Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

Hi! Anybody willing to join? We need at least 10 people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#Proposing_a_new_WikiProject_Astrobiology Astropedian

Hey everyone, I am thinking of merging List of nearest giant stars, List of nearest supergiants and List of nearest hypergiants into a single article named List of nearest stars by luminosity class. Everyone tell your view on this idea. Abdullah1099 (talk) 06:39, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Renerpho (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, That can contain all of them in one list rather than two-three lists. As of now the luminosity class there are white dwarf, brown dwarf, red dwarf, Subdwarf, Main-sequence, Subgiant, Giant, Bright Giant, Supergiant and Hypergiant. I already have a list ready for bright giants ready and think of limits for from brown dwarf and red dwarf within 20 light-years, white dwarf between 25 or 40 light years and Subdwarf 60 or 80 light years and more. Only thing is that if there is a green light from editors. I will start the works Abdullah1099 (talk) 07:49, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Just don't make those lists too long. Shorter is better; I think there is no point listing the 46th closest star of type whatever. Renerpho (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand. So can start the works Abdullah1099 (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, having some sort of cap on the length of the lists is essential. The list of giants already has 35 rows. Limiting a luminosity class to 20 light years is redundant with List of nearest stars. Praemonitus (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I am taking around 40 entries per list as cap Abdullah1099 (talk) 03:48, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

We can always remove stuff if consensus is that it's too long, so I guess that's fine (for now). Renerpho (talk) 07:39, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I also think that a good idea. I will now start the works as soon as possible Abdullah1099 (talk) 08:09, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

As the original creator of the List of giant stars and List of nearest supergiants, i would agree with the creation of this list but i disagree with the merge of the already existing lists, since having separate lists for more "notable" spectral classes (i.e. giants or supergiants) seems useful for the average reader. Also, the proposed list would focus on luminosity class, but the list of nearest giant stars is focusing mostly in the evolutionary stage, while list of nearest supergiants include both stars classified as supergiants in evolutionary terms and stars with supergiant luminosity class. Would "list of nearest stars by evolutionary stage" be a better choice? I mean, the actual evolutionary stage of the star is a more useful information than its luminosity class. These lists could be restricted by e.g. 20 entries per sub-list, rather than some distance cut-off. 21 Andromedae (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

@Abdullah1099: I agree with 21 Andromedae's suggestion to make it about evolutionary stages (which are physically distinct) rather than luminosity class (which is an arbitrary scale). Renerpho (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah @Renerpho, @21.Andromedae suggestion is useful then it will be better to create "list of nearest stars by evolutionary stage" also i will potentially not merge all the three lists as per 21.Andromedae suggestion. Abdullah1099 (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree that this is the best course of action (or at least a very reasonable one) BennBluee (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I had made a Draft:List of nearest stars by evolutionary stage for the article. I want to ask that anyone who is interested can help me in the article creating process of this article Abdullah1099 (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Tagging in @IvarTheBoneless123, who recently went through a bunch of the planet/moon articles and changed the infobox colours as per the reasoning on their talk page here. I actually think this is a pretty decent idea, or at least the beginning of one. Choosing colours according to dynamic system, composition, or some other classification does help intuitively group objects together. The only issues are that this was done without consulting any other editors as far as I am aware, and the colours that were selected in the end actively made link text harder to read both in light and dark mode. Though I have reverted the edits I do recognize this was done in good faith, so now the topic has been broached, I figured we could establish some standard for the colours within the infoboxes, as currently I cannot find anything specifically addressing this. Xiphosura^Talk∞Edits 06:33, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I think there used to be such a color scheme for this project, but I'm not sure what happened to it. Perhaps that could be a useful addition to the WP:ASTROSTYLE page? Praemonitus (talk) 09:56, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Why not create a template that stores standard colors, like WP:ELEM's Template:Element color? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:42, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Sure, that would help with consistency. Hopefully automation could be used for implementation, or it's going to be a significant chore. Praemonitus (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I've been begging for a topic like this, by an established user, since otherwise the topic of planetary/moon infoboxes is either completely barren or otherwise subject to arbitrary changes.

Thanks. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

And yes, I did engage in some adventurous editing - granted, the new darker 'icy moon/dwarf planet' scheme you've seen and reverted in Pluto was simply due to 'lavender' looking kind of meehhh... IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah bro, I also doubt which template is better for representing stars Template:Color temperature or Template:Star-color. I personally like using "Color temperature" as it represents the stars more near to what it actually look rather than some standard template like "Star color" that are useful for general use but for specific work can be very questionable Abdullah1099 (talk) 04:55, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Did anybody also took my proposal in this discussion Abdullah1099 (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

This could be good Homlos (Message me bro) 00:47, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, but it will need to be held separately. I don't think this proposal will affect the discussion below. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:12, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03 Can we put this business to rest for real? It has been forever.

Only other thing I'd suggest is to somehow separate 'regular' and 'irregular' moons via color scheme (provided that the objects in question aren't already under a certain infobox scheme, such as Triton). IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

How about regular moons being more saturated and irregular moons being less saturated Homlos (Message me bro) 04:45, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Here's a list of all colors used in infoboxes about astronomical objects. Colors for minor planets are also used in List of minor planets, but the main-belt color for infoboxes,  #d6d6d6 , is used only for the outer main belt;  #e9e9e9  is used for the middle main belt and  #fefefe  is used for the inner main belt. (Other lists use completely different color schemes; for example, List of natural satellites is color-coded by parent body, and the individual lists for the outer planets are color-coded by group.) I propose using  #d8bfd8  instead of  #e0ccff  for the small moons, and  #a9a8cf  for all the round ones. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:52, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Added two colors, for meteorites and stellar associations. There are more colors in use for infoboxes about features and events. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:03, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I suggest you be careful with using dark background colors like the one for Uranus's major moons. Dark purple blends too much with black text and I suggest brightening it. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 20:42, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

It's still technically AAA-compliant: . –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:12, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

True, but we should still prioritize colours which contrast well against link and regular text. For any proposed standard, we should have a test table similar to the above but with link text colouring too, so we can check it out. A lot of purples make the blue/blurple link text very hard to read, especially on dark mode. Xiphosura^Talk∞Edits 03:06, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Sure, please compile a color contrast table so we know which ones need to be replaced. {{Color contrast ratio}} can compute this. Meanwhile, I am going to draft a tentative list of items that will need colors assigned. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:15, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Just for the record - I suspect the only reason the 4 out of 5 major Uranian moons weren't reverted was because they had their infobox color changed by Double sharp who saw what I've been doing (we've been in contact elsewhere) and did it himself. There is absolutely nothing essential distinguishing these 4 from other round, icy moons.

With that said, since the Moon has been reverted to a terrestrial scheme, should we divide the 19 round moons into 'terrestrial' (Moon, Io, Europa perhaps - that one's debatable) and 'icy moons' (all the rest) schemes? If so, I propose that the 'icy moons' keep their current 'thistle' round-moon scheme but the 'terrestrial moons' should IMO then have a color scheme similar to but not the same as that of the terrestrial planets.

Actually now that I think about it: if people like the 'lavender' scheme that the dwarf planets currently have (who are all icy planetary-mass bodies), then perhaps the round icy moons should have a scheme more closely related to 'lavender' than 'thistle' in terms of color? IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 12:53, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I guess what I'm trying to say is that planetary-mass moons should have an infobox a shade or two lighter than their planetary/dwarf-planetary equivalents - so, something like this:

1) terrestrial planets (#fcbba9) vs terrestrial planetary-mass moons (#fdd3c7)

2) (icy) dwarf planets (#e6e6fa/lavender) vs icy planetary-mass moons (#efeffc)

This is just an example of course. But I think this balances the dynamical (planet, dwarf planet, major moon) and compositional (terrestrial, icy) properties of major planetary-mass bodies in a satisfactory way, at least as far as I can tell. (By the way - by 'icy' I mean any planetary-mass body in the ~1 to ~2.5 g/cm^3 density; a rather broad range, but I don't wish to overcomplicate, and this covers all such bodies which have a significant portion of actual ice of one kind or another, though mostly water-ice, as part of their bulk composition. This is actually why I think Europa belongs to the 'terrestrial moons' infobox, since its density is over 3 g/cm^3, comparable to that of the Moon or Mars.) IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I have no particular preference for a color scheme, other than the aforementioned darker background issue. The current list seems fine, but I do think that keeping it relatively simple is best. Right now there seem to be an overabundance of categories, especially for minor planets. But that's just an arbitrary choice, I suppose. Praemonitus (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, we have to decide exactly how moons will be classified for purpose of infobox color. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:51, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I just want to make it known that I've reverted the recent edits on Uranus' other 4 moons back to where they were before I embarked on my mess of edits. If for nothing else but consistency.

Unfortunately, in a rather funny twist of irony, when I tried doing the same for the Moon I got an edit-war warning.

That said, I'm ultimately still in favor of this planetary-body Solar System scheme:

1) gas giants: Beige (example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter)

2) ice giants: Aliceblue (example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptune)

3) terrestrial planets: #fcbba9 (example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth)

4) dwarf planets: Lavender (example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto)

5) icy planetary-sized moons: #efeffc (example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:IvarTheBoneless123/sandbox#Ganymede); a shade lighter than the 'Lavender' scheme of the dwarf planets

6) rocky (terrestrial) planetary-sized moons: #fdd3c7 (example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:IvarTheBoneless123/sandbox#Moon); a shade lighter than the '#fcbba9' scheme of the terrestrial planets IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good! Here's what it would look like, depending on what color we use for small moons:

I propose using a greenish color for the small moons, bluer than for centaurs, to contrast with the other categories: approximately  Paaliaq (#bbffdd) . –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:15, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

This should be discussed on the Infobox talk pages, not a wikiproject. As we all know Wikiprojects cannot impose any rules or styles, but if its on the infobox(es) themselves then consensus can be established and the determined colours put into the documentation of the infobox(es) for people to reference and use. Canterbury Tail talk 17:04, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Bullshit. This is a project-wide discussion about the choice of colors for a widely-used infobox. All discussions regarding color for the periodic table were hosted at WT:ELEM. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:55, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Eh? No, Wikiprojects have zero authority as we all know. Even if something is used out of them, they still cannot dictate, only suggest since Wikiprojects are purely for like minded editors to come together, not to dictate or enforce rules (which they explicitly cannot do), and no editor is under any obligation to follow anything that comes out of a Wikiproject. As per WP:PROJECT and WP:CONSENSUS. There has been a lot of ANI discussions around Wikiproject MOSes and guidelines in the aviation space, which have made clear to those editors that nothing in a Wikiproject can be used to point as consensus or as an MOS that any editor needs to follow, and is not a reason for reversion. They're a social construct, not a rule making body. Many editors act as if they are, but they've been proven time and time again that that is not the case. That's why I'm suggesting it happens on the infobox talk, that way people will know it happened and everyone can point to a proper consensus on the use of colours in the infoboxes. It's better for it to be in that one place, and documented on the Infobox description and parameters afterwards. As for the Periodic table discussion, be that as it may, its a local consensus that is not enforcable. Believe or not I'm trying to be helpful here to get something that can then be used for consensus. Canterbury Tail talk 20:54, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Consensus discussions do not necessarily have to take place on the template's talk page. That being said, I have transcluded this section to Template talk:Infobox planet with a request to join in the discussion here. Hopefully that should satisfy the bureaucratically-minded folk who are (legitimately) concerned that we didn't make an effort to include non-project members on a discussion (in other words, Canterbury, I completely agree with your concerns, but let's not restart the discussion in a different location just because it's not the most ideal place). Primefac (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Anyway, I invite @Double sharp, @Renerpho, @Kwamikagami, @ArkHyena, @Nrco0e, @Serendipodous, @My planet is Homlos, @Anonymsiy to join in on this discussion, seeing as you're the most active recently on the planets/dwarf planets/moons articles. I really wish for there to be some kind of consensus on this matter, whatever it ends up being. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Matching the color scheme with the objects' color themselves would be a great idea, I think, but I agree with what LaundryPizza03 just proposed at 20:15, 7 May 2026 (UTC), the moon could be grey in colour and Earth be bluish in colour tho, and if Pluto is coloured like that, then any other dwarf planets may be coloured in that too. Sorry for going too far but can the possible dwarf planets (TNOs in between + 1 sigma > (600/700) km and the size of Salacia and Hygiea, Interamnia) be coloured #B4FFB4? Homlos (Message me bro) 13:13, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

maybe create a formula to choose infobox colours using data from planets? i imagine it like this:

size = saturation

hue = type of body (habitable = green, gas giant = orangish yellow, ice giant = light blue, lots of water = blue)

brightness =??? - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

What are you trying to do, compress information, or make it more accessible? This sounds like an algorithm to compress it efficiently, not like something made for humans (especially not for those for whom certain color combinations create readability issues). Renerpho (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I see three problems with your proposal:

1) the overwhelming majority of solar system bodies are grayish in color - you'd end up grouping the likes of Ganymede/Mercury with the likes of Dimorphos

2) there are some planetary-mass moons (Io, Triton, maybe some major Uranian moons) that wikipedia can't seem to decide as to what they look like to a human eye

3) there are 7 out of 9 consensus-dwarf planets which haven't been directly imaged by a spacecraft - we can make some deductions about their surfaces but until we visit them/get some more powerful telescopes, that's all we have. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@IvarTheBoneless123: Yes, but it's not just Wikipedia who can't decide. We can have endless discussions about what the "true color" of even some well known Solar System objects is. Neptune is the classical example. Mars? Who knows, ESA and NASA traditionally push quite different views on this. Jupiter's moon Io? That's been a fun discussion recently. And there are problems with Sedna and many of the other TNOs as well -- just to mention some examples.

Please don't try to use "actual" or "true" color in these color schemes, My planet is Homlos. There is no such thing. Renerpho (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Granted, the likes of Eris, which is almost certainly snow-white (at least at its current point of orbit) kind of proves that you can determine the overall surface color of a far-off body even in absence of any visiting spacecraft...That said, that's Eris now - but Eris has a c. 600 year-long orbit and we simply don't know if Eris does or doesn't change its surface features from white to something else during its own incredibly elliptical year. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the tag. I think you should ask people who knows about accessibility issues (and how to avoid them), not someone who edits astronomy articles. Renerpho (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this is about accessibility, more about consistently painting the bike sheds. Primefac (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

As Primefac said, accessibility isn't an issue here (as far as I know) since all current or proposed infobox color schemes are on the lighter end of the spectrum, perhaps (in the case of 'ice giants') a little bit too light.

I think regular editors of astronomy/planetary science-related articles are the perfect people to ask about this - again, the exact color scheme doesn't even matter (so long as it's visible enough), this is all about effectively color-coding planetary-mass bodies (planets, dwarf planets, major moons) and making it consistent and agreed upon by the majority. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

So we eliminated a counter-proposal. Is it time for an RfC? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:57, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I didn't mean it to be a counter proposal, I just thought that would be cool, but let's use your suggestion for the best Homlos (Message me bro) 08:19, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, as I said is it a good idea to put mint green on possible dwarf planets? Homlos (Message me bro) 08:21, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps. It would likely reflect Category:Possible dwarf planets. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:00, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me but green of any kind is not what I immediately associate with far-off icy bodies. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

RfC? What is that?

Truth be told, I'm not sure that many people are even interested in this judging by the fact that out of the 8 people I tagged only 3 responded by now. (I know for a fact that Double sharp doesn't care about this matter and Nrco0e's only objection so far has been text visibility in an infobox - I still wanted them to at least know there's an ongoing discussion.)

Like it or not, I think the lot of us here are all the deciding factor there is... IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

An RfC is a formal discussion that is visible to the entire Wikipedia community. WikiProject Weather ran one at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Colour discussions in 2021 to adopt their current color scheme. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:42, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, here's a comparison of the possible dwarf planet color with TNOs (where the majority of candidates are located), centaurs, and my proposal for small moons:

I think we should use a paler and bluer green  28978 Ixion (#e1fff0)  than suggested by My planet is Homlos. (Making it too close to cyan will clash with the color for Jupiter trojans.) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:05, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree Homlos (Message me bro) 07:24, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

There are many requested edits from @Marcodatadev at CAT:COIREQ. Leaving this note should anyone from this project be willing to review these. Aloneinthewild (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from their contributions, all of these edit requests involve adding a certain image to the articles about constellations. Rather than deciding whether that's a good idea 88 times, we could discuss it here once... Renerpho (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

These constellation images were already discussed here and here, where replacing the lead images was opposed, but there's no problem with just adding them to the article body as is now being proposed. SevenSpheres (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

hi @Aloneinthewild, @Renerpho and @SevenSpheres

I would like to ask for community guidance on the constellation image requests.

Several edit requests to add the NOIRLab constellation images to constellation articles have recently been declined, mainly because the author credit in the caption was considered potentially promotional. Thank you for pointing that out.

I understand the concern, and I am happy to adjust the proposed captions or formatting to avoid any promotional wording, I also suggested removing the author’s name from the captions in the individual edit request replies, but I have not yet received further feedback on whether that would address the concern.

My intention is not to replace the existing infobox diagrams or to push a specific caption format. Based on the previous discussions, it seems there may be support for using these images as supplemental figures in the article body, rather than as lead images. If that is still acceptable to the community, I would appreciate guidance on the best non-promotional way to add them.

If editors prefer a different placement, caption style, gallery format, or template, I am fully open to following that recommendation. Since this affects many constellation articles, I think it would be better to agree on one standard approach here instead of handling the same issue separately across many individual edit requests.

Thank you for your help and suggestions.

If the community does not support adding these images broadly, I will of course respect that and avoid continuing with repeated individual requests.

thank you for your helo and suggestions.

Regards, Marcodatadev (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I only directed you here to attract attention to editors more specialised in astronomy. As there were a large number of requests there help would be valuable, cc @Spintendo Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi there! I am planning a split of Accretion Disk, as it combines statements and mathematics more suited to a general Astrophysical disk page (see Talk page section).

In doing this I have also realised there are some organizational issues within the Stars category:

1. A few of Stellar Structure subcats refer to non-stellar structure. As per the stellar structure page:

   "Stellar structure models describe the internal structure of a star in detail"

   IMO this does not cover Accretion disk; Cosmic dust, or Circumstellar dust (the last one is debatable). Currently they are all subcats of Stellar Structure.

   Accretion & non-accretion disks are not a property of the internal structure of stars (although a section on stellar interactions relevant to accretion physics may still be warranted, e.g. tidal, radiation pressure, momentum/energy driven winds etc). Furthermore, they can occur around objects other than stars (galactic nuclei, black holes)

2. Protoplanetary disk is listed as a subcat of Accretion disk - this is not accurate and does not agree with the Protoplanetary disk lead section. During disk formation collapse does occur: but IMO the focus of the PP article is about planetary formation and disk physics, rather than disk accretion (which typically means accretion onto the central object). The formation section is an obvious exception but I think my point still stands.

Perhaps previously it has been confused that "Stars>Structure" in the Stars navigation box applies to non-stellar structure but I think this is a bad precedent (as it contradicts the lead section of Stellar Structure and does not represent the general physics/mathematical field well). Generally, I think these sections would fit much better under Planetary system.

So I propose the following:

• Reorganise subcats as follows:

Planetary System>Astrophysical disk>Accretion disk

Planetary System>Astrophysical disk>Accretion disk>Proplyd

Planetary System>Astrophysical disk>Protoplanetary disk

Planetary System>Astrophysical disk>Ring system

Star System>Circumstellar dust

Planetary System>Cosmic dust

EDIT: This has an obvious flaw in that Accretion disks can be found outside of Planetary systems. However, that criticism is also true of their current position under Stellar Structure. Perhaps my point below about moving Planetary systems outside of Stars is therefore not very good.

I would argue that planetary disk doesn't even need to be under Stars: of course they are mainly found around stars, but the same is true of many direct subcategories of Astronomical objects (e.g. planets, planetary-mass objects). I think restructuring to Astronomy>Astronomical objects>Planetary systems would also be a reasonable change. However this is not as much of an issue as the restructuring described above.

I also had some ideas for articles which would IMO be much better contextualised being under say Planetary System>Astrophysical Disk>Kida vortex, which would have very little to do with stars.

Conclusion

It would be great to have some input on this. I generally think it is a better category structure - both for the current articles, and if Astrophysical disk is created. The PP disk article shouldn't be under Accretion disk, as the field of planet formation is quite distinct from say AGN physics. The other recategorisations make more sense to me and better represent the scales & hierarchy found in solar systems.

If there are no objections in the next 7 days (-52 days left) then I will start work on this cleanup. BennBluee (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

After a bit more thought I think it would actually be better to categorise Astro disk like:

Astronomy>Astronomical Objects>Astrophysical Disk

(i.e. not below Planetary System). Then it completely avoids the issue of disks, accretion disks, etc being found around many different types of objects. One downside is it alienates planetary system from disks, but I think thats okay. So to be totally clear my reorganization proposal is:

Astronomical objects
├──Astrophysical disks
│   ├──Accretion disks
│   │  └──Proplyds
│   ├──Protoplanetary disks
│   └──Ring system
├──Stars
│  └──Star system
│     └──Circumstellar dust
└──Cosmic dust [stays where it is]

BennBluee (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

There is a warning on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Astronomy about moving pages to subcategories. Here's some proposals:

• Planetary System>Planetary Coordinate system
• Cosmic Dust>Dust Astronomy
• Exoplanets>Habitability>Exometeorology
• Exoplanets>Exoplanet Explorers
• Exoplanets>Planet Patrol
• Astronomical coordinate systems>First point of Aries
• Gravitational Wave>Gravitational Memory Effect
• Stars>Evolution>Stellar engulfment
• Stars>Star Systems>Stellar flyby

There are a few others but I think those are the most obvious ones to me. (I have ignored cosmo things, eg multi messenger astro, as I don't know much about them).

Also on the nav box on say the Spiral Galaxy page, spiral arm is listed under structure but it links to a subsection instead of the article. I assume we can move Spiral Arm (page) to be a subcat of Galaxy structure? BennBluee (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

You can just do these things yourself... Yes, pages usually shouldn't be placed directly in Category:Astronomy, so move them if the appropriate category is obvious; for example, SN 1990E should be in Category:Supernovae. Yes, since spiral arm is an article it should be linked directly in the galaxy navbox. SevenSpheres (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, will do! BennBluee (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

No, SN 1990E should be in Category:Type II Supernova. Same rule applies to Category:Supernovae and other categories if possible Abdullah1099 (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

At the time I wrote that, the type II supernovae category was empty and up for deletion. I see it's now being used. SevenSpheres (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

There's a Category:Exoplanet search projects where those citizen science projects could be placed.

Planetary coordinate system isn't about planetary systems, it should be in Category:Astronomical coordinate systems, where it already is. So you can just remove the Astronomy category. SevenSpheres (talk) 16:23, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Also i want to request everyone please do not add redirects to any category until unless it holds some importance like there is possibility to convert the redirect into article, etc Abdullah1099 (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

The Loktak Protocluster is a galaxy protocluster at redshift z ≈ 4.9, observed as it existed about 12.6 billion years ago, when the Universe was only about 1.2 billion years old. It was discovered using Subaru Telescope observations and studied further with James Webb Space Telescope imaging by an international team led by Dr. Ronaldo Laishram of the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan.

The research was published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters. The study reports evidence that galaxies in the dense protocluster environment were already growing differently from galaxies in less crowded regions, making it one of the first studies of its kind to find observational evidence for environmental influence on galaxy growth at such an early stage of the Universe.

The structure was named after Loktak Lake in Manipur, India, the largest freshwater lake in Northeast India and an important cultural and ecological landmark. According to official institutional coverage, the name reflects the way four separate galaxy concentrations are connected into one larger structure, resembling the floating phumdis of Loktak Lake. According to the lead researcher, beyond this structural resemblance, the naming was also intended as a tribute to Manipur, India, where Loktak Lake holds deep cultural, ecological, and social significance. In this way, the discovery connects a major early-Universe structure with a geographical and cultural landmark from Northeast India, placing Loktak and Manipur within the wider story of astronomy.

This topic may be suitable for an independent Wikipedia article because it is supported by a peer-reviewed scientific paper, official institutional releases, and multiple independent reliable media sources.

Manipurastronomy (talk) 07:09, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@Manipurastronomy: You're probably in the wrong place; but you can write a draft and go through the process described at WP:Articles for creation. Renerpho (talk) 11:33, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I doubt this topic meets the requirements of WP:NASTRO. There is only one published study, some press releases issued by the institutions involved, and some media reports based upon those press releases. Many of the sources listed above are blatantly promotional or in very obscure non-scientific outlets. Those are not WP:INDEPENDENT sources. Also, judging from your username: if you have a personal connection to the study or any of its authors, you should avoid writing about this topic - see WP:COI. Modest Genius ^talk 14:25, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@Modest Genius: I agree, the sources look questionable. There is now Draft:Loktak Protocluster, which I've put on my watch list. @Manipurastronomy: While the "articles for creation" process is specifically designed to handle conflicts of interest, special care is required in such cases, to make sure that the notability standards are met and that the article is written from a neutral point of view. That appears to not be the case. Renerpho (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Renerpho, I also doubt the topics notability as only 4 to 6 sources could be useful the iopscience.iop.org astronomy journal, 2 Press release, Phys.org, Universe Today, The Hindu and one other source others just copy pasted the info. Also the image copyright status is doubtful. Abdullah1099 (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:WHL0137-LS#Requested move 20 June 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. SevenSpheres (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Hey everyone is this me notice this or others are also seeing this like nowadays i see new users just after creating there account directly go into creating articles while there articles feels like generated by AI or the topic even not complete the WP:GNG criteria. Some examples are TOI-791, Draft:Loktak Protocluster and many others. Abdullah1099 (talk) 05:29, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

It's not just you. I also noticed the rising number of non-notable and/or poorly (ai?)-written articles from relatively new accounts. There is nothing wrong with creating an article immediately after registering an account, but the decline in quality is a problem.

Many of these articles seem to pass the Articles for Creation process without much issue, only to be deleted shortly after (compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/472235 Zhulong, "the non-notability has been noted by multiple users before the article was moved out of draft space ... it was later moved to main space without addressing those concerns"). That takes up user time and generally harms our overall quality. It is my impression that many of the users who volunteer for Articles for Creation are unfamiliar with WP:NASTRO (or that they don't care about it). Renerpho (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, But i think "There is nothing wrong with creating an article immediately after registering an account." Until or unless you done using right processes and ways and followed everything the AFC review suggested. The users creating these questionable articles feels like they not care about the AFC reviewers suggestions and all the rules and criteria. Abdullah1099 (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

That should simply result in the AFC request being denied. Renerpho (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

But for that exact thing the AfC process is made for like there if you not know the exact status of your article or draft you can put it on AfC and baseded on the AfC reviewers suggestion you can upgrade the article, article denied from AfC don't means it's useless. I think we should get views from other users Abdullah1099 (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@Renerpho, I think enough is enough like i today move this article into draft Draft:Sh 2-29 because of obvious reasons. I will move some more of them into draft if no sign of improvement is seen. Abdullah1099 (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Hey @JeBonSer, Please review them with more carefully Abdullah1099 (talk) 03:29, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@Abdullah1099: Yeah, thanks for the reminder. JeBonSer (talk) 12:14, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I mean you can see clearly that his articles has many issues like wrong way of adding citation and the translation is not clear and missing of citations. Abdullah1099 (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:WHL0137-LS#Requested move 20 June 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Destinyokhiria _{(talk / cont)} 06:20, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

We need to focus on updating these articles with data collected by the spacecraft and waiting for papers to be published with results. We also need to focus on a non-copyrighted image of the asteroids for use on the Wikipedia articles, as someone has been uploading their copyrighted images to the articles. I will make sure to keep an eye out for them on Nature ! - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

speaking of, can someone delete those copyvios? thanks - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

The copyvios have still not been removed from commons (And i am not talking about the fair use images that are currently in use in the articles) - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 06:09, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

If there's no freely-licensed image yet, images can be uploaded locally as fair use per WP:NFCC. SevenSpheres (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

i'm hoping someone does that, but right now im just focused on removing the copyvios from commons - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I've done it for Torifune, hoping someone does it for the other asteroid - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

@Anonymsiy: The Kamo'oalewa article is a huge mess for sure. Nobody has updated the Donaldjohanson article yet, but I'm thinking of doing that soom. I'm really busy right now so it's gonna take a while. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 15:43, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I THINK I JUST HIT THE JACKPOT clpds.bao.ac.cn - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

the data is a buncha position numbers, someone smarter than me can prob decode it - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't see how a list of positions would be useful for an article...? Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 19:40, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

just wondering, when will you be overhauling these articles? - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't know. I'm very busy with a lot of other things. I don't want to touch the Kamo'oalewa and Torifune articles because revamping all the tons of old stuff is gonna be a huge headache. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 19:42, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

(Donaldjohanson's article will be finished tomorrow. I still don't feel like touching the articles for Torifune and Kamo...) Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 07:18, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

yeah as not much data have came out about them. But cool! - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 08:17, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

JAXA Reports have came out for Torifune! I've updated the page a tiny bit with them, but more updates are needed to both the Torifune page and Hayabusa 2 page. ( https://www.hayabusa2.jaxa.jp/topics/20260705_flyby/ and https://www.jaxa.jp/projects/files/youtube/flyby_asteroid-torifune_hayabusa2/jaxa_doc01_20260730.pdf ) - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 10:47, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

sadly not much data has came out yet, even nearly a month after flybies - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

There has been a discussion about the use of MOS:BOLDLINKs in articles that involve lists of minor planets (originally the list of minor planets series, but also things like Marc Buie#List of discovered minor planets). The discussion began at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (copied in below), but could not be resolved there. As decided there, I am moving the discussion here.

Should bold links be removed from such lists? If so, should the bold face be replaced by some other way to highlight asteroids that have their own standalone article?

Relevant previous discussion can be found at Talk:List of minor planets/Archive 2#Bolded entry. Talk:List of minor planets#Bold links has been mostly ignored.

I am tagging SevenSpheres, scourgezoned, and GhostInTheMachine, who have been involved in the discussions. Renerpho (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I am copy-pasting my own comment from that previous discussion here again, in the hope that it may serve as a starting point. Renerpho (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I am looking at how the situation has changed in recent years. We may not actually need the bold links. Getting rid of them entirely will be a bit of work though, beyond simply removing the bolded links themselves.

Both the Lists of minor planets and the List of trans-Neptunian objects no longer have "normal" (as opposed to bolded) links, so removing the bold links in those cases seems fine. If we decide to remove the bold links from lists such as Marc Buie#List of discovered minor planets then an alternative is needed. We could change the table format, such that links to the list entries are moved to a separate column. That would remove the need to link the designations, unless there is actually an article to link. In some cases, such as in Marc Buie's article, such a column already exists, making the change a bit easier. In some articles, such as Satoru Otomo#List of discovered minor planets, the extra column may have to be added.

I think the idea used to be to have normal links for all named asteroids, and bolded links for those with a standalone article. That's how Marc Buie's article currently handles it, but overall this is far from consistent. Some articles simply have normal links to all the named asteroids (possibly because the bold links got removed at some point), regardless of whether an article exists or not. That's a bit of a mess!

The current situation is that some entries in the list of minor planets use bold for links, while others do not. This is due to a partial removal of bold links last month (incorrectly citing the irrelevant MOS:BOLDLINK, rather than MOS:BOLD). I asked that it be discussed before continuing but the discussion went nowhere. The lists should be made consistent, either by restoring bolded entries where they were removed, or removing the rest of them – probably the latter. SevenSpheres (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

And I think that removing the bold links from the sub-lists of List of minor planets is fine (changing a contrary opinion I expressed earlier, where I spoke in favor of keeping them). List of trans-Neptunian objects needs to be treated the same as those, as do List of unnumbered trans-Neptunian objects and List of unnumbered minor planets and their sub-lists. Whatever we decide, it should be done consistently throughout all of those.

As for the lists of asteroids that are found in some biographies, I am undecided. Renerpho (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Minor-planet moon is another list that is affected by the outcome of this discussion, especially since there is currently a discussion to update that list. Renerpho (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Possibly something that could be implemented as a template is the star temperature colors used (for example) in the List of nearest bright stars table. Those are used in several other star lists, so a single template would maintain a consistent scheme. I'm not sure if a template can be used in the table CSS formatting though, so a test would be needed. Praemonitus (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

@Praemonitus, I think Template:Color temperature is the better one as it gives the nearest colour to stars actual colour. I had started using it in my list Abdullah1099 (talk) 04:07, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Possibly. I'm not sure if the color could get too dark for readability though. Praemonitus (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Same colour scheme is also used in Main-sequence Abdullah1099 (talk) 07:19, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Here's a test of spectral types; this is an application where we will need correct color display in dark mode:

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:26, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

That last row is a bit problematic with the blue link on red, but I suppose it's tolerable. I'm also not sure how well it works with color blindness. Praemonitus (talk)

Perhaps then what we need is to use {{Color temperature}} as a back end to a template where we can insert the MK spectral type (E.g. 'K5III') and it automatically converts it to a calibrated temperature (4,390 K) color? Praemonitus (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Praemonitus, I think for the brown dwarf, white dwarf, I think Template:Star-color is more suitable for the work. Abdullah1099 (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Of course, in those particular cases. Praemonitus (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Should we try merging that functionality into {{star-color}} and then into {{astro color}}? Of course, we will need to find a table with this information and round off some minor MK spectral types (e.g. O9.5V) to the nearest whole number. Unlinked text can be auto-set to white for the darker colors. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:39, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, It's a good idea Abdullah1099 (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I seek to add a new "rate of change of period" (symbol: Ṗ) to {{Infobox planet}} and {{Starbox orbit}} to describe certain close systems whose orbital period is shrinking due to tidal or gravitational-wave effects, and possibly also the same but for changes in rotation period. It is a dimensionless quantity, but often expressed by the number of seconds lost per year or per cycle. I encountered this first while working at Draft:V523 Cassiopeiae (a W Ursae Majoris variable), but also I've seen this data in article text for several exoplanets, such as WASP-12b. And of course, the rates at which the Moon's orbital period and Earth's rotation period are growing are well-measured. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:22, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure, why not? I've encountered a few of those. Should it be linked to orbital decay? Praemonitus (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I presume so. That article could use information about orbital expansion as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:25, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I've recently rewritten the article for 52246 Donaldjohanson and I'm considering nominating it for Good article status. However, this is a somewhat large article (50k bytes) and it gets pretty detailed with technical citations (I want it to be detailed while also understandable to a broad audience). I don't have much time and energy to reread the article for grammar and sourcing issues, so I'd really appreciate if someone could do that! Here's the peer review page:

• Wikipedia:Peer review/52246 Donaldjohanson/archive1

Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 23:59, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand why drafts like AM 2026-424 is getting reviewed where the only useful reference that i can find is NASA one others are catalogs and failed verification links. Thus making it fails WP:GNG and WP:NASTRO Abdullah1099 (talk) 04:15, 26 July 2026 (UTC) Comment updated on 04:09, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I think you mean it fails WP:NASTRO; with the exception of the two dead links (which appear to mirror the live one) every one of the publications is an independent reliable source, and there are a handful of them (i.e. it does appear to pass GNG). If you don't think it's notable, though, feel free to nominate it for deletion. Primefac (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I think the issue is Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects)#C3; specifically, whether it is the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, which contain significant commentary on the object ("significant commentary" is highlighted in the original). In the case of AM 2026-424, ref.6 clearly meets that bar. As Primefac pointed out, ref.7 and ref.8 are dead, but are probably mirrors of ref.6, so they don't count as multiple sources.

"Every one of the publications is an independent reliable source" -- that's true, but NASTRO's bar is higher than that. The sources need to contain significant commentary on the object. Ref.1 through 5 are databases, not publications that are specifically about this object. For example, ref.5 only mentions the subject as one of many hundreds of entries in a table. For me, that does not constitute significant commentary. The other references appear to be similar. All in all, I don't see how this meets NASTRO. Renerpho (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2026 (UTC) That said, I believe that not everyone on this site interprets NASTRO so strictly. Renerpho (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Right, I just wanted to clarify that GNG appears to have been met, which is likely why it was accepted; not every AFC reviewer is going to know NASTRO exists. Primefac (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, yes. Renerpho (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

GNG does mention "significant coverage"; NASTRO just clarifies that an entry in a large database or catalog, while it may provide some information on the object, doesn't count as significant coverage. Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill might be relevant.

This galaxy at least has the Hubble image and sources about that, though there doesn't seem to be any published research on it. SevenSpheres (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@Primefac @Renerpho, I am not interpreting WP:NASTRO strictly, I am just concerned on the approving of these drafts nowadays Abdullah1099 (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I’m uneasy that the current approach seems to prioritize GNG over a stricter application of NASTRO, especially when sources lack substantial commentary on the object. Sukesh parakka (talk) 06:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

This article has been listed as start article even though it is one of the important text in Indian astronomy.A major improvement with this article can atleast nominate it in c class or b class category. Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 07:30, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I know thats what everyone says, but looking at their spectra and purported more recent "accurate colour" texture maps, their colours are much more saturated, with (when brightened) uranus being a #c4f6ff and neptune being a #abe7ff, which is much more saturated than what the current header image shows. Creator of both images @Ardenau4 what do you think of this? - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi all, have just added myself as a project member, I'm an amateur astronomer based in the midlands of England, occasionally restoring old telescopes etc. I've been active in the aviation project for 18 years and would like to help out in this project. I often use the articles on a laptop in the garden, useful for finding SAO numbers for a Meade Goto telescope. I am competent in archiving talk pages and can create and maintain footer navboxes. I tend to stick to Wikpedia guidelines and policies for a smooth voyage and my talk page is always open (if a bit untidy). Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:54, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Glad to have you here. Primefac (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, welcome editor Nimbus! and kudos for your 20th anniversary coming up next year! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 13:46, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, amazing how time flies, I only came on here to try to fix some vandalism that my son had done, editing as an IP...! I archived Talk:Amateur astronomy today, I archive posts over 12 months old usually, the recommended period is three months so I'm well over that and not had any complaints so far. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:19, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

This journal appears to have useful information for astronomy history articles, and back issues are freely available. Praemonitus (talk) 03:40, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

See also the SHA Bulletin, although they have fallen behind on posting back issues

https://societyforthehistoryofastronomy.com/the-bulletin/ Skeptic2 (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

these images i uploaded ( File:4179 Toutatis HQ.png - Wikimedia Commons ) and (File:Reworked composite image of Arrokoth rotated.png - Wikimedia Commons ) are being marked for deletion by @Xiphosura . Lets break this down

"Original research" yes, my supposed "true colour" image of toutatis counts as that ( File:4179 Toutatis.png - Wikimedia Commons ) but the new images of arrokoth and toutatis surely do not count.

"No citation or proper explanation for changes" why would i need to cite my changes? and i explained it enough in the toutatis description and if thats going down then surely this should ( File:Donaldjohanson Combined.png - Wikimedia Commons )

"Original image cropped from a scientific study without such alterations" cropped? yes parts are cropped from it but i combined both images from it for higher resolution! Plus, if thats going as its "cropped" then what about the original image of toutatis? ( File:Asteroid 4179 Toutatis close-up.jpg - Wikimedia Commons )

"Description claims this is below the 'threshold of originality', but this is clearly not the case" HERE WE GO AGAIN. Wasnt there a WHOLE discussion here about how processed nasa images are below the threshold of originality? Plus if thats going, then these files will have to go too.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hyperion_in_Color_a_Composite_from_Cassini%E2%80%99s_Last_Visit.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20120906_jupiter_vgr1_global_caption.png

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Saturn_global_view_from_Cassini,_rings_open_Better_Colour.png

File:Valhalla crater on Callisto.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:High-resolution_global_view_of_Vesta_in_natural_color_processed_from_archival_data.jpg

File:Vesta in natural color.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ganymede_in_1979_from_Voyager_2_(mosaic).png

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_view_of_Tethys_from_Cassini.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cassini%27s_%27Last_Dance%27_A_final_portrait_at_Saturn.png

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Amalthea_in_color.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jupiter_from_Voyager_2.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Saturn_global_view_from_Cassini,_rings_open.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Triton_color_global_view.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Natural_color_global_view_of_Saturn_and_its_rings.jpg

+ much much more

Yes, i shouldve put up a talk page to add the images to their respecting articles, but trying to delete them and not checking them properly (and even not selecting the right image) is not the right way. So what do you think? - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 09:10, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I commented on the two deletion pages. The HQ Toutatis image is fine imo, but the recolored Arrokoth is problematic (but could be kept) since it claims "accurate" color with no evidence (and since there's no reliable sources that show and talk about Arrokoth's true color, it can't be used on Wikipedia. Same can be said for the recolored Toutatis image).

(by the way, I really need to say this, but please be mature and try not to crash out like this. You're literally on a website full of nerds and educated adults) Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 09:47, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

sorry. i found arrokoths colour from TCT, but you've already taught me enough on how its not always accurate. Hopefully another source pops up for its colour - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 09:52, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Most of the images you linked look fine though... well just the ones that aren't obviously modified from the original and don't make unfounded claims about accuracy. I haven't checked everything yet since it's late for me and I have a lot more important things to worry about. If the image descriptions claim the color is "accurate" but the linked source does not, then that would be problematic. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 09:57, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

the images i linked are images that would have to go if they do not meet the threshold of originality, showing how problematic Xiphorsha's argument is - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 10:00, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

also i changed both arrokoth images to be back to their original source (no modifications) - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 10:00, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Though it would probably have been useful to revert to the original upload with the longer history, this is good enough and solves the actual problem. Xiphosura^Talk∞Edits 10:51, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for finally engaging with us properly. I don't know why most of those images would need to be deleted, or why you brought them up? OR only applies to Wikipedia editors, most of those images (though I didn't check them all) are functionally identical to those listed in their sources. Just to make it clear: the problem with the Arrokoth image and what makes it OR is the changes to the colour as Nrco0e described, not that it was cropped and rotated. That part is fine.

The problem with the Toutatis image is that you claimed to have edited it in GIMP to remove artifacts, without explaining or citing what the artifacts were, why they needed to be removed, nor the process you used to remove them. Uploading a whole new image that you edited from the original and explained only vaguely is not sufficient to warrant replacing officially sourced images where the only alteration is basic cleanup (cropping and label removal).

The Donaldjohanson one is edge case. I would probably have reverted it to the original one per NASA. Why did you combine them instead of just cropping it? Why darken it "to match spectra better"? which spectra are you referencing? How can you prove the image more closely matches it, and why is this an improvement to the image? Again, you are editing it according to your own vague personal standards, instead of guidelines.

The reason you need to cite additions and changes to images is the same reason why information added to articles needs to be cited, in order to meet standards for verifiability etc. All the things we have linked to you multiple times already which I hope you have read. You do a lot of good work on here, genuinely. You just need to understand the primary goal is to have well-sourced images, not make images that us editors personally think are better. For the record, your recoloured Arrokoth image does certainly seem to be "more accurate" to me, but you need to prove that with a valid citation and detailed process, just like any other edit. If no source exists, then the original image is preferable over any that we make without a source. Xiphosura^Talk∞Edits 10:39, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

the reason why i listed those images is because you said the arrokoth image does meet the threshold of originality, when reprocessed nasa images notoriously do not, and if it did meet threshold of originality then those would have to be deleted - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 10:50, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:OR only applies to Wikipedia editors, they would only have to be deleted if the editor that uploaded them was also the person who edited/processed them, and if that was done based on no verifiable source. What do you mean by "reprocessed nasa images notoriously do not"? If you could show me where it is stated that reprocessed/recoloured/"edited in GIMP" images do not meet the threshold of originality, then I did indeed misunderstand. Explaining exactly what you changed also helps a lot in gauging this. Xiphosura^Talk∞Edits 10:58, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

now, not to be rude, but could you please revert your removings of the toutatis image? - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 12:10, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Just tired of constantly feeling like i'm being punished on this website, i know thats not how it is but idk and sorry if it sounds like playing victim - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 10:56, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry for that. We (mainly Nrco0e, Askaniy, Renerpho, and myself) tried to engage in conversation with you several times about your edits to images like these, but you either misunderstood what we were saying or ignored much of it, so I went ahead with the changes that needed to be made. If you keep feeling like you are being punished, it might be helpful to slow down and double-check why that happens, what people are suggesting to avoid running into problems like this.

I do encourage you to reach out to Askaniy in the Celestia community on Discord like he suggested if you want to learn more about TCT and image processing specifically, there is a thread for its discussion. There are multiple users there already which have learned a lot about image processing and Askaniy is regularly active and helps out when he has the time. Xiphosura^Talk∞Edits 11:11, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

i'm not allowed to have discord - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 11:15, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@Anonymsiy: I'm sorry you're having such a hard time here. I believe that you are passionate about making the images on this site as accurate as possible. Reading your comments here and recently on Nrco0e's user talk page, and questions like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Are the colours of uranus and neptune really so desaturated?, I think most of us would come to that conclusion. Unfortunately, the way how you determine what's "accurate" is still flawed. I don't like to say this, but I strongly suggest that you completely stop working on "true color" images for now, and concentrate on things that can be more easily verified from reliable sources. There's a lot of such work that needs to be done in astronomy articles. What Wikipedia doesn't need are more people arguing about the meaning of "true color", especially if they lack the necessary technical know-how. The problem is extremely complicated and nothing that any of us is equipped to resolve.

I second Xiphosura's suggestion that you try and learn more about TCT and image processing. It is unfortunate that you don't have access to Discord, but I believe Askaniy can be reached per email as well, from their user page. Maybe they can help you from there. Renerpho (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

On the threshold of originality issue, I still don't buy that in all cases. I agree that there's no copyright issue with the Arrokoth image, which is almost identical to images published by NASA, but I've recently found this which is a good illustration of why that doesn't always apply. Compare the original NASA images at that Commons link to the copyrighted derivative; I'd have a hard time believing that's below the threshold of originality. SevenSpheres (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Plus i have a hard time thinking the arrokoth image even IS copyrighted considering it being made by the same guy who did the official arrokoth image - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• Proto-cluster
• Protocluster
• Galaxy protocluster
• Galaxy proto-cluster

The blue one redirects to Galaxy cluster#In the early Universe. I'd like to create and redirect the red ones there too. But the section name "In the early Universe" could change, and maybe should, and even expand (no expanding Universe jokes, I promise.)

Could someone help please?

Thanks! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I'd suggest adding, say, a 'galaxy protocluster' anchor to the header, as explained at WP:TARGET (subst:Anchor). That way the section name can change but the redirects will still work. Praemonitus (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Good plan. I'll do that. Thank you! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:52, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Done. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Category:Galaxies has child Category:Galaxy clusters.

Category:Galaxy clusters has lots of galaxy protocluster articles.

So, should there be a category somewhere called Category:Galaxy protoclusters somewhere?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, for starters it would be good if the topic of 'Galaxy protocluster' were covered somewhere in the Galaxy cluster article. As it is, all it gets is a single sentence stub section. There are a lot of peer-reviewed papers on the topic, so it should be possible to put something together. Praemonitus (talk) 04:12, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Good plan again. I'm too stupid to do that, though. Maybe someone else could give it a go?

And about the category thing?

Thank you! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:55, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Done. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:28, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Galaxy groups and clusters is an article.

Galaxy group and Galaxy cluster are articles too.

Is this okay?

If so, maybe the lede of Galaxy groups and clusters needs to have Galaxy group and Galaxy cluster linked in the first sentence or so.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

They look to be WP:CONTENTSPLITs of the main article, as indicated by the 'main article' links for the first two sections. I think that's okay, and I don't think it would hurt to add those links to the lede. Thanks for asking. Praemonitus (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I was rushing and only read the lede. I now see those very prominent section hatnotes, so I reckon that's fine. Sorry to waste your time on this one. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I think this is an odd article, as it barely has any information that applies to both groups and clusters. I have not dived into this, but do we have any sources besides Voit 2005 that talks about groups and clusters as a shared subject? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:51, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Maybe it's not needed. Besides, content that is added to it might not be added the main articles. Its existence could be a net negative from that perspective. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what is really going on with WikiProject Astronomy. Some of the questionable articles i found out today are SPT2349-56, Blue Ring Nebula & Hen 3-401. Abdullah1099 (talk) 03:29, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Why would you blame WikiProject Astronomy for these articles? If you think these are questionable, take whatever action you think appropriate. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:16, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I am not blaming WikiProject Astronomy @Johnjbarton, Also taking actions doesn't result into any change nowadays. Abdullah1099 (talk) 04:19, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Abdullah1099 so why did you post? What's your point? Johnjbarton (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

My point is that nowadays there is a decline in article quality for new articles Abdullah1099 (talk) 02:01, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Unless you have sources for such claims, your post seems to fall in WP:NOTFORUM. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:32, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I think i am overreacting on this stuff Abdullah1099 (talk) 04:19, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

If anything, new articles seem better cited and of improved quality compared to the past. Sure, we still get a few that are mediocre, but on average we're doing decently well. Praemonitus (talk) 04:23, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, That's true as of now Abdullah1099 (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't believe that there's a decline in article quality overall, but I think there is a decline in the quality of astronomy articles that make it through AfC. That's not the case for the articles mentioned above, with which I see no obvious issue. Renerpho (talk) 08:46, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

How @Renerpho, I can't say that much on both nebula articles but they are in one way or another marginally notable but SPT2349-56 has a whole description section uncited. Overall there is not that much difference in quality but recently articles does have a little bit of decline in quality especially the AfC ones Abdullah1099 (talk) 09:03, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I was going to say, it sounds like the usual. As long as the articles establish the notability of their topics, I think we'll be okay. Problems arise when we get a slew of unsourced cruft. Praemonitus (talk) 04:19, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Abdullah1099. I'm responsible for starting SPT2349-56. I know I'm not a great writer, nor do I know the first thing about astronomy. I figured SPT2349-56 was notable, and as this is a wiki, others would come along and improve the article. Should it be deleted? I am also responsible for another: JADES-ID1. I suspect you won't approve of that one either. Suggestions? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:45, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak bro, It's common to have not very good writing skill but my main problems with both the articles is it doesn't have a completed infobox and improper citations also bare url. Like in case of SPT2349-56, the article has infobox not completed and citation placed like 4 citations in one line at the end of paragraph and some minor problems. Same with JADES-ID1.

My suggestion are:

• Do enough research on the topic and then first start with a draft.
• first work on the infobox and use the visual editing tool in which adding citation tool is provided use that tool and complete it
• Then write the article and add citations properly (for SPT2349-56, you can translatethe Italian Wikipedia article SPT-CL J2349-5638 also follow the steps as per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia)
• Then review if the article is complete or not and clear your doubts with other users.
• Then if the objects are quite new and not have that much citations or doubt it's notability then put on AfC (Utilise WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG for determining) or move to article, AfC is general preferred for users new in article writing.

Few Don't (there are more Don't then what i am telling):

• Don't use AI either fully or in sone parts as AI will not give that much good information than you can get from research papers, etc and AI is prohibited on Wikipedia.
• Don't use AI or Lazy writing style i mean until or unless necessary for the article only limit to 3 citations per statements and don't put them at the end of the paragraph in a line with bare URL. That would suspect your article as AI generated, Like my early articles were before sometimes questioned regarding AI use when i not used it in it.
• While you can start as many drafts as you want but complete one article at a time and the move on the other.

I hope this would help you if you follow them correctly in your articles. I would try to help you in this articles. Yeah, Wikipedia is open for all but a user should think of other users and the general public who is going to use these articles for there use. Abdullah1099 (talk) 12:38, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Besides improving things yourself, you can always advice editors directly with how to improve their articles, like how JADES-ID1's bare links and uncited statements is an issue. Let a new editor who wrote the article know on a talkpage in a kind manner. If there is a fellow editor who ignores your advice, or if a significant amount of misinformation is added, that's when asking on the general talkpage is more appropriate. In the end, we're all only human, and volunteers at that. Pointing out articles without having a specific direction in mind for what needs to be done, is likely not going to result in much improvement. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:09, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Maplestrip, I already told the steps and suggestions kindly to him/her. I am also try to remain kind and helpful to everyone especially new ones when they obey the advice. I don't like to point out users or articles but this is becoming kind of a regular thing nowadays that's why responding on the topic. I generally remain kind if the users ask suggestions or show improvements after my questions ir tell there issues they are facing like how @Guyisguy1 told me his problems and after that i don't question on the topic and in my free time try to help in his articles. Abdullah1099 (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I apologize if I accidentally implied that you weren't kind; you are handling this question perfectly fine and I am glad you are working to improve the articles. I realize now how passive-aggressive my comment must have come across. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:09, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

It's ok @Maplestrip, no problem Abdullah1099 (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments! I'm grateful indeed.

• First, I only use AI to understand what a term means. I never, ever, ever create content using it. I do it in my old fashioned way: I write it badly.

• I will never be able to research astronomy topics well enough to make a good astronomy article. The best I can do it find a notable subject and make a start. That's what I've been doing for nearly two decades and thousands of articles (see my userpage under General Articles). I'm a mass-producer of shoddy merchandise, I admit. :) I'm not sure that it is a net benefit to Wikipedia. Maybe I should rethink how I do things.

• I do try to add a ref for each statement. These two recent stubs did my head in, and I neglected to add a ref supporting each statement. My apologies.

• As for the rest of the steps, those are just way too many hoops (mostly) for me to jump through. So, I'm left with leaving the article uncreated, making a single sentence stub (with image), or just trying to write it the best I can.

• I've always believed this: Editors (often new ones) come to see if there is info on something they are interested in. They search it, or find the link somewhere. If they see a simple stub, they may add a bit of something, find it rewarding, and possibly get hooked on Wikipedia. They are happy. Wikipedia benefits. If the search finds nothing or there is a red link, they are not likely to start it. If they do start it, and they are new, it may end up in AfD and they will be put off Wikipedia. The existence of a simple, notable stub is better than it not existing. Is this flawed reasoning? It might be.

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

SPT2349-56 would only passes WP:GNG because of

• Zhou, D., Chapman, S. C., Aravena, M., Araya-Araya, P., Archipley, M., Cathey, J., ... & Weiß, A. (2026). Sunyaev–Zeldovich detection of hot intracluster gas at redshift 4.3. Nature, 649(8099), 1130-1133.

However, this paper is only 6 months old and it makes claims which I would classify as WP:EXTRAORDINARY (which is why it got in to Nature). I think this subject is not yet encyclopedic. It is news, not yet science. In a year or two it may be cited as a breakthrough, cited to refute its claim, or it may be uncited and ignored. We don't know and should just wait to see. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Johnjbarton. Thanks for the good feedback. I think I ought to avoid articles in this area completely, considering notability requirements for galaxy clusters are much higher than even Earth settlements with only a handful of daft people living there. Talk about human self-importance. To me, galaxy clusters are way more interesting. But guidelines are guidelines, and those are more important than my opinion. Cheers. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

The issue isn't galaxy clusters, it is the date of the key source. I would make the same challenge against any primary science source published in the last year. It is in the nature of scientific work that new publications are not encyclopedic. Experiments or observations often cannot be reproduced or have boring alternative explanations; theories often fail to show what they originally claim. That is why citations are so important in scientific work: it's a sign that the work is significant. Web sites like space.com and press releases are biased sources that uncritically hype new work. That is also why we on Wikipedia choose to focus on reliable secondary sources. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

That makes good sense. And space.com does seem a bit...well, sort of like a tabloid. Maybe this is better. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

There are two categories for these institutions: Category:Astronomy societies and Category:Astronomy organizations, with the former under the latter. It's unclear to me how they differ, and the organization category includes many societies. Should the society links under organization be diffused into the societies category? Or should we just merge them? It'd be good to have some clarity in the category header. Praemonitus (talk) 04:16, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to propose that the distinguishing criteria should be whether it is a learned society, including learned amateur societies. Examples of an astronomy organization then would include Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy and Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey. Praemonitus (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I added a brief definition to the 'Astronomy societies' category and tried to diffuse the 'Astronomy organizations' contents appropriately. Praemonitus (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Theia#Requested move 10 August 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ~2026-44129-32 (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I have nominated Moon for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria, or help improve the article. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regard to the article's featured status (see review instructions). Z1720 (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Category:Nysa asteroids has been nominated for renaming to Category:Nysa–Polana complex. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 07:11, 11 August 2026 (UTC)