Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
MainTalkAstronomical objects
(Talk)
Eclipses
(Talk)
Article ratingsImage reviewPopular pagesMembersWikidata
WikiProject iconAstronomy: Astronomical objects Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

Project-independent quality assessments[edit]

The redirect Hottest planet has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 6 § Hottest planet until a consensus is reached. Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor planets: 624001–625000, the scope of which affects many of these list pages.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  11:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

& @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meanings of minor planet names: 623001–624000.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  23:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on redesign of the Starbox[edit]

...is underway at Template talk:Starbox begin#Broader redesign of apparent-magnitude and color-index entries. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting proposal[edit]

I propose we split articles on comets such as Halley's Comet or Comet Hale-Bopp into separate articles such as 1986 approach of Halley's Comet and 1997 approach of Comet Hale-Bopp. There are articles on the 2004 transit of Venus and the 2012 transit of Venus. That is why I think they should be split. DementiaGaming (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Halley's Comet § 1986 is six paragraphs long. I do not see a need to have a six-paragraph stub, nor do I think the existing article (at 100k) is so large that it needs to be split. Hale–Bopp's article is half that size and doesn't really have an "approach" section, making even less of a need to split. Primefac (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]