Talk:Astronomy

External links

The external links seem to be full of links that are only indirectly related to the article's subject. Links should be to websites that describe the general topic of Astronomy, not to websites about organizations that may do astronomy, that report on astronomical activities, or that post pretty pictures (see WP:ELNO # 13). I removed some, more probably have to go. 70.208.146.223 (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Many of the links you removed should be restored. — Aldaron • T/C 03:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to list here the ones that should be restored and their rational re:WP:EL. 75.197.132.140 (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for a link: "From Stargazers to Starships", Educational web site (high-school level) by David P. Stern. from Samoojas (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Македонски (Macedonian)

A recent test-edit introduced a second link for Macedonian to this topic, which (lacking a translation) does not appear to be correct. Tedickey (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be a developing astronomy article. Click on the "World" image, and your browser may come up with a translation option. Both articles are related to astronomy, so they seem to be in the right place.

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  06:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

However (I haven't seen other counter examples), the guidance on this Wikipedia:Interlanguage_links#Purpose suggests that the newer topic is redundant since there is already a matching topic which is linked Tedickey (talk) 08:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be correct, Tedickey. I've checked three other articles with long lists and there was no redundancy that I could find. If you take the newer one out again, I won't contest it. And if the originator communicates with you, you may want to suggest that the link be placed into a more focused article rather than this one.

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  09:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

reference 15 broken

reference 15 needs fixing. thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.107.121 (talk) 06:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it. It was added in this edit with a missing body (probably copied from some other article). I've left a message on the talk page of the editor who added it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Astronomy

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Astronomy's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Kennedy-1962":

• From Observatory: Kennedy, Edward S. (1962), "Review: The Observatory in Islam and Its Place in the General History of the Observatory by Aydin Sayili", Isis 53 (2): 237–239, doi:10.1086/349558 
• From Astronomy in medieval Islam: (Kennedy 1962)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Factual Concerns

The phrase 'well-accepted' is odd for a scientific page. It occurs with respect to Big Bang. The implication is that there is no actual evidence, just the 'acceptance'. Also the dark matter further down, which is mentioned as if it were real, when it is merely a logical instrument that allows the big bang maths to look better. Perhaps these two topics belong to the pseudo-science page? 7kingis (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Jagged 85 (talk · contribs). Jagged 85 is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits, he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Tobby72 (talk) 11:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge

It has been suggested that Optical astronomy be merged with the main page. I didn't see anything before on this page about it, but if there was then I missed it. Regardless, optical astronomy should not be merged, because it is a method of astronomy just like all the others, and it would be more beneficial to expand it than merge it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.252.81.84 (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject eclipses

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Wikipedia:WikiProject eclipses (permanent link here). (This talk page and that talk page are on my watchlist, and I will watch both talk pages for a reply or replies.)
—Wavelength (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of A New Theory of Magnetic Storms for deletion

This article was recently PRODed, but I think it deserves greater consideration, so I brought it to AfD. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Is the use of telescopes and binoculars to view satellites and the space station called astronomy ?

The ISS and HTV photographed using a telescope-mounted camera in 2011 by astrophotographer Ralf Vandebergh (left) and the International Space Station in a time exposure (right)

I want to add links from the sightings section of the International Space Station article to the astronomy article.

There are Naked Eye sightings, there are sightings using equipment such as binoculars and telescopes, there is astrophotography, which is photographing the ISS through telescopes.

Which of these are considered astronomy, which are not? there are no references on the page to satellites in relation to people who are interested in looking at them, are satellites and the space station considered to be celestial objects ?

Penyulap _talk 22:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Neither of these are considered astronomy. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 07:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

"Major problems" problem

It is really interesting but this composition, without refs is a bit ORish Bulwersator (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge DF into GA

Editors may want to join in the discussion at Talk:Great Attractor#Merge Dark Flow if you have an opinion about the connection between Dark Flow and the Great Attractor. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  02:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Merge discussion closed, this date. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  22:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

X-rays in 1895—delete?

Although NASA reports this, and reproduces the "infamous" [sic] photograph of Roentgen's wife, this historical nugget isn't connected to x-ray astronomy. I suggest a deletion as off-topic. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The bit there seems to stick out as off-topic. Should be deleted. I don't even think true X-ray astronomy came into existence until many decades after 1895 anyway. AstroCog (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Same, I agree.it is a bit of topicScienceGeek (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)