Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

A few days ago the IAU/USGS announced that Venus's "tallest mountain" Skadi Mons is not a real geological feature. I feel like this article should be kept since there is some coverage about its former status, but I am not sure how to deal with the infobox and categories, which currently treat it as a mountain (when it really isn't). How should disproven geological features be handled? Please leave your suggestions and thoughts on Talk:Skadi Mons. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 07:51, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

What is actually at the location, and what was the error that was identified? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:02, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Nothing interesting. It's not even a local elevation maximum, not to speak of a global one. It's a point on a slope far from any peaks, apparently in an area of Venus that doesn't have particularly high elevation. So it's not like the true tallest mountain is just around the corner; the true tallest mountain is an unidentified peak on a different part of the planet. Renerpho (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Tagging LaundryPizza03, because I'm not sure they watch this after 3 months. There has been some good discussion on the article talk page in December and January, but it didn't clarify much. I got a reply from i Peres, which I quote there, but I didn't hear back from Stofan. The question how we should handle this case remains open. Renerpho (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd say do nothing to the article itself. Compare places on Earth in Category:Cartographic errors, such as Sandy Island, New Caledonia. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:04, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Here's a proposal to effectively ban Citation bot from adding bibcodes to citations. Please comment. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:22, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I think regulating it will be better than banning Abdullah1099 (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

What kind of regulation would be effective? I don't think the bot can distinguish which bibcodes are useful from those which are not. That is why the proposal focuses on the character of the bibcode itself. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I understood what you are telling, I think regulating the bot to make them distinguish bibcode as useful or not. But, If that's the problem then i have no idea on the stuff Abdullah1099 (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

There's quite a lot of buzz about this and the related topics of RELHIC and dark galaxy but the article seems quite neglected. Are there any editors here with a special interest in such topics, please? Andrew🐉(talk) 10:05, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I will try to add some new things to the article Abdullah1099 (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

{{Cite constellation}} no longer shows the constellation an object is in. Following the "Constellation record for this object at VizieR" link is just showing "No object found around (ICRS) position [coordinates]" for any object. I'm not sure there's anything we can do about this, it's a problem on VizieR's end. SevenSpheres (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Probably just drop the parameter. Use of this source to identify the constellation of an object is consistent with WP:CALC. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:30, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

The original Astronomy WikiProject page was created August 3, 2006, so apparently it will be 20 years old this Fall. Praemonitus (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Good job @Praemonitus Abdullah1099 (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Can i help you @Nrco0e, when i have some time Abdullah1099 (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

No need to ask, just do it when you feel like it. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 23:00, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

A deletion discussion has been opened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Astronomical Society 215th meeting. Single meetings are not usually covered unless notable in some way. ReyHahn (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

10 Hygiea has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 03:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

2 Pallas has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 03:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Puck (moon) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 03:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

The history section is a mess up with a lot of unreliable sources and a whole Ramayana claim added in the section. Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

It can be trimmed without much caring for details as History of astronomy exists.--ReyHahn (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it really ought to be condensed. Things like the saros cycle, Al-Biruni on the solar apogee, etc., are too far into the weeds for a broad overview. I doubt Buridan's theory of impetus belongs either. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

The history of astronomy, like the history of mathematics, is a topic where people sometimes overcorrect for real biases (e.g., Eurocentrism) by appealing to junk sources, ranging from regurgitated pop-science hearsay to outright nationalist propaganda. The more we keep our history coverage consolidated, the easier it is to manage these overcorrections and other distortions. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I have updated the article by shortening it and providing reliable sources but there is constant vandalism happening in the article Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 08:20, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

In a quick search I did not find sources for "Theoretical astronomy". Rather it seems the modern usage views astronomy as observational and astrophysics as largely theory, with cosmology having both with different topical focus. There are a few sources on "theoretical astrophysics". The article Theoretical astronomy seems to be inventing itself. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox constellation § Dark mode problems about {{infobox constellation}} images being unreadable in dark mode. I'm cross-posting here due to the relatively small number of watchers on that talk page. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 07:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

So, i was minding my own buisiness, setting a file for deletion because it was from a copyrighted source, but then people defended it! even though the file had many operations done of it (like the artifact dots removed, stitched together and colour- adjusted) people thought that the copyright was bogus! even if the changes were even less, copyright is still copyright and it should be respected. (the thread is here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Valhalla_crater_on_Callisto.jpg ) also, yann randomly tried to add an "invalid source" tag to one of my files (not the previous one) even though the source was RIGHT THERE!!! https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Valhalla_Callisto_VGR1.png&diff=prev&oldid=1154750838 also, he randomly changed the tag for this file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Triton_True_Color.png from cc by 4.0 to nasa file!!! i made adjustments!!! THIS IS VANDALISM!!! and because he is an admin on wikimedia commons, he is getting no punishment! sorry im just mad ok bye anonymsiy.user‬ 07:32, 28 January 2026 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymsiy (talk • contribs)

another thing https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anonymsiy#File_source_is_not_properly_indicated:_File:Valhalla_Callisto_VGR1.png anonymsiy.user‬ 07:49, 28 January 2026 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymsiy (talk • contribs)

I am unfamiliar with, but interested in, the history of (Commons) guidelines and legal issues with regards to this type of image processing (color correction, non-creative stitching, noise-reduction, etc). I imagine these might not necessarily be considered "creative work," but making that claim directly about any of the images involved would be brazen. I would love to see a before-and-after comparison of these images, because it is extremely difficult to subjectively gauge whether a new creative work is produced without that. The sources of the images in the threads linked do not make clear what changes have been made. I assume the original NASA images should still be on Commons too? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:57, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

the original nasa images have different colors and processing issues, if you are wondering anonymsiy.user‬ 15:48, 28 January 2026 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymsiy (talk • contribs)

For the record, yes, Yann's behavior here seems inappropriate. I'm sorry you're having such a rough time. I recommend communicating with Yann directly on Commons, and seek out conflict resolution there if things get worse. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:01, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

thank you, but i have had enough of this drama so id rather not anonymsiy.user‬ 15:47, 28 January 2026 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymsiy (talk • contribs)

maybe you can! you seem like a good speaker. anonymsiy.user‬ 15:55, 28 January 2026 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymsiy (talk • contribs)

Update: when i tried to revert the triton file to before (because it is my file, not to mention that i removed the lines out of the original nasa image so the og nasa image technically is mine too) yann reverted it back and warned me for an "edit war" you started it!!! god i love mod abuse!!! https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anonymsiy#c-Yann-20260128162400-Please_do_not_edit_war anonymsiy.user‬ 16:30, 28 January 2026 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymsiy (talk • contribs)

i am def getting unfairly banned from commons 🥀🥀🥀 anonymsiy.user‬ 17:11, 28 January 2026 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymsiy (talk • contribs)

You have posted seven times in this section, while other editors have only responded twice, within the span of just a few hours. Such rapid/excited posting can drown out other voices and can be part of an admin's rationale for a ban. I recommend trying to focus your posts to one or two. Doing so might also help focus your arguments. We can use your energy in our projects, so it can definitely work in your favor when it comes to actually getting stuff done. When there's conflict, other people will be put off by it, I'm afraid. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:08, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

sory anonymsiy.user‬ 15:47, 29 January 2026 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymsiy (talk • contribs)

There is a more neutrally presented thread about this on Commons: NASA images processed by third parties. I would invite Maplestrip to comment there. SevenSpheres (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

ye go here anonymsiy.user‬ 16:39, 29 January 2026 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymsiy (talk • contribs)

Hi all,

I would like to introduce Template:Natural satellites navigator for the External links section of natural satellite articles. This template is pretty much an equivalent of the Template:Minor planets navigator that is widely used in minor planet articles like 50000 Quaoar. If you recall, the Minor planets navigator template looks like this:

I want to have a similar way of counting up/down Roman numeral and provisional designations of natural satellites, so I created the Natural satellites navigator for this purpose. Here is a demonstration:

Looks pretty nifty, doesn't it? You can see more use case on Template:Natural satellites navigator/sandbox.

However, I do have to address that the template does not automatically wikilink articles (unlike the Minor planets navigator template), since automatic wikilinking breaks at the third column and also needs a way to somehow remove the (moon) disambiguator from the title. I don't know how to work around that, so it has to stick with manual wikilinks, which also brings the issue of users not knowing how to standardize the wikilink display format across pages (e.g., what if one article formats the link as Arche (Jupiter XLIII) whereas another article formats the link as Jupiter XLIII (Arche)?).

I'd like to hear your thoughts on Template:Natural satellites navigator. Should we begin using this template for all natural satellite articles? Or are there issues that need to be resolved? If you have an idea on how to make automatic wikilinking work correctly in this template, please let me know! Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 22:32, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Is there no way to access a DB that has the moons in both orders, either here on on Wikidata? — kwami (talk) 04:06, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Is it possible to integrate Wikidata into a template to produce Wikipedia links with different titles? I don't have the technical knowledge or skill, so I don't know. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 06:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I today done a big major overhaul to the article. I also made a member star list. I want to know about the list Abdullah1099 (talk) 12:23, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@Minnastronomer Abdullah1099 (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@Abdullah1099: I have several problems with your "overhaul" of the article. Firstly, the Observations section does not cite any sources at all. Secondly, the Characteristics section is misspelled "Charecterstics". Thirdly, every single section in this article contains huge paragraphs that only have a few citations at the ending sentences; do the citations refer to the whole paragraph or the individual sentences? I highly doubt that a citation could be used to cite multiple sentences in an entire paragraph (sidenote: putting citations at the end of a big paragraph is something Grokipedia does.). Fourthly, what is "Training"? This looks like a translation error. Fifthly, you keep putting spaces before punctuations like commas (,) and periods (.). There's so many other grammatical mistakes in this article. I do not have time to review the factual accuracy of this article, but I am very skeptical. If you have used AI/LLMs for this, I strongly recommend that you tell us how and what you did with it. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 17:11, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for finding problem. I have used translation from Italian Wikipedia rather than any LLM,etc. Some citations refers to specific things while others refers whole paragraphs Abdullah1099 (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, please fix these issues. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 03:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I will try to fix it today Abdullah1099 (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@SevenSpheres@Praemonitus@Lithopsian@Luizadnts@21.Andromedae Abdullah1099 (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Why ping so many people just because you expanded an article? Are you looking for peer review of it? SevenSpheres (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

No, I had no problem on article upgradation. For that i will not ask anything. I only want to know that the members stars and exoplanets section i updated i found good amount of members. So, i want to know if i expand the list or remove anything from the list. Sorry, If this felt annoying @SevenSpheres. Abdullah1099 (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article S/2017 J 10 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S/2017 J 10 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 18:13, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a request for inclusion of IAU-approved nominal values of Solar, Jupiter, and Earth masses and radii for automatic unit conversion by the template. The same IAU resolution also defined the nominal Solar luminosity, temperature, and irradiance. I would welcome any comments or remarks there, before the change is implemented, if there are any further units that could be of use. The module already knows how to handle parsecs, light-years, AUs, and lunar distances.

The main reason for this was my frustration at the lists of exoplanets discovered by year (2026) listing planet sizes in units of Jupiter, when many publications nowadays list units of Earth which are often more convenient. This template would allow for automatic conversion, not having to manually recalculate values. The same goes for automatic conversion from parsecs (scientific literature standard) to light-years (colloquial and Wikipedia standard), we could use this template more often. Slovborg (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, These one half of some articles use one thing and other using absolutely opposite thing is frustrating like almost all articles have Starbox in light-years but some of them still have less popular one parsec Abdullah1099 (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

You should already be able to use the template to automatically convert pc and ly, they're listed on the unit list: {{convert|2.639|pc|ly}} returns 2.639 parsecs (8.61 ly); {{convert|2.639|pc|ly|disp=number}} returns just the numeric value 8.61. Refer to Help:Convert units.

Working with uncertainties will be a little trickier. Symmetric works ok; {{convert|2.639|±|0.010|pc|ly}} returns 2.639 ± 0.010 parsecs (8.607 ± 0.033 ly); asymmetric does not seem to be supported... one could nest it into {{val}} as a workaround now, but it's inconvenient. Slovborg (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I recently ran across the page Leik Myrabo which was nominated by User:Very_Polite_Person as a physics and astronomy good article in September 2025. From a little analysis it is very unclear whether he passes WP:NPROF, there is a lot of WP:Peacock plus the page incorrectly stated that he used to be a professor at RPI (he was an associate prof from what I can find). Maybe he passes WP:GNG as a well known name in space propulsion, or perhaps this is a promo page that belongs at AfD. I would appreciate opinions. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I am thinking of making a WP:AST Working group. As other WikiProject also have a Working Group like Spaceflight has Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Timeline of spaceflight working group/Members. The name will be Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/WikiProject Astronomy working group/Members and the members is likely be me with @Lithopsian as the most likely admin of Working Group and well known respected Spaceflight members like @21.Andromedae @SevenSpheres @Praemonitus @AluminiumWithAnI @Galaxybeing and others probably atleast around 25-ish members.

What the opinions of all the planned members and all other WP:AST members of this very fantastic idea.

Rule:For the membership the user want to be a member should first have to show there exceptional contributions like other WikiProject Working Group Abdullah1099 (talk) 08:35, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Um... I'm not sure that makes any sense, because anyone who is on the members list is a member of WP:AST. Are this working group for working on WP:AST? I guess I don't see why we need a subgroup of people who are working on the same things as the main group of people. Primefac (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I mean these is for regularly working on Astronomy articles editors. Like the existing list contains all like some can be interested ones but main edits are on other topics and vice versa. For that these working groups are made you can understand what i mean. Like these are the dedicated Astronomy editors. Abdullah1099 (talk) 11:16, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Working groups are for editors wanting to work on a specific subtopic within the project, not just highlighting people's achievements. Primefac (talk) 11:20, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I mean the same thing bro Abdullah1099 (talk) 11:21, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree, I don't see a need. Working groups seem to die off over time, with the focus returning to the main group. Praemonitus (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I see a need and that need is required heavy maintenance of many astronomy articles Abdullah1099 (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not following your logic. How is a new working group going to motivate new people to come in and maintain Astronomy articles? Praemonitus (talk) 14:44, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that can help maintaining existing Astronomy articles @Praemonitus and can motivate dedicated astronomy editors to contribute and we all to better communicate together. Abdullah1099 (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

If you are looking for help in selecting articles to work on please post topics on this talk page. If you seek help in finding sources or reviewing changes you are unsure about, start with the Talk page for the specific article and if no one is able help there, post here. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Ironically, a lot of the work to improve Astronomy articles overall has been spent in redirecting non-notable, stub articles to lists. It's probably better to focus on the more interesting topics. Praemonitus (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I also think it's better to focus on more interesting things Abdullah1099 (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Does any know if this is a legit journal? The website https://academixspublishers.com/view-journals/japan-journal-of-astronomy-and-astrophysics has little information, except that the 4 editors have no connection to astronomy or astrophysics. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

not sure what this is about, couldn't find anything directly related to astronomy. 203N7HN6 (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

It looks predatorish. Adamemixs is a new publisher, so whatever, not gonna hold that against' it. But it's advertising being 'indexed' in Academia.edu, which is not an indexing service, and ResearchBib adn ISI Indexing Services, which are pretty much frauds. And right now it's entertaining a submission from a Salah H. R. Ali, an Egyptian professor, which I cannnot fathom would submit anything to a Japanese journal. There's also a submission from Syun-Ichi Akasofu, who's got a decent background in the topic of his submitted paper, despite being a climate change denier (the paper isn't about climate change).

So it's certainly not a reputable journal. Not to say it's a journal for the non-reputable. But it had no time to build a reputation, and what's there isn't great. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:23, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

For context: Talk:Theoretical_astronomy#Please_do_not_add_self-published_sources.

Salah H.R. Ali is one of the editors. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

This has been tagged for years. Please either add reliable sources or merge it into something notable. Bearian (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I've redirected, though I note that the page is an orphan anyway. Primefac (talk) 11:41, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Would this be appropriate to {{R to anchor}}/{{vanchor}}? Slovborg (talk) 09:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

The section I linked to isn't huge, but I wouldn't be opposed. Primefac (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Lithopsian, I think Runaway star should have it's own article with addition of Hypervelocity stars having a section of it's own. Abdullah1099 (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey all Members of WikiProject Astronomy, I want to ask very important question from @Bamyers99 that for what reason you have not added quick links to User:AlexNewArtBot/AstroSearchResult and for what reason you have stopped your maintaining of User:AlexNewArtBot/AstroSearchResult/archive from 2011. While on the other hand Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Article alerts and it's archive is maintaining regularly by @Hellknowz and @Headbomb. Seeing this difference is annoying and should be immediately resolved by @Bamyers99. Everyone knows what features of Article alerts and Astro Search Results are useful for all users. Archive and other things helps us knowing details of all previous event and is important for many purpose.

I want to ask more suggestions from all users Abdullah1099 (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

My suggestion is to reconsider your post. I think that asking nicely for information will be more effective and civil thank demanding answers "immediately". Johnjbarton (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I am not demanding immediately @Johnjbarton bro. I was asking nicely at his user talk page but at first after seeing no reply i posted this talk. But later he agreed to talk. Abdullah1099 (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

You said "Seeing this difference is annoying and should be immediately resolved by @Bamyers99.". Bro. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, But it now on the user to apply these upgrades Abdullah1099 (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

See WP:VOLUNTEER. I would also advise you against making demands out of editors or asking incredibly rude questions like "for what good reason didn't you do X?". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:16, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I am not asking bro rude questions i previously tried to ask @Alex Bakharev but no response came and now asked him i thought no response will come and after doing research i found out the Archive was going on till 2011 but stopped. So, that why i asked the reason. Sorry for being rude. Abdullah1099 (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry everyone my intentions were good like if the Archive are made then users can see there contributions there and can be very helpful for accountability and in general also can boost help to new users and article. My intentions were never to forcefully restart this feature and was only want to know why the feature was stopped. Sorry @Headbomb @Johnjbarton for being rude Abdullah1099 (talk) 06:33, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Johnjbarton, I had might find out a better solution than this archive thing. It is Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Astronomy articles by quality statistics. What's your view Abdullah1099 (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I need help with making a change to a large number of articles.

Back in 2016, a lot of articles about asteroids were updated semi-automatically by the now inactive user Rfassbind. Among other things, they included links to the Asteroid Lightcurve Database (LCDB), like in 1865 Cerberus. Those references had a standard title starting "LCDB Data for", followed by the name of the asteroid, and they linked to a url like http://www.minorplanet.info/PHP/generateOneAsteroidInfo.php?AstInfo=1865%7CCerberus. That link was supposed to lead to a page about the asteroid. Unfortunately, that functionality has since been removed from the website. Instead, the user is supposed to enter either the number or the name of the asteroid manually.

I have just made an edit at 471143 Dziewanna to repair its reference (see that edit for my suggestion how to do it), but I cannot do this for everything. (Here's a list of affected articles, currently standing at 2,047).

Would someone be willing to help? Renerpho (talk) 11:44, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Are you familiar with Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser? This tool would be able to make those edits I believe. A regular expression with a capturing group would grab the number for the replacement string. I use the JS version of AWB occasionally. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton: I'm not familiar. That sounds promising though. Renerpho (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

If it's a straight 1-to-1 replacement I can run a bot on it... 2k pages is a bit much even for AWB unless you're feeling very motivated (or it's an every-once-in-a-while sort of editing spree). Primefac (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm unsure what qualifies as 1-to-1. I can run one page with regex to verify that this kind of search replace will work. Can your bot do those kinds of operations? Johnjbarton (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Special:Diff/1342336204 may serve as a template of what to change: Replace the title and url (these will be the same for every object), and add "(Select number [...])" at the end of the reference, where [...] is the number of the object. If the object is unnumbered, like at 2010 KZ39, then it must say "(Select name [...])" instead. Renerpho (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

So in that diff, if every change is "change title" and "move the object number out of the template", then yes, my bot can absolutely handle that. Primefac (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, except in the cases where it's in the form of a note rather than a reference, as in 1694 Kaiser... Some flexibility is needed there. As may be the case in 19367 Pink Floyd where the current citation gives both the number and the name (only one is actually needed). Renerpho (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2026 (UTC) -- Just to continue with the edge cases: Sometimes the semi-automated addition previously failed. (511002) 2013 MZ5 is an example, where it says "LCDB Data for (511002) – Not in Data Base". I checked, the object is in the database now, but it probably wasn't when this citation was added. Renerpho (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Just do all that can be done with the BOT, then take a look at the number of remaining cases. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

If there really are 2k instances out there, it might make more sense to change any {{cite web}} uses to just call a template... would mean that any changes to the site in the future could be fixed with an edit or two instead of 2k. It would still (probably) require a bot run to swap things over, but in the long run that might be more sustainable. I note we have {{LCDB}} but that's just a link, so we'd probably have to make a {{cite LCDB}} or similar. Primefac (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

A "cite LCDB" template sounds like a great idea. I suppose the few cases that aren't actually using "cite web", like 1694 Kaiser, would need to be handled separately, but that should be fine. Renerpho (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

1694 Kaiser actually may be the only case that does this... At least I can't find another one. Looks like all the others use "cite web". Renerpho (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

BRFA filed. Primefac (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@Primefac: Note that {{LCDB}} is broken as intended. It depends on the same functionality that was removed from the website long ago. This means any article that uses the template is affected by the same problem, and can be added to the list. Renerpho (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

That's not a lot of articles, but a lot of instances (dozens to many hundreds) per article: List Renerpho (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

That's something that AWB really is good for (i.e. multiple replacements on a single page), but I'm not sure we'd want to be putting those as references... would make for some massive overload. I'd rather see the template deleted outright if it's only being used on tables like that, maybe with a link to the database in the External Links section or similar. Primefac (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@Primefac: Removing those is problematic. It is used as a reference for large parts of those lists. For example, in List of slow rotators (minor planets), it is used to justify the partition into multiple lists, depending on the LCDB's U parameter, and is used as the only reference for every single entry (the second reference, "List", is a link to a different Wikipedia page). See the mention of LCDB in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the lede section. Removing those links would leave the entire list unreferenced, and would remove the justification to partition the table as it is. (I mean, they technically are unreferenced already, because the template is broken, but I hope you know what I'm saying.) Renerpho (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine, I was just saying I wouldn't want to convert it to use the new citation template. Primefac (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@Primefac: I agree; the result would be a list of references with many hundreds of entries. I understand now what you meant with "massive overload".

I have edited List of tumblers (small Solar System bodies), resulting in what I hope would be a viable solution for all but two of the affected articles (Special:Diff/1342436667). The exceptions that require a different approach are List of slow rotators (minor planets) and List of fast rotators (minor planets), because these depend more heavily on the LCDB. Padua family (Special:Diff/1342437967) and Amor asteroid (Special:Diff/1342438386) never really needed the LCDB references so I've simply removed them. Renerpho (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2026 (UTC) -- Minor-planet moon (Special:Diff/1342439805) didn't need the LCDB either. This only leaves List of exceptional asteroids, where I'm not yet completely sure how to best replace it because that list somewhat depends on the LCDB's U parameters. Renerpho (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

The page Iron star has a weird disambiguation segment at the start, recently added. I wasn't sure what to do with it, so I thought I'd bring it up here. The Boolean^_Talk 05:05, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm tagging Lithopsian, who recently changed this (Special:Diff/1276557524). I agree that it's a bit weird, but I also think Lithopsian is right that the ambiguity wasn't addressed very well previously. Renerpho (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

The compact star section seems like science fiction to me, and the popular culture section is certainly sci-fi. I'm not convinced either of those parts are notable. If not, they should be deleted, the blue supergiant material moved to that article, and iron star turned into a redirect. If the compact star bit is notable, it should be split to its own article and iron star turned into a standard disambiguation page. Modest Genius ^talk 12:28, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

There are sources for "iron star" in two closely related senses: as a model system for white dwarf stars and as the dominant core of a white dwarf star. The sources are from 69-early 80s so it is possible that these have changed, specifically I think that the mass range for iron may collapse more often than Dyson's paper used, making them less relevant. A newer source on a similar topic

• Adams, F. C., & Laughlin, G. (1997). A dying universe: the long-term fate and evolutionof astrophysical objects. Reviews of Modern Physics, 69(2), 337.

does not mention iron star. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Re. stars with odd spectra: One star in particular, XX Ophiuchi, is mentioned as an "iron star" in sources spanning a wide time range (1924-2025). Examples: 1926, 1932, 2004, 2005 and 2025 (there are dozens more papers about that star from all decades in-between). A 1951 paper states that "the iron star" is a nickname that refers specifically to XX Oph; later papers also mention other stars with similar properties, like AS 325. Renerpho (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I've added warning tags. Praemonitus (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

The article is about two different things, one very much an observational fact, the other hypothetical but certainly not just science-fiction. It should really be two different articles, and then they can be hatnoted or disambiguated in a more conventional way. Both being astronomical objects doesn't change that. Until that happens, it needs to remain very clear that the article is about two different things. Inevitably that is going to look abnormal, but feel free to try and improve the lead. Lithopsian (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2026 (UTC)