Talk:Zodiacal light

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Solar System (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
For more information, see the Solar System importance assessment guideline.
WikiProject Astronomy (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Zodiacal light is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Split[edit]

I think the Zodiacal band should be split from Zodiacal Light, as the zl is generally the triangular patch, while the zb is the extended band. Otherwise, gegenschein should just redirect here instead of being an article. 132.205.94.9 02:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Disagree on both points.
  • Zodiacal band should not be split since it is merely an extension of the Zodiacal Light. I think it would be enough to mention it in the Zodiacal light article without creating another unnecessary stub of an article. It's not like they're different phenomena that need separate treatment.
  • Gegenschein should not redirect here. It is a different, though related phenomenon. It is different enough that it is described separately as a metric in the Bortle Dark-Sky Scale. Darkest tree (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Permission to use image[edit]

The beautiful photo of the zodiacal light which has been included (with the copyright holder's permission) in this article since May 2005 was recently deleted, apparently because the licensing information was not properly documented (under current standards). I have restored the image with complete information about the licensing (GFDL) being given on the image page. For anyone who is interested I will repeat that information here:

"The copyright holder of this image is Dominic Cantin of Quebec, Canada. His website (and the source of this image is: http://www.pbase.com/dominiccantin . On May 22, 2005 I wrote to Dominic requesting permission to use the image on Wikipedia under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) using the sample letter provided by Wikipedia at that time. On May 24, 2005 I received a reply granting permission to use the image. I wrote back to him that same day, including a link where he could view his image and the associated article on Wikipedia. He wrote me again on May 25, 2005 to say that "nothing should be changed, it's perfect".

On September 9, 2007 I forwarded my complete correspondence with the copyright holder to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org" as directed on the upload page so that "the Wikipedia Foundation has a record of the license in case questions should arise at a later time" about the permission for this image."

I hope this will clear up any confusion. DannyZ 23:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The image discussed in my previous posting has been replaced in this article, so my comments above are not relevant to the current image. DannyZ 08:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I am in communication with DannyZ over the previous image. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Zodiacal cloud Merge[edit]

The contributor suggesting the merge appears to have forgotten to add a note on this discussion page. Anyway, I support the merge, since the leader and maybe half of the rest of the Zodiacal cloud article actually talk about Zodiacal Light. The remainder, about the origin of the Zodiacal dust, should be able to easily be incorporated into the Zodiacal light article. I don't see a need to have two separate articles; the subject could be covered in one. Darkest tree (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Support, I see no reason for two articles. One is about the physical cloud and the other is about the visual phenomena from the cloud. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Not support, Because one IS the physical cloud and the other is about the visual phenomena from the cloud. One is not equal to the other. With such a distinction, where would one describe the physical processes that are the source of the cloud? There is a decades long debate about it, and it certainly doesn't belong in Zodiacal Light, which should just be about the forward-scattered light from the particles in the cloud. I'll need to write that section in the Cosmic Dust entry (which is where it used to be). Amara (User talk:Amara) —Preceding undated comment added 01:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Trivia[edit]

Why do we need the Brian May part? --Mortense (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)