Talk:Astronomy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Astronomy 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.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Core (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

External links[edit]

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. AldaronT/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)

Suggestion: *E!Science: Astronomy Breaking astronomy news collected from most major sources including universities. ie American Institute of Physics, Harvard, Smithsonian, NASA, ESA, Reuters, space.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidelight12 (talkcontribs) 10:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Македонски (Macedonian)[edit]

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.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`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.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  09:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

reference 15 broken[edit]

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[edit]

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":

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 ?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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)

I have deleted the part "X-rays were first observed and documented in 1895 ... type of radiation." for the reasons mentioned above. Sorry, this has nothing to do with astronomy. Regards, Herbmuell (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The Schoolhouse visits Astronomy talk[edit]

*Planisphæri cœlestez

Add gallery for images[edit]

Astronomy_(disambiguation) use of small notice of disambiguation or userbox/template navbox maybe with icon images of linked articles. (Could someone show me how that's done, I've been crazy looking for the instructions and can't seem to find any that work for me.)

Astronomy, the article, former candidate? featured article, maybe some minor layout changes would improve the article, idea for dissambiguation pages, into a navigation box, small unobtrusively float right (or left), at least change what presently displays and replace with feature article material. The thumb images on right are out of order with the context, perhaps a gallery would improve the layout style, alternate right and left sides with the thumbs which divide the section headers. example:

  • Gallery Header with category or something useful
Idea submitted by User:Orschstaffer/Schoolhouse as a classroom assignment.

The Principal is in. O=MC4 05:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The size of the earth - really Aristarchus?[edit]

Despite the alleged citation in the article, from what I can find on the internet Aristarchus did not calculate the size of the earth, he just used it as a relative measure. Like it says in On the Sizes and Distances (Aristarchus), "This work calculates the sizes of the Sun and Moon, as well as their distances from the Earth in terms of Earth's radius." If he actually had calcuated the size of the earth as well, he could have made absolute estimates of the distances.

Eratosthenes is also famous for calculating the size of the earth at around the same time Siuenti (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the claim. Siuenti (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

List of practical inventions from astronomy/space travel?[edit]

I was wondering, is there somewhere on Wikipedia, or would it be useful/interesting to create, a list or an article listing specific technology that was invented, or applied for the first time, in astronomy/space travel? For such technology, it would of course be necessary to find reliable sources for the fact that they indeed came from astronomy. Here's a small list of what I have in mind, for which I have varrying degrees of certainty that they indeed came from astronomy or were first applied there, but just to give you an idea what you mean:

  • Teflon, although not invented by NASA, was first applied on a large scale in space travel
  • The invention of the barcode was predated, and supposedly inspired, by the unique 'barcode' optical spectrums for stars and other objects, created in the optical spectroscopy in astronomy.
  • Glass fibers were used in astronomy for they were used on a large scale for data communication in the every day world.
  • The technology to bring vehicles out of the atmosphere and into an earth orbit, was later used to build the system of sattelites for telecommunications and GPS systems.
  • And from various sources a list of unverified items that might or might not qualify:
    • Memory foam
    • Anti-corrosion coating
    • Cochlear implants (hearing aid)
    • Insulin pump
    • Life shears (the fire fighter tool)
    • Water filters

There are probably more examples. I'd like to hear your thoughts; or maybe such an article/list/category already exist and I just haven't been able to find it yet. -- RagingR2 (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

You can start at the NASA spin-off technologies article.Wzrd1 (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Doubtful text[edit]

Before tools such as the telescope were invented, early study of the stars had to be conducted from the only vantage points available, namely tall buildings and high ground using the naked eye.

This implies that high ground was more important as a vantage point before the invention of the telescope than after it. It is unclear why this should be so. It is not clear either why observation from tall buildings would have been advantageous, except in the special case of viewing objects near the horizon. 86.169.185.78 (talk) 03:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Well, there is less atmospheric interference at higher elevations but that doesn't really fit with the thrust of the section. The statement was also unsourced. I changed the section to read, "Before tools such as the telescope were invented, early study of the stars was conducted using the naked eye." Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 03:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Specific subfields[edit]

This section does not describe the subfields themselves, but the consensus theories about their subjects. For example, where is the description of the available observational channels or the instruments typically used in the particular fields? Where is the history of each subfield? Description of each one's particular theoretical problems? Paradoctor (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Astronomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Astronomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 13:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Reading level of into para is too high[edit]

I used this utility, https://www.online-utility.org/english/readability_test_and_improve.jsp , to parse the intro paragraph for readablity and found this:

  • Number of characters (without spaces) : 406.00
  • Number of words : 72.00
  • Number of sentences : 2.00
  • Average number of characters per word : 5.64
  • Average number of syllables per word : 1.93
  • Average number of words per sentence: 36.00
  • Indication of the number of years of formal education that a person requires in order to easily understand the *text on the first reading
  • Gunning Fog index : 24.40
  • Approximate representation of the U.S. grade level needed to comprehend the text :
  • Coleman Liau index : 16.58
  • Flesch Kincaid Grade level : 21.23
  • ARI (Automated Readability Index) : 23.13
  • SMOG : 21.57
  • Flesch Reading Ease : 6.97 (the higher the better)

While it is nice to have completeness, it is far better to make the first paragraph simple. I suggest a rewrite as follows:

Astronomy is the scientific study of celestial objects and phenomena. It applies mathematics, physics, and chemistry, in an effort to explain the origin of those objects and phenomena. The objects of interest include planets, moons, stars, galaxies, and comets; while the phenomena include supernovae explosions, gamma ray bursts, and cosmic microwave background radiation. More generally all astronomical phenomena that originate outside the atmosphere of Earth is the perview of astronomy. A related but distinct subject, physical cosmology, is concerned with the study of the Universe as a whole.

The results for this are:

  • Number of characters (without spaces) : 495.00
  • Number of words : 88.00
  • Number of sentences : 5.00
  • Average number of characters per word : 5.62
  • Average number of syllables per word : 1.98
  • Average number of words per sentence: 17.60
  • Indication of the number of years of formal education that a person requires in order to easily understand the *text on the first reading
  • Gunning Fog index : 17.49
  • Approximate representation of the U.S. grade level needed to comprehend the text :
  • Coleman Liau index : 15.63
  • Flesch Kincaid Grade level : 14.61
  • ARI (Automated Readability Index) : 13.86
  • SMOG : 15.49
  • Flesch Reading Ease : 21.69

Zedshort (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Not sure about the proposed paragraph. In particular, it mentions up-front the applying of mathematics, physics, and chemistry. If we are going to mention those allied subjects in the first paragraph (and some of that was also an issue in the older version), then we probably need to have balance with some mention of observational methods as well. Note that physics and maths are also discussed in the third paragraph of the lead where the dichotomy of theoretical and observational astronomy is made. So, I suppose I'm not in favor of the proposed paragraph as is, though the version that was there (before you recent edit) could certainly be improved by . Thanks. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

You failed to address the issue of readablity. Not sure what you were trying to say about the application of mathematics, physics and chemistry and the "balance" with observational methods. Virtually everything mentioned in the original para is in the second but without the parenthetical insertions and overly long sentences. The object of this edit was to do as you proposed: cutting a long sentences up a bit. Consider using the utility to give an unbiased measure of the readability of and try rewriting it yourself and you will come up with much the same thing. Zedshort (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, I think your reaching out for input is a good thing, and I will be interested to see what other editors think. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I didn't see a whole lot of difference between the two paragraphs; however, I've included the links along with a few minor changes and it comes out like this:

Astronomy is the scientific study of celestial objects and phenomena. It applies mathematics, physics, and chemistry in an effort to explain the origin and evolution of those objects and phenomena. The objects of interest include planets, moons, stars, galaxies, and comets, while the phenomena include supernovae explosions, gamma ray bursts, and cosmic microwave background radiation. More generally all astronomical phenomena that originate outside the atmosphere of Earth are within the purview of astronomy. A related but distinct subject, physical cosmology, is concerned with the study of the Universe as a whole.[1]

Note that I kept the phrase "within the purview" because I believe this is standard usage when "purview" is used.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 16:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Unsöld, Albrecht; Baschek, Bodo (2001). Classical Astronomy and the Solar System - Introduction. p. 1. 

Some thoughts[edit]

Hi I'm new to wikipedia, and I plan to work on astronomy articles =) Sorry in advance for horrible wikitext format... I'll fix it soon. Here's a quick quote and its reference:

  • "Astronomy is defined as the study of the objects that lie beyond our planet Earth and the processes by which these objects interact with one another."[1]
  • I think it would be important to mention that it is a observational science, versus an experimental science (like chemistry), since astronomy is often based upon observing the history of the universe in the same way a geologist would of the Earth. Observation article also looks like it needs some help

Popcrate (talk) 10:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Popcrate and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your interest, especially in astronomy articles! You might want to consider that 1) astronomy is the study of objects and phenomena that lie beyond planet Earth, and 2) while astromomy is observational-only in a "classic" sense, other hands-on experimental/empirical sciences fall within the heading of "astronomy", such as those related to space exploration, the design and manufacture of telescopes and their components, and so on. Please feel comfortable editing to your heart's content, because that is how editors learn 'round here. And don't hesitate to ask questions – that's one reason talk pages exist.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 08:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ OpenStax, Astronomy. OpenStax. 13 October 2016. [<http://cnx.org/content/col11992/latest/>] (chapter 1.1 The Nature of Astronomy, page 13).

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Astronomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)