Talk:Galileo Galilei: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Reverted edits by 158.123.253.2 (talk) to last revision by Hamtechperson (HG)
Line 59: Line 59:
[[Special:Contributions/96.54.176.113|96.54.176.113]] ([[User talk:96.54.176.113|talk]]) 07:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/96.54.176.113|96.54.176.113]] ([[User talk:96.54.176.113|talk]]) 07:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


:Thanks for pointing that out - fixed. [[User:Mikenorton|Mikenorton]] ([[User talk:Mikenorton|talk]]) 08:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
:Thanks for pointing that out - fixed. [[User:Mikenorton|Mikenorton]] ([[User talk:Mikenorton|talk]]) 08:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)haley winsor


== Possible new article ==
== Possible new article ==

Revision as of 14:47, 5 February 2013

Template:HOSCOTMprev

Former featured articleGalileo Galilei is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleGalileo Galilei has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 24, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 4, 2003Featured article candidatePromoted
September 12, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
February 28, 2008Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Former featured article, current good article

Template:WP1.0

Edit request on 13 November 2012

The crayon portrait of Galileo is wrongly attributed to Leone Leoni . It should be correctly attributed to Ottavio Leoni.

96.54.176.113 (talk) 07:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out - fixed. Mikenorton (talk) 08:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)haley winsor[reply]

Possible new article

The Czech Martin Horky played a part in Galileo's work in 1610. There is an article on Martin Horky in the Italian wikipedia. A Google search should provide more information on Horky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.7.192.143 (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Horky — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.7.197.65 (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Horky is also said at times to have been German. He might have spoken both in some degree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.7.197.65 (talk) 12:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Brevissima Peregrinatio Contra Nuncium Sidereum, by Horky. Horky even suggested that Galileo was actuated by a love of money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.7.197.65 (talk) 12:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Horky's father is variously said to have been German and Bohemian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.7.192.143 (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 5 December 2012: "Jupiter" section: flow issues

The third-to-last sentence of the first paragraph of the "Jupiter" section should almost certainly be placed after the last sentence of that paragraph so that the paragraph may follow a more logical progression of ideas. I request an edit for this to be so.

 Done - agree the chronology wasn't right. Have edited the paragraph in question as suggested. Stalwart111 04:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 22 December 2012

The article purports to cite "the Bible", but instead cites the King James translation of it. I propose amending the following text: "Biblical references Psalm 93:1, 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved."

It should read as follow: "According to the King James translation, Biblical references Psalm 93:1, 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16...." or the like

213.151.59.59 (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. I could see issues on whether or not the King James translation can be cited as a biblical reference and whether this is actually neccesary. Vacationnine 05:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inexplicable

Unimaginable666 is reverting his own edits, inexplicably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.4.216 (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean. He added a category and then seems to have thought better of it, I think because it was redundant to some of the existing ones. Stalwart111 12:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]