Template talk:Starbox begin/Archive 1

Archive 1

changes

Well I just made some changes to the header which I thought made the box look much better, and they've been reverted without discussion. Why? Unless there are serious objections to how they make the boxes look I don't see what the problem is. Worldtraveller 16:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I had to do a revert. The header is consistent with the other template headers defined at Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects. If you have an issue with the header format, please take it up there first. Thank you. — RJH 16:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think you had to do a revert. What I was doing was seeing if a different style looked good, after which I would have suggested applying that style across all similar templates. Did you consider whether it looked better or worse before reverting? Worldtraveller 17:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that edit. Was looking playing with a local copy and mixed up the windows. 74.131.129.128 16:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Epoch

Epoch should be Equinox. They are often confused, even by astronomers. But equinox is what is meant here. The two words are not synonymous. --Aaronp808 06:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I am proposing to add a row to the template that will include pronunciation information, which will then be relocated from the lead section. There was no objection raised on the Astronomical Object Wikiproject, so if there is no objection here I will proceed with the implementation. The row will appear at the end of this block with the field title: Pronunciation. Any comments? Thanks.—RJH (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, it would make more sense to place the pronunciation directly under the constellation row so that the arrangement can be extended to the double star and triple star equivalents.—RJH (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay it is implemented. I gave it a quick test on a star article and seems to work. Unless it gets reverted, I'm going to start using it next week.—RJH (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolute magnitude

To save readers time calculating the absolute magnitude, can we include an absolute magnitude field? 129.94.237.181 (talk) 04:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

This parameter already exists. It is not an observational characteristic (ie. you cannot "see" absolute magnitude, it must be determined), so should not be in this template. It is an astrometric chracteristic, so is found in {{Starbox astrometry}} -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments

Template is now described on the Starbox page instead of here. — RJH 01:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Distance

I'd like to propose that the "Distance" row be linked to Cosmic distance ladder rather than to Distance. The former covers the topic from an astronomical perspective.—RJH (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Negative distance

I just noticed this when making an edit on R Corvi, which has negative meausred parallax. It seems that this template will still attempt to compute the distance, which makes for nonsensical negative distance values. Should this template include a failsafe so that if the parallax is negative, the distance parameters do not fill in? StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The correct mathematical calculation of a distance for a negative parallax would be larger than infinity, not negative. However, a correct physical interpretation is merely that the parallax is smaller then the margin of error, so statistically some end up looking negative which in fact they aren't (unless the universe is weirder than we know!). In almost all cases this is obvious, as for R Corvi where the margin of error is significantly larger than the negative value. This is particularly common for red giants which are diffuse, aspheric, and frequently change size.

None of that really answers the question which is what to put in the starbox when this occurs. I would like to see a proper statistical conversion of the parallax with the margin of error that is almost always present into a statistical distance range. However this is not as trivial as it sounds (the statistically most likely distance is not simply the inverse of the quoted parallax!) and may be beyond the remit of the starbox calculations. Perhaps a simpler approach is just to give the distance as greater than a minimum value. Only in very rare cases should it not be possible to derive a finite and positive lower bound for the distance. Lithopsian (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps we should put both in (i.e. both a parallax-measured distance and a minimum bound on the distance) with the parallax-measured distance having a disclaimer that it may not be accurate. I still think we should prevent the distance from being displayed if the measured parallax is negative though, since that's clearly nonsensical. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I meant that the minimum bound could be displayed *when* (and probably *only* when) there is a negative parallax, since in almost every case the margin of error will be larger than the negative value. So while the negative value may not lead to a meaningful distance, the upper bound of the statistically likely range of parallax values *will* give a (minimum) finite positive distance value. That doesn't answer what to do in the very rare case when the entire range of statistically likely parallax values is negative, but I'd be happy to just not attempt any distance calculation for that case. Lithopsian (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Now hopefully somebody who's good with parser functions can implement it. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

The template allows the units for the parallax to line break from the parallax itself. This is increasingly common now that high-precision Gaia parallaxes are being used. Ideally, the units should remain attached to the value on the same line. This can be achieved with a no-breaking space before the "[[Milliarcsecond|mas]]" text at the end of the parallax field phrase. Lithopsian (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Lithopsian, Why just parallax? Why are some parameters joined to their units with a non-breaking space and others not? Where's the discussion on WT:ASTRO that the template requests? I've refreshed the sandbox in case you'd care to sandbox the changes. Cabayi (talk) 09:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. I suspect just history. Some fields tend to be longer than others, and changes will have been made as and when wrapping is noticed. I know I did it on a couple of other starbox templates when they weren't protected. There's been no discussion. Maybe it should become a huge thing attacking all the field units in all the starboxes. I'll sound out opinions and then maybe hit the sandbox. Lithopsian (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Exoplanet Archive

The Exoplanet Archive part of this template seems to be no longer connecting. Perhaps the external link for this database could be updated from http://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/Sieve/nph-sieve?mission=NStED&objectSearch&objstr={{{NSTED}}} data to something like http://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/DisplayOverview/nph-DisplayOverview?objname={{{NSTED}}} data.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.226.254 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 30 September 2013‎ (UTC)

Edit request on 30 September 2013

The NASA 'Exoplanet Archive' part of this template seems not to be connecting. Maybe the external link for this database could be updated from http://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/Sieve/nph-sieve?mission=NStED&objectSearch&objstr={{{NSTED}}} to http://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/DisplayOverview/nph-DisplayOverview?objname={{{NSTED}}} in order for it to connect successfully. For example, NASA's 'Exoplanet Archive' database entry for the star HD 20794 can't be accessed using the existing address, outdated, but is accessible through the new address that I am suggesting above, updated

81.157.226.254 (talk) 06:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I think you're right, but the template page asks for discussion before making any changes. I've asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#Proposed update to Template:Starbox reference and will make the change (or someone will) unless there are objections. --Stfg (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Two supports, no objections, so done. --Stfg (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 October 2013

The ARICNS part of this template also seems not to be connecting. Maybe the external link for this database could be updated from the current http://www.ari.uni-heidelberg.de/datenbanken/aricns/cnspages/4c{{{ARICNS}}}.htm to http://wwwadd.zah.uni-heidelberg.de/datenbanken/aricns/cnspages/4c{{{ARICNS}}}.htm in order for it to connect successfully again. For example, the ARICNS entry for the star Gliese 674 can't be accessed using the existing address, outdated, but is accessible through the new address that I am suggesting above, updated.

81.157.250.225 (talk) 06:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks again. I've gone ahead and done it this time, as you're clearly right. I'll inform the Wikiproject next. --Stfg (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2016

{{#if:{{{EPE<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}|<tr><td>'''[[Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia|Extrasolar Planets<br />Encyclopaedia]]'''</td><td>[http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st={{{EPE}}} data]</td></tr>}}

Because the above link to the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia does not work anymore, perhaps it needs to be updated to:-

{{#if:{{{EPE<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}|<tr><td>'''[[Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia|Extrasolar Planets<br />Encyclopaedia]]'''</td><td>[http://exoplanet.eu/catalog/?f=star_name={{{EPE}}} data]</td></tr>}}

For example Gliese 667 C is at this address [http://exoplanet.eu/catalog/?f=star_name=%27GJ+667+C%27] or here Gliese 667 C.

Note that the star's name is within single quotation marks. So, perhaps the {{{EPE}}} should be put within single quotation marks, like this %27{{{EPE}}}%27, if that does not mess up the whole template.

Also to note is that this update change will only allow a link to just one star within a system and does not link to all the possible stars hosting planets within a star system.

To make the update change more relevant to Starbox Reference perhaps, data, data 2, and data 3 options could be included to allow more than one star in a star system to be linked to the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia catalogue. Similar to what already exists in this template for Simbad, ARICNS and NSTED.

So therefore instead, the template could be updated from what it is now -

-->{{#if:{{{EPE<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}|<tr><td>'''[[Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia|Extrasolar Planets<br />Encyclopaedia]]'''</td><td>[http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st={{{EPE}}} data]</td></tr>}}

To perhaps giving an option to link to more than one star within a system for the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia catalogue:-

{{#if:{{{EPE<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}|<tr style="vertical-align: top;"><td>'''[[Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia|Extrasolar Planets<br />Encyclopaedia]]'''</td><td>[http://exoplanet.eu/catalog/?f=star_name=%27{{{EPE}}}%27 {{{en|data}}}]</td></tr>}}<!---->{{#if:{{{EPE<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}|<tr style="vertical-align: top;"><td></td><td>[http://exoplanet.eu/catalog/?f=star_name=%27{{{EPE}}}%27 {{{en2|data2}}}]</td></tr>}}<!---->{{#if:{{{EPE<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}|<tr style="vertical-align: top;"><td></td><td>[http://exoplanet.eu/catalog/?f=star_name=%27{{{EPE}}}%27 {{{en3|data3}}}]</td></tr>}}

86.179.213.112 (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Per WP:TESTCASES, may you put your suggested edit in this template's sandbox so it's absolutely clear the scope of your requested changes? Thanks — Andy W. (talk) 00:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Documentation for multiple sources

The documentation appears, if not exactly wrong, then lacking. The example template at top left shows multiple links for each source type, but the documentation gives no indication of how to achieve this. There are actually Simbad, Simbad2, Simbad3, etc. fields, but instead the documentation refers to the no_heading=y (and the component field) method of showing multiple links which is cumbersome and probably not the best solution in most cases. Lithopsian (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Is this the place for a link to the IAU star names catalogue?

The IAU has a working group on star names and has already published a considerable list of official names. It seems like this would be a valuable reference to standardise within the starbox system. Currently there is a web link to the list (http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~emamajek/WGSN/IAU-CSN.txt) but I can see this moving or becoming formally published, and it would be handy to not have to edit 500 star articles when that happens. Is this the box to put it in? Or elsewhere? Lithopsian (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Radii in km

Is there a way to give an object's radius in km? If not, such a feature should be added. This is useful for neutron stars, such as RX J1856.5-3754. --JorisvS (talk) 09:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Spacepotato (talk) 03:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --JorisvS (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Rotational velocity

Is the term "rotational velocity" accepted by the scientific community for this phenomenon. If so, can you provide a citation to a reliable source showing it is accepted? What term should be used in a general context to distinguish this from angular speed, measured in revolutions per second or the like? Jc3s5h (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Mass

The infobox at Sagittarius A* lists mass estimates from three different sources. Because this template automatically adds the M_☉ symbol, the ref tags come before the unit, which is rather ugly. The list is also formatted as a <br>-separated string, which is an accessibility error and breach of guidelines at MOS:PLIST. It can't be fixed the usual way (using {{plainlist}} or similar) because the list can't be ended after the unit. Could an option or parameter please be added that suppresses the unit, so this kind of issue can be fixed? Hairy Dude (talk) 12:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

metal2_fe

The name of the metal2_fe field is inconsistent. All other component 2 fields have the same name as the component1 fields but with a 2 appended. This is causing confusion in some articles which have a field called metal_fe2 and nothing appears in the starbox. I don't have a quick way to compare how many articles are using each form, which might give an idea of the best way forward. Lithopsian (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Epoch and equinox (and ICRS) again

The modern celestial coordinate system system is ICRS (I quote the IAU) and it does not depend on the position of the vernal equinox, hence it does not have an equinox date. Currently, if no equinox is supplied, the template helpfully uses the value of the epoch. I believe it shouldn't. No equinox is valid, although perhaps a helpful link to ICRS? Many catalogues so far have not used ICRS, but Hipparcos started the ball rolling, and now Gaia means that ICRS is going to be pretty much universal. 90% of readers may not understand or need to understand the subtleties, but we should try to be correct and point to links for the real astro-nerds to read up on it. As for details, I don't know if this is best done with a separate field. It is currently possible to put "ICRS" in the equinox field on a case by case basis (Sirius tried this but got it wrong), but that's never going to come out right. Lithopsian (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Conversion to Infobox

So with the conclusion of the recent template for discussion about {{Infobox star}} I want to start the conversation about converting the template. Here is basically where we stand. {{Infobox star}} has been orphaned so all star articles should now be using the Starbox series of templates. What we want to do now is work towards converting this template over to use {{Infobox}} as a base. This is a big project obviously, but one I'm committed to taking on. I'm going to come at this from a template editor's perspective so what I really need are people who are subject matter experts when it comes to stars. My goal is to convert the template in a way that results in no loss of information. What I'm looking for are people who will be willing to help with testing the template, pointing out issues, raising concerns, etc. You do not need to have any knowledge of how templates work.

@Tom.Reding, Lithopsian, PhilipTerryGraham, Psyluke, Loooke, and Headbomb: you all weighed in on the recent TFD so I'm going to ping you. If you don't wish to be part of this discussion, no worries. If you do, please add any thoughts? Additionally, if there are other editors who you think would be good to have as part of this process, please bring them into the conversation. My plan is to start building a proof of concept in the next week or so and then go from there. Looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: Converting {{Starbox begin}} would be much more laborious than simply deprecating the template and replacing its tranclusions with {{Infobox star}} over time, if a consensus to do so is even reached, of course. The template is currently used on 4,502 articles. This is simply too many to change at a single time, even if you had an organized mass; it has taken years to convert all transclusions of {{Infobox spacecraft}} to {{Infobox spaceflight}}, for example. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 08:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: while that point is not without merit, time is not really a factor here. I can always write a bot to do the conversions in one go, but there is no deadline. I guess I'm not really clear on what your objection is? Are you saying that it isn't worth doing because it will take too long? Are you concern that the effort will start and then be abandoned? I don't want to put words in your mouth or assume things so can you clarify your concerns? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: My concern was that the starbox series would be merged, but then the ~4,000 articles would be left with broken tables. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 17:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: thanks for clarifying. Let me be clear, any solution that results in broken articles is NOT a solution! What I'm proposing is essentially a replacement. Rather than simply merging the templates and making pages automatically use the new format, pages would have to be converted over the new template. While it is a bit more work, it reduces the possibility of things breaking. Once a solution is fully built, I plan to write a bot to do the conversions. But I want to be clear, no way that any articles are going to be left in a broken state. That is not a solution in my book. Per the thread below, I'm currently pushing ahead with building the proof of concept. It isn't being implemented on any pages, just creating test cases. Once I have something more solid to show, I will definitely ping you and get some more thoughts. It is really important to me to get feedback, particularly on concerns so thank you for voicing your thoughts. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The obvious complexities have been discussed, although no doubt more will be found. I don't see any problem with attempting to code a single template that performs the work of all the starbox templates. Along the way, it will hopefully address some of the oddities in the starbox templates, perhaps even drop some essentially obsolete fields. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, and no animals were harmed. If we end up with something better then we decide what it is called and develop a plan to migrate existing articles. In that vein, it might make sense to canvas for stuff in the existing starbox templates that is unused, poorly-expressed or presented, inconsistently-used, etc. Lithopsian (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Multiple templates...

Can anyone help me understand why you would ever use multiple of the same starbox templates on the same star? For example, why would you ever need to use {{Starbox character}} more than once in the same Infobox? Trying to understand how this works... A link to a page would be awesome! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Basically for multiple stars. Alpha Centauri is a good example. The article is about Alpha Centauri, obviously, but that title covers two or three individual stars. Two of them are covered in the depth in that article and the third at Proxima Centauri. Thus Alpha Centauri includes includes two sets of information in starbox character, which is supported by two sets of fields within a single template. When there are more than two stars, a separate instance of the template would be needed, usually with the no_heading=y field to avoid creating a duplicate title bar for that section. This is not particularly common for starbox character because it is unusual to have an article about three stars which all have starbox character information but are so closely link ed that they are within a single article. However you can see an example at Albireo. The same applies to many of the other starbox templates, although there are various inconsistent ways of supporting multiples. For example, there is {{starbox observe 2s}} and {{starbox observe 3s}}. {{starbox catalog}} supports up to four named entries plus a primary unnamed entry, and {{starbox reference}} supports up to nine Simbad links. Lithopsian (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Lithopsian: first of all, thank you so much for the explanation. Super helpful. To make sure I understand this... Alpha Centauri is not ONE star, but a system of stars? Thus there is data for each of the stars separately? I'm trying to draw a parallel here. I can't really think of any other infobox on wikipedia that works this way. Traditionally Infoboxes describe one item. To me this is like having an infobox on a page about a city where the infobox describes details about two different cities. Obviously this is not a perfect comparison, but does it make sense what I'm saying? I'm wondering whether it makes sense to separate this out? So there would be the infobox for the system, then each star would have its own box? I'm not necessarily advocating removing information, but the box is just super confusing so I'm trying to see if we can simplify it in a way that won't adversely affect the quality of the article. Really eager to hear your thoughts on the matter. Thanks again! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. A majority of what we have traditionally called stars, points of light in the sky, contain more than one physical star. In most cases, Wikipedia has one article per star system so the starbox needs to support that. It is not usually practical for each star to have its own complete starbox, although this has been done in some cases. Generally, if the component stars are sufficiently distinct that every aspect is worth putting in a different starbox, it is worth having two articles. In other cases, the stars may have the same position, almost certainly the same constellation, some or most designations in common, likely the same astrometric data if they are unresolved, and often the same photometry or spectral class where they cannot be observed separately. In many cases, physical data is limited or completely absent for all except the primary component. There are also starboxes for orbits of star systems. Hence the complex of starboxes that have been developed. If still none of this makes sense, take a look at Capella - it is hard to imagine anyone wanting four separate articles and yet there are four separate stars that need to be described in some fashion. And Capella is hardly an exceptional case, follow the categories for multiple star systems of all kinds, some where the non-primary components are largely ignored and some where two or more have detailed information. See Mizar and Alcor, Mizar (star), and Alcor (star) for a case where closely-related stars are in separate articles, but it can obviously only be done where the two components are individually notable and may not be sensible even then. In some cases, two stars are physically unrelated and at different distances. In many more cases, faint line-of-sight companions are mentioned in the text but not shown in the starboxes. There are some additional templates for this type of optical multiple star (see {{Componentbox begin}} et al) but they aren't very common (possibly they should be, but personally don't feel they are quite up to the task). Lithopsian (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Lithopsian: again, thank you for the information. From my understanding there are basically 2 different types of data that we will place in the starbox/infobox (forgive the terrible names):

1. One off data: This is data that applies to the star/system as a whole and will never be duplicate. Things like {{{name}}}, {{{image}}}, {{{image_caption}}}, etc
2. Multiple-data: This is data that CAN have multiple values. If the infobox is only describing one star, there will only be one value. If it is describing a system, there will be multiple values. This would include things like {{{mass}}}, {{{radius}}}, {{{age}}}, etc.

So how I plan to approach this is to create a base template that contains the one-off data. Things that can only be added once. Then there will be the ability to add multiple sub templates. So if the Infobox needs to have 10 sets of characteristics, you just add that sub template 10 times. A good example that currently exists (and sticks with the space theme) would be {{Infobox spaceflight}}. There are tons of parameters that you only have one of ({{{name}}}, {{{start_date}}}, {{{end_date}}} etc. But, a space flight can have multiple different "dockings", so the sub-template {{Infobox spaceflight/Dock}} is used. You can call it one time, or 100 times. Does that seem like a good approach to you? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Psyluke and Praemonitus: pinging you both to follow up the discussion we started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects. You both had some thoughts/ideas on this and want to make sure you are kept in the loop (assuming you are interested). Let me know? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: I think this is the right direction, it's important to preserve the multiple entries for the multiple stars, and at this point, that's all. Once there will be a scrap of the new template structure, I could say more about the subsequent steps and improvements. Psyluke (talk) 11:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Psyluke: wonderful. I'm going to move forward with building the proof of concept described above and will follow up once I have something to demo. Obviously if you (or any one else) have any thoughts in the meantime, don't hesitate to drop me a line! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Lithopsian, Psyluke, and Zackmann08: Heyo! Just to let you guys know, I've finally completed a complete redesign {{Infobox star}} that conveniently addresses some of the issues raised on this talk page in the past few weeks. You can go check it out and let me know what you guys think on its talk page! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 18:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Wait... WOAH!!! @PhilipTerryGraham: way to take the wind out of my sails.... That looks fantastic. My question/concern is that it seems to have MUCH less information than the starbox series... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: We can discuss on the template's talk page what parameters you feel need to be added, of course! We have to keep in mind the purpose of an infobox, however. I wouldn't want the length of this template to literally stretch into space like the Starbox series does! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 18:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: for the record, I 100% agree with you. I'm concerned about push back from others, but I'm going to focus on speaking for myself. :-) --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

What about angular diameter?

Should we add the angular diameter of stars that are on the list of stars with resolved images to the starbox template? Gabemaiberger (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Probably. It is one of those small number of directly-observable properties, and one that might be of interest to a relatively large number of people. Not something that has been measured (directly) for the majority of stars though, at least not for the foreseeable future. Lithopsian (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Lithopsian: How should we go about doing this? Should it be added to Template:Starbox_astrometry or should it be added to Template:Infobox_star? --Gabemaiberger (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Wider consensus might be appropriate first, although I think you'll find the templates are locked anyway, so you'll probably need to work in a sandbox and request it is moved into the template when complete and agreed. Is this astrometry? I tend to think of that as the measurement of the positions and movements of stars rather than their inherent properties, even ones such as angular diameter. {{Starbox character}}? {{Starbox observe}}? Not sure. {{Infobox star}} is essentially deprecated. I don't think it is used in any real star articles, although there have been discussions about reviving it. Lithopsian (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Preferred distance unit

I was looking up a star and found the distance listed in parsecs, and I am so used to light-years from my ordinary education that I had to subsequently take a tangential look at how many parsecs in a light year. I checked the template and it allows for both, but what is preferred? Should they both be listed? It would be nice if the template made a specific statement in the manner of a "manual of style".

BTW this remark is on the "begin" talk page of the "starbox" but really refers to the "astrometry" form of the template. I was redirected (which is also puzzling, but that's another issue). LaurentianShield (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

alt field

Should there be an alt field in this template, for accessibility purposes? Lithopsian (talk) 14:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I think we need one added to the 'starbox image' section. The remainder is all text though so a screen reader should be able to handle it. Praemonitus (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

How did I get here? Drunk-posting again! I did mean for starbox image. Lithopsian (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

All of the talk pages of this template family redirect here to avoid decentralized discussion. You're not going crazy! Primefac (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

angdistsec

Why does angdistsec make the value display with an apostrophe (') instead of a quote mark (")? Arcseconds are usually denoted by the latter. See Polaris for example. Assambrew (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

It should be a double-prime (″). Praemonitus (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. But now I notice something else. It looks like a single prime in the Starbox, but when I copy and paste it here (as 18.217″), it becomes a double prime. Then when I magnify the Starbox to only 110%, it also looks like double prime. Is that what others see? Maybe my graphics are faulty (or my eyeballs).. Assambrew (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Are we talking about {{starbox relpos}}? I see a double prime both on the template page itself and in use in star articles. Have to admit it is quite small at my resolution (on a decent sized LCD screen) in the font being used, but definitely double. Lithopsian (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, well if someone can see it as a double prime, than it must be my graphics. I have no problem seeing the double primes in the bodies of articles. Thanks anyways.. Assambrew (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

log g

Surface gravity should link to somewhere other than Centimetre–gram–second system of units. That article has nothing at all about log g. 93.136.205.1 (talk) 06:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

"log g" doesn't link anywhere, at least not from starbox detail which is what I assume you are referring to. "surface gravity" links to surface gravity which seems like a good place, especially since it explains the meaning of "log g". "cgs" links to centimetre–gram–second system of units and it is hard to imagine a better target. I don't see a need for any changes. Lithopsian (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Template page layout

I've been looking into some odd layout issues and noticed that the starbox as shown on the template page is actually not the real starbox. It is a generic demo infobox hard-coded into the documentation. A small yellow box saying "Characteristics" appears where the actual starbox table would be shown. I have removed that from the documentation and have edited the sandbox to unhide the rest of the table. I don't think this should change the behaviour of the template is real use. Lithopsian (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Dangling whitespace

The starbox templates can leave an extra linefeed after the end of the starbox in some circumstances. This then creates whitespace at the top of the article. One way for this to happen is if the appmag_v field in {{starbox observe}} is not supplied and the next sub-starbox is not {{starbox character}}. Starboxes other than {{starbox character}} are coded differently and appear to swallow the whitespace. I believe that the issue is that conditional fields such as appmag_v produce a table row (|-) with style information whether the field is supplied or not. The conditional syntax only displays the row contents, or not. I have put an example fix, for the appmag_v field only, in {{starbox observe/sandbox}}. I don't know if this is the best fix, although it does seem to be a more correct implementation of a conditional table row. I'm also not sure how far the fix should be extended to just other places that are known to cause the issue, or to everywhere as a more correct implementation. Or hack the whole lot to follow the style used at, for example, {{starbox detail}}. Lithopsian (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)