Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5.

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Lithopsian. Your wiki edit anniversary is today, marking 17 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 18:09, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January–February 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points. The drive will run from 1 January to 28 February 2026. The drive is divided into two phases. Participants may take part in either phase or across both phases, depending on availability. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled during the drive. Two-month drive-exclusive barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants. Each article review earns 1 point, while each redirect review earns 0.2 points. Streak awards will be granted based on consistently meeting weekly point thresholds. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in participating? Sign up here.
You are receiving this message because you are a New Pages Patrol reviewer. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself from here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! The Visual Editor added more than I intended. But if you scroll down a bit, you would see that I added an internal link to the Texas Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics. So please check carefully before you accuse another person of "covering" something up. Nerd271 (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What is the validity of the new source that gives the temperature 1,939 K? It just seems to be copied from an older source, which assumed it as a brown dwarf. Faren29 (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, totally bogus. Lithopsian (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent section on the talk page by the edit warrior is probably worth a read. I can admit to losing the will to live a little bit on such matters but it at least should be addressed. Faren29 (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Life's too short to spend it arguing with someone who isn't listening. Lithopsian (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just enquiring about the recent reversion of the radius, temperature, and luminosity for the subdwarf O star and why older data from last century would be preferred over something this century? If the older data has cited by newer literature, shouldn't least express it as a range? Thanks. ~2026-74389-4 (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Always decisions to be made. Wikipedia in general doesn't like to rely on primary sources although we tend to rely on them a lot as journal papers. They should preferably be peer-reviewed or their effectively just a blog. So Wikipedia prefers secondary and tertiary sources, that is publications that describe, refer to, or adopt primary sources. We also ignore this a lot in Astronomy articles, but again it is helpful to be aware of the background. Some people like ranges or alternate values in the starbox, but they do tend to clutter things up and make it hard for readers to get a quick overview; I think they're better-discussed in the body of the article where different published data can be put into context. So a lot of the time we just look at Simbad and pick whatever paper it uses for headline numbers. Digging into the details, we tend to prefer something recent, but also strongly prefer a paper dedicated to the particular object or a small number of related objects. Largescale databases are useful in many cases, but they can mess up either on object peculiarities or garbage-in-garbage-out. So what to use here? Partly I picked those values because Weidmann et al. (2020) (largescale catalogue, but relying on other publications, hence a nice secondary source) refers to Ferguson et al. (1999), but also because I didn't have immediate access to the full text of Simankskii et al (2008) and couldn't see how those radii were derived.

So, short answer, there's always a case to be made, but it is more convincing with a good edit summary so people know why you're changing stuff that (presumably) everyone was agreed-on up to that point. My recommendation would be to expand the article by discussing conflicting, or at least different, published physical properties and then whatever ends up in the starbox will flow naturally from that. BE UMa is an interesting-enough object and the text doesn't really mention anything after 1995. Lithopsian (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well the actual PDF is here and because not every reader can log in via an institution, perhaps I should attach the PDF to the citation if that’s allowed to make it publicly available to read? I’ll actually put in an edit summary next time instead of abruptly inserting in new data with no data. I personally believe this newer data should be preferred so I’ll try expanding the article a bit hopefully. ~2026-11618-07 (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]