Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects

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

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

WT:ASTRO

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29: 6 months

Archives

Topical archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Edit this box

Project-independent quality assessments

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy § Project-independent quality assessments

solstation.com

There are about 70 references to solstation.com, which I expect are mostly links (possibly some have been changed to an archive link). solstation.com has been dead (according to reddit) for about 6 months. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:URLREQ might be the best place to deal with that, get a bot to post up archives if they're available. Primefac (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New exoplanets discovered?

I saw that there was a page with confirmed exoplanets, and I skimmed through it, and was wondering if there was still observations going for more of these mysterious exoplanets (my personal favorite is J1407b!) AstronomyKid1 (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of new exoplanets are discovered every year, see [1] and sort by 'discovery' year. There are about a thousand scientific papers each year that study them in more detail, such as performing follow-up observations or detailed simulations. Modest Genius ^talk 15:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With these sorts of numbers, I'm honestly a little surprised that JWST is only 9-times oversubscribed.... Primefac (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll keep an eye out for more! I'm eager to work with you guys! <3

-AstronomyKid1 AstronomyKid1 (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also would like to know what your favorite exoplanet is <3 (Just out of curiosity) AstronomyKid1 (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well the most studied exoplanetary system is TRAPPIST-1. I'd say the most interesting to me, being the nearest candidate, is Proxima b. That article could probably be turned into an FA. The discovery was announced on 24 August 2016, so the same date in 2026 would be the 10th anniversary and likely to get it front page coverage. Praemonitus (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think Proxima Centauri b wouldn't be that hard to turn into a FA. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:2MASS J05352184−0546085#Requested move 29 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2MASS J05352184−0546085#Requested move 29 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed at Talk:Minor-planet moon#Source of the provisional designations?

Your participation in the discussion linked above would be greatly appreciated. There are some major problems with the list of minor-planet moons. Please take a look. Renerpho (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Classification of rogue planets, white dwarfs, and neutron stars

There is a discussion going on at Talk:List_of_exoplanet_extremes#Conclusion? regarding:

1. Are rogue planets classified as exoplanets?

2. Are white dwarfs and neutron stars classified as stars? Manuductive (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Generally rogue planets are not considered planets; the IAU doesn't consider them as planets because the original definition of planet was "objects that movement relative to stars" (antiguity) and "objects that revolve around the Sun" (renaissance age); the Exoplanet Archive also excluded FFPs and most papers adopted the term ''free floating planetary-mass objects'' for gas giants free-floating planets; other consider them as (sub-) brown dwarfs e.g. WISE 0855. However, some few astronomers consider them planets, like microlensing surveys which classify small rogue planets e.g. OGLE-2016-BLG-1928 as planets.

2. Neutron stars & white dwarfs are not stars by many definitions. 21 Andromedae (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. is undefined. The term 'planet' is defined by the IAU, and specifically requires them to be within the Solar System. No official body has defined the term 'exoplanet', partly because new types are being discovered frequently and we know the observed sample is dominated by selection effects (not intrinsic properties). Most astronomers call free-floating bodies 'planetary mass objects', with the term 'rogue planet' left for press releases and the like. However usage is not consistent or well established. There are also a wide range of opinions on where the boundary is between a brown dwarf and a gas giant exoplanet / planetary mass object. Wikipedia should explain that these terms are not strictly defined.

2. No. Those are stellar remnants, not stars. It's unfortunate that the term 'neutron star' includes the word 'star', which is purely for historical reasons. Again there isn't a formal definition, but in this case usage among astronomers is well-established and almost universal.

I hope that helps. Modest Genius ^talk 16:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The term "dead star" seems to see frequent use in public communications on topic #2, which may produce some ambiguity. Is a dead human still a human? In a certain sense yes. The dictionary definition of "star" is fairly flexible: a fixed luminous point in the night sky which is a large, remote incandescent body like the sun. Incandescent just means to emit light by being heated. Praemonitus (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]