Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Astronomy disambiguation category?

The {{disambiguation}} template allows for topic-specific arguments. Should we add one for 'astro'? I.e. have a Category:Astronomy disambiguation pages. Praemonitus (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Shell collapsar

Is this notable? This seems to be mostly the work of Trevor Marshall, half the papers are unpublished/self-published, others are in stellar journals like MDPI's garbage Entropy. Others cited are Abhas Mitra, of MECO fame, and Zahid Zakir from some Uzbek center for astronomy I've never heard of before, that publishes their own journal.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems entirely non-notable: I'm seeing almost no citations to the linked papers. Fringe, even. Submit for deletion. - Parejkoj (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

PROD contested by article creator, who added additional sources, per User talk:LaundryPizza03/Archive 5#shell collapsar. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 10:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

They added two copies of the same source, which I can't verify to be directly relevant ot the topic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Lots of those are from terrible sources. Neslusan? Preprints, predatory journals, local journal. Edwards? More MDPI journal.

But I suppose all in all it's enough to show notability. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

ISBN / Date incompatibility error for Allen (1963)

An 'ISBN / Date incompatibility' error started showing up on star articles that reference Star Names by Richard Hinckley Allen. This appears to be a false positive, per the discussion here. Hopefully it will be addressed at some point. Praemonitus (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Andromeda Galaxy#Requested move 18 April 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Andromeda Galaxy#Requested move 18 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Inconsistent stellar mass ranges

The mass groupings of stars are described on both Stellar mass#Properties and Star#Formation and evolution. However, the two are not consistent with each other. I'm seeing articles where later B-type stars are described as "massive", but only according to one of the articles. Praemonitus (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd be very suspicious of the stellar mass section. It appears to have only one reference to support the first five paragraphs, and that reference is about planetary nebulae. I can't find anything in it to support the 5-10 mass range or the claim about supernovae. Lithopsian (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

In looking at various sources, there appears to be a lot of inconsistency about the mass ranges. I'm not sure how to handle that. However, most sources agree that massive stars begin at 8 M_☉. Praemonitus (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Conventionally a 'massive star' is one that will explode as a supernova. Unfortunately that definition does not map neatly onto mass or spectral type, because it depends on metallicity, rotation, mass loss from stellar winds etc. For most purposes, the boundary is taken to be 'about 8' solar masses, which is approximately a B2V star when it's on the main sequence. However there's a bit of wiggle room in that number and it's also common to see 'OB star' used as a shorthand, despite most B stars being below that threshold. I suspect that's where the confusion has arisen. I don't have a good reference to hand, but a good place to start might be the IAU Commission on Massive Stars. Modest Genius ^talk 14:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Atmospheric circulation of exoplanets

What to do about the article Atmospheric circulation of exoplanets. It purports to be about exoplanets and yet it says nothing about any exoplanets. It is just a general discussion about atmospheres of planets. Fdfexoex (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Merge into Exometeorology. The topic is not (yet?) encyclopedic and only repeats material better covered elsewhere.

The article is based on one secondary reference,

• Showman, Adam; Cho, James Y.K.; Meneu, Kristen (2010). "Atmospheric Circulation of Exoplanets". In Seager, Sara; Dotson, Renee (eds.). Exoplanets. The University of Arizona space science series. Tucson: University of Arizona press. ISBN 978-0-8165-2945-2.

which to me reads like a research program proposal, background based on solar system, speculation on exoplanets. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)