Talk:European Southern Observatory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Organizations  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Europe (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Astronomy (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon European Southern Observatory is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Chile (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chile, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chile on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Brazil is not a member[edit]

Brazil is not a member unless it ratifies the treaty of accession. It has not done so and should not be shown as a member on the map. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 21:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The ESO official website [1] says Brazil is a member. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I must correct myself. You are right. The official website says 'pending' for Brazil. But they are listed with their flag. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done — Since the official ESO website lists Brazil (with "(pending)" added next to their entry and flag) I've done the same with our table in the article here. If "(pending)" were directly under the date of entry, it would look better, but I don't seem to know how to do that. See what you think. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Where is it?[edit]

I feel strongly that the location of the actual observatories should be in the first line, not in a section down low. I'm going to add that it's in Chile. Eperotao (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

COI, SPS[edit]

Most (if not all) of the article's sources are self-published, and it seems to have been written by (or on behalf of) and employee of the organization; I've been removing peacock words and other promotional language to help provide NPOV. While a conflict of interest has been disclosed, any outside input would improve the article immensely. Miniapolis 02:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

ESO/VLTI discovers large and brilliant yellow star[edit]

Headine-1: ESO’s Very Large Telescope spots largest yellow hypergiant star

QUOTE: “The European Southern Observatory’s (ESO) Very Large Telescope Interferometer (VLTI) has revealed the largest yellow star — and one of the 10 largest stars found so far. This hypergiant measures more than 1,300 times the diameter of the Sun and is part of a double star system, ...” [There is a lot of current interest in astronomy!] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Headine-2: ESO Very Large Telescope Captures Largest Yellow Star Ever Spotted

QUOTE: “Scientists in Chile operating the ESO's Very Large Telescope Interferometer spotted the yellow star, HR5171 A, which is one of the top ten largest stars ever discovered. The star is 1,300 times the diameter of the sun, shining 12,000 light-years away. ... European Southern Observatory officials reported that it is possible to see the star with the naked eye because of its intense glow that's one million times brighter than the sun. ” [Wow! Can an Earthlings even appreciate vastness/brilliance?] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Reverted Edits[edit]

I must say that I'm rather upset of User:Bgwhite careless revert of all the fixes I did in this article. I understand that the list of flags in the infobox is debatable, but they simply could have been outcommented, instead of loosing all the other amendments I did. So please, fix the wikitables yourself as I can't revert the changes made due to edit-conflicts. I guess, to blindly revert takes not as much time as actually doing something to improve the article. — Rfassbind (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Rfassbind, Egads, such a whiner. 98% of your edit was wrong. The current infobox looks exactly the same as your infobox except for the slogan above the map. Note, I did add back in the slogan into the infobox you added. You changed the dashes in the table to the wrong ones. You changed the table class incorrectly. Only one small thing need to be changed that was correct, the (pending). I was too busy looking at changes into the infobox and didn't notice that. Also, don't use <table> in Wikipedia articles. That is HTML and not wikicode. When the vast majority of an edit is wrong and is reverted, add back in the correct stuff. It happens all the time around here. Grow up. Bgwhite (talk) 05:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Bgwhite, Very disapointing... Allow me to take a look in detail at the current version of the ESO article after your revert and subsequent edits. I waited for more than a day in order to give you the time and not rush-in while you're still revising your own revert.
  1. After your revert, you reintroduced the infobox-slogan Reaching New Heights in Astronomy I just added. Since that line was originally displayed in the logo's caption, it now appears twice in the infobox. Don't you think you are producing redundancies in the infobox?
  2. You also went back to edit the table "ESO directors general", thereby breaking the table's header row and still not addressing my fixes concerning the margin between the floating text and the table. Do you think the table needs no margin? (since you're telling me that I changed the table's class incorrectly, by using the documented floatright class).
  3. I also do not agree that my amendment 2007–present is wrong. To me it's an improvement to the previous 2007–. At least it's commonly done so throughout wikipedia.
  4. As for my removal of "(Nobel Prize winner)", I agree it's debatable. To me, it doesn't belong in that list (the other directors don't display their "notable awards" either). I assume many others would agree with me. To you it's just incorrect.
  5. So I can't see why "my revision" of this table, despite the wrong usage of the em-dash, is the one that has to be reverted. Just compare it to "your piece of art".
  6. My fix in the other table "Member States" you replicated identically, so there was never an issue here.
  7. You also reverted the "European Space Agency" article, where I also introduced a table with flags in the infoxbox. Did you notice that there is a collapsible list containing flags? Someone added those flags a long time ago and were the reason why I thought flags in infoboxes would be OK in the first place. It seems inconsistent to revert "Remove flags per WP:MOSFLAG" disregarding them. Also, you broke the list's alignment (I described how to fix it in the comment of my edit you reverted).
You're not using your expertise on wikipedia to encourage others by being a role model. On the contrary. You're dismissive and sloppy in your post-revert amendments. If you do not have the time, it's obviously a better option to fix what you see is wrong, rather than assuming that 98% is wrong in the first place. As I will reconsider my involvement on these kind of wikipedia articles, maybe you should do the same concerning your appreciation towards other users.
Thanks for letting me know about the WP:INFOBOXFLAG and the usage of the en-dash in dates. — Rfassbind (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)