Wikidata talk:WikiProject NGC

Hello to all! I have just seen this page and I am very interested to this task force. I have also seen "the rules". I want to let you know that I have already created items of NGC objects from NGC 1 to NGC 60. For these items I wrote a very short description (only the type) both for English and for Italian languages. For the galaxies I added also other designations coming from UGC and PGC catalogs both for English and for Italian languages. Have a good jobs! --Paperoastro (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some astronomical objects have double (or multiple!) NGC identification. In a "ideal world" they should have only one item, but some Wikipedias have articles also for the duplicates. In the next table there is the list of these objects: in the first column there are the main items where all the information should be inserted; in the second column the duplicate items where only the property said to be the same as (P460) with the link to the main item must be used.

--Paperoastro (talk) 00:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should the items in the 2nd column be deleted? Because, I think I made a mistake by merging NGC 20 and NGC 6. -- Ip.213.100 (talk) 12:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You made the correct operation. I only removed the statement Property:P460. Thanks! --Paperoastro (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The correct identification of some NGC objects is difficult due to errors and misunderstandings of the original observer and of the astronomers that, during time, re-analysed the data. So, some professional astronomical catalogs have wrong identification of some objects and it is better do not use them to get data. In the next table there is the list of objects with the catalogs do not to use. In the talk page of the items there are discussions and references of the cause.

See this discussion.

There are multiple sources to consider when retrieving information about NGC/IC objects. However, they don't seem to be consistent with each other, which I found out when I was researching the subject for the automatic generation and import of these articles on bs.wiki (see the result here: bs:NGC 1). I decided to rely on Wolfgang Steinecke's revised catalog (there is a downloadable excel sheet available), which seems the most accurate and up to date.

I wanted to import all relevant information on each object, but then I came across this page. Before doing anything, it is important that all information on each object is consistent for each language. I would therefore very much want to hear your opinion on this matter. My suggestion would be to adapt to Steinecke's catalog (unless someone can show that some alternative is clearly a better option). -- Edinwiki (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read very carefully the web site you suggest. It has very interesting informations about NGC/IC catalogs. During the years, many people tried to check them, but probably the work of Wolfgang Steinecke is the most accurate. To revise the list of object in Wikidata, I used some astronomic catalogs, expecially NGC/IC Project, where they used the data of Wolfgang Steinecke. It is strange that his pages are hosted in a private company, but he published some jobs in professional journals of astronomical history, so imho, we can use his data.

My personal suggestion: the list in Wikidata was imported by Wikipedia in Dutch, that contains a lot of inaccuracies. It is better to use the list you found. --Paperoastro (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you and others agree, I can automatically import/update this on existing NGC/IC objects with my bot. -- Edinwiki (talk) 10:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very good idea! :) I tried to update and check manually the list, but it is a very huge work. Your bot is welcome! --Paperoastro (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because you already are working on updating these items, can you point out anything that I should be aware of? I guess I can start with adding all the relevant properties just like in NGC 1. The next thing would be to add a description for each item (I can do the en, nl and bs translations myself). -- Edinwiki (talk) 10:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Edinwiki, sorry, but I see your comment only now! You are welcome! :-) Some of the properties (as catalog code (P528) and galaxy morphological type (P223)) are updated by bot Ra-bot-nik, but you can add other properties as discoverer or inventor (P61), time of discovery or invention (P575), site of astronomical discovery (P65), Commons category (P373). When I added name, description and aliases following the rules on the top of the pages, I put " Done" with the languages near the name in the list (probably exist a better manner to do that). For historical information, you can use this web page. Another work is to remove the duplicate items: 1) some real objects have more than one NGC name, but some Wikipedias have duplicate items! So I remove properties to the duplicate and add only the property said to be the same as (P460); 2) sometimes the database SIMBAD (used by Ra-bot-nik) has wrong identification and we need to use other database (as NED or HyperLEDA) to correct the catalogues names (see the tables above). If you have some other questions, do not hesitate to contact me! --Paperoastro (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It turned out recently that NGC 218 is not PGC 2493 but PGC 2720. From recent catalogs only NED corrected this so far, Wolfgang Steinicke updated his Excel file too. Could someone correct wikidata of this galaxy (NED has correct designations)? I tried I but could't and I don't wanna spoil anything. Best regards Pikador (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Paperoastro (talk) 11:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is to let you know that we've launched WikiProject Wikidata for research in order to stimulate a closer interaction between Wikidata and research, both on a technical and a community level. As a first activity, we are drafting a research proposal on the matter (cf. blog post). It would be great if you would see room for interaction! Thanks, --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]