Template talk:Infobox star

General comments

So, after nearly a month of development, I've finally finished what I believe to be a decent replacement to the "Starbox" series in the current revision of {{Infobox star}}. I'd highly encourage people to read the extensive documentation on this new template that describes the what, when, where, and why of everything in the template. I've designed this to be very powerful, yet easy to use. It has the ability to transform itself from describing a star to describing a star system, and vice versa, without even needing to tell it to do so through a "yes / no" parameter. It's cells are completely open to be used with any unit of measurement. It even features an integrated, frameless Location map as the default lead image, which, of course, can be swapped out for a real image by simply activating the |image= parameter. It does all this and more in a simple, easy-to-use, label-cell format; no "docking" of sub-templates required.

If there's anything you want to see added to the template, anything that's missing from this template, anything wrong technically, any cells you want to see added/removed, or any issues whatsoever with the template as it is now, be sure to start a new section and discuss! I'm hoping that the community will be able to further refine this template so that it can eventually be presented as a worthy successor to the "Starbox" series! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 17:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

First of all, this is awesome! Very impressive work. Couple of things that I want to highlight and suggest to help the process...

1. This really has an emphasis on MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. It is much smaller than the Starbox series, but it my opinion that is a GOOD thing. The starbox series of templates is really dense on information and I think is needing of some pruning that this takes care of. That being said, we need to make sure that those who are experts in the field weigh in...
2. I'd really like to see some testcases. PhilipTerryGraham can you add some examples to the testcases page? In particular it would be nice to see a side by side comparison of existing Starbox series compared to how the infobox will look with this template. I started the testcase for Sirius which is a featured article. If we do a few of these I think we will flush out what needs to be added.
3. From the template editor side of things, I'm a bit confused on the logic around the image section with regards to the use of {{{constellation}}}... Can we get a few test cases showing that at work?

Please let me know if I can be helpful and keep up the great work! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Your documentation so far is very nice. However I am concerned about the Template:Infobox star/doc#Succession section.

{{Infobox star}} was designed to be a replacement for the "Starbox" series of templates that were primarily used as summary boxes prior to the standardisation of {{Infobox}}es. They were used from 2005 to 2019. The series was made up of 15 separate templates, of which their purpose has now been succeeded by {{Infobox star}}. The "Starbox" series as a whole featured many more cells than {{Infobox star}}, and often went into detail that exceeded the purpose of an infobox as a summary (and not supplant) of key facts that appear in an article. This inspired and informed the selection of {{Infobox star}}'s limited amount of parameters and cells, in order to resolve this issue.

I've posted a notice of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

It will be very useful to have this in a single infobox. I like your demonstration of an infobox for a double star. However infoboxes for scientific articles often have a significant amount of data. As the guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Purpose of an infobox says, As with any guideline, there will be exceptions where a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text, but where that information may be placed in the infobox. Prominent examples include the ICD codes in {{Infobox medical condition}} and most of the parameters in {{Infobox chemical}}. These are such articles and should not be converted to use an infobox with a limited amount of data.

As in many scientific articles (chemistry, genetics, biology), the star articles also form a catalog, with the infoboxes forming the entries. Plan on keeping almost all of the data, including the astrometry. Praemonitus we need your input here to keep the discussion in one place. Zackmann08 has coverted {{Chembox}} to {{Infobox chemical}} without removing major sections of data. We can do that here. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma: you make some great points. Praemonitus PhilipTerryGraham I'm really impressed with the work you have done, but I do fear that it has removed too many parameters. :-\ Can I suggest that you start a format WP:RFC here? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Zackmann08:: Was your comment intended for PhilipTerryGraham? I agree with StarryGrandma though, particularly since the needs of star articles can vary considerably. Parameters that may be highly suitable for one star system can be completely unavailable (or unsuitable) for another. Such a template really needs to be a comprehensive solution, with most of the judicious trimming occurring in the articles themselves. Praemonitus (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Praemonitus: gahhh. yes. Sorry and thank you for pointing that out. So the way I see it there are basically two options...

1. Look at all the parameters from the starbox series and decide which ones we should KEEP
2. Look at all the parameters from the starbox series and decide which ones we should REMOVE

I feel like the current solution tried for the first approach. I.E. keep the bare minimum and then have people speak up and say "No we need to keep {{{foo}}} and {{{bar}}} as well. I feel like it might be better to try for the opposite approach... Keep everything and then talk about what can be removed. I started to do a testcase at Template:Infobox star/testcases but was really hoping that PhilipTerryGraham would pick that up... My hope was that a side by side comparison would help us flush out what params need to be kept. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Zackmann08:: I don't know that I could come up with a list that everybody in the astronomy WPs would agree with. Perhaps with more data about parameter usage we could do a proper assessment. How many, for example, actually use 'radius_km'? It's not a value that astronomers typically use when describing stars, so it often requires WP:CALC. Would your 'average' reader find that useful? Praemonitus (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

One comment from me - |proper name= should be better called |official_name= as it is, in fact, the official name. Also, don't use parameter names with a space. These can't be used by TemplateData. --Gonnym (talk) 08:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The term "proper name" is clearer. The "official" nature of a designation is best covered in more detail within the article body. Praemonitus (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym and Praemonitus: That and widely recognised proper names aren't always the official name of a star or star system. For example, Gamma Velorum has the proper names "Suhail al Muhlif" and "Regor", but neither are recognised by the IAU Working Group on Star Names. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 16:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

A bit strange that you say that, as the documentation you wrote says The proper name for the star, as defined by the International Astronomical Union and its Working Group on Star Names - how is the use of those names valid, if they aren't recognized by the IAU? --Gonnym (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: You didn't quote that in your first reply; it would've been a lot better if you pointed it out first and foremost. I'll reword the documentation to "A proper name for the star, preferably one defined by the International Astronomical Union and its Working Group on Star Names (WGSN). A common name as determined by consensus can also be written in this parameter, if no name is defined for a star by the WGSN." if there is no objections to it. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 17:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I assumed you were aware of the documentation you wrote and how it's implemented. Also, for what it's worth, I much more support the original version than the new one. There can be numerous unofficial names which should not be added to the infobox. It should really only have the common name and the official name - anything else (if notable) should be in the body of the article. --Gonnym (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: You can't assume somebody has a full-proof memory of ~21,000 bytes worth of writing. Just sayin' – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 18:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Please stop placing the burden on other editors. If you don't remember what you wrote, go read it. It is not my responsibility to remind you. I'm out of this discussion. Good luck. --Gonnym (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The rewording is an improvement. Praemonitus (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Stellar data

A star is a hot ball of gas we see as a point of light. There are basic measurements that can be used to characterize what is going on and other things that can be derived using the properties of atoms and molecules and our models of stellar structure and evolution. The current Starbox series segregates the basic measurements from the derived properties, though we don't need to keep that organization. But we do need to keep the data. For the most part this material is not in the articles themselves. Taking the information out of the the infoboxes means removing it entirely from Wikipedia. Other science projects here are creating articles with very large infoboxes to include as much data as possible. The genetics project's {{Infobox gene}} as used in the gene article p53 produces an infobox that is several pages long if you expand all the collapsed sections. At this time of increasing scientific data in Wikipedia, why would we single out WikiProject Astronomy for removal of data?

If you like we can start section by section. I understand that much of this might be unfamiliar to people who aren't astrophysicists familiar with the details of stellar atmospheres and stellar structure, but that's never been a reason for removing information from Wikipedia. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma: Nobody is saying that we should remove this information from Wikipedia; it can easily be written up in the article prose. However, if there are any specific parameters that you believe the average reader with a casual interest in astronomy might want to know and should be included in the infobox, throw 'em here, and we can discuss them. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is many encyclopedias and part of it is a comprehensive scientific encyclopedia. Different subject areas have different types of articles. While it makes sense for most uses of "Infobox person" to have parameters that "the average reader with a casual interest might want to know", that is not the case for scientific articles. As far as I can see the very long gene infobox in p53 has only one parameter of casual interest, the gene location.

• The {{Infobox chemical}} at Acetonitrile provides has in part: chemical formula, molar mass, appearance,odor, density, melting point, boiling point, solubility in water, log P, vapor pressure, Henry's law constant, acidity, basicity, UV-vis, absorbance, magnetic susceptibility, refractive index, heat capacity, Std molar enthalpy, and Std enthapy of combustion.

• Currently the Starboxes at Vega provide in part: evolutionary stage, spectral type, U-B color index, B-V color index, variable type, radial velocity, proper motion, parallax, distance, absolute magnitude, mass, radius, luminosity, surface gravity, temperature, metallicity, and age.

These are not things that should be translated into prose assuming there was a way to do it for 4500 star articles. The current infoxbox content seems to be in line with the standard use of infoboxes for series of things like genes and chemicals in science projects and should continue to be used for stars. The MOS "purpose of the infobox" guideline you link to in thedocumentation for this template lists scientific infoboxes as exceptions. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma: I don't see how most of these can't be written in prose. For Vega, one could simply write something along the lines of "As a main sequence and Delta Scuti variable star of the A0 Va stellar class, its U−B and B−V color index has been observed to be 0." The guideline states "...there will be exceptions where a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text...", but it doesn't seem that difficult at all. One could argue that some of the parameters in {{Infobox chemical}} are unequivocally important to someone who has a casual interest in chemistry, and that they would be hard to write into the article prose. I wouldn't know, as I'm not one of those people. I have an above-casual interest in astronomy instead, and I'm arguing that a good chunk of the parameters in the Starbox series are both not that important to the casual-astronomer reader and can be written in prose. It would be a lot more useful for this discussion if we could try to pinpoint which parameters we could agree are important to the casual astronomically-minded reader, instead of just throwing out seventeen at once. Five of those seventeen parameters are already in {{Infobox star}}; namely spectral type, distance, mass, radius, and age. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 01:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

"Henry's law constant" - you have to be kidding. My point is that scientific infoboxes are currently not constrained to contain only material for "casual readers". just because there are more amateur astronomers than amateur chemists does not mean that astronomy articles cannot contain the kind of data that articles in chemistry and genetics do. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I concur. This is covered by the statement at MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE that says, "there will be exceptions where a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text, but where that information may be placed in the infobox". Praemonitus (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

(ec)Zackmann08, I see at Template talk:Starbox begin you agreed "100%" with PhilipTerryGraham's "I wouldn't want the length of this template to literally stretch into space like the Starbox series does!". You have been working on {{Infobox chemical}} which is also a long template with many parameters. Are you going to propose shortening that one? If not, why should star articles be treated differently from chemical articles? StarryGrandma (talk) 01:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma: Why do you insist on making this a discussion about {{Infobox chemical}}, and where does it say in the Manual of Style that "scientific infoboxes" are even a thing in the MOS? You're making an "other stuff exists" argument when you say "why should star articles be treated differently from chemical articles?". – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 01:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not "other stuff exists". These are science articles. You want this project to stop using science-article style infoboxes. That MOS is a guideline which happens to mention "Infobox chemical" explicitly as a usage example, not as a faulty infobox that shouldn't exist. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma: This isn't helping. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 03:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

What isn't helping is getting stuck in an idealistic position that infobox star should be a particular length (ie. very short) instead of trying to reach consensus on what information is relevant and of interest for this type of article. There is undoubtedly some cruft in the starbox suite of templates, but fields that are filled for a majority of stars shouldn't just be discarded without a widespread consensus. A piece of data that is relevant to 90% of stars is exactly something that should be standardised into an infobox. Most of it should probably also be described in words in the body of the article, but there is a tendency for a bunch of numbers to end up sounding like a shopping list when it is put into prose. Perhaps if the sheer length of the typical starbox is a problem for you, some lateral thinking about layout would be better than just discarding half of it. 176.25.28.31 (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I frequently use the infobox data as a useful source for adding content to a star article. The fact that some information is not yet in the article doesn't mean it will always be that way. Praemonitus (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm out. I've been involved in too many bull shit arguments where people cannot have civil conversations and are acting like children. If people cannot have civil conversations about this template, I'm not taking part in the conversion effort at all. My technical background and work speaks for itself. If anyone is interested in having a civil conversation about the template, let me know. I'm happy to share my expertise. Otherwise, peace. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: If it helps for you to know, I tapped out of this particular discussion once it went a bit off-topic. I will say that everything below this discussion has been completely civil and productive so far, though. However, if you feel that you really need time away from this project, you're more than welcome to. I find that it helps to just walk away from a discussion that goes off the rails, but just as advice for the future, maybe don't air your grievances the way you just did. It only sours both the mood of the discussion and your reputation among other editors. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 01:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: I appreciate the message. My point was and remains that if people aren't going to be civil, don't count on my help. This isn't a threat and isn't directed at anyone in particular. I just went through this with {{Infobox chemical}} which will likely never be adopted because no one even wants to TALK about the template I created. I'm just over the drama. So if people can keep this civil, then I'm down to do all the technical work. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Multiple stars in one article

Another section, hopefully to keep the discussion understandable. The first draft of this re-write allows for certain information to be repeated for up to three stars. Three is insufficient, and arguably multiple instances should also be allowed for some of the non-repeatable information. It is hard to say how many might be sufficient, which is one of the reasons for the multiple repeatable template design we have for the starboxes. It may be possible to pick a large number that is considered safe, but it would probably be large enough to defeat the whole purpose of this work. See some of the discussion and examples linked Template talk:Starbox begin. Lithopsian (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Lithopsian: Any suggestions as to how we can do this, without the use of "docking" as described on the talk page of {{Starbox begin}}, or any use of external or sub-templates? It recently came to my understanding, courtesy of you on that talk page, that four-star systems like Capella can exist, so I'm open to adding another set of expansion cells for systems such as Capella, but I'm now not sure if even five-star systems can exist. As you said, this is most certainly a slippery slope into making the infobox bloated again. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 21:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Four, five, occasionally even more. Capella is a good example because there is data for all four stars, yet none of them are separately notable. On the technical side of how to do it, I don't know enough about writing templates to say. Is docking not a practical solution? Is it not preferable to having multiple and repeatable templates? 176.25.28.31 (talk) 14:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@176.25.28.31: One of the main goals of this template, was to unify everything into a single infobox that was easy to understand and use throw a straightforward label-cell layout. From my personal experience working with templates like {{Infobox spaceflight}} that require the use of multiple sub-templates, it can be incredibly frustrating and infuriating to understand and implement. I don't want that unpleasant experience for editors to become a standard in infoboxes. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 22:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I've been looking at some extreme cases. Castor (star) has six components in the system; they don't all have separate starbox entries, but there are five orbit starboxes. Mu Sagittarii has five starbox character and starbox detail entries, although there are at least six stars involved in the system. There are cases with more than six stars but the ones with Wikipedia articles don't have any more repeated starboxes then those examples. Seven, six, or even five, copies of most fields, might be more unwieldy than the technical alternatives? There are 183 articles in Category:Triple star systems, but only 73 categorised as having more members and most of those don't have starbox information for all the components. Lithopsian (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Lithopsian: Thanks for linking us these articles. I can't help but notice that articles such as Castor (star) and Mu Sagittarii are completely dwarfed by their own starboxes. I'm thinking perhaps for these sorts of articles it'd be best to leave {{Infobox star}} as a descriptor for the star system, rather than each individual star, and delegate information on the individual stars to the article prose itself. These articles are practially stubs after all, and they need whatever expansion they can get in my opinion. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 22:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Certainly the orbital elements and other data could be presented in their own tables within the article body, but then you'd just be trading one table for others. In this case it's just a somewhat poorly developed article. I've mostly stayed away from improving multi-star articles because they're messy. Praemonitus (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Another complication is combined properties, for example the combined apparent magnitude of a binary star. The infobox shouldn't be so prescriptive that it would prevent, for example, either or all of the combined and individual component magnitudes. The same could apply to many fields, obvious examples are the position, absolute magnitude, luminosity, the list goes on. In other cases, there may be a common property, such as the age or distance, which be the same value for each component. 176.25.28.31 (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Units

The existing starbox templates, for the most part, provide their own units. This allows for consistency of style and wikilinking. In some cases it increases the number of fields to support different units (eg. age_myr, age_gyr). Some fields are currently a bit of a halfway house (eg. period, period_unitless) Experience with those fields that don't supply their own units is that editors add all sorts of stuff, or no units at all, although there are also cases where they supply a number that doesn't match the units provided in the field. However, to pick one example, the mass field explicitly states what units the mass should be in, even reminds any user who reads the documentation to wikilink it correctly, but this is exactly a case where the template should be doing the heavy lifting. Lithopsian (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Lithopsian: I'd like to think that |mass= and |radius= are the exceptions to a general philosophy that parameters should be fully open to any input, in order for the template to be versatile. While I personally don't want to see some parameters open but others fixed to a certain unit, if others are insistent that these parameters should be fixed, we can make them fixed. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 21:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

You mention a general philosophy that infobox fields should be completely open, and I would challenge that. Perhaps there is a general philosophy for other Wikipedia infoboxes, but if it isn't the most appropriate solution for this infobox then we should provide something that is both easier to user and produces a more consistent display. 176.25.28.31 (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@176.25.28.31: ...but restricts them to what they can input. It may not seem likely for these kinds of articles, but what if there's a situation where a fixed unit isn't appropriate? In these cases, open and versatile parameters would be incredibly useful. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 21:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest other cases where this can be taken even further: coordinates could be forced into the {{RA}} and {{DEC}} templates, possibly by requiring input that can then be passed into those templates by the infobox; location charts could be standardised into the template without requiring the user to build their own {{Location mark}} templates in starbox image, but that's maybe not something that would be appropriate for every star. There could be a separate discussion about standardising just what is best to go in an image inside the infobox, if anything. 176.25.28.31 (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

It may be inevitable to have some fields with fixed units and some freeform. I'd like to avoid it but it may not be practical for all cases, then and then the only "consistent" solution would then be never to supply units which I think is undesirable. We could try to agree what is desirable and then see if it is technically practical, or even close. As an example of possible difficulties with the template always supplying the units, a binary star orbit can range from hours (minutes for some compact object?) to thousands of years. Even for cases such as mass, there are currently two fields with M_☉ (solar mass) and M_J (jovian mass), although it strikes me that jovian mass is rarely a useful unit for stellar masses. Lithopsian (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Lithopsian: I can definitely see a star's mass being measured in jovian masses instead, especially if it's Brown dwarf or similar types with masses below 1 solar mass. In those cases, it'd be an easier concept to communicate that a star is 80 times the mass of Jupiter, rather than 0.07 times the mass of the Sun. It's easier for a reader to concieve 80 Jupiters than a fraction of the Sun that would be difficult to concieve. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 21:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@176.25.28.31: I wonder if there's a way to fully integrate {{RA}} and {{DEC}} into the infobox without increasing the number of parameters needed to make it work. Because I'm definitely on board with your idea, though not so-on board if it takes six parameters instead of one or two, since both templates use three parameters each on their own. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 21:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

It's possible if you use floating point values, but that would require modifying all of the star articles. Praemonitus (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation parameter

Hi, I noticed that the |pronounce= parameter of {{Starbox observe}} is not included in this template. I also think this is a good thing! Am wondering if there had been any discussion of this (?). The Manual of Style already seems to give plenty of direction on where and when to include pronunciation information, and having the Starbox observe template provide this as well was rather confusing for editors (i.e., "Where should I put it?"). I am thinking here of the article on Betelgeuse, where there are at least five different ways to pronounce the star name and the article already has a section which covers this, but a part of that information is also repeated (needlessly, in this case) in Starbox observe. A loose noose (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@A loose noose: Since the Manual of Style states that the lead section is a valid place to put pronunciation information, and also presents the Halley's Comet article as an example of even a dedicated "Pronunciation" section, I don't think a "pronunciation" parameter is necessary. We have a couple of editors wanting to add more parameters to a template that ideally should be short and simple, and I think space should be dedicated to new parameters that are more pertinent to the actual character of the star and observational qualities. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 11:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: I couldn't agree more. Just wanted to clarify that this parameter is officially deprecated. I am all for infoboxes being short, sweet, and relevant. Glad to see you are making this one along those lines. A loose noose (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

It is rarely used, only for a small number of those stars with proper names. I don't think the pronunciations of many of the newer IAU names are even well-understood. Incidentally, they tend not to be given in the lead either. I would suggest that a pronuncitation in the lead is only appropriate for those star articles which have the proper name as the title (ie. most commonly used name is the proper name). For other stars with proper names, but where the star is not widely known by its proper names, a pronunciation in the lead is probably not so good. Probably still wouldn't need to be in the starbox though. There is usually a specific nomenclature section where it could go. 176.25.28.31 (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I see there's another philosophical disagreement here. For me the pronunciation in the lead is borderline useless clutter that breaks the flow. This is an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary, so pronunciation doesn't deserve such a prominent position in the article. I use the infobox field to move the pronunciation information out of the lead, but keep it nearby. It was a compromise from a prior discussion on the topic, since I wanted to move it out of the lead altogether. Praemonitus (talk) 23:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Praemonitus: The Manual of Style also states that footnotes are a valid way of presenting pronunciation without intruding upon the flow of the lead paragraph, in addition to simply putting it somewhere else in the article such as a "Nomenclature" section like Betelgeuse does. That could be a good alternative. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 01:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham:: it's an option yes, but there's no reason to remove it from the infobox. Typically the brighter stars have a proper name and an associated pronunciation. Betelgeuse, for example. I think it works just fine as is. Praemonitus (talk) 02:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Praemonitus: You basically gave a reason yourself; "This is an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary, so pronunciation doesn't deserve such a prominent position in the article." Unless you think the infobox isn't somehow a prominent part of the article? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 08:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: I already gave my reason: it breaks up the flow of the article. Presenting data like that is the purpose of an infobox, so I have no objection to putting it there. If you move it to a footnote, people will just move it back into the body. Ergo, I object to its removal from the infobox. 'Nuff said. Praemonitus (talk) 13:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Praemonitus: I don't see why we couldn't have it in the "Nomenclature" section as mentioned previously in this discussion. Need I not remind people of the purpose of the infobox is "...to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose [...] there will be exceptions where a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text..." Since this is not difficult to write up in a "Nomenclature" section that would specifically be talking about the names of a star or star system, the latter part is irrelevant. It also satisfies your concern that "...pronunciation doesn't deserve such a prominent position in the article." while treating the infobox as the prominent position that it is, and not an indiscriminate dumping ground for information. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 22:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: Then I'll re-iterate my earlier point: the purpose of the starbox set is to cover all stars, not just one test case. It needs to cover every possible case. Your given simplification may work for one star, but be hopelessly inadequate in others. The pronunciation is a case in point – it's only needed for a certain set of stars, but is very appropriate in those cases. Anyway, this discussion is getting needlessly pedantic. The starbox set works fine already. Praemonitus (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

From Template:Starbox character

Here are my suggestions:

Infobox fields to keep

Evolutionary stage: main sequence, giant, supergiant, etc., the parameter is named "type" which was confusing given the name of the next field, could use a better name

Spectral type: the spectral classification, the parameter was named "class" but happily Philip renamed the parameter to "spectral"

Variable type: for variable stars

Infobox fields to modify

Various color indexes: We have parameters for 6 of these. After clicking on dozens of random stars in Category:Stars by spectral type and subcategories, I find that only U-B and B-V are used regularly. Some of the rest turn up occasionaly in extreme stars, and also in the FA Beta Andromedae, which is the spectral standard star for class M0 III. I suggest just keeping the two of them and providing a template for a table with the set that could be used in the few articles that need this.

Infobox fields to remove

Apparent magnitudes in the various passbands: The apparent visual magnitude (V) is in another section. We have parameters for 8 of these. I find these are used very rarely. They turn up mostly in stars with anomalous spectra like the FA Eta Carinae. I suggest these could all be removed and replaced with a template for a table to be used as needed.

StarryGrandma (talk) 06:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma: As alluded to, spectral does indeed exist in {{Infobox star}} already. I am of the understanding, though, that a star's evolutionary stage and its variable type can be discerned from it's stellar classification, aided by a Hertzsprung–Russell diagram. Is this not true? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 11:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Not really. The spectral type typically has two components: a temperature scale indicated by a letter and number; and often a luminosity class indicated by a Roman numeral from I to VI. The luminosity class can be an indicator of evolutionary state, for example supergiant, and combined with the temperature will be more detailed, for example red supergiant. These are strictly observational characters, essentially just a description of the state of the stellar atmosphere. The actual evolutionary state can be determined more precisely by measurement of its position in the HR diagram. There are also more unusual spectral types, for white dwarfs, WR stars, carbon stars, etc. Again, they may or may not be useful indicators of the evolutionary state: for example the white dwarf classes obviously indicate a white dwarf, but a WR spectral type may be an evolved massive star, a very massive young star, or the central star of a planetary nebula. Still, evolutionary state is a somewhat vague concept and the field is not used for the majority of stars. If it is kept, I'd suggest restricting it to a pre-defined set of values, probably all ones that can be wikilinked. The variability of a star cannot be determined at all from its spectral type, that field is required. 176.25.28.31 (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@176.25.28.31: This is some good information; thanks for enlightening me. I am concerned, however, about your statement that "...evolutionary state is a somewhat vague concept and the field is not used for the majority of stars..." If this is true, maybe it's best not to include it in the infobox if it's not even that well-understood from a scientific and editorial perspective, let alone the perspective of a reader with a casual interest in astronomy? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 21:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

The B-V and U-B colour indices were historically the only ones used, before the advent of infrared astronomy. Now the others are just as commonly seen in modern research, but not often used in Wikipedia. They're certainly not the most important fields in the starbox. I'm not even sure the ones other than B-V and U-B are needed in a separate template. Same for the non-visual apparent magnitudes; actually very important in research but perhaps not widely-understood by the average reader. Would it make sense to restrict them to a few of the most common passbands? Perhaps K-band infrared and Gaia G band could just be individual fields? Maybe alongside appmag_v in the observe section? 176.25.28.31 (talk) 13:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@176.25.28.31: How often are K and G-bands discussed in everyday astronomy, such as third party sources like scientific news websites, I wonder? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 21:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

How often are B-V or U-B mentioned in lay coverage? You'd have to go to a fairly technical astro-blog or university web page before you'd come across something like that. Non-V apparent magnitudes crop up a lot more often than you might think, sometimes infrared but quite often fairly old photographic magnitudes, but most of the most popular outlets wouldn't want to "scare" their readers by mentioning what they really are. Gaia magnitudes are new and rarely seen anywhere not published in the last year or two, but given that they are the only magnitudes that perhaps 90% of currently-catalogued stars have, you may have to get used to them as some of those objects are found to be notable. As mentioned, an increasing number of "interesting" objects simply aren't observable at visible wavelengths, but we shouldn't bury our heads in the sand and pretend that standardised brightness measures aren't available for them. The Eta Carinae case isn't perhaps the best example of why these fields are needed; they are in that article largely because it is a very large and very "complete" article about an object that has been extensively studied at every conceivable wavelength, not because of its unusual spectrum or any lack of visual measures. Something like the Pistol Star might make the argument better: completely invisible at visual wavelengths but really quite a bright object in the infrared. Lithopsian (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@176.25.28.31 and Lithopsian: Interesting stuff. Okay, so we've seemed to establish that visible apparent magnitude isn't enough, and that there should be more apparent magnitudes to account for cases such as the Pistol Star. I guess the question we should ask ourselves now is that which non-visual bands are undeniably the most common used in astronomy? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 22:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

That may depend on the object. Faint red dwarfs and brown dwarfs, for example, often list infrared magnitudes instead. Praemonitus (talk) 04:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Praemonitus: Which specific infrared bands are they measured in? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 22:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: I usually see the K band for cool stars, but I'd say it depends on the source. The current starbox provides for that with the array approach. Praemonitus (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately they're all used now, plus several others not mentioned in the starbox template (eg. the uvby system). K was certainly one of the first infrared bands in common use, but further into the infrared is common now, to the point that the bands run out and we end up in micrometre territory. They're not always all available for every object though, and short of drawing a SED curve it can be quite cumbersome to present them all. 2MASS gives J, H, and K band magnitudes for most objects that will have Wikipedia articles, one reason that they're so widespread. G band will probably become widespread for the same reasons, although it is worth noting that the Hp magnitudes from the Hipparcos survey did not slip into everyday use perhaps because they could be converted fairly accurately to V magnitudes (and were, see Simbad which often quotes converted Hp magnitudes as V magnitudes). Lithopsian (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Starbox catalog (synonyms)

This starbox template seems to have been entirely discarded. Perhaps the thinking is that a single proper name field is a suitable substitute. However, stars have multiple designations, each of which is used in different contexts, and more often than not no proper name at all. It is important to be aware of the more common alternate designations, in part because they will appear in citations under different designations. In many cases, more than one designation will be common enough to be mentioned in the lead explicitly as synonyms, but usually there will be a handful of alternates that are not that prominent. Examples might be Gliese designations for the brighter stars, or Flamsteed designations for stars that are known by proper names or Bayer designations. Or variable star designations for almost any star know primarily or historically by another designation. There is an {{odlist}} template supporting standard formats for the common stellar designation types. Perhaps the infobox field should be restricted to those to prevent mass (mis-)copying of everything anyone sees from Simbad. There should also be guidelines on whether such a list in an infobox should include the primary name (eg. article title or infobox header), or only other designations, and also guidelines about which abbreviations should be repeated. 176.25.28.31 (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@176.25.28.31: I'm sure the "Nomenclature" section of articles on stars would be a more appropriate place to place these, rather than stuffing an infobox on them. A vast majority of the names wouldn't be even notable to place in the article itself, let alone in a summary of key facts from the article. For the names that are notable, it'd be much better to place them in prose mainly because it gives the editor a chance to explain to the reader what certain complex designations even mean. I recently wrote this passage from 2XMM J160050.7–514245 for example – "2XMM J160050.7–514245 is the name for the system in the XMM-Newton Serendipitous Source Catalogue (2XMM), a star catalog of x-ray sources observed by the XMM-Newton space telescope." – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 21:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Shopping lists again. Some people might want to read a paragraph stuffed with lists of acronyms and numbers, but that is not very nice if you want to look up the HD designation of a star. That's what infoboxes are for, basic information that applies to a majority of objects of a particular type, in a compact and consistent form so people can find it quickly. The example you give is hardly typical as even Simbad doesn't list any alternate designations. Most star articles will have at least a handful in common use, and perhaps a dozen seen often enough to warrant mentioning. Explaining that in text, in thousands of articles, is what I call a shopping list. See Alpha Centauri again for a reasonably sensible starbox catalog, with perhaps a handful of entries that are getting a bit obsolete, although that still means they will show up occasionally in older references. And see Thuban for an over-the-top example, with perhaps half the designations unlikely to be seen outside the catalog that they're from. Lithopsian (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Lithopsian: I never said we should stuff the "Nomenclature" section with lists of acronyms and numbers, just a decently written prose paragraph of notable designations, especially for catalogues that are notable enough to have their own articles (the Bright Star Catalogue and Henry Draper Catalogue for example), along with detail on what they mean. "Nomenclature" sections mostly already do it for proper names, why shouldn't it detail notable catalouge names, too? It'd be a poor read if it's written like a shopping list, most certainly, but written well with a reasonable amount of detail and commentary it could be incredibly insightful and an interesting read, especially for people unfamiliar with the designations. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 22:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

PhilipTerryGraham, in scientific articles of this type it is common to have lists of alternate names and/or lists of identifiers in the infoboxes even if names are also mentioned in the text. See Acetonitrile and Naproxen. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma: I can't help but notice the fact that the Acetonitrile article is completely overlapped by {{Infobox chemical}}. Really bad example, there. Also, why are you once again trying to bring up chemistry articles and {{Infobox chemical}}? Can we stick to {{Infobox star}}, the Starbox series, and articles on stars, please? Chemistry and astronomy are two different fields. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 01:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The alternative designation lists are mostly useful for Wikipedia article searches as well as search engine lookups. (I've used both on many occasions.) To me, some articles get a little bloated with too many little-used identifiers, but those can be addressed in the articles themselves. I think the designation lists fall under the MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE guideline of, "As with any guideline, there will be exceptions where a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text, but where that information may be placed in the infobox". Praemonitus (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

More suggestions: Template:Starbox observe

Infobox fields to keep

Epoch and Equinox: they are different and we need both since they are not always the same, see Equinox (celestial coordinates)

Constellation

Coordinates

Apparent magnitude (V): this must be labeled V for visual, there are many apparent magnitudes

Infobox field to think about

Pronunciation: it is standard in astronomy articles, including constellations, to have this only in the infobox rather than in the text. See the featured articles. There are some exceptions like Betelguese. Keep this in for now and if changed later change it the constellation infoboxes too.

StarryGrandma (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma: epoch, constellation, and coordinates parameters already exists in {{Infobox star}}, though an equinox parameter could be useful. I want to ask, how interchangeable are epochs and equinoxes? Can one be used in lieu of the other, for example? Also, a "V" would definitely be necessary as it looks like we could be adding more apparent magnitudes to the infobox pending the outcome of a discussion on it! There is also already a discussion on a parameter for pronunciation too. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 01:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The relationship between epoch and equinox is confusing. They frequently have the same value although they certainly can be different, and they are perhaps more often wrong than right in Wikipedia. We really need them both even though they are so often going to be the same, and the same in every article for the foreseeable future. However, we should also consider the ICRS which in many ways supersedes the equinox by defining a fixed reference plane, nearly equal to equinox 2000.0. Currently, ICRS tends to be specified in the equinox field (eg. Capella) although not always correctly. Hipparcos and Gaia co-ordinates are both given in ICRS Epoch 2000.0 coordinates by Simbad and that covers 99% of stars for the next decade or two. Relevant values in the infobox should either be "ICRS" plus an epoch or an equinox value plus an epoch value, but not what is commonly seen in articles now which is "Equinox J2000.0 (ICRS)", that's just wrong. Lithopsian (talk) 12:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Constellation, the coordinates, and the apparent magnitude are no-brainers. I do think we should give some thought to the details of which apparent magnitude(s) should be included and how. Similarly, as an implementation detail we should ensure consistency of formatting for the coordinates and constellations, using the relevant templates and links. I'm not fussed about pronunciation. For stars with proper names it is really needed and the infobox seems like a standard place for it. Complex and ambiguous cases should probably be explained further in the body. I wouldn't want to see it used for stars without proper names. Lithopsian (talk) 12:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

More suggestions: Template:Starbox astrometry

Infobox fields to keep

Radial velocity: motion directly away from the sun

Proper motion: motion across the background of the distant stars

Parallax and its related parameters: the infobox should continue to calculate the distance if given the parallax and optionally its error. The reference needs to be a separate field or the calculation won't work.

Absolute magnitude: in the visual passband

Absolute bolometric magnitude: total over all wavelengths

Infobox field to remove

Total velocity: a calculated quantity that is not often used

StarryGrandma (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma: I can definitely see a parameter for proper motion, as it would be very relevant to everyday observers of the sky to see how a star is moving across the sky. However, are radial velocity and parallax as relevant to readers with a casual interest in astronomy? I don't see absolute magnitude being that important to casual readers as well, since we're most certainly not in an age where we can just plop ourselves within 10 parsecs of a star. A parameter for luminosity could serve a better purpose of communicating the fixed brightness of a star, but would it be redundant to apparent magnitude, as we would then have two parameters communicating the brightness of a star instead of one? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 01:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that proper motions and radial velocity are not going to be the first thing most readers search for when they look up a star article, but they are one (really they are components of a single vector, albeit one is an absolute velocity and two are angular motions) of the very few directly-observable properties of stars, and are known for essentially every star in Wikipedia. The values for a particular star are not especially informative, except for the high proper motion stars, but they are scientific gold dust when used for grouping stars and their motions, for determining co-moving pairs and groups, establishing spiral arms etc. I vote that they stay, perhaps with some consideration to how much space they seem to take up. Ditch the total velocity, absolute garbage and also rarely used. Even when a reliable source can be found, it is a calculated value dependant on the distance, arguably of less interest even than the individual components, and it is a vector which is meaningless without a direction and no good way to present that direction simply to a reader. Lithopsian (talk) 12:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

We do have some articles where proper motion or radial velocity are a significant element of the object's notability: Barnard's star and Gliese 445, for example. In numerous articles I've discussed one or the other of these with respect to the perihelion, halo stars, hypervelocity stars, &c. There are also some articles where parallax is discussed in the article body, such as Proxima Centauri and 61 Cygni. We also use it to compute the distance field, where available. Finally, these fields provide the knowledgeable and curious reader with information about the star's distance and movement with respect to the Sun. (As far as I know, Wikipedia isn't _targeting a particular audience such as the "casual reader". It will include amateur astronomers and University astronomy students as well.) Praemonitus (talk)

Absolute visual magnitude is a widely recognised and used value, even by amateurs, perhaps less than it was a generation ago. Whether we are actually or can ever be, 10 parsecs from that star isn't relevant, it's just a definition of one unit for the absolute brightness of a star. It isn't an equivalent of the apparent magnitude, even when the distance is well known. It is a rookie mistake to ignore interstellar extinction which is difficult to measure directly, although it can be ignored for very close stars and approximated in various ways (ironically, using colour indices which we are probably going to drop). So absmag_v should stay. The bolometric absolute magnitude is entirely equivalent to the bolometric luminosity, just a different unit of measurement. It was fairly popular in the late 20th century, after it became possible to calculate it and before it was superseded by direct calculations of stellar luminosity. It is rarely used in Wikipedia and I think it should probably go in favour of the luminosity field(s) in starbox detail, although I can see arguments for keeping it. I have tended, following on from earlier editors, to use only absmag_v in this starbox and luminosity in starbox detail, ignoring the other combinations to reduce confusion and just because I think it makes more sense that way. In starbox detail, we do have three luminosity fields available, one the bolometric luminosity, one the rarely-seen visual luminosity (visual absolute magnitude by another name), and one unspecified. I suggest just stick with one, a bolometric luminosity although most star articles currently have it in the plain luminosity field. Lithopsian (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, total velocity is unclear since there is no reference frame. I think it can be safely removed, and agree with keeping the others. In certain cases they are highly relevant and significant to the article. Curious readers can always follow the links to find out more. Praemonitus (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Just for reference, the bolometric absolute magnitude is uncommon in Wikipedia star articles. It is somewhat more common in scientific papers, although rare in modern usage. Modern research tends to use a log(l) value for luminosity, which is convenient for presenting a wide range of values and for graphing, and nicely compares with the logarithmic magnitude scale, but I don't think it is the ideal thing for most Wikipedia readers to try and decode. My own preference has been to use the starbox astrometry absmag_v (for visual absolute magnitude) and starbox detail luminosity (for bolometric luminosity, although there is a separate bolometric luminosity field) fields. There are multiple fields with overlapping meanings potentially confusing for readers to follow. I've gone this way partly as a personal decision and partly to be consistent with most existing articles that I saw, but a different approach could certainly be discussed. Lithopsian (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)