9389: 7699: 7682: 7145:

I now understand. Implementing subst: would change the way that the page functions. I am in favor of it; I do not like the current subpages approach. However, you should get

6324: 6303: 6294: 5892:. I have known about this since I was a graduate student. These are commonly accepted, although I do not know that NED or SIMBAD can be used to search for specific NBG groups. 5868: 5521: 3580:

Materials from the journals may not be recompiled, manipulated, used to prepare derivative works, or published in another format without prior written permission from the Press.

3412:

I am unable to recreate your problem with the image layout on my web browsers, so I invite you to change the layout of the images so that it will appear better in your browser.

3247: 3172: 2304: 2283: 2256: 132:, which changes the font style and includes the name within the table box. Note that this may have a negative impact on the appearance of some of the other templates. Thanks. — 8457: 7566:) recalculated the distance assuming a slightly different Hubble constant and determined a distance of 13.7 Mpc. However, both of these distances were inaccurate according to 3830: 3207: 3092: 2246: 253: 10326: 10093: 9513: 9428: 8961: 8355: 8242: 7288:

must be tested! I personally don't see what's wrong with using Wikicode to format the page! Keep the project infobox and then use == and other headings to structure the page.

5382: 5327: 5263: 5213: 4300: 3934: 3629: 3275: 2519: 2500: 2233: 380: 9898: 9069: 9032: 9000: 8744: 8577: 7884: 7752: 7742: 7661: 7516: 7495: 7471: 7371: 7163: 6751: 6681: 6481: 6366: 6122: 5827: 5360: 5272: 5228:

Agree with Kalsermar - rename them all, you can always use redirects. Of course, that begs the question - why does it matter, if we are just going to use redirects anyway? --

4957: 4857:? I'm not sure the mean orbital radius is all that useful in the cases of high eccentricity. The body isn't going to be spending all that much time at that radius. Thanks. — 4607: 4477: 4438: 4215: 3790: 3444: 3416: 3393: 2972: 2936: 233: 10387: 10360: 9654:

But this article has problems. My personal view is that the astrology section should be deleted, as it is not in relation to this asteroid, but to a concept in astrology...

8940: 8174: 8165: 8161:

Looks like there is some autoblock issue with his account. I htink the block was created by hand originally and then removed, but the bot got him. Is that what you mean? --

7852: 7820: 7308: 7292: 7187: 7173: 7088: 7078: 7070:

to learn about those, they choose not to watch the template for that. The whole point of the templates is that information that may be related to multiple projects, such as

5994: 4887: 4868: 4549:

says, components of galaxy pairs can have drastically different properties and explaining this would be easier with seperate pages for each. Plus, an article with the title

4539: 4518: 4246: 4197: 4187: 3919: 3358: 2888: 2722: 2634: 2425: 2273: 1391: 1366: 1345: 1244: 169: 159: 149: 136: 9973: 9880: 9840: 6606: 4953:

Agree with George J. Bendo. Each reference should be included in the article. Not so difficult to cut and paste, and the less redirecting to get information, the better. --

4400: 4278: 3666: 3509: 2871: 2852: 2509: 2496:. Not much to it right now, just an port of the Tropical Cyclones collaboration page with some elements from the Japan collaboration of the week page. But its a start. -- 2478: 1640: 1621: 1604: 9302: 7831:

than the actual astronomy content. But in most cases the fiction section is fairly brief, so moving that type of content elsewhere may require some judicious merging. The

6550: 6544: 6463: 4658: 4638: 4379: 3806: 1575:{\displaystyle \delta d=\delta \left({1 \over \pi }\right)=\left|{\partial \over \partial \pi }\left({1 \over \pi }\right)\right|\delta \pi ={\delta \pi \over \pi ^{2}}} 9558: 9479: 6312:

I had to go through the "Requested Move" page. Please go vote on the moves. Note that, to make life complicated, a two-month-old "merge article" notice is still on the

5292: 4434:

Are all galaxy pairs primary and satellite? If so I would suggest the main galaxy be given the article and the secondary galaxy be given a redirect to the main galaxy. --

3470: 3323: 3310: 2557: 2071: 1969: 1952: 1902: 1846: 1796: 1729: 1658: 8906: 7327: 5223: 4557: 4163: 3813: 3732: 3264: 3256: 2380: 2356: 2347: 2216: 1613:

The formula is not beyond criticism even for the Hipparcos data. However, any reasonable error estimate is better than no estimate. If a naïve user sees a figure like

330: 9935: 9911: 7961:

Neptune's volume appears to be mostly hydrogen and helium gas, even though the mass is mostly "ices", so they can still be considered "gas giants" in some ways. Also,

7508:

I think one of my comments was misinterpreted; I was unclear in what I wrote. I will put "Gamma ray bursts" back in, but I will leave out all the other stuff that was

6131:

Unfortunately, I cannot find any paper with this claim or speculation. I just remembered it from some article that was either from spaceflightnow.com or spaceref.com.

5796: 3243:

page only shows the Big Dipper. Ideally this should be changed to one of the patterns representing the great bear. I'm not sure how to go about changing this though. --

3220:

With Ursa Major, I've been taught that the Big Dipper is only part of it... like Orion's Belt, and such, a portion of a larger constellation. (or the split Argo Navis)

1892: 1771: 1590: 1429: 1362:

Do you mean make the current page a subpage, linked to from a new main page? That's what I had in mind for it, so we still have all the details of all the infoboxes.

9485: 9211: 7396: 6355: 6060: 5432: 357: 94: 10076: 9052: 8972: 7206:

When George is keeping an eye on the big picture I hope we'll still have a section related to our solar system, the satellites, other rocks and dirty snow balls :) .

5783: 5773: 5232: 4386: 1992: 122: 10383: 9607: 9596: 9509:

has been deleting category for deletion, category for renaming, and category for merging notices. I have placed a comment on his talk page about these activities.

9420: 8927: 8916: 7762: 7381: 7317: 6965: 6948: 6928: 6722: 6713: 6571: 6557: 6448: 6387: 5862: 5066: 5040: 5023:

If you find unreferenced Knowledge content that is contradictory to your references, delete it. It is a disservice to everyone to leave such information on the web.

4674: 4626: 4617: 4486: 4428: 4347: 2680: 2366: 2143: 1880:

2. Providing a help page on the infobox is a good idea, but it is not a substitute for making the infobox self-explanatory. Most users will not read the help page.

1671: 1218: 86: 81: 69: 64: 59: 9658: 3462:

I've found a few potential issues with the current article nomenclature for the components of the PSR B1620-26 system - I've summarised the points on the article's

3297: 2588: 2468: 2223: 365:

Quick opinions: either of the new styles is better than the current setup, but I think the name looks too plain in Style #1, and it blends in too much in Style #2.

10379: 10189: 9966: 9197: 8397: 6883: 3805:

Yes, I would prefer that option. On another note regarding the organization of the category; given the current size, would it be an idea to split this cat up into

2493: 2125: 2035: 7582:

directed me to references that led me to Ford et al. and Ajhar et al. when I used the SINGS distance of 13.7 Mpc. I now think that 9.2 Mpc is more appropriate.)

5590: 3595:

Ok, probably I'll avoid uploading those then... just a question, how would these terms apply to numerical data in articles (e.g. orbital elements of exoplanets?)

311: 10375: 9962: 8247: 5915:] (or a similar page on that website) and used it to create Knowledge's group pages. NED and SIMBAD do not recognize the Fouque catalog (as best as I can tell). 5694: 4760: 4647:

templates then, rather than using the wikimedia parser functions? I'm guessing there may be a limit to how much of that code can be included on a single page. —

4550: 4412: 2686: 2326: 201: 10422: 9252: 9240: 7667:

I support adding Parsec units to the Galaxy template (like is done already for cluster template) since Parsecs are the unit of choice for professional astonomy.

5061:. As I’ve just read about templates’ definition this morning (!) I’d greatly appreciate comments from the experienced wikigurus. The example of application is 3721: 369: 10439: 10431: 10419: 10321: 10257: 10216: 10193: 10055: 9970: 9877: 9837: 9725: 9703: 9624: 9579: 9510: 9478:, which he subsequently emptied. But, by decision of the CFD back in July 2006, it was decided that "Moons" was the preferred naming for these categories. See 9454: 9215: 9049: 9029: 8969: 8944: 8903: 8847: 8720: 8553: 8465: 8420: 8410: 8386: 8373: 8273: 8148: 8111:

Definitely I agree that using the term "gas giant" for Uranus and Neptune is not incorrect. However, scientists do refer to them as "ice giants" as well (e.g.

8087: 7966: 7926: 7866: 7863: 7749: 7728: 7696: 7658: 7513: 7468: 7350: 7234: 7150: 7124: 7098: 7037: 7010: 7000: 6827: 6788: 6636: 6603: 6527: 6478: 6419: 6363: 6321: 6291: 6101: 6057: 6014: 5980: 5824: 5639: 5541: 5507: 5308: 5260: 5100: 5030: 4941: 4877: 4604: 4596: 4546: 4474: 4425: 4171: 3729: 3413: 3355: 3099: 2969: 2916: 2408: 10316: 7808: 6212: 390: 10435: 10336: 10041: 10018: 10002: 9855: 9604: 9555: 9417: 9299: 9281: 9268: 9249: 9237: 8936: 8924: 8861: 8825: 8775: 8723: 8593: 8474: 8239: 8196: 8185: 8171: 8155: 8152: 8115: 8042: 7988: 7957: 7940: 7912: 7805: 7289: 7244: 7219: 7170: 7137: 7114: 7094: 7085: 7061: 7050: 7033: 7021: 6977: 5654: 5532: 5357: 5269: 4884: 4791: 4702: 4504: 4376: 4297: 4204: 4160: 3877: 3827: 3764: 3663: 3596: 3537: 3467: 3272: 3169: 3127: 3110: 2868: 2832: 2614: 2585: 2516: 2484: 2457: 2445: 2405: 2280: 2243: 2212: 1406: 1363: 1305: 1276: 1251: 386:

It seems that opinions on the three formats are all over the map, even on just the header style. I'm not seeing a clear consensus emerging, unfortunately. —

377: 250: 166: 146: 119: 7313:

That looks really tight. I like it a lot. I am a fan of the boxes to clearly delineate separate subjects and it brings a more organized look to the page. --

7297:

I made some revisions to the page that fixes my format problems while preserving the layout. Please let me know if the modified look is an issue. Thanks. —

6864: 5418: 4507: 2945:

The specific things that I do not know how to fill in are the licensing and permission. The copyright information for the Digitized Sky Survey (DSS) is at

8886:

convention (where "group" and "cluster" are capitalized). Today, I double checked the ADS Abstract Service and discovered that the two conventions exist.

7707: 6666: 6578: 6536: 6473: 6455: 5727: 5668: 5598: 4243: 3767: 2593: 2220: 9284: 9271: 8673:

It would be better to carefully improve one of the existing lists than create several new lists that will need heavy revision later. Why not work on the

1304:. What does anyone think? Re the list contents, more is better - TNOs are not my area of expertise so what I put there originally was just the basics. 9482: 9437: 9088: 8857: 7456: 7013: 4571: 3495: 3488: 3221: 3204: 1268: 8984:

I've never understood the point of the "notable features" field in the galaxy infobox. Couldn't that optional field just be covered by the main article?

8597:

is not be a priority at the moment. I'm just asking to see if there are any takers for helping me. As always, I'll try to site references mostly from

7780: 7222: 7117: 7053: 6980: 6299:

I think a fast move is in order. I circumvented the Requested Move page as I see no controversies if people here on this wikiproject are in agreement.--

5730: 3364:

It looks pretty good. Some of the images are jumbling up the formatting a bit, at least in my somewhat narrow browser window. You might try inserting a

3148: 276:

Could someone provide such a modified Minor Planet example, please?. I tried but while I can read HTML I haven’t got a handle on the 'wiki dialect' yet.

10183: 10178: 10169: 10140: 10090: 10073: 9779: 9717: 9655: 9523: 9500: 9194: 6857: 4794: 4723: 4365: 3186: 3089: 2925:

The "Upload file" page on wikimedia seems pretty comprehensive to me. Nowadays I just use their "Information" template and it works out pretty well. —

2610: 326:

are all over the map in terms of header format (including borders, coloration, cell spacing, &c) with style #2 below being somewhat more common. —

10026: 6284: 3484:

article and was wondering why it wasn't listed at the top of the "solar system" section of the worklist. It seems this article just can't get noticed!

2663: 2546:

Some of the other collaboration groups use the helpful technique of posting updates on "members" talk pages. That might be useful in the short run. —

2219:. I was wondering if we should be categorizing galaxies by orientation? (Edge-on, face-on and other, are the only three I can think of at the moment) 302:

I would say that the tables shouldn't have a header at all, since the H1 element of the page provides that. Thus points 2 and 3 don't apply anyway. —

5078: 4705: 4289: 3145: 2835: 2581: 2353: 1699:

Starboxes; one of which calculates the distance field and error based on the parallax values. In that event my objection would be partly resolved. —

1259: 10227:

I just wish that some of them actually knew anything about astronomy - there's a bizarre reaction against MPC numbers that I find incomprehensible.

7589:

Applying physical radii to galaxies is simply inappropriate, and few professional astronomers ever do this. First of all, only disk galaxies (i.e.

6944:

page so I can see it. Plus, do you have feedback on the actual layout? This is a preliminary as I figure out what tasks need the most focus, etc. --

4779: 2693: 2623:

I think I rather have to agree with the nomination. This is just a list and gives little no additional information about the list members. Sorry. —

9907:

But we should have redirects from the names without the diacritic marks so that those who search without the marks can locate the articles easily.

7169:

the layout we've got is ok with people because it's easier to move all the various blocks and stuff around when we still have template references.

2266: 2262: 1654:

and must be continually synchronized as new data is presented. As an alternative I suggest changing the word "Distance" to "Estimated distance". —

1227: 9335:

The common name is "moon", and the user:RandomCritic used a "#redirect" on the original category instead of the proper "template:Categoryredirect"

7218:

As for sections we need, I suggest adding a section for articles undergoing peer review / good article nominations / featured article candidates.

4411:

I noticed that a lot of articles on galaxy pairs will group the objects together under one heading rather than give each galaxy its own heading.

3154:

Do the constellations have officially-recognised patterns? If they don't, then we have the issue of which patterns to use. For example, sometimes

3109:

Well, the PROD notice has been removed, but really this star is just a number in the star catalogues. SIMBAD returns no references to any papers.

2863:

The current starbox starts to get rather confused when star systems contain more than 2 stars, I've tried a different approach in the article for

2202: 10332: 10051: 9721: 9298:. It seems to have been dumped into the more general "hypothetical astronomical objects" which is not all that useful for a hypothetical planet. 9246: 8750: 7654:.) I also recommend keeping the "Apparent dimensions" simply because these dimensions are still useful to amateur and professional astronomers. 7388: 7338: 4895: 2845: 2777:

Article should reference habitable zone speculations to a more accurate source than naive (and undocumented) calculations on Extrasolar Visions.

2649: 2322:. I would suggest that this WikiProject consider helping to build that resource and/or linking to it if no articles exist here. Hope that helps. 1301: 47: 17: 9812:

because it has an accent mark, and he seems very vehement about debating anyone who disagrees with him. Gene Nygaard also reverted the name of

9753: 8681:

but contained all of the entries of the catalog. Aside from that, though, I would be hesitant to work on any other projects; proof-reading the

7274: 6908: 6170: 7657:

Please let me know what you think. If I receive no negative feedback by 18:00 GMT on 3 Sep, I will see what happens if I change the template.

6735:

OK, here is the first attempt, tell me if this setup seems good. Also, I was thinking of highlighting the letters that belong to the acronym.

395: 7539:

expansion of the universe. Many galaxies are gravitationally affected by interacting galaxies or other groups and clusters, particularly the

6652:

Organize in 4 groups, Equipments/Vehicles/Telescopes, Celestial Objects, Math/Physics Terminology, Catalog Names. What do you think, Thanks,

2505:

Good start! So we now should add a few candidates to the bottom (the red shaded articles in the worklist, maybe?) and go from there. Thanks!!

7890: 5439:

Well, if they created, maybe we should find the real ones first. I've seen them before and will try to remember where I seen them. Thanks,

5403:

page. The spectrum images are licensed under public domain and they are all good quality. One possibility is to ask for a translation on the

4913:

for example. Some standardisation of the external links (ex. Orbital data, Sheppard/Jewiit pages etc.) via a template would also be helpful.

3075: 2474:

Sounds like a great idea! This might help draw in people that otherwise would not know where to start when looking at that large 'Worklist'.

145:

Yeah, I believe consensus is needed too, hence my request for opinions, you see. Please elaborate on what negative impacts there might be.

3374:

template just before the appropriate tables so that they don't collide. Also the "External links" section is usually placed at the very end.

10081: 10069: 8588:

I'm asking if there are any objections to listing everything? As in, a List of Brown Dwarfs, Quasars, Pulsars, etc. So, for example, the

8429: 6437:

Fail to differentiate among mean, best-fix, osculating etc. orbital elements so people often feel like ‘updating’ from some web-based table

4466:(M51A), which is why it should be (and is) on its own page and why other galaxies in galaxy pairs should potentially be on their own pages. 3515: 1087: 7650:

because they have real physical meaning, and because the general public is interested in distances. (However, these distances need to be

4330: 3293:

claims that Barnard's Star is the closest halo star. Unless I am misunderstanding something, those two statements cannot both be true. --

1732:

For example, {{Starbox begin | name=Test star}}{{Starbox astrometry experimental|parallax=3.02|p_error=1.28}}{{Starbox end}} will produce:

268:

row up, under the name, as you do for other AO below, with colour-coded categories (to be agreed, e.g. Main Belt, Plutino, Scattered etc).

8817: 8349: 6362:

recognizable names, and trying to delete objects that do not exist). I would, however, probably review an extragalactic astronomy page.

5653:

Generally I try to assume good faith. I admit I must work harder at assuming good faith after receiving death threats, but there you go.

5506:

I have more that I can gripe about later (specifically extragalactic distances), but I wanted to bring these issues up now in this forum.

5407:

page. My French-language skills are pretty mediocre, but from what I can read the French version looks fairly good. What do you think? —

8964:. This template rearranges the contents of the template and also removes the "Absolute Magnitude" and "Physical Radius" items. I know 7816:

appropriate is possibly in Space Colonization related articles where the ideas are drawn upon by real people from a fictional source. --

5371:

okay to move. But every time those things get moved around you create the possibility of double-redirects that need to be cleaned up. —

3268: 2179:

The only issue I've encountered is a tendency for trailing zeroes to be dropped, which makes the ranges look a little odd. For example,

1183:

This picture of Eros shows the view looking from one end of the asteroid across the gouge on its underside and toward the opposite end.

715:

This picture of Eros shows the view looking from one end of the asteroid across the gouge on its underside and toward the opposite end.

10215:

The debate is in the right place. I just think the debate could benefit from people with more professional experience with asteroids.

7256: 6876: 6415:

What kind of standards do you think are needed for Astronomical Objects? There are templates for each type of object already, right? --

3084: 3076: 3046:

When editing the image page, also include the information (source, copyright information, and rationale) requested in the fair use tag.

2728: 1176:

This picture of Eros shows the view looking from one end of the asteroid across the gouge on its underside and toward the opposite end.

708:

This picture of Eros shows the view looking from one end of the asteroid across the gouge on its underside and toward the opposite end.

5029:

article (something like the Astrophyiscal Journal) and an online database, go with the journal article. I cannot really suggest more.

4373: 2229:

I see little point categorizing galaxies on a property that is entirely random and not physically related to the galaxy in question.--

10266:

I suppose. But the bits about how it's a personal offense to a lump of rock and all the other anthromorphosizings are kind of scary.

8205: 8033:, which also is used to describe gas giants and ice giants, would be the better article title. Whether there are sub-articles called 6330: 5460:

web page. I see that the former HurricaneDevon originally added the name. His redirect is all that remains of this "name" for M74.

5404: 4670:

I propose, if it is acceptable, to also create pages for the other tables, but leave the vital articles on the main Worklist page. --

4284: 3255: 6001:

I'd say that they should be included. If the group is loosely defined, then they should state that it is loosely defined. Thanks,

5877:. My conclusion is that the science on identification of group membership is so fluid that it probably should not be in Knowledge. 3280: 1434:

Re the above remark, it's possible that it is not clear how to calculate a distance error estimate from a parallax error estimate.

10027: 6695: 5745: 4293: 3123: 8828:'s technique of checking Google and the ADS Abstract Service for the most accepted names; that should be applied here if possible. 8114:). Also, the rather ill-defined term "super-Earth" may or may not apply to Uranus and Neptune, depending on which paper you read. 6565: 6477:

distance-based quantities from the "Galaxies" and "Groups of Galaxies" templates, but I have not felt ready to discuss this yet.)

7559: 7526: 7180: 7071: 5990:

finally, any group that don't appear in scientific literature or in any catalog should be removed quickly as original research.--

5395:

It was suggested to me by CarpD that we could use the stellar spectral images from the French article on stellar classification,

217: 107:

I've always thought the object name floating outside a lot of the infoboxes used in astronomy articles looks odd. I just edited

10312:). It could really use a look-over by an astronomer, since I'm about to be trounced by the non-astronomers if I got this wrong. 8277: 10248:

unresolved issue with naming asteroids. Galaxies are generally easier. For example, a layperson or a professional looking up

9554:

article. This would be wrong, since the Counter-Earth article is not mainly involved with the Antichthon concept of antiquity.

8372:

Please comment on the template. I will replace the template on 16 Sep 2006 unless I receive overwhelmingly negative feedback.

6901: 6336: 5531:

article back a long time to get rid of material he copied off SolStation. BTW I can't find "Phantom Galaxy" on the RfD page...

4353: 3641: 3331: 2858: 2848:), then d ("e"), b ("b"), and e ("c"). The authors claim that the outermost planet was confirmed only now, thus the letter e.-- 7009:

If the "div" HTML tags are replaced with HTML "table" tags, the formatting improves. Should I reformat the page and save it?

3181:

We could use the patterns designated in the various classical star atlases... As for the modern constellation creations, like

1888:

3. The formula is one way of providing an error estimate. If you have a different, reasonable, method, that is just as good.

9758: 9289: 6869: 6583: 1414: 7442:

page, so maybe we should just redirect such " stars" links there? This page could probably use a good introduction as well.

6747:

one vote for no highlighting. What do you mean you can't figure out how to create a better content box? Looks fine to me. --

6440:

Rigidly include calculated items (e.g. surface acceleration) when the albedo is assumed, diameter inferred, density a guess…

5540:"Phantom Galaxy" was submitted to RfD on 20 Aug 2006, so I expect that it will appear on the actual RfD page on 21 Aug 2006. 3582:

Clearly, neither of these licenses grants Knowledge any rights, so the only way the diagram can be used is under fair use.

3350:) heavily for this article, so I have created a general reference to it as well as a general reference to their copy of the 1933:{{Starbox begin | name=Test star}}{{Starbox astrometry experimental asymmetric |parallax=3.02|p_error=1.28}}{{Starbox end}} 9693:

1181 Lilith is probably perceived as astrologically important because it has a clever name. If it had a boring name (like

9528: 5683: 4923:

Adding specific references to each article will be more clear for the reader. It also clearly demonstrates that refernces

3454: 2995:

Images which are only licensed for non-commercial use are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons at all, and, regrettably, as of

2767:

for its speculations on maximum moon masses (note that the Barnes paper has reversed designations of planets "b" and "c").

9790:

pointed out that "the Minor Planet Center is the official body dealing with names on asteroids and other minor planets".

10308:

It attempts to be an overview of how the MPC handles names, the process, and the history (expansion and clarification of

10064: 9749:

and my recent edit of the article which has been reverted. I think I'm right but I'm not an expert in this area. thanks.

9465: 8563: 4719:

a further split of the main blet asteroid stub type, as it's somewhat oversized. Comments (and manual labour) welcome.

4315: 3940: 3845:

Placing Bayer designations in Greek letter order could be done by using the Greek letters as sort keys (e.g., writing ].)

2149: 10398:

pages. It also looks like more work on the categories is needed; Knowledge currently contains three categories for the

9519:

I'm sorry. I thought the work I had done had properly clarified the categories in question. Please excuse my ignorance.

3547: 9808:

appears to be on a quest to remove all accent marks from all Knowledge article titles. He apparently only cares about

8869: 8798:

polluting the pages. Again, when/if the dust settles, let’s review these articles and try to save the content. Regards

4227: 3671: 2652:. My personal opinion is that this is a fundamental astronomical topic and it should be a top notch WP page. Thanks! — 1597: 376:

interact with the page elements), though I think there is too much of a gap between the title text and the top border.

229: 10202:

Sorry about that! I thought that they should at least be aware of what was being changed if they wanted to change it.

9872:. It is incredibly funny that someone created a category for a single template. This would be like someone creating 2968:

I think I still need to meditate on how to do this well, although advice on these specific issues would greatly help.

9635: 8677:

as I suggested on your talk pages? It's only 7840 objects. It would also be nice if the list looked as good as the

7695:

and me have opinions? If not, I'm going to experiment with changing the template. A third opinion would be useful.

7228:

I would like to write "how-to" pages for galaxies and galaxy groups that also list some information on commonly-used

7036:

may be right. I defer to other people's opinion, particularly those with computer science or web design backgrounds.

6459:

through all that info to get at the template you would want, and then figure out what to read that pertains to it. --

6407: 5968:, where members have been carefully identified in many refereed papers. Other less well-studied groups, such as the 5677: 4565: 2431: 10374:

I have been working on trying to clean up the galaxy groups on Knowledge lately. I currently have four categories (

9820:; he seems to be oddly upset with the proposed renaming. The original name looks like it could have been a typo by 6589:

Unfortunately, I did not record the source paper. If interested, let me know. And I will submit the list. Thanks,

3430: 2820: 10126: 9096: 6699: 6164: 6025: 5453: 3728:

people have encountered similar problems. I hope the Knowledge administration will at least consider these issues.

2414:

I'm trying to work on the astronomy articles when I can, but I'm usually only good for one or two at a time. :-) —

2336:", but I'm a little dubious about that page's usefulness in its current form. No offense intended to anyone. :-) — 2279:

either, as all that can really be said about a face-one galaxy is that it's a spiral galaxy that's seen face on :)

102: 8981:

Should the distance be in light years, parsecs, or Mpc? The dist_ly implies the first, but I'm used to seeing Mpc.

8339: 3897:

Organizing by greek letter may make some sense since there is already a category for the stars in a constellation.

3498:. AFAIK there's no limitations on who can modify that page, and it'd be good if it were frequently updated. :-) — 2319: 9697:), then hardly anyone would care (although I can picture astrologers named Miller astutely following the path of 9590: 9307: 8955: 8911: 8695: 7438:

spectral type. Does it makes sense to have a page about "blue stars"? It seems like that topic is covered by the

7133: 6836: 4685:

er... there's a bit of a kerfuffle going on with planets. Seeing as it might pass muster... that means we'd need

2207: 2104:

It looks to me that this should work very nicely, so I'm in favor of using this template to replace the previous

1664: 919: 6169:

I am not sure how to add this, PMO = planetary mass object (page 11), PMC = planetary mass candidate (page 1).

4807: 3903:

I don't know if it would be worth doing by hand, but using a bot to make the modification might make some sense.

3622: 1750:{{Starbox begin | name=Test star}}{{Starbox astrometry experimental|parallax=3.02|p_error=1.28}}{{Starbox end}} 5387: 4499:

Another issue I might as well bring up here is binary systems which don't have an overall system name, such as

4406: 4253: 2569: 8491:.) I stopped halfway through deleting the links because I would have deleted all of them, leaving only M102. 8362:

The galactic and supergalactic coordinates were replaced with the more useful right ascension and declination.

6248:

I request the following moves be made since I couldn't do them myself because the target pages already exist.

2841:

The article needs a complete rewrite—new data from HARPS gives very different orbits and a new, fourth planet.

2764: 1868:{{Starbox begin | name=]}}{{Starbox astrometry experimental |parallax=747.23 |p_error=1.17}} {{Starbox end}} 1451:

in parsecs, which is the reciprocal of the parallax π in arcseconds, this yields the formula already given by

10132: 10110: 9958: 9434: 8419:

One more thing: I know that the infobox contains some formatting issues. Please ignore those at the moment.

6171:

http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=application%2Fpdf&identifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Aastro-ph%2F0504570

4250: 211: 9924:

Agreed, but in many cases those redirects already exist. They're easy enough to add if they aren't found. —

8405:

I have finally found a page listing an unfamiliar small group of galaxies that I could verify was real: the

6074: 5494:

are based on questionable or fictitious information. For example, I do not even know if anyone thinks that

10237:

Ah, well. Give it a few months to settle down, then re-vote on the issue if it turns out to be unworkable?

8838:

I think too many people get caught up in semantics issues too much and do not understand the importance of

8699: 7481: 5503:. I can't tell if this is a real group deisgnation or if it's another made-up name from the SEDS website. 5495: 5058: 4746: 4735: 4260: 3659: 2163: 8333: 4203:

or something for galactic cases. Not really sure what information the galactic version would need though.

2400:

we could probably get through all of these in not very long at all, and then many would probably be up to

10034: 9471: 9328: 8875: 7430: 6897: 6376: 5209:, but enough people call it the Andromeda Galaxy that I understand the rationale for keeping the name. -- 4771:

I cordially invite the partisipants of this project to the newly founded wikiversity school of Astronomy

4710: 2333: 2173: 2108: 1709: 323: 8878:(where the word "group" or "cluster" is not capitalized). Recently, I began converting articles to the 5582: 4462:

to be certain). This in and of itself makes it an interesting source to discuss outside the context of

10301: 9226: 8682: 7827:

I'm all for that idea, where it makes sense. Several of the star articles actually have more about the

7770: 7342: 7332: 6823: 6736: 6670: 5969: 3338: 3166: 2239: 210:

Yeah, I'd prefer the current style, and I think other templates do have the title outside the box, eg,

38: 9058:

Thank you for asking. Hopefully the lack of feedback is a positive sign with regard to the changes. —

6427:

The templates define the labels but do not specify (please bear with my TNO/irregular satellite bias)

3304: 1423:(or other quantities.) In fact, it would be best if editors added them whenever reasonably possible. 10366: 9741:

Not sure if this is exactly the right place to ask, but could some experts swing their spacecraft by

9614: 8300: 8207: 7835: 7413:

lack of consensus among scientific papers on the classification of many irregulars into a given group

7345:. This seems like it might either be redundant with or complementary to the table on the much older 6976:

and resistant to change, but I thought the previous layout was fine, and this one's a bit of a mess.

5597:

right off off SEDS that has a list of names. (well, I did put up for deletion several things he did)

5161: 4996: 3778:

We should definitely use number characters rather than superscript characters for the category links.

3533: 2390: 1110: 512: 10345:

That would be inconsistent with the naming convention of the multitude of other moons listed on the

5726:, as I added it because people were talking about it, so I now remove it, because of lack of usage. 5467:

M74 has never been called the "Phantom Galaxy" outside of Knowledge and people who copied Knowledge.

10391: 9574:

should be merged. The other is what the title of the merged article should be. (I also hope that

9490: 8716: 8694:

You also need to consider that simply making multiple lists of stuff on Knowledge may run afoul of

8678: 8508: 7785: 7074:. So a martian geographist could watch just that portion within the Astronomical Object project. -- 6846: 6371:

I am currently concentrating on organizing categories and information on space related topics into

5143: 4766: 4579: 3655: 3532:), but I'm not sure if that can be legally uploaded or what license to use. Paper was published in 2640: 2449: 2437: 2396: 676: 130: 9782:

simply moved the page because he thought the rename was obvious. Following that, the incredulous

9433:

It appears as though user Mrwuggs is putting in very lengthy and weird category descriptions. See

7962: 7719:

for deletion on the basis that it may not exist. A discussion of the science can be found on the

5586: 3463: 2352:

Should that list be in article space? It looks like it should be in "Knowledge:xxxxxx" namespace.

10395: 9277: 8479:

I looked up "Category:Uncertain galaxies" today and, thinking that it referred to "objects" like

8338:

Question on this format. If you like, then I will complete the list in this grid style format.

8288: 8249: 8142: 7859: 6252: 5152: 5062: 5044: 5002: 4451:

Besides, the smaller object in a galaxy pair is often worth discussing based on its own merits.

4311: 2737: 2168: 1035: 882: 749: 9666:

This move request is incomplete; the person who requested the move needed a reference. I found

8354:

I have revised the template for galaxy cluster. A preliminary version of the template is in my

4986: 4801: 1442:

has a discussion of the propagation of error estimates. Although the errors encountered in the

1435: 8583: 8296: 8269: 8257: 7724: 7716: 7709: 7439: 6860:. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. 6516: 6150: 6097: 5973: 5820: 5813: 5779:

I am bothered by lightest and heaviest. Least massive and most massive would be much better. --

5759: 5755: 5751: 5500: 5482:) and deleting stupid "alternative names" from galaxy entries (such as "Surfboard Galaxy" from 5400: 4494: 4131: 4091: 3743: 3550:, since 2001 arXiv authors have been required to agree to the following click-through license: 3138: 3098:

A quick search on the ADS Abstract Server shows that this star has no scientific significance.

2810: 2800: 2576:

Just a note... some enthusiastic Trekkies have included a huge section on a pen-and-paper RPG (

2570: 2460:'s comment above), expanding the text, and cleaning up the grammar and style of the article. 934: 225: 111: 6574:

has been put up for deletion (presumably because Pluto-Charon is/are no longer planet(s). See

5490:). I still do not know what to do with some of the more complex problems where it looks like 5473:

are occasionally referred to as phantom galaxies, and a redirect to M74 would cause confusion.

3529: 2404:

standards. It would be lovely to have a list without all the garish red indicating no refs!

8879: 8406: 8399: 6511:

Knowledge already features multiple pages on poorly-defined extragalactic structures such as

6243: 5581:

and the fact that I didn't really have the time to factcheck them. As for "Fried Egg Galaxy,

4524: 4500: 4416: 3737: 3520:

Is it possible for Knowledge to use figures from scientific papers in articles? For example,

2790: 2780: 2158: 771: 8755:

In case you hadn't noticed, there's some quite intense discussion on the articles about the

7614:

of galaxies (and some of the stars as well) clearly extends beyond these galaxies "radii".

5319:

I count 28 papers in ADS with Whirlpool in the title, of which 10 don't mention M51 as well.

3842:

U+2079, respectively. As you say, it would be better to use inline numerals here (e.g., ].)

3007:

has decreed that such images are only allowable on Knowledge under the "fair use" doctrine

2014:

Using the built-in math routines, might it be possible to use an expression something like:

9736: 9600: 9257: 8883: 6154: 4775:. It's still being move over, so mind the stardust! Hopefully I'm not spamming to bad. -- 3475: 3236: 3030: 806: 307: 165:

examples of where it wouldn't be redundant either with a section title or the page title.

6233:

page, it should mention the acryonym. I am uncertain where to add it on the page. thanks

4156: 1898:

the distance. But either way my preference is to have neither. No offense intended. :-) —

1688:

and the absolute magnitude. It'll be easier just to delete the erroneous error range. :-)

8: 10309: 10282:, very often, something else is at just the name part of the asteroid on wikipedia. Even 10158: 10148: 9824:, the creator; I will ask him about it. As for now, you may want to comment on renaming 9775: 9671: 8674: 8029:

different because of being icy instead of supercritical fluid/gas, the more general term

7615: 7611: 7598: 7594: 7431: 6138:

D'oh, sorry for the double post. I forgot to say, maybe replace "rare" with "extended".

5836:

Oh cool, I've been waiting for this list. If needs be, why not a list of brown dwarfs?

5699: 4906: 4697:

cleanup. I wonder if they'll start numbering planets now? (1 Ceres, 2 Pluto, 3 Charon, 4

2701: 2577: 1439: 1275:

page, and structuring the main page a bit more like the wikiproject template structure?

10157:(Where, by the way, there's a vote ongoing about moving it), I've started an article on 9954: 9829: 9809: 9795: 7673:

with other values that are more standard. We could replace absolute magnitude with the

7622:

are just examples. Applying a "physical size" is simply inpractical and inappropriate.

7113:

Would anyone object to subst:ing all the different sections onto the main project page?

5903: 5896: 2697: 244:

I like this style, having a large heading row is distracting. I don't have a particular

10302: 8292: 8265: 8253: 8041:

depends on our feelings as to the division between Uranian planets and Jovian planets.

7925:? Do such things even exist? If ice giants do not exist, then the discussion is moot. 7606: 7574:

and observations of the Sombrero Galaxy's planetary nebulae to measure a distance, and

7392: 6889: 6198: 5793: 5691: 4361: 4102: 4062: 3485: 2602: 2594: 2362: 1047: 639: 582: 473: 3564:

I understand that arXiv.org reserves the right to reclassify or reject any submission.

3008: 2986: 1974:

I'd prefer having both the distance and the distance range. Sometimes the error range

1267:

suggested earlier that we start a worklist for the project. I just started a page at

10346: 10313: 10286:

is a disambiguation page, and is perhaps one of the best known asteroids. Some, like

10267: 10238: 10228: 10203: 10175: 10166: 10099: 9805: 9791: 9783: 9295: 9232: 8799: 8454: 8325: 8131: 7571: 7422: 7346: 7328: 7207: 6861: 6769: 6674: 6512: 6445: 6270: 5874: 5179: 5070: 5048: 5014: 4914: 4784: 4635: 4421: 3956: 3576: 3290: 2441: 1323: 1292: 1126: 835: 785: 528: 422: 269: 221: 9667: 7579: 7567: 7263:

in my browser. I fail to see how this benefits anybody except a few CSS purists. —

6694:

By convention the name for such pages is almost always "List of..." See for example

5930: 5923: 5919: 2700:. In particular all the tables for upcoming astronomical events are to be deleted.-- 10354: 9929: 9892: 9746: 9063: 8994: 8738: 8571: 8536: 8066:

to describe Uranus and Neptune. On another note, my copy of the Chaisson McMillan

7878: 7846: 7674: 7575: 7489: 7450: 7365: 7302: 7268: 6959: 6941: 6922: 6853: 6847: 6707: 6493:

Recommend one more data on the infobox. Orbital Spin, Prograde/Retrograde/Locked.

6349: 6206: 5856: 5767: 5412: 5376: 5202: 5188: 5170: 5116: 4862: 4756:

Please do help populate these, and deplete the parent category at least somewhat.

4652: 4590: 4533: 4394: 4355: 4341: 4324: 4272: 3913: 3900:

You could also sort using the Project Gutenberg greek letter transliteration table.

3867: 3715: 3691: 3626: 3613: 3583: 3503: 3438: 3387: 3307: 3062: 3004: 2930: 2882: 2716: 2674: 2657: 2641: 2628: 2551: 2526: 2497: 2465: 2419: 2374: 2341: 2196: 2137: 2119: 2068: 2029: 1963: 1949: 1889: 1840: 1790: 1768: 1726: 1692: 1637: 1618: 1587: 1426: 1196: 997: 728: 340:

make sense to me is when tying together the top and lower part of a section with a

10089:

has been nominated for renaming, capitalization of "solar system" by David Kernow

7862:. Maybe star-related fiction material belongs there (or should be copied there). 2844:

The authors of the paper name the innermost, Neptune-mass planet as c ("d" in the

10322: 8899: 8222: 7720: 7590: 7551: 7532: 7463: 7416:

Unnecessary/unjustified justified precision in the period data for the irregulars

6501: 6056:

subsection, just like the white dwarfs are placed in a "white dwarfs" subsection.

5289: 5244: 5134: 5125: 4680: 4554: 4292:

has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at

3968: 3286: 3244: 3061:

As for explaining what POSS2, UKSTU, etc. mean, I don't think this is necessary.

3010:. If you determine that this is possible, you should probably do the following: 2323: 2301: 2270: 2253: 2188: 1452: 1226:

has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at

1146: 1040: 1025: 1015: 548: 449: 303: 195:

Not bad so far. Let's have a full set of examples so we can discuss this further.

4965:

You've got a point. Given your interest, a few questions to your consideration:

4216: 3856:. However, now that we are using UTF-8, it should be possible to use the title 1633: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

10414: 10410: 10292: 10114: 9949:

accidentially added his votes to the discussions.) The objects are now labeled

9946: 9908: 9475: 9041: 8965: 8771: 8528: 8494:

Before I started deleting the links, the list contained the following entries:

8464:

references (listed under "References" and "Notes") could be better organized.

8232: 7692: 7679: 7554:

is a good example. The Nearby Galaxy Catalogue by Brent Tully (accessible from

6520: 6300: 6281: 6069:

Here's the links, but is was from 1999, so possible things could have changed.

5961: 5909: 5518: 5220: 5084: 4142: 3810: 3368: 3014: 2230: 1103: 912: 869: 819: 505: 198: 7619: 6616: 6290:

Do you want a long and laborious "Requested Move" or a fast, unilateral move?

6073:

I used google cache. It is near the bottom in cyan highlight. Original link,

5593:

isn't used that much (this was my only semiauthorative source). Then there is

4263:, I thought the upper case page names were reserved for proper nouns, whereas 10103: 10011: 9991: 9571: 9543: 9529: 9084: 8920: 8895: 8891: 8832: 8663: 8655: 8343: 8217: 7801: 7792: 7540: 6812: 6797: 6776: 6740: 6653: 6620: 6598: 6590: 6575: 6505: 6494: 6398: 6261: 6234: 6178: 6157: 6139: 6132: 6078: 6036: 6002: 5965: 5841: 5823:

page already alludes to this. Maybe it would be best not to have such pages?

5789: 5716: 5687: 5565: 5440: 5429: 4910: 4686: 4369: 4264: 4239: 4235: 4020: 3931: 3303:

It appears that Barnard's Star is not thought to be a halo star. Gizis 1997

2946: 2877:

That looks fine to me, although I was okay with the previous approach. :-) —

2770: 2755: 2744: 2606: 2506: 2475: 1601: 1264: 890: 766: 610: 435: 366: 354: 8770:

about names. Maybe it would be good to get some official naming policies at

8703: 7723:

page under "Environment". A discussion of the deletion can be found on the

7555: 5933:) may be more general, but I have not investigated it further at this point. 5889: 2842: 1681: 10154: 9821: 9648: 9575: 9539: 9520: 9506: 9497: 9449: 9263: 9102: 8756: 8498: 7896: 6380: 6372: 6341: 5780: 5594: 5463:

I thought that this was a particularly good redirect for deletion because:

5324: 5239: 5210: 5088: 4690: 4305: 4231: 3787: 3647: 3481: 3456: 2904: 2771: 2756: 2745: 2453: 2401: 1989: 949: 761: 318: 7123:

I am sorry, but I do not know what that means. Could you please explain?

5557: 3710:

project from wikipedia, so they likely have their own set of standards. —

3612:

Fortunately, data is not copyrightable, so these terms don't apply to it.

2297: 2293: 10350: 10162: 9950: 9925: 9888: 9813: 9787: 9771: 9742: 9698: 9694: 9059: 9045: 8990: 8813: 8763: 8734: 8589: 8567: 8541: 8523: 8503: 8484: 8480: 8227: 8162: 7874: 7842: 7841:

template is suggested for 'astronomy locations in fiction'-type pages. —

7817: 7777: 7759: 7739: 7485: 7446: 7378: 7361: 7314: 7298: 7264: 7184: 7160: 7146: 7075: 6991: 6987: 6955: 6945: 6918: 6905: 6880: 6748: 6719: 6703: 6678: 6554: 6541: 6469: 6460: 6416: 6384: 6345: 6202: 6119: 6075:

http://origins.colorado.edu/cs12/proceedings/oral/tuesday/hawleys_3xx.pdf

5957: 5885: 5852: 5763: 5552: 5483: 5408: 5372: 5229: 5138: 5129: 5109:

Very good idea. What do people think about the following suggested moves:

4954: 4858: 4671: 4648: 4623: 4614: 4586: 4529: 4515: 4483: 4470: 4435: 4390: 4337: 4320: 4268: 3982: 3909: 3711: 3687: 3561:

I understand that submissions cannot be completely removed once accepted.

3525: 3499: 3434: 3383: 3320: 3294: 2926: 2878: 2807:

Article should reference claims about the habitable zone of this system.

2797:

Article should reference claims about the habitable zone of this system.

2712: 2670: 2653: 2624: 2547: 2483:

I'd be an enthusiastic participant in a weekly astronomy collaboration.

2415: 2370: 2337: 2192: 2133: 2115: 2025: 1959: 1899: 1836: 1786: 1700: 1668: 1655: 1388: 1342: 1069: 903: 560: 461: 387: 327: 183: 156: 133: 9868:

To add to the rename/deletion chaos, however, I have proposed to delete

8112: 7563: 7410:

selection of the source of data (see talk on X’ natural satellite pages)

4221: 3901: 3521: 10039:

Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Controversy_over_Pluto's_classification

9833: 9825: 9817: 9767: 9641: 9567: 9547: 9533: 8902:"). Does anyone else have any comments before I make further changes? 8436: 7544: 6995: 6500:

Goodness, I keep multi-posting... Is there going to be an infobox for

5991: 5809: 5577:

I had a general problem with HurricaneDevon's edits, but followed them

5457: 5206: 5192: 5183: 5174: 5147: 5120: 5096: 5092: 4117: 4077: 4055: 3702: 3240: 3159: 3155: 2849: 2738: 2448:. The idea would be to collaborate in getting some of the articles in 843: 796: 788: 9020:

given in the main text, so inserting it into the infobox is redundant.

8540:

who wrote the Knowledge article thought may or may not be part of the

4319:

the sections will need to be expanded in daughter articles. Thanks! —

1883:

That was more of a general statement anyway, rather than a substitute.

10403: 10399: 9750: 9480:

Knowledge:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_17#Natural_satellites

8518: 8368:"Main member" was replaced with the more accurate "Brightest member". 8073: 7922: 7908: 7900: 6986:

I think I prefer something between the old and the new layout. Like

6917:

Err... on my browser it looks pretty ugly. Was this really needed? —

5953: 4776: 4757: 4720: 4643:

Ah, okay. Perhaps it would solve the problem by having four separate

4004: 3994: 3524:

has some very nice diagrams of predicted atmosphere flow patterns on

3319:

In that case, I'll do the honors and update the pages in question. --

2985:

The relevant licensing information appears to be the following (from

2811: 2801: 2180: 1443: 1206: 971: 738: 441: 8707: 7243:

periods, e.g. template lists, tutorials, etc. could go on subpages.

6856:

is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found

6739:. I am unable to figure how to create a better content box. Thanks, 5942: 5902:

The relatively unusued catalog produced by Fouque et al. in 1992 at

5615: 4980: 10279: 10253: 10249: 8488: 7643: 7639: 7635: 7631: 7627: 6673:

should be the name of the page, and it should be categorized under

6317: 6313: 6265: 6256: 5487: 5479: 5312: 5256: 5252: 5248: 5165: 5156: 4937: 4933: 4929: 4701:, ...) ... too bad they didn't give Pluto #10000 as was suggested. 4463: 4459: 4456: 4452: 4110: 4070: 3826:

etc. Do we actually need a specific Bayer objects category anyway?

3162: 2864: 2791: 2781: 1835:

Seems to work for nearby stars as well. Again, nice job. Thanks. —

984: 856: 10188:

Debates on dwarf planet and asteroid names have spilled over into

9778:

webpage that listed the asteroid's name as "Lilith". After that,

8544:. M102, as described above, is an ambiguously-identified object. 8283:

Several things I would like to do (If no one has any objections):

6100:

article? It would be even better if you added the Reid reference.

5938: 5611: 3347: 1617:

without an error estimate, he is likely to think that it's exact.

9945:

As of 9 October, the asteroid rename debates have been closed. (

9684:

upset and accuse you of censorship or pushing your point of view.

8759: 8513: 8016:(whatever that is). But science writers do tend to use the terms 7602: 6230: 6194: 6174: 4694: 4385:

The proposed renaming appears to be going down in flames... c.f.

3959: 2821: 2261:

Maybe a better way to do this is to have two articles describing

2184: 1782: 1005: 991: 9359:

I don't see the necessity, and apparently, neither does Mrwuggs.

6031: 4387:

Knowledge:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_6#Some_plurals

4234:

going on right now to rename Robert Heinlein's Variable Star to

3650:. This is as a result of comments made at this WikiProject (see 3429:

Okay. The suggested location for external links is described in

2895:

The STScI Digitized Sky Survey: Endless Black-and-White Pictures

10438:. (I have the sense that this seems too esoteric for people.) 10174:

I've also been adding the symbols for minor planets 5-15, etc.

6274: 5452:

I have submitted the redirect "Phantom Galaxy" for deletion on

4772: 4122: 4082: 2996: 1075: 1057: 896: 627: 10406:. (Can you guess which categories correspond to each group?) 8307:

Remove the stellar distances from all lists. For two reasons:

7605:

shaped) and would need three axes to characterize the radii.

6597:

This is a good idea for a main Knowledge article, and I think

3621:

BTW, fair use might be possible here as being, per point 1 of

2292:(let's see if we have one). Not everyone will understand what 10283: 9832:(and someone should do something aboutn the astrology in the 9720:, could you please add these move/deletion/merge requests to 8978:

It looks fine to me. I have just a couple of minor comments:

8767: 8012:

other than it's smaller than a brown dwarf and larger than a

7284:, since there are several different "skins" out there, which 7020:

for layout anathema in today's standards-conscious internet?

6173:

These are the acronymns, I think they should be added to the

2900: 1778: 831: 425: 9603:, and it's on the proposal for a policy on naming galaxies. 9294:

Category Hypothetical planets seems to have been emptied by

6551:

Knowledge:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects/Infoboxes_sandbox

6549:

Ok, so time permitted right now. Rough idea of a breakdown:

4633:

WARNING: template omitted, pre-expand include size too large

2817:

Article should emphasise that mass values are lower limits.

2787:

Article should emphasise that mass values are lower limits.

1600:. Are we sure that all quoted errors work that way, though? 10287: 9794:

has now proposed removing the accent mark from the name of

8835:

about a planet classification scheme that he had invented:

5837: 5528: 3466:, any comments/suggestions there would be welcome. Thanks, 3289:

claims that Kapteyn's Star is the closest halo star, while

3000: 2711:

possibly rare planetary alignments would be of interest. —

2365:. But some of the red links could probably be added to the 1210: 978: 828: 792: 742: 10050:

In the future, could you also please add these notices to

9566:

This can be split into two debates. The first is whether

7738:

basic topic is, like in Talk, you know what it's about. --

7406:

I’ve just discovered this list. My concerns, among others

6900:

down the road of coordinating efforts to best effect a la

6768:

I cannot add a link of Astronomical Acronyms to the page,

6149:

I am uncertain how this information can be entered to the

5709: 5448:

Redirect for Deletion: "Phantom Galaxy" (and other gripes)

5396: 3677:

astronomy articles. My specific problems are as follows:

3646:

I've put a lot of Messier objects and 4 NGC objects up on

10390:) nominated for deletion, and I would like to rename the 9550:

together. Previously, it appears he merged both into the

9076:

Category:Hypothetical solar system bodies up for deletion

6226: 6222: 6190: 6186: 5589:, seems like it's in use for two different galaxies. And 4040: 3575:, the permitted use statement for the electronic edition 3381:, followed thereafter by: <reference name="ned" /: --> 3346:

I have been using the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (

2908: 878: 10190:

Knowledge talk:Naming conventions (astronomical objects)

9786:

disputed the entry at the Minor Planet Center, but then

8592:

page would have a list of notable brown dwarfs, but the

6835:

The continuing conversation and above text has moved to

6383:

should be utilized (or a specific request to George). --

6155:

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~pberlind/atlas/atframes.html

6096:

Anyhow, could you please insert this reference into the

6043:

This could be a semantics issue. I would disagree that

4267:

is a subject. So I'm not clear why there's a problem. —

3522:

Changing Face of the Extrasolar Giant Planet, HD 209458b

10413:, I came to the conclusion that Knowledge may need two 9578:

has learned not to attempt manually merging articles.)

9138:

Category:Hypothetical solar system astronomical objects

7049:

WikiProject, so we could probably get rid of that too.

5869:

Galaxy groups: Should they even be listed in Knowledge?

5788:

I agree. Weight has different meaning to mass in space.

5549:

I checked on SEDS site, M47 does not even have a name.

4603:

readable table? (I'm too new to know what I am doing.)

4294:

the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page

3555:

I grant arXiv.org a license to distribute this article.

2300:

means (let's see if the wiktionary definitions exist).

1228:

the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page

9429:

Mrwuggs is putting in weird descriptions on categories

8698:. The goal of Knowledge should not be to replace the 4878:

Table_of_planets_and_dwarf_planets_in_the_solar_system

3558:

I certify that I have the right to grant this license.

3043:

is the name of the article you are using the image in.

2867:, any comments/suggestions would be much appreciated. 2361:

It might be considered to be semi-obsolete due to the

9763:

All of the renaming and deletion is getting silly...

9133:

Here are some that might be considered for renaming:

9128:

Category:Hypothetical solar system natural satellites

9113:

Category:Hypothetical extrasolar astronomical objects

8794:

as the scores of Gabrielle, Easter bunnies and other

8213:

There's a bunch of merge requests on binary system.

5904:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992A&AS...93..211F

5897:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993A&AS..100...47G

5039:

I’ve drafted a few suggestions for a shorter infobox

4810: 2464:

port of the Tropical Cyclones Collaboration page). --

1781:(π = 1.01 ± 0.57 mas) would likely be suspect, while 1663:

P.S. Would it make sense to have a help page such as

1464: 1421:

not remove error estimates for astronomical distances

10037:

article has been placed up for deletion at AFD, see

8562:

It sounds like depopulating the category and then a

5918:

Huchra and Geller wrote two papers in 1982 and 1983(

5610:

If you find a potential nickname, please check NED (

5243:

nine of the cited scientific refereed papers on the

2694:

Wikisource:Category:Deletion requests/Reference_data

1447:

thing to do in most cases. In the case of distance

9674:

website. This list labels asteroid 1181 as Lilith.

8960:I have a revised version of the galaxy template at 8858:

Knowledge:Naming conventions (astronomical objects)

8856:Looks like someone's already had the idea: I found 7149:'s comments, since it would undo some of his work. 5873:I managed to do quite a bit of detective work into 5057:I’ve posted a draft template for a shorter infobox 4572:

Knowledge:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects/Worklist

1269:

Knowledge:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Worklist

7531:I now have multiple reasons for wanting to change 6822:I suggest that we continue this discussion on the 4849: 3625:, "scholarship"; points 2–4 also look reasonable. 2611:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of IC objects 2288:Well, it probably needs adding to wiktionary or a 2114:. Does anybody else have some input? Thank you! — 1574: 10349:page. Why use two words when one will suffice? — 9766:After a formal requested move was made to rename 8809:Being an extragalactic person, I had not noticed. 8062:May I just say that, as a scientist, I would use 5931:http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...543..178G 5924:http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJS...52...61G 5920:http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...257..423H 4336:It's been GA'd and the PR is complete. Thanks. — 1785:(π = 10.43 ± 0.53 mas) would probably be good. — 1676:In my view, the parallax error is not sufficient. 1250:which are members of the same template sequence. 1219:TfD nomination of Template:Star-planetbox primary 344:as the center. For instance for Eros, having the 9404:Category:Hypothetical solar system minor planets 9400:Category:Hypothetical minor solar system planets 9176:Category:Hypothetical solar system minor planets 9123:Category:Hypothetical solar system minor planets 6153:page... Not sure what the best route would be, 5762:should probably also be changed.) Thanks. :-) — 5682:If you're interested please add your comment at 5424:Mmmhh.. do I read this correctly that those are 4374:Knowledge:Categories_for_discussion#Some_plurals 3185:, we have the creator's thoughts on the matter. 2238:I have nominated teh category for deletion, see 1598:User talk:Ketiltrout#Distance error measurements 9982:Category:Hypothetical extrasolar minor planets 9722:Template:WikiProject Astronomical objects/RDLog 9247:Category talk:Hypothetical astronomical objects 9105:has made an entire hypotheticals heirarchy... 8272:and received some excellent comments back from 7560:Spitzer Infrared Nearby Galaxies Survey (SINGS) 5304:Some statistics on galaxy names in ADS papers: 4845: 2687:Astronomical data to be removed from Wikisource 2650:Knowledge:Peer review/Globular cluster/archive1 2099:Template talk:Starbox astrometry experimental 2 1302:Knowledge:WikiProject Astronomical objects/temp 18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects 9999:Category:Hypothetical minor extrasolar planets 9995:Category:Hypothetical extrasolar minor planets 9365:Category:Hypothetical minor extrasolar planets 9118:Category:Hypothetical extrasolar minor planets 8287:Reformat the object lists on all three pages ( 8170:I meant the list of project members actually. 7895:Shouldn't our article on giant planets sit at 7445:What do you think? Any suggestions? Thanks. — 6032:http://en.wikipedia.org/Stellar_classification 5880:I found a few sources that are commonly used: 8475:Category:Uncertain galaxies - What is it for? 7480:Okay I updated the page. It was also missing 6051:OBAFGKM stars. However, L and T stars might 5255:, and I only remember the Messier number for 4222:_Variable_Star-2006-07-31T23:54:00.000Z": --> 4217:_Variable_Star-2006-07-31T23:54:00.000Z": --> 3775:I have a slight preference for Mu2 over Mu-2. 3165:, sometimes as a larger representation (e.g. 2456:-status or better, by adding references (per 1695:". In that event we could have two different 285:What needs to happen is a threefold process: 10409:On another note, in a brief discussion with 9396:, which was subsequently broken by his edit. 8831:Finally, here is something I discussed with 7800:groundbreaking, or significant uses, with a 7570:, who used the known luminosities of nearby 7421:for, and how to keep it maintained. Regards 7280:My personal preference with Knowledge is to 6615:Incase your wondering, here is what I have. 6566:Deletion request for Category:Binary planets 2515:and continue with second place, and so on? 10165:? In any case, can anyone help expand it? 10017:. It occurs to me this will not be useful. 8082:calls Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune 7282:avoid styling the pages as much as possible 6617:http://marasama.googlepages.com/abbrev.html 5895:The LGG Catalog by Garcia, accessible from 4850:{\displaystyle a(1+{\frac {e^{2}}{2}})\,\!} 1586:There are of couse other possible methods. 1300:I had a go at something more inviting: see 10184:Debates on dwarf planet and asteroid names 9804:An update on the above asteroid articles: 9353:Category:Dwarf planets of the solar system 9341:Category:Solar system astronomical objects 9108:Here are some of questionable usefulness: 8566:nomination is the appropriate approach. — 7257:Knowledge:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects 3848:As for the article titles, I would prefer 2947:http://stdatu.stsci.edu/dss/copyright.html 1983:Starbox astrometry experimental asymmetric 1912:Starbox astrometry experimental asymmetric 1636:of parallaxes also gives standard errors. 10371:Just to stir up conversation a little... 10335:has proposed to rename Eris/Xena's moon. 9595:We should probably have a redirct on the 9081:Category:Hypothetical solar system bodies 8840:trying to understand how everything works 7597:) can be characterized by single radii. 7255:Well I'm sorry to repeat myself, but the 5890:http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/VizieR 5405:Knowledge:Translation_into_English/French 5079:Requested Move: Messier 81 and Messier 82 4553:just does not sound very professional. -- 4364:has proposed that Cat:Nebulae be renamed 4183:True. Maybe call this one something like 1260:Worklist and general project organisation 10121:Category:Solar system natural satellites 10015:Category:Hypothetical solar system stars 9997:. It is similar to the recently deleted 9986:Category:Hypothetical solar system stars 9206:These are better than the (now deleted) 9157:Category:Hypothetical natural satellites 8434:I wondered if someone is still watching 6696:List of government and military acronyms 5710:http://en.wikipedia.org/Brown_sub-dwarfs 4193:and create a different template such as 3431:Knowledge:Manual_of_Style#External_links 3013:Upload the image to Knowledge using the 2905:http://stdatu.stsci.edu/cgi-bin/dss_form 1777:parallax that it becomes unreliable. So 1117: 519: 10278:This means that, whilst NGC 5005 is at 10028:Controversy over Pluto's classification 8751:Do we need official naming conventions? 8365:Distance was removed from the template. 8340:Talk:Astronomical_object#Reorganization 7072:Knowledge:WikiProject_Martian_Geography 6526:(The preceeding comment was created by 6221:I'd say that they should appear in the 5750:Is there a need for separate pages for 5684:Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Stars 5558:http://www.seds.org/messier/m/m047.html 5259:because I revised the Knowledge entry.) 4993:Albedo (and consequently the diameter) 4896:A hundred or so irregular satellites... 4843: 3239:. I've noticed that the diagram on the 1715:template to do this. The result is in 14: 9453:hope he is willing to be cooperative. 9186:Hypothetical small solar system bodies 6337:Knowledge:WikiProject Military history 5553:http://www.seds.org/messier/data2.html 4219:Robert Heinlein's Variable Star -: --> 3306:makes it an intermediate Pop II star. 2094:There are some examples on this page: 2018:#ifexpr: {{#expr: {{{parallax}}} : --> 1667:that summarizes the various fields? — 1419:I would like to ask editors to please 396:Style #1 -- bold; enlarged; plain bkgd 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 7891:Gas giants, Giant planets, Ice giants 7616:These images of NGC 4618 and NGC 4625 7558:) gives the distance at 20 Mpc. The 5397:http://fr.wikipedia.org/Type_spectral 4631:Generated HTML contains this helpful 4585:template. Any suggestions? Thanks. — 3799:I support the first form (Mu2 Cancri) 3654:in Archive 1), details/discussion at 3027:Edit the image page manually and add 10087:Category:Planets of the solar system 10082:Category:Planets of the solar system 9874:Category:Users named George J. Bendo 9394:Category:Planets of the solar system 8605:(as to obtain and validate objects) 8430:2003 UB313 as an astronomical object 5979:Could I get other people's thoughts? 5937:For reference, NED is accessable at 4503:. What's the best policy for those? 4368:at 04:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC). See 4310:This article has been nominated for 3516:Using figures from scientific papers 1596:Comment: There is an explanation at 1088:Style #2 -- bold; normal; color bkgd 25: 9409:Category:Minor solar system planets 9380:Category:Hypothetical dwarf planets 8350:Revised template for Galaxy Cluster 6434:The way to reference specific items 5888:published in 1988, accessible from 5336:Google search gives 42900 hits for 5083:I finally made a request to rename 5005:typically quoted in the literature? 3822:On the other hand, we already have 3494:I just went ahead and shoved it in 3271:, opinions would be welcome there. 2318:This was the closest I could find: 23: 9371:I don't see the necessity in this. 8860:a few minutes after posting here. 8774:for various astronomical objects? 6344:as most people have been doing? — 5311:pointed out above, many papers on 4157:OGLE-III Early Warning System page 2729:Extrasolar planets article reviews 1509: 1505: 1171: 703: 24: 10456: 9317:Category:minor extrasolar planets 7903:should describe a subcategory of 7462:I find the sub-categorization of 6757:one complete list for everything. 6535:So would the consensus be to use 6331:Astronomical object peer reviews? 5943:http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/Simbad 5616:http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/Simbad 4800:Which average do you mean? (C.f. 4285:TfD nomination of Template:100TPF 3742:Looking at the listed objects in 2899:For years, I have been using the 2763:website. The article should cite 2062:Starbox astrometry experimental 2 10127:Category:Minor planet satellites 10102:has made several nominations on 9870:Category:Galaxy cluster template 9148:Hypothetical solar system bodies 9083:has been put up for deletion at 8631:(as to look for objects to add) 8334:Astronomical Objects (revisited) 8008:I don't know of a definition of 7535:, and I want to talk this over. 7341:has created a new page entitled 6902:the Military History WikiProject 6700:List of acronyms and initialisms 5746:List of smallest/lightest stars? 5454:Knowledge:Redirects_for_deletion 5065:. Please comment on the infobox 3824:Category:Andromeda constellation 3382:wherever appropriate. Thanks. — 2320:Wikt:Appendix:Astronomical_terms 2240:WP:CFD#Category:Edge-on galaxies 1230:. Thank you. Also nominated are 29: 9599:, as we have a category for it 9040:I appreciate the feedback from 7527:Galaxy template: changes needed 7134:Knowledge:Template substitution 6837:Talk:List of astronomy acronyms 6515:. (I would like to delete the 5939:http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/ 5884:The Nearby Galaxies Catalog by 5612:http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/ 4802:Semimajor_axis#Average_distance 3348:http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/ 1720:Starbox astrometry experimental 1665:Knowledge:How to read a taxobox 1224:Template:Star-planetbox primary 10010:I have nominated for deletion 9990:I have nominated for deletion 9628:07:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC) 9608:02:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC) 9583:09:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC) 9559:02:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC) 9524:16:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC) 9514:16:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC) 9501:14:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC) 9486:13:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC) 9458:07:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC) 9441:07:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC) 9421:23:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC) 9303:22:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC) 9285:23:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC) 9272:22:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC) 9253:00:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC) 9241:22:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC) 9219:07:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC) 9198:03:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC) 9092:03:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC) 9070:19:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC) 9053:08:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC) 9033:22:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC) 9001:21:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC) 8973:16:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC) 8948:06:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC) 8928:04:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC) 8907:17:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC) 8865:22:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC) 8851:22:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC) 8803:21:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC) 8779:21:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC) 8745:22:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC) 8724:18:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC) 8578:15:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC) 8557:22:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC) 8469:09:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC) 8458:09:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC) 8390:09:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC) 8135:13:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC) 7885:15:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC) 7858:I just found an entry labeled 7426:13:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC) 7318:02:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC) 7309:22:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC) 7293:19:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC) 7275:17:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC) 7248:20:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC) 7238:19:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC) 7223:18:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC) 7211:13:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC) 7188:13:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC) 7174:12:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC) 7164:02:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC) 5851:Okay they're moved. Thanks. — 5812:, which was resolved with the 4840: 4814: 3926:We could use sortkeys such as 3642:Galaxy article requested moves 3380:Reference here...</ref: --> 3332:The Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies 3281:Is Barnard's Star a halo star? 2859:Handling multiple star systems 2290:glossary of astronomical terms 1160: 688: 188:Something comparable to this: 13: 1: 10402:and three categories for the 10133:Category:Binary minor planets 10111:Category:Planetary satellites 9959:Talk:Coma cluster of galaxies 9759:Rename and deletion silliness 9435:Category:Astronomical objects 9390:Category:Solar system planets 9290:Category:Hypothetical planets 8424:14:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC) 8414:14:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC) 8377:08:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC) 8329:12:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 8243:03:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC) 8200:03:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC) 8189:12:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 8175:03:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC) 8166:04:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 8156:04:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 8119:17:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC) 8091:08:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC) 8046:03:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC) 7992:21:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 7970:13:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 7944:12:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 7930:06:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 7921:What is the definition of an 7916:03:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 7867:19:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 7853:17:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 7821:04:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 7809:03:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 7804:pointing to the sub-article. 7781:23:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 7763:07:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 7753:06:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 7743:03:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 7732:10:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 7700:08:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC) 7683:19:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 7662:08:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 7620:these images of the M81 group 7517:20:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 7496:19:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 7181:WikiProject Space All Members 7154:21:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC) 7141:19:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC) 7128:18:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC) 7118:15:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC) 7102:14:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 7089:11:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 7079:23:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 7065:22:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 6870:Rename/deletion status update 6584:List of Astronomical Acronyms 6431:The preferred sources of data 5074:09:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 5052:13:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 4888:03:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC) 3763:Any thoughts on this matter? 3269:Images and media for deletion 1705:Just so. I have altered the 1415:Error estimates for distances 212:Template:Infobox Organization 190:...moved below under Style #2 10443:19:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC) 10423:00:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC) 10361:22:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC) 10340:00:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC) 10327:Dysnomia (natural satellite) 10317:18:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC) 10296:19:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC) 10271:15:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC) 10261:15:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC) 10242:14:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC) 10232:14:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC) 10220:14:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC) 10207:14:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC) 10197:08:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC) 10179:19:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC) 10170:12:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC) 10153:Due to misunderstandings on 10144:00:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC) 10094:00:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC) 10077:00:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC) 9974:00:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC) 9936:21:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC) 9912:22:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC) 9899:22:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC) 9859:00:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC) 9208:Category: Uncertain galaxies 8962:User:George J. Bendo/Sandbox 8876:Astronomy & Astrophysics 8700:National Virtual Observatory 6954:quite unappealing. Sorry. — 5941:and SIMBAD is accessable at 5496:dwarf barred spiral galaxies 5486:and "Fried Egg Galaxy" from 4570:Today when I looked at the 4261:Knowledge:Naming conventions 3660:Talk:Irregular Galaxy NGC 55 3079:was PRODed and is now at AfD 2164:List of nearest bright stars 1108: 510: 7: 10388:Category:Galactic groupings 10065:FF Leporis has been prodded 10059:09:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 10045:01:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 10035:2006 redefinition of planet 10022:21:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 10006:21:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 9881:14:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 9854:technological limitations) 9841:21:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 9754:10:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC) 9729:08:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC) 9707:08:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC) 9659:06:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC) 9472:Category:Natural satellites 9466:category:Natural satellites 9329:Category:Natural satellites 9323:as I can see no use for it. 8941:Category:Uncertain galaxies 8812:Based on the discussion on 8398:Revision of a group entry: 7758:developed and organized. -- 7472:19:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC) 7457:17:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC) 7397:04:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC) 7382:21:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC) 7372:20:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC) 7354:21:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC) 7054:21:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 7041:21:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 7025:21:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 7014:21:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 7004:20:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 6981:20:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 6966:22:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 6949:21:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC) 6929:17:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC) 6909:20:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC) 6884:20:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC) 6865:17:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC) 6831:08:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC) 6792:07:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC) 6752:04:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC) 6723:17:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC) 6714:15:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC) 6682:22:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC) 6640:20:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC) 6607:15:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC) 6558:22:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC) 6545:22:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC) 6482:08:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC) 6464:01:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC) 6449:01:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC) 6420:23:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 6388:23:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 6377:Knowledge:WikiProject_Space 6367:21:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 6356:20:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 6325:16:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 6304:15:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 6295:14:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 6285:14:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 6213:20:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 6185:I'd just add a link to the 6123:18:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC) 6105:18:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC) 6061:08:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC) 6018:18:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC) 5995:15:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC) 5984:12:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC) 5913:17:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC) 5863:20:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 5828:21:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 5797:21:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 5784:20:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 5774:19:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 5731:17:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 5695:23:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 5672:18:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 5658:21:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC) 5643:19:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 5602:18:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 5545:20:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 5536:19:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 5522:19:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 5511:18:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 5433:19:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 5419:15:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 5383:19:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 5361:23:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC) 5328:23:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC) 5293:23:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC) 5273:23:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC) 5264:22:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC) 5233:22:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC) 5224:21:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC) 5214:20:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC) 5104:14:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC) 5034:16:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC) 5018:15:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC) 4958:13:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC) 4945:13:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC) 4918:10:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC) 4869:16:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC) 4795:03:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC) 4780:23:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 4761:04:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC) 4724:22:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 4706:22:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 4675:01:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 4659:17:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 4639:23:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC) 4627:22:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC) 4618:22:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC) 4608:18:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC) 4597:16:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC) 4558:17:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC) 4540:16:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC) 4519:16:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC) 4508:14:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC) 4487:01:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) 4478:17:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC) 4439:16:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC) 4429:12:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC) 4401:16:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC) 4348:16:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC) 3941:Gravitational lens template 3623:the Stanford fair use guide 3336:I have been working on the 2853:15:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC) 2334:list of astronomical topics 2174:List of most luminous stars 2057:I have implemented this as 2019:( 10.0 * {{{p_error}}} ) }} 671: 324:Knowledge:List of infoboxes 10: 10461: 9347:I don't see the necessity. 9312:I've put up for deletion: 8870:Galaxy group/cluster names 8683:list of astronomy acronyms 7343:List of Solar System Moons 7333:List of Solar System Moons 7019:Isn't using <table: --> 6824:List of astronomy acronyms 6737:List of astronomy acronyms 6671:List of astronomy acronyms 5970:NGC 4631 group of galaxies 5399:, on the English-language 4380:18:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC) 4331:17:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC) 4301:14:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC) 4279:22:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC) 3935:19:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC) 3807:Bayer objects in Andromeda 3672:General issues with images 3352:Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies 3339:Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies 3265:Image:Cha110913-773444.jpg 3257:Image:Cha110913-773444.jpg 1255:14:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC) 1158: 962:Physical characteristics 687: 488: 402: 370:00:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC) 358:17:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC) 331:16:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC) 312:02:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC) 273:16:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC) 254:15:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC) 234:15:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC) 202:14:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC) 170:18:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 160:18:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 150:19:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 137:18:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 123:17:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 10430:I just proposed renaming 10001:also created by MrWuggs. 9636:1181 Lilit - move request 9615:Uppsala General Catalogue 9375:I don't see the use for: 9212:Category: Uncertain novae 8208:binary system (astronomy) 6875:Moved to log found under 6718:Ack, sorry. Corrected. -- 6472:'s suggestions about the 6408:Standards & Infoboxes 5678:Naming Convention - Stars 5564:Hope this helps, thanks, 5201:I wouldn't mind renaming 5162:Spindle Galaxy in Sextans 4566:Worklist format problems? 4469:Does anyone else besides 4248:23:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC) 4208:16:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC) 4175:14:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC) 4164:11:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC) 4148: 4141: 4101: 4061: 3952: 3920:15:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC) 3881:08:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC) 3871:23:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC) 3831:09:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC) 3814:22:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC) 3791:22:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC) 3768:21:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC) 3746:, I've got a few points: 3733:08:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC) 3722:17:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC) 3667:21:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC) 3630:23:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC) 3617:22:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC) 3600:22:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC) 3587:21:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC) 3541:17:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC) 3534:The Astrophysical Journal 3510:17:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC) 3489:14:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC) 3480:I've been working on the 3471:14:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC) 3445:16:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC) 3417:09:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC) 3394:15:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC) 3359:20:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC) 3324:01:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC) 3311:06:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 3298:02:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 2872:20:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC) 2836:19:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 2723:16:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 2705:15:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 2681:19:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC) 2664:01:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 2635:01:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 2618:01:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC) 2597:is up for deletion on AfD 2558:19:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC) 2432:Collaboration of the Week 2426:02:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 2348:16:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 2217:Category:Edge-on galaxies 2203:20:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC) 2126:17:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 2072:23:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2036:18:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 1993:02:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 1970:01:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 1187: 1182: 1170: 1163: 1121: 1094: 961: 782: 777: 719: 714: 702: 691: 621:Physical characteristics 620: 523: 492: 417: 406: 10392:Coma cluster of galaxies 9097:Hypothetical categories: 8717:Sloan Digital Sky Survey 8620:Extrasolar Encyclopedia 8509:Galaxy Abell 1835 IR1916 8072:textbook and my copy of 7562:(with a paper available 6815:(^_^) 8/27/06 morning... 6800:(^_^) 8/27/06 morning... 6779:(^_^) 8/27/06 morning... 6454:Would it be best to use 6165:Planemo - extra acronyms 6047:L and T stars outnumber 5838:http://dwarfarchives.org 5705:would probably be best. 5144:Southern Pinwheel Galaxy 4693:cleanup, and especially 4159:. Comments/suggestions? 3755:because of ease of use). 3656:Talk:Globular Cluster M2 3276:21:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC) 3248:15:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC) 3225:13:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC) 3208:14:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC) 3190:04:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC) 3173:22:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC) 3149:11:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC) 3131:09:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC) 3122:I've listed the page on 3114:10:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC) 3103:09:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC) 3093:05:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC) 3066:23:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC) 2973:23:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC) 2937:21:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC) 2920:13:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC) 2903:Digitized Sky Survey at 2889:21:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC) 2589:03:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC) 2530:19:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC) 2520:15:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC) 2510:02:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC) 2501:22:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC) 2488:20:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC) 2479:15:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC) 2469:15:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC) 2409:11:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC) 2381:22:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC) 2357:11:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC) 2327:12:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC) 2305:11:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) 2284:11:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC) 2274:11:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC) 2257:11:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC) 2247:03:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC) 2234:17:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 2224:21:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2187:is 3.496 ± 0.01 pc, and 2144:21:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC) 1953:23:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC) 1903:16:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC) 1893:23:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 1847:17:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC) 1797:19:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC) 1772:23:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC) 1730:01:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC) 1672:16:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 1659:15:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 1641:07:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC) 1622:07:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC) 1605:06:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC) 1591:06:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC) 1430:06:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC) 1410:11:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC) 1392:18:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC) 1235:Star-planetbox secondary 391:18:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC) 103:New look for box headers 10396:Leo I group of galaxies 10384:Category:NGC 6703 group 10252:will find it listed as 9774:, I posted a link to a 9597:Uppsala General Catalog 9591:Uppsala General Catalog 9308:user:Mrwuggs categories 9278:Category talk:Asteroids 9184:Might be better called 9165:Might be better called 8956:Revised galaxy template 8917:Category:Double quasars 8912:Category:Double quasars 8898:", and "Mountains" in " 8685:took a couple of weeks. 8289:List of Messier objects 7860:star systems in fiction 7259:page still looks quite 6879:of this WikiProject. -- 6572:Category:Binary planets 6253:Spindle Galaxy in Draco 6030:Question on this page, 5456:. This pointed to the 5153:Spindle Galaxy in Draco 4729:Created the following: 4316:request for peer review 2367:requested articles page 2215:made a new galaxy cat, 2208:galaxies by orientation 2169:List of brightest stars 1367:11:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC) 1346:19:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC) 1327:14:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC) 1309:13:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC) 1296:13:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC) 1280:11:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC) 381:18:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 10380:Category:M101 subgroup 9967:Category:M101 subgroup 9542:is proposing to merge 9276:Please take a look at 9245:Please take a look at 8919:is up for deletion at 8636:Atlas of the Universe 8358:. Among the changes: 8297:Herschel 400 Catalogue 8270:Herschel 400 Catalogue 8264:I've been working the 7725:M104 group of galaxies 7717:M104 group of galaxies 7710:M104 group of galaxies 7708:Article for Deletion: 7440:Stellar classification 6809:Oh, APM is a catalog, 6656:(^_^; 8/25/2006 5:30pm 6623:(^_^; 8/25/2006 3:30pm 6517:M104 group of galaxies 6320:has been moved twice. 6201:for the full names? — 6151:Stellar classification 6098:Stellar classification 6026:Stellar Classification 5974:M104 group of galaxies 5821:list of lightest stars 5814:Hubble Space Telescope 5760:List of heaviest stars 5756:List of smallest stars 5752:List of lightest stars 5501:M104 group of galaxies 5401:stellar classification 5388:Stellar Classification 5003:Sheppard/Jewitt’s 0.04 4979:Mean orbital elements 4903:X's natural satellites 4851: 4407:Splitting galaxy pairs 4054:2,453,582.755 ± 0.006 3744:Category:Bayer objects 2752:should be referenced. 2698:Wikisource:Scriptorium 2696:and the discussion at 2669:The PR is complete. — 2605:is up for deletion on 2571:Small Magellanic Cloud 1576: 1177: 1030:0.2194 d (5 h 16 min) 864:266.762 Gm (1.783 AU) 851:169.548 Gm (1.133 AU) 709: 10376:Category:M51 subgroup 9963:Category:M51 subgroup 9470:User Mrwuggs created 9385:Mrwuggs has created: 8880:Astrophysical Journal 8407:M74 group of galaxies 8400:M74 group of galaxies 8079:The Physical Universe 7715:I have nominated the 7233:books' information. 4852: 4551:NGC 1531 and NGC 1532 4525:HD 80606 and HD 80607 4501:HD 80606 and HD 80607 4417:NGC 7752 and NGC 7753 4413:NGC 1531 and NGC 1532 3573:Astrophysical Journal 3235:The term for that is 3158:is drawn as just the 2831:Hope this is useful. 2191:is 10.5 ± 0.03 ly. — 2159:List of nearest stars 1988:would do a good job. 1577: 1175: 772:Mars-crosser asteroid 707: 220:comment was added by 42:of past discussions. 10432:Category:Leo cluster 9724:when you find them? 9601:Category:UGC objects 8884:Astronomical Journal 8280:if your interested. 8149:user:Hurricane Devon 7691:Does anyone besides 7136:for an explanation. 5739:Thanks, CarpD (^_^) 5245:Sombrero Galaxy page 4808: 4254:_Variable_Star": --> 4251:_Variable_Star": --> 4247:_Variable_Star": --> 4242:, or be a DAB page. 4228:_Variable_Star": --> 2765:Barnes et al. (2002) 1462: 597:Apparent dimensions 10436:Category:Abell 1367 10310:Minor planet number 10159:Minor planet number 9776:Minor Planet Center 9672:Minor Planet Center 9474:, which duplicates 8937:Category:M104 group 8675:list of NGC objects 8644:Spaceflightnow.com 8594:List of Brown Dwarf 8451:astronomical object 7958:User 132.205.45.148 7612:interstellar medium 7599:Elliptical galaxies 7432:Astronomical object 6193:pages that jump to 5579:assuming good faith 5350:"triangulum galaxy" 4907:irregular satellite 4747:S-beltasteroid-stub 4736:C-beltasteroid-stub 4711:Asteroid-stub split 3949: 2578:Star Fleet Universe 2213:user:HurricaneDevon 1440:Hipparcos Catalogue 10303:Minor planet names 10033:A POV fork of the 9227:User Random Critic 9167:Hypothetical moons 8943:up for deletion. 8629:Secondary Sources 8293:Caldwell catalogue 8266:Caldwell catalogue 8014:terrestrial planet 7771:Template:Structure 7607:Irregular galaxies 7543:. Therefore, the 7512:gamma ray burst. 6669: 6667:Astronomy acronyms 6229:list. And in the 6197:. Or did you mean 4847: 4846: 4844: 4362:user:Keenan Pepper 4198:Extragalactic lens 4188:Intragalactic lens 4143:Other designations 3945: 3652:Naming Conventions 2603:List of IC objects 2595:List of IC objects 2494:Collaboration page 2363:category:astronomy 2109:Starbox astrometry 1710:Starbox astrometry 1572: 1245:Star-planetbox end 1178: 1048:Absolute magnitude 891:Mean orbital speed 801: 778:Orbital elements 710: 664:Other designations 640:Absolute magnitude 583:Apparent magnitude 474:Apparent magnitude 10367:Galaxy group work 10347:natural satellite 10161:- should this be 10100:User:RandomCritic 10072:has been prodded 9392:which duplicates 9296:User:RandomCritic 9233:User:RandomCritic 9146:The old name was 8652: 8651: 8638:Newscientist.com 7572:planetary nebulae 7395: 7347:natural satellite 7329:Natural satellite 6898:WikiProject Space 6770:Category:Acronyms 6675:Category:Acronyms 6665: 6508:(^_^) 8/25/2006 6271:Spirograph Nebula 6181:(^_^) 8/23/2006. 5354:triangulum galaxy 5180:Triangulum Galaxy 4976:Orbital elements 4925:outside Knowledge 4838: 4422:Antennae Galaxies 4153: 4152: 4149:EWS 2005-BLG-390 4063:Source properties 4007: 3962: 3947:OGLE-2005-BLG-390 3802:Agreed, of course 3291:Galactic spheroid 2584:article instead. 2492:I've stated up a 2450:WP:ASTRO/Worklist 2446:Tropical Cyclones 2438:WP:ASTRO/Worklist 2391:Referencing drive 1615:Distance: 71.3 pc 1570: 1530: 1516: 1489: 1216: 1215: 1156: 1155: 1130: 1113: 1106: 1085: 1084: 1081: 1080: 800: 783: 756:1898 DQ; 1956 PC 685: 684: 681: 680: 644: 600: 587: 532: 515: 508: 486: 485: 478: 428: 277: 237: 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 10452: 9955:7796 Járacimrman 9830:7796 Járacimrman 9810:7796 Járacimrman 9796:7796 Járacimrman 9747:Talk:Star_system 9491:Mr. Wuggs speaks 8696:Knowledge policy 8646:Console Station 8600: 8599: 8537:Andromeda Galaxy 8444: 8442: 8441: 7840: 7836:FictionAstroLocs 7834: 7786:Fiction standard 7675:distance modulus 7464:gamma ray bursts 7391: 6854:Transit of Venus 6848:Transit of Venus 6593:(^_^; 8/25/2006 6528:George J. Bendo) 6497:(^_^) 8/25/2006 6237:(^_^) 8/25/2006. 6160:(^_^) 8/24/2006. 6142:(^_^) 8/23/2006. 5203:Andromeda Galaxy 5189:Whirlpool Galaxy 5171:Sunflower Galaxy 5117:Black Eye Galaxy 4856: 4854: 4853: 4848: 4839: 4834: 4833: 4824: 4767:Astronomy School 4751: 4745: 4740: 4734: 4584: 4578: 4473:have an opinion? 4366:Category:Nebulas 4356:Category:Nebulae 4255: 4252: 4229: 4223: 4218: 4202: 4196: 4192: 4186: 4003: 3976: 3955: 3953:Observation data 3950: 3944: 3455:Nomenclature of 3373: 3367: 3263:Hello, I listed 3038: 3005:User:Jimbo Wales 2642:Globular cluster 2442:Military History 2183:is 25 ± 0.1 ly; 2113: 2107: 2066: 2060: 1987: 1981: 1916: 1910: 1724: 1718: 1714: 1708: 1693:Help:Calculation 1581: 1579: 1578: 1573: 1571: 1569: 1568: 1559: 1551: 1540: 1536: 1535: 1531: 1523: 1517: 1515: 1504: 1494: 1490: 1482: 1249: 1243: 1239: 1233: 1197:Carl Gustav Witt 1161: 1124: 1122:Observation data 1111:Lists of nebulae 1109: 1102: 1092: 1091: 920:Longitude of the 784: 729:Carl Gustav Witt 689: 679: 675: 654:Notable features 642: 598: 585: 526: 524:Observation data 513:Lists of nebulae 511: 504: 490: 489: 476: 421: 419:Observation data 404: 403: 400: 399: 275: 215: 116: 110: 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 10460: 10459: 10455: 10454: 10453: 10451: 10450: 10449: 10440:George J. Bendo 10420:George J. Bendo 10369: 10330: 10323:Dysnomia (moon) 10306: 10258:George J. Bendo 10217:George J. Bendo 10194:George J. Bendo 10186: 10151: 10107: 10084: 10067: 10056:George J. Bendo 10031: 9988: 9971:George J. Bendo 9878:George J. Bendo 9838:George J. Bendo 9761: 9739: 9726:George J. Bendo 9704:George J. Bendo 9638: 9625:George J. Bendo 9593: 9580:George J. Bendo 9537: 9511:George J. Bendo 9493: 9468: 9455:George J. Bendo 9431: 9310: 9292: 9260: 9229: 9216:George J. Bendo 9099: 9078: 9050:George J. Bendo 9030:George J. Bendo 8970:George J. Bendo 8958: 8945:George J. Bendo 8914: 8904:George J. Bendo 8900:Rocky Mountains 8872: 8848:George J. Bendo 8753: 8721:George J. Bendo 8710:but to present 8634:Solstation.com 8603:Primary Source 8586: 8554:George J. Bendo 8477: 8466:George J. Bendo 8439: 8438: 8435: 8432: 8421:George J. Bendo 8411:George J. Bendo 8403: 8387:George J. Bendo 8374:George J. Bendo 8352: 8336: 8274:George J. Bendo 8262: 8223:binary asteroid 8211: 8147:I noticed that 8145: 8143:Hurricane Devon 8088:George J. Bendo 7967:George J. Bendo 7927:George J. Bendo 7893: 7864:George J. Bendo 7838: 7832: 7829:star in fiction 7788: 7773: 7750:George J. Bendo 7729:George J. Bendo 7721:Sombrero Galaxy 7713: 7697:George J. Bendo 7659:George J. Bendo 7591:spiral galaxies 7552:Sombrero Galaxy 7533:Template:Galaxy 7529: 7514:George J. Bendo 7469:George J. Bendo 7435: 7351:George J. Bendo 7336: 7235:George J. Bendo 7151:George J. Bendo 7125:George J. Bendo 7099:George J. Bendo 7038:George J. Bendo 7011:George J. Bendo 7001:George J. Bendo 6892: 6872: 6851: 6828:George J. Bendo 6789:George J. Bendo 6637:George J. Bendo 6604:George J. Bendo 6586: 6568: 6479:George J. Bendo 6410: 6364:George J. Bendo 6333: 6322:George J. Bendo 6292:George J. Bendo 6246: 6167: 6102:George J. Bendo 6058:George J. Bendo 6028: 6015:George J. Bendo 5981:George J. Bendo 5871: 5825:George J. Bendo 5748: 5702: 5680: 5640:George J. Bendo 5591:Starfish Galaxy 5542:George J. Bendo 5508:George J. Bendo 5450: 5390: 5309:George J. Bendo 5261:George J. Bendo 5135:Sombrero Galaxy 5126:Pinwheel Galaxy 5101:George J. Bendo 5081: 5031:George J. Bendo 4973:Sources to use 4942:George J. Bendo 4898: 4829: 4825: 4823: 4809: 4806: 4805: 4787: 4769: 4749: 4743: 4738: 4732: 4713: 4683: 4645:astro-todo-item 4605:George J. Bendo 4582: 4580:astro-todo-item 4576: 4568: 4547:George J. Bendo 4523:In the case of 4497: 4475:George J. Bendo 4426:George J. Bendo 4409: 4359: 4308: 4290:Template:100TPF 4287: 4225: 4200: 4194: 4190: 4184: 4172:George J. Bendo 4121:(6,600 ± 1,100 4116:21,500 ± 3,300 4103:Lens properties 4048:Time of maximum 4039:11.735 ± 0.116 4026: 3988:−30° 22′ 38.3″ 3974: 3969:Right ascension 3943: 3740: 3730:George J. Bendo 3674: 3644: 3518: 3478: 3460: 3414:George J. Bendo 3371: 3365: 3356:George J. Bendo 3334: 3285:The article on 3283: 3261: 3141: 3100:George J. Bendo 3081: 3028: 2970:George J. Bendo 2917:George J. Bendo 2897: 2861: 2825: 2815: 2805: 2795: 2785: 2775: 2760: 2749: 2742: 2731: 2689: 2645: 2613:(June 8, 2006) 2599: 2582:SMC (Star Trek) 2574: 2452:up to at least 2436:Looking at the 2434: 2393: 2210: 2189:Epsilon Eridani 2152: 2111: 2105: 2064: 2058: 1985: 1979: 1934: 1914: 1908: 1907:I have written 1869: 1751: 1722: 1716: 1712: 1706: 1564: 1560: 1552: 1550: 1522: 1518: 1508: 1503: 1502: 1498: 1481: 1477: 1463: 1460: 1459: 1417: 1262: 1247: 1241: 1237: 1231: 1221: 1203:Discovery date 1147:Right ascension 1090: 1026:Rotation period 1016:Escape velocity 820:Semi-major axis 735:Discovery date 697: 549:Right ascension 498: 450:Right ascension 412: 398: 348:on top and the 216:—The preceding 114: 108: 105: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 10458: 10448: 10447: 10446: 10445: 10415:galaxy cluster 10368: 10365: 10364: 10363: 10337:132.205.44.134 10329: 10320: 10305: 10300: 10299: 10298: 10274: 10273: 10245: 10244: 10225: 10224: 10223: 10222: 10210: 10209: 10185: 10182: 10150: 10147: 10137: 10136: 10130: 10124: 10118: 10115:Category:Moons 10106: 10097: 10083: 10080: 10066: 10063: 10062: 10061: 10054:? Thank you, 10042:132.205.93.148 10030: 10025: 10019:132.205.93.148 10003:132.205.93.148 9987: 9977: 9943: 9942: 9941: 9940: 9939: 9938: 9917: 9916: 9915: 9914: 9902: 9901: 9887:convention. — 9866: 9865: 9864: 9863: 9862: 9861: 9856:132.205.44.134 9846: 9845: 9844: 9843: 9760: 9757: 9738: 9735: 9734: 9733: 9732: 9731: 9712: 9711: 9710: 9709: 9688: 9687: 9686: 9685: 9678: 9677: 9676: 9675: 9652: 9651: 9645: 9637: 9634: 9633: 9632: 9631: 9630: 9618: 9617: 9605:132.205.44.134 9592: 9589: 9588: 9587: 9586: 9585: 9556:132.205.44.134 9536: 9527: 9517: 9516: 9492: 9489: 9476:Category:Moons 9467: 9464: 9463: 9462: 9461: 9460: 9430: 9427: 9426: 9425: 9424: 9423: 9418:132.205.44.134 9412: 9411: 9406: 9397: 9383: 9382: 9373: 9372: 9368: 9367: 9361: 9360: 9356: 9355: 9349: 9348: 9344: 9343: 9337: 9336: 9332: 9331: 9325: 9324: 9320: 9319: 9309: 9306: 9300:132.205.44.134 9291: 9288: 9282:132.205.44.134 9269:132.205.44.134 9259: 9256: 9250:132.205.44.134 9238:132.205.44.134 9231:It seems that 9228: 9225: 9224: 9223: 9222: 9221: 9201: 9200: 9191: 9190: 9189: 9188: 9179: 9178: 9172: 9171: 9170: 9169: 9160: 9159: 9153: 9152: 9151: 9150: 9141: 9140: 9131: 9130: 9125: 9120: 9115: 9098: 9095: 9077: 9074: 9073: 9072: 9038: 9037: 9036: 9035: 9024: 9023: 9022: 9021: 9014: 9013: 9012: 9011: 9004: 9003: 8987: 8986: 8985: 8982: 8957: 8954: 8953: 8952: 8951: 8950: 8925:132.205.44.134 8913: 8910: 8894:", "Lake" in " 8871: 8868: 8862:Chaos syndrome 8854: 8853: 8845: 8844: 8843: 8829: 8826:Chaos syndrome 8821: 8818:AfD discussion 8810: 8806: 8805: 8776:Chaos syndrome 8752: 8749: 8748: 8747: 8729: 8728: 8727: 8726: 8689: 8688: 8687: 8686: 8679:German version 8668: 8667: 8650: 8649: 8647: 8645: 8643: 8641: 8639: 8637: 8635: 8632: 8630: 8626: 8625: 8623: 8621: 8619: 8617: 8615: 8613: 8611: 8609: 8606: 8604: 8585: 8584:Listing Frenzy 8582: 8581: 8580: 8532: 8531: 8529:Omega Centauri 8526: 8521: 8516: 8511: 8506: 8501: 8476: 8473: 8472: 8471: 8431: 8428: 8427: 8426: 8402: 8396: 8395: 8394: 8393: 8392: 8370: 8369: 8366: 8363: 8351: 8348: 8335: 8332: 8322: 8321: 8320: 8319: 8315: 8309: 8308: 8304: 8303: 8261: 8246: 8240:132.205.44.134 8236: 8235: 8233:contact binary 8230: 8225: 8220: 8210: 8204: 8203: 8202: 8197:132.205.44.134 8192: 8191: 8186:Chaos syndrome 8180: 8179: 8178: 8177: 8172:132.205.44.134 8153:132.205.45.148 8144: 8141: 8140: 8139: 8138: 8137: 8127: 8126: 8125: 8124: 8123: 8122: 8121: 8116:Chaos syndrome 8100: 8099: 8098: 8097: 8096: 8095: 8094: 8093: 8084:Jovian planets 8053: 8052: 8051: 8050: 8049: 8048: 8043:132.205.44.134 8001: 8000: 7999: 7998: 7997: 7996: 7995: 7994: 7989:Chaos syndrome 7977: 7976: 7975: 7974: 7973: 7972: 7963:this NASA site 7949: 7948: 7947: 7946: 7941:Chaos syndrome 7933: 7932: 7913:132.205.45.148 7892: 7889: 7888: 7887: 7856: 7855: 7824: 7823: 7812: 7811: 7806:132.205.45.148 7787: 7784: 7772: 7769: 7768: 7767: 7766: 7765: 7755: 7712: 7706: 7705: 7704: 7703: 7702: 7686: 7685: 7669: 7668: 7601:are triaxial ( 7528: 7525: 7524: 7523: 7522: 7521: 7520: 7519: 7501: 7500: 7499: 7498: 7475: 7474: 7434: 7429: 7418: 7417: 7414: 7411: 7404: 7403: 7402: 7401: 7400: 7399: 7335: 7326: 7325: 7324: 7323: 7322: 7321: 7320: 7290:Chaos syndrome 7253: 7252: 7251: 7250: 7245:Chaos syndrome 7220:Chaos syndrome 7216: 7215: 7214: 7213: 7201: 7200: 7199: 7198: 7197: 7196: 7195: 7194: 7193: 7192: 7191: 7190: 7171:Chaos syndrome 7138:Chaos syndrome 7115:Chaos syndrome 7111: 7110: 7109: 7108: 7107: 7106: 7105: 7104: 7095:Chaos syndrome 7086:Chaos syndrome 7062:Chaos syndrome 7051:Chaos syndrome 7046: 7045: 7044: 7043: 7034:Chaos syndrome 7028: 7027: 7022:Chaos syndrome 7007: 7006: 6978:Chaos syndrome 6973: 6972: 6971: 6970: 6969: 6968: 6934: 6933: 6932: 6931: 6912: 6911: 6891: 6888: 6871: 6868: 6850: 6845: 6844: 6843: 6842: 6841: 6840: 6839: 6817: 6816: 6806: 6805: 6804: 6803: 6802: 6801: 6781: 6780: 6773: 6765: 6764: 6763: 6762: 6761: 6760: 6759: 6758: 6743:(^_^) 8/26/06 6730: 6729: 6728: 6727: 6726: 6725: 6716: 6687: 6686: 6685: 6684: 6660: 6659: 6658: 6657: 6647: 6646: 6645: 6644: 6643: 6642: 6627: 6626: 6625: 6624: 6610: 6609: 6599:CarpD/Marasama 6585: 6582: 6567: 6564: 6563: 6562: 6561: 6560: 6533: 6532: 6531: 6521:NGC 2841 group 6498: 6491: 6487: 6486: 6485: 6484: 6442: 6441: 6438: 6435: 6432: 6425: 6424: 6423: 6422: 6409: 6406: 6405: 6404: 6403: 6402: 6391: 6390: 6369: 6335:Pages such as 6332: 6329: 6328: 6327: 6309: 6308: 6307: 6306: 6278: 6277: 6268: 6259: 6245: 6242: 6241: 6240: 6239: 6238: 6216: 6215: 6166: 6163: 6162: 6161: 6146: 6145: 6144: 6143: 6128: 6127: 6126: 6125: 6112: 6111: 6110: 6109: 6108: 6107: 6094: 6085: 6084: 6083: 6082: 6064: 6063: 6027: 6024: 6023: 6022: 6021: 6020: 6007: 6006: 5998: 5997: 5962:Fornax Cluster 5935: 5934: 5927: 5916: 5900: 5893: 5870: 5867: 5866: 5865: 5848: 5847: 5846: 5845: 5831: 5830: 5817: 5805: 5801: 5800: 5799: 5747: 5744: 5743: 5742: 5741: 5740: 5734: 5733: 5713: 5712: 5701: 5698: 5679: 5676: 5675: 5674: 5663: 5662: 5661: 5660: 5655:Chaos syndrome 5648: 5647: 5646: 5645: 5632: 5631: 5630: 5629: 5622: 5621: 5620: 5619: 5605: 5604: 5574: 5573: 5572: 5571: 5570: 5569: 5562: 5561: 5560: 5555: 5533:Chaos syndrome 5524: 5492:entire entries 5475: 5474: 5468: 5449: 5446: 5445: 5444: 5436: 5435: 5389: 5386: 5368: 5367: 5366: 5365: 5364: 5363: 5358:Chaos syndrome 5352:and 92100 for 5331: 5330: 5320: 5317: 5300: 5298: 5297: 5296: 5295: 5278: 5277: 5276: 5275: 5270:Chaos syndrome 5266: 5235: 5226: 5198: 5197: 5196: 5195: 5186: 5177: 5168: 5159: 5150: 5141: 5132: 5123: 5111: 5110: 5080: 5077: 5056: 5043:with a sample 5037: 5036: 5025: 5024: 5011: 5010: 5009: 5008: 5007: 5006: 4999: 4991: 4990: 4989: 4983: 4971: 4963: 4962: 4961: 4960: 4948: 4947: 4928:entries. See 4897: 4894: 4893: 4892: 4891: 4890: 4885:132.205.44.134 4880: 4872: 4871: 4842: 4837: 4832: 4828: 4822: 4819: 4816: 4813: 4792:132.205.93.195 4786: 4783: 4768: 4765: 4764: 4763: 4754: 4753: 4752: 4741: 4712: 4709: 4703:132.205.93.195 4682: 4679: 4678: 4677: 4667: 4666: 4665: 4664: 4663: 4662: 4661: 4610: 4567: 4564: 4563: 4562: 4561: 4560: 4521: 4505:Chaos syndrome 4496: 4495:Binary Systems 4493: 4492: 4491: 4490: 4489: 4480: 4467: 4449: 4445: 4408: 4405: 4404: 4403: 4377:132.205.93.195 4358: 4354:CFD rename on 4352: 4351: 4350: 4307: 4304: 4298:Chaos syndrome 4286: 4283: 4282: 4281: 4232:requested move 4224: 4214: 4213: 4212: 4211: 4210: 4205:Chaos syndrome 4178: 4177: 4161:Chaos syndrome 4151: 4150: 4146: 4145: 4139: 4138: 4135: 4127: 4126: 4120: 4114: 4106: 4105: 4099: 4098: 4095: 4087: 4086: 4080: 4074: 4066: 4065: 4059: 4058: 4052: 4049: 4044: 4043: 4037: 4031: 4030: 4028: 4024: 4019:0.332 ± 0.005 4017: 4014: 4013:Minimum impact 4009: 4008: 4002:3.136 ± 0.044 4000: 3996: 3990: 3989: 3986: 3978: 3977: 3972: 3964: 3963: 3954: 3942: 3939: 3938: 3937: 3929: 3928:|Andromedae, α 3923: 3922: 3906: 3905: 3904: 3898: 3895: 3888: 3886: 3885: 3884: 3883: 3878:Chaos syndrome 3846: 3843: 3839: 3838: 3837: 3836: 3835: 3834: 3833: 3828:Chaos syndrome 3817: 3816: 3803: 3800: 3794: 3793: 3779: 3776: 3765:Chaos syndrome 3761: 3760: 3756: 3752: 3739: 3736: 3725: 3724: 3698: 3697: 3673: 3670: 3664:Chaos syndrome 3643: 3640: 3639: 3638: 3637: 3636: 3635: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3605: 3604: 3603: 3602: 3597:Chaos syndrome 3590: 3589: 3569: 3568: 3567: 3566: 3565: 3562: 3559: 3556: 3538:Chaos syndrome 3517: 3514: 3513: 3512: 3477: 3474: 3468:Chaos syndrome 3459: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3422: 3421: 3420: 3419: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3397: 3396: 3376: 3375: 3333: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3314: 3313: 3287:Kapteyn's Star 3282: 3279: 3273:Chaos syndrome 3260: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3176: 3175: 3170:Chaos syndrome 3140: 3139:constellations 3137: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3128:Chaos syndrome 3117: 3116: 3111:Chaos syndrome 3106: 3105: 3080: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3054: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3044: 3025: 3024:for licensing. 3018: 3015:Special:Upload 2993: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2940: 2939: 2896: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2869:Chaos syndrome 2860: 2857: 2856: 2855: 2833:Chaos syndrome 2824: 2819: 2814: 2809: 2804: 2799: 2794: 2789: 2784: 2779: 2774: 2769: 2759: 2754: 2748: 2743: 2741: 2736: 2730: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2688: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2644: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2615:132.205.45.110 2598: 2592: 2586:132.205.44.134 2573: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2517:Worldtraveller 2503: 2490: 2485:Worldtraveller 2481: 2458:Worldtraveller 2433: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2406:Worldtraveller 2392: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2332:Well there's " 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2281:Worldtraveller 2276: 2267:edge-on galaxy 2263:face-on galaxy 2244:132.205.45.148 2209: 2206: 2177: 2176: 2171: 2166: 2161: 2151: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2102: 2101: 2093: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2021: 2020: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1677: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1608: 1607: 1584: 1583: 1567: 1563: 1558: 1555: 1549: 1546: 1543: 1539: 1534: 1529: 1526: 1521: 1514: 1511: 1507: 1501: 1497: 1493: 1488: 1485: 1480: 1476: 1473: 1470: 1467: 1416: 1413: 1407:Worldtraveller 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1364:Worldtraveller 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1306:Worldtraveller 1277:Worldtraveller 1261: 1258: 1252:Chaos syndrome 1220: 1217: 1214: 1213: 1204: 1200: 1199: 1194: 1190: 1189: 1185: 1184: 1180: 1179: 1168: 1167: 1154: 1153: 1150: 1142: 1141: 1138: 1132: 1131: 1123: 1119: 1118: 1115: 1114: 1107: 1104:Diffuse nebula 1099: 1098: 1089: 1086: 1083: 1082: 1079: 1078: 1072: 1068: 1064: 1063: 1060: 1054: 1053: 1050: 1044: 1043: 1038: 1036:Spectral class 1032: 1031: 1028: 1022: 1021: 1018: 1012: 1011: 1008: 1001: 1000: 994: 988: 987: 981: 975: 974: 968: 964: 963: 959: 958: 955: 946: 945: 942: 936: 931: 930: 927: 922:ascending node 921: 916: 915: 909: 900: 899: 893: 887: 886: 875: 870:Orbital period 866: 865: 862: 853: 852: 849: 840: 839: 825: 816: 815: 812: 803: 802: 780: 779: 775: 774: 770: 764: 758: 757: 754: 751: 746: 745: 736: 732: 731: 726: 722: 721: 717: 716: 712: 711: 700: 699: 693: 686: 683: 682: 673: 670: 669: 668:NGC 1976, M42 666: 660: 659: 656: 650: 649: 646: 635: 634: 631: 623: 622: 618: 617: 614: 606: 605: 602: 593: 592: 589: 578: 577: 574: 568: 567: 564: 556: 555: 552: 544: 543: 540: 534: 533: 525: 521: 520: 517: 516: 509: 506:Diffuse nebula 501: 500: 494: 487: 484: 483: 480: 469: 468: 467:-60° 50′ 8.2″ 465: 457: 456: 453: 445: 444: 439: 431: 430: 420: 415: 414: 410:Alpha Centauri 408: 397: 394: 384: 383: 378:Chaos syndrome 363: 362: 361: 360: 334: 333: 300: 299: 295: 291: 284: 282: 281: 280: 279: 258: 257: 251:Chaos syndrome 241: 240: 239: 238: 205: 204: 196: 179: 178: 177: 176: 175: 174: 173: 172: 167:Worldtraveller 147:Worldtraveller 140: 139: 120:Worldtraveller 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 89: 84: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 10457: 10444: 10441: 10437: 10433: 10429: 10428: 10427: 10426: 10425: 10424: 10421: 10416: 10412: 10407: 10405: 10401: 10397: 10393: 10389: 10385: 10381: 10377: 10372: 10362: 10358: 10357: 10352: 10348: 10344: 10343: 10342: 10341: 10338: 10334: 10333:User:Cool Cat 10328: 10324: 10319: 10318: 10315: 10311: 10304: 10297: 10294: 10289: 10285: 10281: 10276: 10275: 10272: 10269: 10265: 10264: 10263: 10262: 10259: 10255: 10251: 10243: 10240: 10236: 10235: 10234: 10233: 10230: 10221: 10218: 10214: 10213: 10212: 10211: 10208: 10205: 10201: 10200: 10199: 10198: 10195: 10191: 10181: 10180: 10177: 10172: 10171: 10168: 10164: 10160: 10156: 10146: 10145: 10142: 10134: 10131: 10128: 10125: 10122: 10119: 10116: 10112: 10109: 10108: 10105: 10101: 10096: 10095: 10092: 10088: 10079: 10078: 10075: 10071: 10060: 10057: 10053: 10049: 10048: 10047: 10046: 10043: 10040: 10036: 10029: 10024: 10023: 10020: 10016: 10013: 10008: 10007: 10004: 10000: 9996: 9993: 9985: 9981: 9976: 9975: 9972: 9968: 9964: 9960: 9956: 9952: 9948: 9937: 9933: 9932: 9927: 9923: 9922: 9921: 9920: 9919: 9918: 9913: 9910: 9906: 9905: 9904: 9903: 9900: 9896: 9895: 9890: 9885: 9884: 9883: 9882: 9879: 9875: 9871: 9860: 9857: 9852: 9851: 9850: 9849: 9848: 9847: 9842: 9839: 9835: 9831: 9827: 9823: 9819: 9815: 9811: 9807: 9803: 9802: 9801: 9800: 9799: 9797: 9793: 9789: 9785: 9781: 9777: 9773: 9769: 9764: 9756: 9755: 9752: 9748: 9745:. See recent 9744: 9730: 9727: 9723: 9719: 9716: 9715: 9714: 9713: 9708: 9705: 9700: 9696: 9692: 9691: 9690: 9689: 9682: 9681: 9680: 9679: 9673: 9669: 9665: 9664: 9663: 9662: 9661: 9660: 9657: 9650: 9646: 9644:→ 1181 Lilith 9643: 9640: 9639: 9629: 9626: 9622: 9621: 9620: 9619: 9616: 9612: 9611: 9610: 9609: 9606: 9602: 9598: 9584: 9581: 9577: 9573: 9572:Counter-Earth 9569: 9565: 9564: 9563: 9562: 9561: 9560: 9557: 9553: 9549: 9545: 9544:Counter-Earth 9541: 9535: 9531: 9530:Counter-Earth 9526: 9525: 9522: 9515: 9512: 9508: 9505: 9504: 9503: 9502: 9499: 9488: 9487: 9484: 9481: 9477: 9473: 9459: 9456: 9451: 9448:I have asked 9447: 9446: 9445: 9444: 9443: 9442: 9439: 9436: 9422: 9419: 9416: 9415: 9414: 9413: 9410: 9407: 9405: 9401: 9398: 9395: 9391: 9388: 9387: 9386: 9381: 9378: 9377: 9376: 9370: 9369: 9366: 9363: 9362: 9358: 9357: 9354: 9351: 9350: 9346: 9345: 9342: 9339: 9338: 9334: 9333: 9330: 9327: 9326: 9322: 9321: 9318: 9315: 9314: 9313: 9305: 9304: 9301: 9297: 9287: 9286: 9283: 9279: 9274: 9273: 9270: 9265: 9255: 9254: 9251: 9248: 9243: 9242: 9239: 9234: 9220: 9217: 9213: 9209: 9205: 9204: 9203: 9202: 9199: 9196: 9193: 9192: 9187: 9183: 9182: 9181: 9180: 9177: 9174: 9173: 9168: 9164: 9163: 9162: 9161: 9158: 9155: 9154: 9149: 9145: 9144: 9143: 9142: 9139: 9136: 9135: 9134: 9129: 9126: 9124: 9121: 9119: 9116: 9114: 9111: 9110: 9109: 9106: 9104: 9094: 9093: 9090: 9086: 9082: 9071: 9067: 9066: 9061: 9057: 9056: 9055: 9054: 9051: 9047: 9043: 9034: 9031: 9028: 9027: 9026: 9025: 9018: 9017: 9016: 9015: 9008: 9007: 9006: 9005: 9002: 8998: 8997: 8992: 8988: 8983: 8980: 8979: 8977: 8976: 8975: 8974: 8971: 8967: 8963: 8949: 8946: 8942: 8938: 8934: 8933: 8932: 8931: 8930: 8929: 8926: 8922: 8918: 8909: 8908: 8905: 8901: 8897: 8896:Lake Superior 8893: 8892:New York City 8887: 8885: 8881: 8877: 8867: 8866: 8863: 8859: 8852: 8849: 8846: 8841: 8837: 8836: 8834: 8830: 8827: 8822: 8819: 8815: 8811: 8808: 8807: 8804: 8801: 8797: 8793: 8788: 8783: 8782: 8781: 8780: 8777: 8773: 8769: 8765: 8761: 8758: 8757:dwarf planets 8746: 8742: 8741: 8736: 8731: 8730: 8725: 8722: 8718: 8713: 8709: 8705: 8701: 8697: 8693: 8692: 8691: 8690: 8684: 8680: 8676: 8672: 8671: 8670: 8669: 8665: 8661: 8660: 8659: 8657: 8642:Spaceref.com 8633: 8628: 8627: 8616:Astro-Papers 8607: 8602: 8601: 8598: 8595: 8591: 8579: 8575: 8574: 8569: 8565: 8561: 8560: 8559: 8558: 8555: 8549: 8545: 8543: 8538: 8530: 8527: 8525: 8522: 8520: 8517: 8515: 8512: 8510: 8507: 8505: 8502: 8500: 8497: 8496: 8495: 8492: 8490: 8486: 8482: 8470: 8467: 8462: 8461: 8460: 8459: 8456: 8452: 8448: 8443: 8425: 8422: 8418: 8417: 8416: 8415: 8412: 8408: 8401: 8391: 8388: 8383: 8382: 8381: 8380: 8379: 8378: 8375: 8367: 8364: 8361: 8360: 8359: 8357: 8347: 8345: 8341: 8331: 8330: 8327: 8316: 8313: 8312: 8311: 8310: 8306: 8305: 8302: 8298: 8294: 8290: 8286: 8285: 8284: 8281: 8279: 8275: 8271: 8267: 8259: 8255: 8251: 8245: 8244: 8241: 8234: 8231: 8229: 8226: 8224: 8221: 8219: 8218:double planet 8216: 8215: 8214: 8209: 8201: 8198: 8194: 8193: 8190: 8187: 8182: 8181: 8176: 8173: 8169: 8168: 8167: 8164: 8160: 8159: 8158: 8157: 8154: 8150: 8136: 8133: 8128: 8120: 8117: 8113: 8110: 8109: 8108: 8107: 8106: 8105: 8104: 8103: 8102: 8101: 8092: 8089: 8085: 8081: 8080: 8075: 8071: 8070: 8065: 8061: 8060: 8059: 8058: 8057: 8056: 8055: 8054: 8047: 8044: 8040: 8036: 8032: 8028: 8023: 8019: 8015: 8011: 8007: 8006: 8005: 8004: 8003: 8002: 7993: 7990: 7985: 7984: 7983: 7982: 7981: 7980: 7979: 7978: 7971: 7968: 7964: 7959: 7955: 7954: 7953: 7952: 7951: 7950: 7945: 7942: 7937: 7936: 7935: 7934: 7931: 7928: 7924: 7920: 7919: 7918: 7917: 7914: 7910: 7907:, along with 7906: 7902: 7898: 7886: 7882: 7881: 7876: 7871: 7870: 7869: 7868: 7865: 7861: 7854: 7850: 7849: 7844: 7837: 7830: 7826: 7825: 7822: 7819: 7814: 7813: 7810: 7807: 7803: 7802:template:main 7798: 7797: 7796: 7794: 7783: 7782: 7779: 7764: 7761: 7756: 7754: 7751: 7746: 7745: 7744: 7741: 7736: 7735: 7734: 7733: 7730: 7726: 7722: 7718: 7711: 7701: 7698: 7694: 7690: 7689: 7688: 7687: 7684: 7681: 7676: 7671: 7670: 7666: 7665: 7664: 7663: 7660: 7655: 7653: 7647: 7645: 7641: 7637: 7633: 7629: 7623: 7621: 7617: 7613: 7608: 7604: 7600: 7596: 7592: 7587: 7583: 7581: 7577: 7573: 7569: 7565: 7561: 7557: 7553: 7548: 7546: 7542: 7541:Virgo Cluster 7536: 7534: 7518: 7515: 7511: 7507: 7506: 7505: 7504: 7503: 7502: 7497: 7493: 7492: 7487: 7483: 7479: 7478: 7477: 7476: 7473: 7470: 7465: 7461: 7460: 7459: 7458: 7454: 7453: 7448: 7443: 7441: 7433: 7428: 7427: 7424: 7415: 7412: 7409: 7408: 7407: 7398: 7394: 7390: 7385: 7384: 7383: 7380: 7375: 7374: 7373: 7369: 7368: 7363: 7358: 7357: 7356: 7355: 7352: 7348: 7344: 7340: 7334: 7330: 7319: 7316: 7312: 7311: 7310: 7306: 7305: 7300: 7296: 7295: 7294: 7291: 7287: 7283: 7279: 7278: 7277: 7276: 7272: 7271: 7266: 7262: 7258: 7249: 7246: 7241: 7240: 7239: 7236: 7231: 7227: 7226: 7225: 7224: 7221: 7212: 7209: 7205: 7204: 7203: 7202: 7189: 7186: 7182: 7177: 7176: 7175: 7172: 7167: 7166: 7165: 7162: 7157: 7156: 7155: 7152: 7148: 7144: 7143: 7142: 7139: 7135: 7131: 7130: 7129: 7126: 7122: 7121: 7120: 7119: 7116: 7103: 7100: 7097:'s comments. 7096: 7093:I agree with 7092: 7091: 7090: 7087: 7082: 7081: 7080: 7077: 7073: 7068: 7067: 7066: 7063: 7058: 7057: 7056: 7055: 7052: 7042: 7039: 7035: 7032: 7031: 7030: 7029: 7026: 7023: 7018: 7017: 7016: 7015: 7012: 7005: 7002: 6997: 6993: 6989: 6985: 6984: 6983: 6982: 6979: 6967: 6963: 6962: 6957: 6952: 6951: 6950: 6947: 6943: 6938: 6937: 6936: 6935: 6930: 6926: 6925: 6920: 6916: 6915: 6914: 6913: 6910: 6907: 6903: 6899: 6894: 6893: 6887: 6886: 6885: 6882: 6878: 6877:the main page 6867: 6866: 6863: 6859: 6855: 6849: 6838: 6834: 6833: 6832: 6829: 6825: 6821: 6820: 6819: 6818: 6814: 6810: 6808: 6807: 6799: 6795: 6794: 6793: 6790: 6785: 6784: 6783: 6782: 6778: 6774: 6771: 6767: 6766: 6755: 6754: 6753: 6750: 6745: 6744: 6742: 6738: 6734: 6733: 6732: 6731: 6724: 6721: 6717: 6715: 6711: 6710: 6705: 6701: 6697: 6693: 6692: 6691: 6690: 6689: 6688: 6683: 6680: 6676: 6672: 6668: 6664: 6663: 6662: 6661: 6655: 6651: 6650: 6649: 6648: 6641: 6638: 6633: 6632: 6631: 6630: 6629: 6628: 6622: 6618: 6614: 6613: 6612: 6611: 6608: 6605: 6600: 6596: 6595: 6594: 6592: 6581: 6580: 6579:132.205.93.19 6577: 6573: 6559: 6556: 6552: 6548: 6547: 6546: 6543: 6538: 6534: 6530: 6529: 6522: 6518: 6514: 6513:galaxy groups 6510: 6509: 6507: 6503: 6499: 6496: 6492: 6489: 6488: 6483: 6480: 6475: 6471: 6467: 6466: 6465: 6462: 6457: 6453: 6452: 6451: 6450: 6447: 6439: 6436: 6433: 6430: 6429: 6428: 6421: 6418: 6414: 6413: 6412: 6411: 6400: 6395: 6394: 6393: 6392: 6389: 6386: 6382: 6378: 6374: 6370: 6368: 6365: 6360: 6359: 6358: 6357: 6353: 6352: 6347: 6343: 6338: 6326: 6323: 6319: 6315: 6311: 6310: 6305: 6302: 6298: 6297: 6296: 6293: 6289: 6288: 6287: 6286: 6283: 6276: 6272: 6269: 6267: 6263: 6262:Mice Galaxies 6260: 6258: 6254: 6251: 6250: 6249: 6244:Move requests 6236: 6232: 6228: 6224: 6220: 6219: 6218: 6217: 6214: 6210: 6209: 6204: 6200: 6196: 6192: 6188: 6184: 6183: 6182: 6180: 6176: 6172: 6159: 6156: 6152: 6148: 6147: 6141: 6137: 6136: 6134: 6130: 6129: 6124: 6121: 6116: 6115: 6114: 6113: 6106: 6103: 6099: 6095: 6091: 6090: 6089: 6088: 6087: 6086: 6080: 6076: 6072: 6068: 6067: 6066: 6065: 6062: 6059: 6054: 6053:theoretically 6050: 6046: 6042: 6041: 6040: 6038: 6033: 6019: 6016: 6011: 6010: 6009: 6008: 6004: 6000: 5999: 5996: 5993: 5988: 5987: 5986: 5985: 5982: 5977: 5975: 5971: 5967: 5966:Virgo Cluster 5963: 5959: 5955: 5950: 5946: 5944: 5940: 5932: 5928: 5925: 5921: 5917: 5914: 5911: 5908:for the URL. 5907: 5905: 5901: 5898: 5894: 5891: 5887: 5883: 5882: 5881: 5878: 5876: 5875:galaxy groups 5864: 5860: 5859: 5854: 5850: 5849: 5843: 5839: 5835: 5834: 5833: 5832: 5829: 5826: 5822: 5818: 5815: 5811: 5806: 5802: 5798: 5795: 5791: 5787: 5786: 5785: 5782: 5778: 5777: 5776: 5775: 5771: 5770: 5765: 5761: 5757: 5753: 5738: 5737: 5736: 5735: 5732: 5729: 5728:132.205.93.88 5725: 5722: 5721: 5720: 5718: 5711: 5708: 5707: 5706: 5697: 5696: 5693: 5689: 5685: 5673: 5670: 5669:132.205.93.88 5665: 5664: 5659: 5656: 5652: 5651: 5650: 5649: 5644: 5641: 5636: 5635: 5634: 5633: 5626: 5625: 5624: 5623: 5617: 5614:) or SIMBAD ( 5613: 5609: 5608: 5607: 5606: 5603: 5600: 5599:132.205.93.88 5596: 5592: 5588: 5584: 5580: 5576: 5575: 5567: 5563: 5559: 5556: 5554: 5551: 5550: 5548: 5547: 5546: 5543: 5539: 5538: 5537: 5534: 5530: 5525: 5523: 5520: 5515: 5514: 5513: 5512: 5509: 5504: 5502: 5497: 5493: 5489: 5485: 5481: 5472: 5471:Other objects 5469: 5466: 5465: 5464: 5461: 5459: 5455: 5443:(^_^) 8/20/06 5442: 5438: 5437: 5434: 5431: 5427: 5423: 5422: 5421: 5420: 5416: 5415: 5410: 5406: 5402: 5398: 5393: 5385: 5384: 5380: 5379: 5374: 5362: 5359: 5355: 5351: 5347: 5343: 5340:, 222000 for 5339: 5338:"m 33" galaxy 5335: 5334: 5333: 5332: 5329: 5326: 5321: 5318: 5314: 5310: 5306: 5305: 5303: 5302: 5301: 5294: 5291: 5286: 5282: 5281: 5280: 5279: 5274: 5271: 5267: 5265: 5262: 5258: 5254: 5250: 5246: 5241: 5236: 5234: 5231: 5227: 5225: 5222: 5217: 5216: 5215: 5212: 5208: 5204: 5200: 5199: 5194: 5190: 5187: 5185: 5181: 5178: 5176: 5172: 5169: 5167: 5163: 5160: 5158: 5154: 5151: 5149: 5145: 5142: 5140: 5136: 5133: 5131: 5127: 5124: 5122: 5118: 5115: 5114: 5113: 5112: 5108: 5107: 5106: 5105: 5102: 5098: 5094: 5090: 5086: 5085:Bode's Galaxy 5076: 5075: 5072: 5068: 5064: 5060: 5054: 5053: 5050: 5046: 5042: 5035: 5032: 5027: 5026: 5022: 5021: 5020: 5019: 5016: 5004: 5000: 4998: 4995: 4994: 4992: 4988: 4984: 4982: 4978: 4977: 4975: 4974: 4972: 4968: 4967: 4966: 4959: 4956: 4952: 4951: 4950: 4949: 4946: 4943: 4939: 4935: 4931: 4926: 4922: 4921: 4920: 4919: 4916: 4912: 4911:Ananke (moon) 4909:article. See 4908: 4904: 4889: 4886: 4881: 4879: 4876: 4875: 4874: 4873: 4870: 4866: 4865: 4860: 4835: 4830: 4826: 4820: 4817: 4811: 4803: 4799: 4798: 4797: 4796: 4793: 4782: 4781: 4778: 4774: 4762: 4759: 4755: 4748: 4742: 4737: 4731: 4730: 4728: 4727: 4726: 4725: 4722: 4718: 4708: 4707: 4704: 4700: 4696: 4692: 4688: 4687:binary planet 4676: 4673: 4668: 4660: 4656: 4655: 4650: 4646: 4642: 4641: 4640: 4637: 4634: 4630: 4629: 4628: 4625: 4621: 4620: 4619: 4616: 4611: 4609: 4606: 4601: 4600: 4599: 4598: 4594: 4593: 4588: 4581: 4573: 4559: 4556: 4552: 4548: 4543: 4542: 4541: 4537: 4536: 4531: 4526: 4522: 4520: 4517: 4512: 4511: 4510: 4509: 4506: 4502: 4488: 4485: 4481: 4479: 4476: 4472: 4468: 4465: 4461: 4458: 4454: 4450: 4446: 4442: 4441: 4440: 4437: 4433: 4432: 4431: 4430: 4427: 4423: 4418: 4414: 4402: 4398: 4397: 4392: 4388: 4384: 4383: 4382: 4381: 4378: 4375: 4371: 4367: 4363: 4357: 4349: 4345: 4344: 4339: 4335: 4334: 4333: 4332: 4328: 4327: 4322: 4317: 4313: 4303: 4302: 4299: 4296:. Thank you. 4295: 4291: 4280: 4276: 4275: 4270: 4266: 4265:variable star 4262: 4258: 4257: 4256: 4249: 4245: 4244:132.205.93.88 4241: 4240:variable star 4237: 4236:Variable Star 4233: 4220:Variable Star 4209: 4206: 4199: 4189: 4182: 4181: 4180: 4179: 4176: 4173: 4168: 4167: 4166: 4165: 4162: 4158: 4147: 4144: 4140: 4136: 4134: 4133: 4132:Spectral type 4129: 4128: 4124: 4119: 4115: 4113: 4112: 4108: 4107: 4104: 4100: 4096: 4094: 4093: 4092:Spectral type 4089: 4088: 4084: 4079: 4075: 4073: 4072: 4068: 4067: 4064: 4060: 4057: 4053: 4051: 4046: 4045: 4042: 4038: 4036: 4033: 4032: 4029: 4027: 4023: 4018: 4016: 4011: 4010: 4006: 4001: 3999: 3998: 3997:amplification 3992: 3991: 3987: 3985: 3984: 3980: 3979: 3973: 3971: 3970: 3966: 3965: 3961: 3958: 3951: 3948: 3936: 3933: 3927: 3925: 3924: 3921: 3917: 3916: 3911: 3907: 3902: 3899: 3896: 3893: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3889: 3882: 3879: 3874: 3873: 3872: 3869: 3865: 3864: 3859: 3855: 3851: 3847: 3844: 3840: 3832: 3829: 3825: 3821: 3820: 3819: 3818: 3815: 3812: 3808: 3804: 3801: 3798: 3797: 3796: 3795: 3792: 3789: 3784: 3780: 3777: 3774: 3773: 3772: 3771: 3770: 3769: 3766: 3757: 3753: 3749: 3748: 3747: 3745: 3738:Bayer objects 3735: 3734: 3731: 3723: 3719: 3718: 3713: 3708: 3707: 3706: 3704: 3695: 3694: 3689: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3678: 3669: 3668: 3665: 3661: 3657: 3653: 3649: 3631: 3628: 3624: 3620: 3619: 3618: 3615: 3611: 3610: 3609: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3601: 3598: 3594: 3593: 3592: 3591: 3588: 3585: 3581: 3577: 3574: 3570: 3563: 3560: 3557: 3554: 3553: 3552: 3551: 3549: 3546:According to 3545: 3544: 3543: 3542: 3539: 3535: 3531: 3527: 3523: 3511: 3507: 3506: 3501: 3497: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3490: 3487: 3486:Serendipodous 3483: 3473: 3472: 3469: 3465: 3458: 3446: 3442: 3441: 3436: 3432: 3428: 3427: 3426: 3425: 3424: 3423: 3418: 3415: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3408: 3401: 3400: 3399: 3398: 3395: 3391: 3390: 3385: 3378: 3377: 3370: 3363: 3362: 3361: 3360: 3357: 3353: 3349: 3344: 3341: 3340: 3325: 3322: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3312: 3309: 3305: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3299: 3296: 3292: 3288: 3278: 3277: 3274: 3270: 3266: 3258: 3249: 3246: 3242: 3238: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3226: 3223: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3209: 3206: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3196: 3191: 3188: 3184: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3174: 3171: 3167: 3164: 3161: 3157: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3147: 3132: 3129: 3125: 3121: 3120: 3119: 3118: 3115: 3112: 3108: 3107: 3104: 3101: 3097: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3091: 3086: 3078: 3067: 3064: 3060: 3059: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3045: 3042: 3036: 3032: 3026: 3023: 3022:None Selected 3019: 3016: 3012: 3011: 3009: 3006: 3002: 2998: 2994: 2992: 2987: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2974: 2971: 2967: 2966: 2965: 2964: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2948: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2938: 2934: 2933: 2928: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2918: 2912: 2910: 2906: 2902: 2890: 2886: 2885: 2880: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2870: 2866: 2854: 2851: 2847: 2843: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2834: 2829: 2823: 2818: 2813: 2808: 2803: 2798: 2793: 2788: 2783: 2778: 2773: 2768: 2766: 2758: 2753: 2747: 2740: 2735: 2724: 2720: 2719: 2714: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2703: 2699: 2695: 2682: 2678: 2677: 2672: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2661: 2660: 2655: 2651: 2643: 2636: 2632: 2631: 2626: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2616: 2612: 2608: 2604: 2596: 2591: 2590: 2587: 2583: 2579: 2572: 2559: 2555: 2554: 2549: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2531: 2528: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2518: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2508: 2504: 2502: 2499: 2495: 2491: 2489: 2486: 2482: 2480: 2477: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2467: 2461: 2459: 2455: 2451: 2447: 2443: 2439: 2427: 2423: 2422: 2417: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2407: 2403: 2398: 2382: 2378: 2377: 2372: 2368: 2364: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2355: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2345: 2344: 2339: 2335: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2325: 2321: 2306: 2303: 2299: 2295: 2291: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2282: 2277: 2275: 2272: 2268: 2264: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2255: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2245: 2241: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2232: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2222: 2221:132.205.93.89 2218: 2214: 2205: 2204: 2200: 2199: 2194: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2175: 2172: 2170: 2167: 2165: 2162: 2160: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2145: 2141: 2140: 2135: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2123: 2122: 2117: 2110: 2100: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2073: 2070: 2063: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2033: 2032: 2027: 2017: 2016: 2015: 1994: 1991: 1984: 1977: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1967: 1966: 1961: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1951: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1913: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1901: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1891: 1887: 1882: 1881: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1848: 1844: 1843: 1838: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1798: 1794: 1793: 1788: 1784: 1780: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1770: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1731: 1728: 1721: 1711: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1698: 1694: 1690: 1689: 1686: 1685: 1683: 1678: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1670: 1666: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1657: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1642: 1639: 1635: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1623: 1620: 1616: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1606: 1603: 1599: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1589: 1565: 1561: 1556: 1553: 1547: 1544: 1541: 1537: 1532: 1527: 1524: 1519: 1512: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1486: 1483: 1478: 1474: 1471: 1468: 1465: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1454: 1450: 1445: 1441: 1437: 1432: 1431: 1428: 1424: 1422: 1412: 1411: 1408: 1393: 1390: 1387:Yup. Okay. — 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1368: 1365: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1347: 1344: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1328: 1325: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1310: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1294: 1289: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1278: 1272: 1270: 1266: 1257: 1256: 1253: 1246: 1236: 1229: 1225: 1212: 1208: 1205: 1202: 1201: 1198: 1195: 1192: 1191: 1186: 1181: 1174: 1169: 1166: 1162: 1159: 1151: 1149: 1148: 1144: 1143: 1139: 1137: 1134: 1133: 1128: 1120: 1116: 1112: 1105: 1101: 1100: 1097: 1093: 1077: 1073: 1071: 1066: 1065: 1061: 1059: 1056: 1055: 1051: 1049: 1046: 1045: 1042: 1039: 1037: 1034: 1033: 1029: 1027: 1024: 1023: 1019: 1017: 1014: 1013: 1009: 1007: 1003: 1002: 999: 995: 993: 990: 989: 986: 982: 980: 977: 976: 973: 969: 966: 965: 960: 956: 954: 951: 948: 947: 943: 941: 938: 933: 932: 928: 926: 923: 918: 917: 914: 910: 908: 905: 902: 901: 898: 894: 892: 889: 888: 884: 880: 876: 874: 871: 868: 867: 863: 861: 858: 855: 854: 850: 848: 845: 842: 841: 837: 833: 830: 826: 824: 821: 818: 817: 813: 811: 808: 805: 804: 798: 794: 790: 787: 781: 776: 773: 768: 765: 763: 760: 759: 755: 753: 748: 747: 744: 740: 737: 734: 733: 730: 727: 724: 723: 718: 713: 706: 701: 698: 696: 690: 678: 674: 672: 667: 665: 662: 661: 657: 655: 652: 651: 647: 645: 641: 637: 636: 632: 630: 629: 625: 624: 619: 615: 613: 612: 611:Constellation 608: 607: 603: 601: 595: 594: 590: 588: 584: 580: 579: 575: 573: 570: 569: 565: 563: 562: 558: 557: 553: 551: 550: 546: 545: 541: 539: 536: 535: 530: 522: 518: 514: 507: 503: 502: 499: 497: 491: 481: 479: 475: 471: 470: 466: 464: 463: 459: 458: 454: 452: 451: 447: 446: 443: 440: 438: 437: 436:Constellation 433: 432: 429: 427: 424: 416: 413: 411: 405: 401: 393: 392: 389: 382: 379: 374: 373: 372: 371: 368: 359: 356: 351: 347: 343: 338: 337: 336: 335: 332: 329: 325: 320: 317:Going by the 316: 315: 314: 313: 309: 305: 296: 292: 288: 287: 286: 274: 271: 267: 262: 261: 260: 259: 255: 252: 247: 243: 242: 235: 231: 227: 223: 219: 213: 209: 208: 207: 206: 203: 200: 197: 194: 193: 192: 191: 186: 185: 171: 168: 163: 162: 161: 158: 153: 152: 151: 148: 144: 143: 142: 141: 138: 135: 131: 127: 126: 125: 124: 121: 113: 112:starbox begin 96: 93: 90: 88: 85: 83: 80: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 10408: 10373: 10370: 10355: 10331: 10314:Adam Cuerden 10307: 10268:Adam Cuerden 10246: 10239:Adam Cuerden 10229:Adam Cuerden 10226: 10204:Adam Cuerden 10187: 10176:Adam Cuerden 10173: 10167:Adam Cuerden 10155:Talk:1 Ceres 10152: 10138: 10085: 10068: 10032: 10009: 9998: 9989: 9983: 9979: 9944: 9930: 9893: 9867: 9806:Gene Nygaard 9792:Gene Nygaard 9784:Gene Nygaard 9765: 9762: 9740: 9737:Star systems 9653: 9613:Article at: 9594: 9551: 9540:User:Mrwuggs 9538: 9518: 9494: 9483:70.51.11.250 9469: 9438:70.51.11.250 9432: 9384: 9374: 9311: 9293: 9275: 9264:user:Mrwuggs 9261: 9258:user:Mrwuggs 9244: 9230: 9207: 9185: 9166: 9147: 9132: 9107: 9103:user:Mrwuggs 9100: 9089:70.51.11.116 9079: 9064: 9039: 8995: 8959: 8915: 8888: 8873: 8855: 8839: 8800:Eurocommuter 8795: 8791: 8786: 8754: 8739: 8712:encyclopedic 8711: 8653: 8622:Hubble Page 8587: 8572: 8550: 8546: 8533: 8499:Andromeda IV 8493: 8478: 8455:Eurocommuter 8450: 8446: 8433: 8404: 8371: 8353: 8337: 8326:Jim Cornmell 8323: 8318:information. 8282: 8278:my talk page 8263: 8237: 8212: 8146: 8132:Eurocommuter 8083: 8078: 8077: 8068: 8067: 8063: 8038: 8034: 8031:giant planet 8030: 8027:geologically 8026: 8021: 8017: 8013: 8010:giant planet 8009: 7905:giant planet 7904: 7897:giant planet 7894: 7879: 7857: 7847: 7828: 7789: 7774: 7714: 7656: 7651: 7648: 7624: 7588: 7586:complaints. 7584: 7576:Ajhar et al. 7549: 7537: 7530: 7509: 7490: 7484:. Thanks. — 7451: 7444: 7436: 7423:Eurocommuter 7419: 7405: 7393:EVIL, EVIL! 7366: 7337: 7303: 7285: 7281: 7269: 7260: 7254: 7229: 7217: 7208:Eurocommuter 7112: 7047: 7008: 6974: 6960: 6923: 6874: 6873: 6852: 6708: 6587: 6569: 6525: 6446:Eurocommuter 6443: 6426: 6373:Portal:Space 6350: 6334: 6279: 6247: 6207: 6168: 6052: 6048: 6044: 6029: 5978: 5951: 5947: 5936: 5879: 5872: 5857: 5768: 5749: 5723: 5714: 5703: 5681: 5578: 5505: 5491: 5476: 5470: 5462: 5451: 5425: 5413: 5394: 5391: 5377: 5369: 5353: 5349: 5348:, 39500 for 5346:"messier 33" 5345: 5342:"m33" galaxy 5341: 5337: 5299: 5284: 5089:Cigar Galaxy 5082: 5071:Eurocommuter 5055: 5049:Eurocommuter 5038: 5015:Eurocommuter 5012: 4997:NASA's 0.07? 4964: 4924: 4915:Eurocommuter 4905:article and 4902: 4899: 4863: 4788: 4770: 4714: 4698: 4691:minor planet 4684: 4653: 4644: 4636:Eurocommuter 4632: 4591: 4569: 4534: 4498: 4410: 4395: 4360: 4342: 4325: 4309: 4288: 4273: 4226: 4154: 4130: 4109: 4090: 4069: 4047: 4034: 4021: 4012: 3993: 3981: 3967: 3946: 3914: 3887: 3862: 3860: 3857: 3853: 3849: 3782: 3762: 3741: 3726: 3716: 3699: 3692: 3679: 3675: 3645: 3579: 3572: 3519: 3504: 3482:Solar system 3479: 3476:Solar system 3461: 3457:PSR B1620-26 3439: 3433:. Thanks. — 3388: 3351: 3345: 3337: 3335: 3284: 3262: 3222:70.51.11.172 3205:70.51.11.172 3182: 3142: 3082: 3040: 3034: 3021: 2989: 2931: 2913: 2898: 2883: 2862: 2830: 2826: 2816: 2806: 2796: 2786: 2776: 2772:Gliese 876 b 2761: 2757:Gliese 876 c 2750: 2746:Gliese 876 d 2732: 2717: 2690: 2675: 2658: 2646: 2629: 2600: 2575: 2552: 2462: 2435: 2420: 2394: 2375: 2342: 2317: 2298:wikt:edge-on 2294:wikt:face-on 2211: 2197: 2178: 2153: 2150:Star updates 2138: 2120: 2103: 2092: 2030: 2022: 2013: 1975: 1964: 1841: 1791: 1696: 1634:Yale Catalog 1614: 1585: 1448: 1433: 1425: 1420: 1418: 1404: 1324:Eurocommuter 1293:Eurocommuter 1287: 1273: 1263: 1222: 1164: 1157: 1152:05h 32m 49s 1145: 1135: 1096:Orion Nebula 1095: 1067:Mean surface 1020:0.0103 km/s 1010:0.0059 m/s² 952: 950:Mean anomaly 939: 924: 906: 872: 859: 846: 822: 809: 807:Eccentricity 752:designations 694: 692: 663: 653: 638: 626: 609: 596: 581: 571: 559: 554:05h 32m 49s 547: 537: 496:Orion Nebula 495: 493: 472: 460: 448: 434: 418: 409: 407: 385: 364: 349: 345: 342:larger image 341: 319:Help:Infobox 301: 283: 270:Eurocommuter 265: 245: 222:JamesHoadley 189: 187: 180: 106: 75: 43: 37: 10163:MPC Numbers 10149:New Article 10141:70.55.87.17 10091:70.55.87.17 10074:70.55.87.17 9951:1181 Lilith 9814:1181 Lilith 9780:SteveRwanda 9772:1181 Lilith 9743:star system 9718:70.51.8.243 9699:1826 Miller 9695:1826 Miller 9656:70.51.8.243 9195:70.55.84.50 8935:I also put 8814:1826 Miller 8764:136199 Eris 8590:Brown dwarf 8542:Local Group 8524:Messier 102 8504:Dark galaxy 8481:Messier 102 8248:Changes to 8228:binary star 7595:S0 galaxies 7568:Ford et al. 6826:talk page. 5958:Local Group 5886:Brent Tully 5700:Grey Dwarfs 5583:M83/NGC5236 5484:Messier 108 5139:Messier 104 5130:Messier 101 4985:Or current 4804:). Perhaps 4005:(intensity) 3983:Declination 3975:17 54 19.19 3868:Spacepotato 3854:Mu-2 Cancri 3627:Spacepotato 3614:Spacepotato 3584:Spacepotato 3571:As for the 3526:HD 209458 b 3308:Spacepotato 3187:Zzzzzzzzzzz 3183:the compass 3090:Zzzzzzzzzzz 3063:Spacepotato 3031:Fair use in 2527:Volcanopele 2498:Volcanopele 2466:Volcanopele 2069:Spacepotato 1950:Spacepotato 1890:Spacepotato 1769:Spacepotato 1727:Spacepotato 1638:Spacepotato 1619:Spacepotato 1588:Spacepotato 1453:Ketil Trout 1436:Section 1.5 1427:Spacepotato 1193:Discoverer 1188:Discovery 1070:temperature 967:Dimensions 935:Argument of 904:Inclination 725:Discoverer 720:Discovery 561:Declination 462:Declination 455:14 39 36.2 36:This is an 10070:FF Leporis 9836:article). 9834:1181 Lilit 9826:1181 Lilit 9818:1181 Lilit 9768:1181 Lilit 9642:1181 Lilit 9568:Antichthon 9552:Antichthon 9548:Antichthon 9534:Antichthon 8989:Thanks. — 8640:Space.com 8453:. Regards 7652:referenced 7580:this paper 7545:Hubble law 7510:underneath 7230:scientific 6996:Messier 73 6890:New Format 6049:identified 6045:identified 5964:, and the 5810:Betelgeuse 5458:Messier 74 5344:, 937 for 5290:Nebular110 5207:Messier 31 5193:Messier 51 5184:Messier 33 5175:Messier 63 5148:Messier 83 5121:Messier 64 5097:Messier 82 5093:Messier 81 4555:Nebular110 4314:and has a 4230:There's a 4050:brightness 4035:Time scale 3908:Thanks. — 3858:Mu² Cancri 3850:Mu2 Cancri 3786:effort? -- 3759:desirable. 3703:Messier 73 3245:Nebular110 3241:Ursa Major 3160:Big Dipper 3156:Ursa Major 3146:70.51.9.28 2739:Gliese 876 2354:70.51.9.28 2324:Carcharoth 2302:Carcharoth 2271:Carcharoth 2254:Carcharoth 1958:go. :-) — 1697:astrometry 1682:BD-10°3166 937:perihelion 844:Perihelion 799:2453300.5) 789:October 22 95:Archive 10 10411:WilliamKF 10404:M66 Group 10400:M96 Group 10293:Richard B 10052:this page 9947:WilliamKF 9909:WilliamKF 9668:this list 9101:It seems 9042:WilliamKF 8966:WilliamKF 8796:nicknames 8519:Mayall II 8447:news item 8342:, thanks 8074:Frank Shu 8069:Astronomy 8064:gas giant 8039:ice giant 8035:gas giant 8022:gas giant 8018:ice giant 7923:ice giant 7909:ice giant 7901:gas giant 7693:WilliamKF 7680:WilliamKF 6537:Infoboxes 6502:Filaments 6474:Infoboxes 6456:Infoboxes 6316:page and 6301:Kalsermar 6282:Kalsermar 6199:redirects 6177:, thanks 5954:M81 Group 5910:Mike Peel 5804:address). 5686:. Thanks 5595:this list 5519:Kalsermar 5221:Kalsermar 5067:talk page 4987:from here 4981:from jpl? 4785:infoboxes 4773:Astronomy 4689:cleanup, 4015:parameter 3863:μ² Cancri 3811:Kalsermar 3548:this talk 3464:talk page 3403:mistaken. 2812:HD 128311 2802:HD 108874 2231:Kalsermar 2181:Fomalhaut 1444:Hipparcos 1288:important 1207:August 13 970:13×13×33 957:320.215° 944:178.664° 929:304.401° 895:24.36 km/ 750:Alternate 739:August 13 566:-05° 25′ 442:Centaurus 199:Urhixidur 87:Archive 6 82:Archive 5 76:Archive 4 70:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 10418:there?) 10280:NGC 5005 10254:NGC 5005 10250:NGC 5005 9816:back to 8658:9/13/06 8654:Thanks, 8489:NGC 5866 8258:Herschel 8254:Caldwell 8206:mergeto 7795:9/01/06 7644:NGC 5236 7640:NGC 5055 7636:NGC 4649 7632:NGC 4414 7628:NGC 2403 7389:Legolost 7339:Legolost 6619:Thanks, 6519:and the 6318:NGC 4676 6314:NGC 5866 6266:NGC 4676 6257:NGC 5866 5972:and the 5840:Thanks, 5790:AndrewRT 5715:thanks, 5688:AndrewRT 5488:NGC 7742 5480:NGC 6240 5430:Awolf002 5313:NGC 4594 5257:NGC 4594 5253:NGC 5055 5249:NGC 4826 5166:NGC 3115 5157:NGC 5866 5087:and the 4938:NGC 5713 4934:NGC 5457 4930:NGC 4088 4717:proposed 4464:NGC 5194 4460:spectrum 4457:infrared 4453:NGC 5195 4444:clearer. 4111:Distance 4081:(85,000 4071:Distance 4025:Einstein 3932:Ardric47 3861:or even 3578:states: 3530:this one 3237:asterism 3163:asterism 3085:HD 64180 3077:HD 64180 3039:, where 2991:license. 2865:16 Cygni 2792:HD 82943 2782:HD 73526 2609:... see 2507:Awolf002 2476:Awolf002 2397:worklist 1602:Ardric47 1265:Walkerma 1165:433 Eros 1129:J2000.0) 1004:Surface 877:643.219 857:Aphelion 827:218.155 762:Category 695:433 Eros 604:85 × 60 572:Distance 531:J2000.0) 367:Ardric47 355:Awolf002 304:Nicholas 266:category 230:contribs 218:unsigned 9822:Mrwuggs 9670:at the 9576:Mrwuggs 9521:Mrwuggs 9507:Mrwuggs 9498:Mrwuggs 9450:Mrwuggs 8772:WP:NAME 8760:1 Ceres 8666:9/13/06 8614:Aikins 8608:SIMBAD 8514:IC 5152 8437:2003 UB 8356:sandbox 8346:9/9/06 8301:Sandbox 8250:Messier 7603:hot dog 7331:versus 7261:hideous 6468:I like 6231:Planemo 6195:planemo 6175:Planemo 6077:Thanks 6013:people. 5781:Fournax 5587:NGC7742 5426:made up 5325:Fournax 5240:Fournax 5219:sake.-- 5211:Fournax 5013:Thanks 4695:1_Ceres 4681:Planets 4076:28,000 3995:Maximum 3960:J2000.0 3809:etc.?-- 3788:Fournax 3020:Select 2822:Mu Arae 2185:Procyon 1990:Fournax 1783:Canopus 1438:of the 1006:gravity 992:Density 983:7.2×10 834:(1.458 350:caption 294:table). 39:archive 10386:, and 10135:delete 10129:delete 10123:delete 10104:WP:CFD 10012:WP:CFD 9992:WP:CFD 9965:, and 9788:Beardo 9085:WP:CFD 8921:WP:CFD 8792:mature 8708:Simbad 8704:VizieR 8612:RECON 8449:as an 8163:Exodio 7899:, and 7818:Exodio 7778:Exodio 7760:Exodio 7740:Exodio 7727:page. 7556:VizieR 7379:Exodio 7315:Exodio 7185:Exodio 7161:Exodio 7147:Exodio 7076:Exodio 6992:Exodio 6946:Exodio 6906:Exodio 6881:Exodio 6749:Exodio 6720:Exodio 6679:Exodio 6576:WP:CFD 6555:Exodio 6542:Exodio 6470:Exodio 6461:Exodio 6417:Exodio 6385:Exodio 6375:using 6275:IC 418 6225:& 6135:(^_^) 6120:Exodio 6039:(^_^) 5960:, the 5956:, the 5719:(^_^) 5230:Exodio 4955:Exodio 4936:, and 4672:Exodio 4624:Exodio 4615:Exodio 4516:Exodio 4484:Exodio 4471:Exodio 4436:Exodio 4370:WP:CFD 4097:G4III 3528:(e.g. 3321:Bletch 3295:Bletch 3259:on IfD 3083:Note, 2997:May 19 2915:guide. 1058:Albedo 1052:11.16 996:2.4 g/ 911:10.829 881:(1.76 814:0.223 628:Radius 616:Orion 576:1,600 298:frank. 246:visual 10284:Vesta 10117:merge 10113:into 9649:WP:RM 9262:FYI, 8833:CarpD 8768:Pluto 8706:, or 8664:CarpD 8656:CarpD 8648:etc. 8624:etc. 8618:APOD 8610:NSar 8344:CarpD 8260:Lists 7956:OK. 7793:CarpD 7482:IMBHs 6862:Sandy 6813:CarpD 6798:CarpD 6777:CarpD 6741:CarpD 6654:CarpD 6621:CarpD 6591:CarpD 6570:Note 6506:CarpD 6495:CarpD 6401:(^_^; 6399:CarpD 6381:WP:PR 6342:WP:PR 6235:CarpD 6179:CarpD 6158:CarpD 6140:CarpD 6133:CarpD 6081:(^_^) 6079:CarpD 6037:CarpD 6005:(^_^) 6003:CarpD 5992:JyriL 5844:(^_^) 5842:CarpD 5717:CarpD 5568:(^_^) 5566:CarpD 5441:CarpD 5316:fine. 5045:there 4715:I've 3957:Epoch 3783:would 3751:this. 3648:WP:RM 3496:there 3369:clear 3017:page. 2901:STScI 2850:JyriL 2601:FYI, 2402:WP:GA 1779:Deneb 1127:Epoch 1074:~227 1062:0.16 786:Epoch 591:+4.0 529:Epoch 482:0.01 426:J2000 423:Epoch 308:reply 290:true) 16:< 10394:and 10356:talk 10288:Juno 9953:and 9931:talk 9894:talk 9828:and 9751:Nurg 9570:and 9546:and 9532:and 9402:and 9210:and 9065:talk 9044:and 8996:talk 8939:and 8787:save 8766:and 8740:talk 8573:talk 8485:M101 8295:and 8268:and 8256:and 8037:and 8020:and 7880:talk 7848:talk 7618:and 7593:and 7564:here 7550:The 7491:talk 7452:talk 7367:talk 7304:talk 7270:talk 7132:See 6961:talk 6942:Talk 6924:talk 6904:. -- 6858:here 6709:talk 6698:and 6351:talk 6340:the 6208:talk 6189:and 5922:and 5858:talk 5794:Talk 5769:talk 5754:and 5724:Done 5692:Talk 5529:Vega 5414:talk 5392:Hi, 5378:talk 5251:and 5095:and 5063:here 5059:here 5041:here 5001:Or 4970:ref) 4864:talk 4777:Rayc 4758:Alai 4721:Alai 4699:Xena 4654:talk 4592:talk 4535:talk 4396:talk 4389:. — 4343:talk 4326:talk 4306:Star 4274:talk 4259:Per 3915:talk 3717:talk 3693:talk 3658:and 3505:talk 3440:talk 3389:talk 3041:blah 3035:blah 3001:2005 2959:are. 2932:talk 2884:talk 2846:list 2718:talk 2676:talk 2659:talk 2630:talk 2553:talk 2444:and 2421:talk 2395:The 2376:talk 2369:. — 2343:talk 2296:and 2265:and 2198:talk 2139:talk 2121:talk 2031:talk 1965:talk 1842:talk 1792:talk 1632:The 1211:1898 1136:Type 979:Mass 793:2004 767:Amor 743:1898 677:edit 538:Type 346:name 310:) @ 226:talk 10434:as 10351:RJH 10256:. 9984:and 9980:CFD 9969:.) 9926:RJH 9889:RJH 9770:as 9647:at 9060:RJH 9046:RJH 8991:RJH 8735:RJH 8568:RJH 8564:CfD 8487:or 8440:313 8324:-- 8076:'s 7875:RJH 7843:RJH 7486:RJH 7447:RJH 7362:RJH 7299:RJH 7286:all 7265:RJH 6988:RJH 6956:RJH 6940:my 6919:RJH 6704:RJH 6346:RJH 6273:to 6264:to 6255:to 6227:PMC 6223:PMO 6203:RJH 6191:PMC 6187:PMO 5853:RJH 5764:RJH 5628:it. 5409:RJH 5373:RJH 5307:As 5285:all 5205:to 5191:to 5182:to 5173:to 5164:to 5155:to 5146:to 5137:to 5128:to 5119:to 5091:as 4859:RJH 4649:RJH 4587:RJH 4530:RJH 4415:or 4391:RJH 4372:or 4338:RJH 4321:RJH 4269:RJH 4137:M? 3910:RJH 3852:to 3781:It 3712:RJH 3688:RJH 3500:RJH 3435:RJH 3384:RJH 3267:on 3124:AfD 2988:): 2927:RJH 2909:M73 2879:RJH 2713:RJH 2702:agr 2671:RJH 2654:RJH 2625:RJH 2607:AfD 2548:RJH 2416:RJH 2371:RJH 2338:RJH 2193:RJH 2134:RJH 2116:RJH 2026:RJH 1960:RJH 1900:RJH 1837:RJH 1787:RJH 1725:. 1701:RJH 1684:.) 1669:RJH 1656:RJH 1389:RJH 1343:RJH 998:cm³ 953:(M) 940:(ω) 925:(Ω) 907:(i) 873:(P) 860:(Q) 847:(q) 823:(a) 810:(e) 643:(V) 599:(V) 586:(V) 477:(V) 388:RJH 328:RJH 184:RJH 157:RJH 134:RJH 10382:, 10378:, 10359:) 10325:→ 10139:- 9961:, 9934:) 9897:) 9876:. 9280:. 9087:. 9068:) 8999:) 8923:. 8762:, 8743:) 8719:. 8702:, 8576:) 8291:, 8252:, 8238:- 7911:? 7883:) 7851:) 7839:}} 7833:{{ 7642:, 7638:, 7634:, 7630:, 7494:) 7455:) 7377:-- 7370:) 7307:) 7273:) 6964:) 6927:) 6712:) 6540:-- 6504:? 6354:) 6211:) 5945:. 5861:) 5816:). 5792:- 5772:) 5690:- 5585:, 5417:) 5381:) 5356:. 5323:-- 5288:-- 5069:. 5047:. 4940:.) 4932:, 4867:) 4750:}} 4744:{{ 4739:}} 4733:{{ 4657:) 4613:-- 4595:) 4583:}} 4577:{{ 4538:) 4514:-- 4399:) 4346:) 4329:) 4312:GA 4277:) 4201:}} 4195:{{ 4191:}} 4185:{{ 4125:) 4123:pc 4118:ly 4085:) 4083:pc 4078:ly 4056:JD 3930:. 3918:) 3866:. 3720:) 3662:. 3536:. 3508:) 3443:) 3392:) 3372:}} 3366:{{ 3168:) 3126:. 3037:}} 3029:{{ 3003:, 2999:, 2935:) 2887:) 2721:) 2679:) 2662:) 2633:) 2556:) 2525:-- 2454:GA 2424:) 2379:) 2346:) 2242:. 2201:) 2142:) 2124:) 2112:}} 2106:{{ 2067:. 2065:}} 2059:{{ 2034:) 1986:}} 1980:{{ 1976:is 1968:) 1915:}} 1909:{{ 1845:) 1795:) 1723:}} 1717:{{ 1713:}} 1707:{{ 1562:π 1557:π 1554:δ 1545:π 1542:δ 1528:π 1513:π 1510:∂ 1506:∂ 1487:π 1475:δ 1466:δ 1455:: 1248:}} 1242:{{ 1240:, 1238:}} 1232:{{ 1209:, 1140:- 985:kg 972:km 885:) 838:) 836:AU 797:JD 791:, 741:, 658:- 648:- 633:- 542:- 232:) 228:• 214:. 115:}} 109:{{ 91:→ 10353:( 9928:( 9891:( 9062:( 8993:( 8890:" 8882:/ 8816:( 8737:( 8570:( 8086:. 7877:( 7845:( 7626:( 7488:( 7449:( 7364:( 7301:( 7267:( 6958:( 6921:( 6706:( 6348:( 6205:( 5855:( 5766:( 5411:( 5375:( 4861:( 4841:) 4836:2 4831:2 4827:e 4821:+ 4818:1 4815:( 4812:a 4651:( 4589:( 4532:( 4393:( 4340:( 4323:( 4271:( 4041:d 4022:R 3912:( 3714:( 3696:) 3690:( 3502:( 3437:( 3386:( 3033:| 2929:( 2881:( 2715:( 2673:( 2656:( 2627:( 2550:( 2418:( 2373:( 2340:( 2195:( 2136:( 2118:( 2028:( 1962:( 1839:( 1789:( 1582:. 1566:2 1548:= 1538:| 1533:) 1525:1 1520:( 1500:| 1496:= 1492:) 1484:1 1479:( 1472:= 1469:d 1449:d 1125:( 1076:K 1041:S 913:° 897:s 883:a 879:d 832:m 829:G 795:( 769:, 527:( 306:( 278:) 256:. 236:. 224:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Archive 4 - Knowledge

Index