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)
Yup, totally bogus. Lithopsian (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
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)
Life's too short to spend it arguing with someone who isn't listening. Lithopsian (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
BE Ursae Majoris A
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)
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)
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)
Looks good. Maybe use the orbit from there also? A regular citation should be sufficient. Linking to versions of copyright papers is asking for problems; people that really need to see the whole paper will generally find access to it. Lithopsian (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gaia20ehk, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Photometric was added.
At the time of this message, there are 15,282 articles and 32,951 redirects awaiting review.
After the January–February drive the article backlog was reduced to 15,179 articles and the redirect backlog to 19,053 respectively. Great job! However, both queues are growing rapidly and any additional reviews are highly appreciated.
2024 and 2025 NPP Awards
JTtheOG was selected as the NPP reviewer of the year for both 2024 and 2025, for reviewing the most articles amongst all reviewers.
Hey man im josh and MPGuy2824 won the Redirect Ninja Master Award for 2024 and 2025 respectively, for reviewing the most redirects.
Overall in 2024, one Platinum, two Gold, eight Silver, 12 Bronze and 45 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 66 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year. In 2025, one Platinum, ten Silver, 13 Bronze and 38 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 38 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year.
The experimental two-month long backlog drive concluded with 183 reviewers patrolling over 27,761 articles and 35,309 redirects, earning over 36,836 points. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 6,484.6 points in this drive.
An attempt was made to get the New Pages Feed to sort by date marked as reviewed instead of date created. However we had to revert it due to bugs. We may try again in the future. You can subscribe to the Phabricator ticket if you're interested in following along.
