Talk:Astronomy/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

If I can make a suggestion, please add a description of Solar System bodies' magnetospheres, their power and the gravitational force and expanse to the templates (perhaps someone can create graphics of this too). It's important info, isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IdLoveOne (talk • contribs) 04:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the viewer be taken directly to that page first? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LAgurl (talk • contribs) 10:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This topic is already covered on the list of timelines page. Does it also need to be duplicated here? I don't see a comparable section on the biology, chemistry or physics pages. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I struggled momentarily with removing the list because there's no way to link directly down to the astronomy timelines on list of timelines. Then I found the Astronomy timelines category. My vote is with you to remove the list from the article (there's too many lists in this article already), but add the category to the see also list or something.--Will.i.am 23:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That works, thanks. I was "bold" and made the change. — RJH (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Since this is a high-level summary page, does it make sense to include detailed in-line citations everywhere? I would think those would be found on the drill-down detail pages. Would it make sense to just have a list of good-quality astronomy books, comparable to the list at World_War_I#References? — RJH (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm tended to agree with you, but I'm afraid this article is never going to make it to FA (or even GA) if it doesn't have inline references. Nick Mks 16:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought the same when I saw the "uncited sources" tag. Unfortunately too, none of the more general science (or arts) pages have been featured so there's little precedent. But there are a few spots where inline references might be able to be put in:

• "During the 1990s, the astrometric technique of measuring the stellar wobble has led to the discovery of large extrasolar planets orbiting nearby stars."
• "Kinematic studies of matter in the Milky Way have demonstrated that the galaxy has more mass than can be accounted for by the visible matter."

And places in the History section could be referenced (could be hard though because they're not inline in the main article).--Will.i.am 23:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you suggest then that we should try and go for GA with the current (or a couple more general) references? Nick Mks 13:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

After my 1000 edits to add one inline this afternoon.... I would definitely add three or four more general references. The inlines can wait until the review process points them out or we see more spots where they'd be appropriate.--Will.i.am 00:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if everybody would be so good as to put some {{Fact}} entries after lines that they believe need citations, we can put in some appropriate references. Thanks!!! — RJH (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Here are some references available at Wikisource:

• s:The New Student's Reference Work/Astronomy
• s:The American Practical Navigator/Chapter 15

The second is sadly mising the figures --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Quick question to those of you who have been here much longer: is this article about the fields of astronomy, their discoveries, or both? It mostly seems like both, but some sections (e.g. astrometry) just talk about what the scientists, do whereas others (e.g. galactic astronomy) only talk about discoveries. Most seem to approach both. Commentary?--Will.i.am 00:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Both I would think. I'd hope it would be a top-level overview with drill-downs to more detailed pages. Astrometry is probably closer to data collection than to an astronomical subject, so maybe it should be relocated. But it's also about data analysis, so I'm not really sure what's the best place. — RJH (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The layout of this article doesn't seem to me to allow it to cover everything it needs to. I'm not convinced starting with 'divisions' is the best way to go. I'd like to suggest a possible TOC here, which, if people think it would be good, we could rearrange the article around:

1. History

1.1 Prehistory to the 17th century

1.2 Telescopic astronomy

1.3 Astronomy in the Space Age

2. Astronomical observations

How objects are observed, with what tools, and what the results are (i.e. images, spectra)

3. Astronomical objects

3.1 Solar system astronomy

3.2 Galactic astronomy

3.3 Extragalactic astronomy

4. Amateur astronomy

The importance of amateurs - one of the only sciences where they make significant contributions

5. Major questions in astronomy

Brief summary of some of the biggest issues

6. Refs 7. External links

What does anyone think? Worldtraveller 11:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. The details can of course be filled in while in progress. Nick Mks 11:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Overall it looks good, and I like the idea of having an amateur astronomy section. But I'm not sure I agree with the astronomical objects section—I think your list has too few sub-sections. What about stellar astronomy and cosmology, for example? — RJH (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I was sort of mentally putting stars under the galactic astronomy bit, and cosmology in extragalactic, but we could certainly have more subsections there for those. In a way that section seems odd to me anyway - the types of objects studied will already have been mentioned in the history and observations section - but I thought we ought to have a decent overview of what types of things are out there. Worldtraveller 21:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That certainly works for me, thanks. Were you going to start a temp sub-page to do the re-edit? — RJH (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I like it. This format (history, what is is, and then how it's divided) makes sense for article flow.--Will.i.am 00:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and did a global re-edit of the page to bring it closer to the above organization. It will need some more work though. :-) — RJH (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Should there be some mention of the connection between astronomy and navigation in this article? Historically navigation was certainly an important application of astronomy. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 02:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I added a sentence in the "Astrometry and celestial mechanics" section. Is that sufficient? — RJH (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi all, I've been on a vacation lately, but I see that things keep improving here. Despite the ongoing discussions about references, nature and a possible reorganisation, I wonder whether we shouln't nominate it for GA now. If it fails, then at least we get an outside view of what isn't right. Any ideas? Nick Mks 16:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The tag at the top of the Astronomy about missing references or sources should mean that it fails GA, per WP:WIAGA 2(a). Plus there is the re-org. discussion above that has resulted in two new sections and a need for a re-edit. — RJH (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This article has horrible referencing and is therefore not suitable to be a Good Article. Also, the LONG article was removed from FA status recently. --GoOdCoNtEnT 07:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It now has a number of general references, so hopefully that will be sufficient. — RJH (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Should very much be indeed. Finally... :) Nick Mks 09:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I whacked out a couple of my own entries from this section because they are somewhat speculative in nature. I.e. there have been some hypotheses concerning these questions, but current evidence is mainly in the negative.

• Have the values of the physical constants varied over time?
• Does Newton's law of gravitation hold over long distances? Or can some alternate theory, such as the nonsymmetric gravitational theory, explain the mystery of dark matter?

This entire topic is also somewhat PoV, so I tried to add in some references to back the questions up. But it probably wouldn't hurt to add in a few more. :-)

Are there any other questions that could be added? I think an older major question about whether neutrinos have mass has already been addressed. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Should this article mention about the Mayans? Since they were very good astronomers. And the pyramids that they had for the 8 planets, Sun, and Moon, and one small side small pyramid that was speculated to be Pluto? Also, their calendar ends on when the Earth is in the galactic plane. Thanks, CarpD (^_^)

They are mentioned on the History of astronomy page. Perhaps that section on the Mayans needs expansion? I'd rather see this page focus more on modern astronomy, but that's just my preference. The history section is getting pretty bloated already, considering it's got a main article of its own. That may need some trimming down. :-) — RJH (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, did not know that there was a seperate page... Thanks, CarpD (^_^) 8/31/06

i saw this of digg http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060904_mystery_monday.html i couldn't find a mention of space pinwheels on the pinwheel disambiguation page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinwheel is there no pinwheel page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.170.90.4 (talk • contribs).

Pinwheel nebula. — RJH (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like this page was semi-protected on November 6th; the protection removed November 7th, and the page was then vandalized twice within a day. The apparent reason the semi-protection was removed? A very low level of vandalism. ;-) — RJH (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the semi-protection (which I requested) was discontinued too soon (after little more than 24 hours) and I also don't understand how there could not be a very low level of vandalism to a protected article. Hopefully the three damaging edits since were unintentional, but if there is one more I'll ask to reprotect. Nick Mks 17:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems as if vandalism semi-protection could be automated based on the number of reverts of a page by bots or named accounts over a period of time (such as over a four week interval). — RJH (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As from now, I am discontinuing my efforts to limit vandalism to this article. Without the requested support from admins, this is becoming an impossible task. Nick Mks 18:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I can empathize. — RJH (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok I was looking at the simple english wikipedia out of boredom... I noticed that the simple english astronomy article is not SIMPLE. Someone finish the job i started please?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by H3nrydah3n (talk • contribs).

I'm unclear what you mean. What is a "simple english" version? This article is primarily intended to meet the wikipedia good article criteria. — RJH (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh you mean this page. Never mind. — RJH (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The references section at the bottom has the word English in brackets behind the writing. In a lot of cases this is rendering the text unreadable. Can this be corrected?--Jcvamp 10:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the "language=" parameter from all the in-line citations. (The page are the citations are both in English, so the language tag isn't needed.) — RJH (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This is getting unpleasant, and I have requested an extended semiprotect. Have tried to clean up, but may have missed some. Please keep an eye on this article. (Why on earth are the vandals so attracted to this article? I can understand that the creationist opinion-pushers like to vandalize here, but what makes it so attractive to the simple bored schoolkids?) Kosebamse 06:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Presumably the vandal-kiddies are attracted to basic topics such as this due to their level of education. I've tried in the past to get this article semi-protected, but it was ignored. But I do keep this (and some others) on my watchlist and check regularly to make sure it has not been inappropriately altered. Thanks for your help to reduce the vandalism. — RJH (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Since articles can be within the scope of multiple wikiprojects I think astronomy should in addition to being within the scope of wikiproject astronomy and wikiproject physics which it already is should also be added to being within the scope of wikiproject mathematics since astronomy is very mathematical and was originally considered part of mathematics not of science even though now it is considered part of science not of mathematics. Prb4 21:01:42 February 14, 2007 (UTC)

Astronomy is as mathematical as physics and all of the other sciences. But I'm not seeing the particular connection to this page. Do you just want an association somewhere on the page? — RJH (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Putting an article in a wikiproject does not give that wikiproject ownership over the article. It merely means that that wikiproject has an interest in the article. It is perfectly normal for articles to be within the scope of multiple wikiprojects, e.g., the Nikolai Lobachevsky article is within the scope of wikiproject biography, wikiproject mathematics, and the Russian history wikiproject. The history of mathematics article is within the scope of the history of science wikiproject even though mathematics is not one of the natural sciences. Therefore it would be perfectly ok to put the astronomy article into wikiproject mathematics because astronomy is much more mathematical than most sciences are and it was originally classified as part of math, not part of science until recently when it switched to being considered part of science not part of math. In many respects astronomy is more like math than science. It involves spatial relationships and a lot of geometry and trigonometry. It also involves Euclidean distance. It also involves some complex geometry such as spherical trigonometry. This article should be added to wikiproject mathematics although it should still of course remain in wikiproject physics and wikiproject astronomy as well. Prb4 1:24:48 February 15,2007 (UTC)

"This WikiProject aimed originally to organize articles in the area of mathematics; in its broadest terms, this may include overlap into the areas of physics, computer science, operations research, and other areas." This is what wikiproject mathematics says about articles that are not about math but are about subjects that involve a lot of math. Therefore it would be legitimate to place the astronomy article within the scope of wikiproject mathematics. Prb4 2:28:24 February 15, 2007

Okay well you're implying things that I never stated, such as "ownership". But don't you think that the project tags are more effective if they are tightly focused on directly-related material? I'm highly familiar with the uses of mathematics in science, thanks. :-) Anyway I'm not clear why this needs to be discussed—most people just add in the wikiproject banner without asking. I usually just follow up by adding it to a {{WikiProjectBanners}}. — RJH (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Merging astronomy and astrophysics. Spacepotato 03:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Astronomy (also frequently referred to as astrophysics). Astronomy is, and has always been, much more than astrophysics, as the article quite nicely explains. Backyard astronomy, naked eye observation, celestial navigation, calendars, to name only a few. Although the detailed discussion under "lexicology" elucidates the question, the alleged identity is too questionable, particularly in historical context, to leave it in the very definition. I'd take it out of the intro and leave the question to the second section but would like some more input before I mess with the intro. Thanks. Kosebamse 06:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Well if there's no comment I'll just rewrite it, and opinions are welcome. Kosebamse 20:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There have been some gratuitous unit changes in a couple of the Hubble related articles. I don't pretend to know that much about astronomy other than what I have run into while working with Hubble, but it does seem like some reasonable consistency in the use of units might not be a bad idea. Thus I started this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units_on_Astronomy_Pages Dfmclean 13:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

As an Atheist, for a while now I've been searching for a way of putting all things surrounding creation into context.

This is one possible theory that I have been developing which I'd like to discuss.

We have all studied high school chemistry playing with plastic balls and sticks to make models of elements and compounds

For example: [1] <<Random example

well, the covalent bonds are invisible and are, as I understand a similar force to gravity.

Now take a look at this random solar system picture: [2] <<Random example

see any similarity?

What I'm suggesting is that perhaps on a much greater scale, when we look at a galaxy or a solar system we are in fact looking at a chemical conglomerate, or compound.

This got me thinking further. If this were true, does that offer any explanation to the strange phenomenon in the solar system?

Look at Saturn's asteroid belt for example. Perhaps the belt is an example of an element tending towards equilibrium by attracting negatively charged particles (asteroids) to balance its + latent charge.

So then, how would all this explain life? Is life as most believe similar to bacteria or do we have a larger part to play?

Well Perhaps each planet is also a stable chemical conglomeration. Life on earth for example could be a catalyst or agent in the balancing of whatever chemical compound this planet is.

How would you go about proving a theory such as this? Well I thought that perhaps if you look at the earths main (solids, liquids and gases)chemical components as ratio's

for example:

Carbon 2:Oxygen 1: Hydrogen 1 etc...

Then also look at what constitutes the moon in same way, and then look at all known chemicals for a similar pattern?

We might be living on a stable carbon monoxide element or something, you don't really know.

Hopefully you can understand all this, It makes more sense than god.

-nick

Hi Nick. As neat as your thoughts are, I don't believe you're supposed to use article talk pages this way, so please limit yourself to discussion related to the article. Thanks. General Epitaph 03:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but it is related to the topic. I just want experts to consider this, because it may help them gain insight into their own science. Imagine if it was true? What an amazing sea-change this would bring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.107.2.194 (talk) 07:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

                                                                                                                            In Cajori's edition of Motte's translation of Newton's Principia Newton gives us his rules for reasoning in Philosophy and Rule Number 1 is: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."  He then goes on with: "To this purpose the  philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes."  To which I say GREAT!!!, except for one caveat which is that it appears to me that a lot of physical occurrences including organisms that accurred on earth happened in vain with respect to their category of organism; so I'll paraphrase that to say that Nature does nothing without a reason. But the pursuit of science is rapidly and vastly broadening our knowledge of the reasons for a lot of "occurrences": both good and bad and it behooves us to try to steer our path of (progress?) into areas with a maximum possibility of continued existence. And I hope you'll go along with that. WFPMWFPM (talk) 04:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)WFPMWFPM (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC) WFPMWFPM (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I totally agree with what you said too. That sort of compliments the ideology of this theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.79.81.47 (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Fact #1 Sun has more attractive power than earth.

Fact #2 Moon is a satelite of earth and it revolves around earth.

Doubt #1 If sun has more atractive power than earth; why moon doesnt get atracted towards sun or revolve around it???

Doubt #2 If sun can make even ploto to revolve atound it, why cant the moon???

Please send your answers to [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.18.175 (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Fact #1 Sun has more attractive power than earth. It depends how far you are from the sun or earth.

Fact #2 Moon is a satelite of earth and it revolves around earth.

Doubt #1 If sun has more atractive power than earth; why moon doesnt get atracted towards sun or revolve around it??? The moon and the earth both revolve around the sun, and the moon also revolves around the earth.

Doubt #2 If sun can make even ploto to revolve atound it, why cant the moon??? The gravitational force is directly proportional to the mass from which the gravity originates; because the sun is about 332,918 times as massive as the earth, it produces a gravitational field 332,918 times as strong as the earth's. The gravitational force is also inversely proportional to the square of the distance between any two gravitating objects. If you were to move the earth to a distance twice as far from the sun, the sun would only exert a gravitational force on the earth 1/(2 times 2) = 1/4 as strong; 3x as far, 1/(3 times 3) = 1/9 as strong; etc. Because the moon is closer to the earth than the sun, earth's gravity on the moon is strong enough to make it revolve predominately around the earth. The sun's gravity still tugs on the earth and moon, however; in fact the gravity due to each of the planets and the sun tugs on earth of the other planets, in varying degrees depending on the masses and distances between them. From the formula below, you can see how the gravitational force ${\displaystyle F}$ depends both on the mass ${\displaystyle m_{1}}$ and ${\displaystyle m_{2}}$ of the two attracting bodies and the distance ${\displaystyle r}$ between them:

${\displaystyle F=-{\frac {Gm_{1}m_{2}}{r^{2}}}}$,

where ${\displaystyle G}$ is known as the universal gravitational constant.

--Geremia (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

                                                                                                                   The earth and the moon of course have interacting orbits around the sun. The subject matter is the orbital mechanics of the orbits. After the moon's perigee with respect to it's orbit around the sun the moon with mass 1 receives an increase in angular momentum (around the sun) for 13+ days from the earth with mass 81.  This results in the moon speeding up in it's orbit and rising up and over the earth's orbit to its point of apogee. Then for the next 13+ days the moon is slowed back down and the angular momentum is transfered back to the earth.WFPMWFPM (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.intellecttoday.com/

IntellectToday is a place to discuss Astronomy, as well as other scientific and philosophical subjects. IntellectToday has an extensive database related to Astronomy and Astrophysics, and considers it one of it's primary points of focus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.181.118 (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Add gallery for images

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

• 
  File:Starsinthesky.jpg
• 
  File:Crab Nebula.jpg

Idea submitted by User:Orschstaffer/Schoolhouse as a classroom assignment.

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

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)

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 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050527094435/http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/Vistas/ to http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Lectures/vistas97.html

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

Y 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.

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

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)

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)

---

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071101100832/http://www.erie.psu.edu:80/academic/science/degrees/astronomy/astrophysics.htm to http://www.erie.psu.edu/academic/science/degrees/astronomy/astrophysics.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071030225501/http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEsaros/SEsaros.html to http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEsaros/SEsaros.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031203055223/http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za:80/2003/november/cosmic.htm to http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2003/november/cosmic.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110512162930/http://articles.cnn.com/2002-12-05/tech/zimbabwe.observatory_1_supernova-forecast-eclipses-star?_s=PM:TECH to http://articles.cnn.com/2002-12-05/tech/zimbabwe.observatory_1_supernova-forecast-eclipses-star?_s=PM:TECH
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.pparc.ac.uk/frontiers/latest/feature.asp?article=14F1&style=feature
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.europhysicsnews.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/epn/abs/2003/02/epn03208/epn03208.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101024202325/http://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu/special/EdgarWilson.html to http://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu/special/EdgarWilson.html

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

Y 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.

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

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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sydneyobservatory.com.au/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081005031543/http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/Outreach/Edu/Spectra/irspec.html to http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/Outreach/Edu/Spectra/irspec.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

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

There is a request for comment on the lede of Rfc Plasma (physics) that might interest astronomy editors. Attic Salt (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The article is also being considered for demotion from "good article" status: [3]. Please consider weighing in. Attic Salt (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC) Ejembi12 (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)