Redirected from Talk:Astronomy and Astrophysics
I notice that there are several people editing astronomy related topics. I think that before there is too much material, some planning should take place. An example of what I am talking about is the entries for the planets: there is no consistency from one to the other (except for the ones I typed in yesterday: Venus, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune . Here are some proposals for proceeding.
Before proceeding to cover topics in depth (other than pet topics that people cannot be stopped from covering immediately) let's make certain that all basic terms are covered. I am aware that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary", but I think that many basic concepts (e.g. precession, obliquity of the ecliptic) to give two right off the top of my head) need to be present in order for the work to stand on its own. Maybe we can make a list on this page of requested articles.
Lists of things: We need to set up some formats, for instance, each planet will have its radius, density etc. in a common format, and will have a description of its composition, and then cover unique features of the planet.
Big, long tables of objects: Do we want big long tables? I am not sure this is useful, should there be big long tables in an encyclopedia (Look at the entry for Star)? I am not sure how valuable this is. If I want to look up Bellatrix[?], am I going to look up Star and then click on Bellatrix[?]? If I look up Star, do I want to see a long list of names, with no additional information?
I've been thinking about that. The truth is, I didn't think of exobiologist as astronomers...but according to my own definition, they are. Maybe I should think of moving this back to astronomy, and giving exobiology a place there. In the case of planetary scientists, i'm pretty sure that their physics background must be good, though they could be strongers in other areas of earth sciences. I think we need more astronomers around here. -- AN
I agree that it's probably simplest to cover prograde and retrograde orbits in the same article, but the distinction isn't quite as arbitrary as you suggest; prograde and retrograde orbits are percieved as such relative to the rotation of the primary body they orbit, a simple and objective measure. A retrograde orbit has significant implications. For example, there are several moons of outer planets in retrograde orbits (Triton is the most obvious example), and having a retrograde orbit means they were almost certainly captured and also means that they will one day spiral in due to tidal effects and be destroyed.
I really hate what they did to this page. From a page that actually contained some information, it became a list of links. Don't anybody thinks the same!
Has this information actually disappeared? My understanding is that it is all enclosed behind the appropriate links. Now if you want...we could have an explanation of positional astronomy and an explanation of radio telescopes etc. etc. but that isn't going to be very useful to the reader. If the reader wants to read that explanation, they want to go to the full page, not get a brief synposis of it.
Not that no information should be presented here, Id like to see more information here, but a discussion of what is already on another page is pointless. Lir 16:17 Nov 3, 2002 (UTC)
I don't know if a brief cliff's note describing precession would be of any use to the reader either. The physics page doesn't have that sort of format. Ie
Bla blah blah
Position astronomy-astronomy observing positions of the stars blah blah Radio astronomy- astronomy using big radio waves blah blah blah X-Ray astronomy- astronomy using X-Rays blah blah blah Planetology-a study of planets blah blah blah
Lir 16:55 Nov 4, 2002 (UTC)
I agree. The page is now merely a laundry list of links to other pages, whereas before it was actually a readable article! Imagine you know nothing about astronomy. Reading through the article, you see a bunch of links with incomprehensible names. Why should you click on any of them? Which should you click on? It's unusable.
It IS still a readable article. There are several paragraphs at the top. Imagine you know nothing about astronomy...where to start? I advise you make Astronomy for Beginners[?]. This page did not serve the function you suggest before it was edited to this format. Such a page would probably refer the reader to Amateur Astronomy and positional astronomy.
There's nothing wrong with duplicating information. Ideally, we want a short discussion of each important topic in the astronomy article, with the topic examined in greater depth in the full page. See, for example, the Physics article, which contains a short history of physics with a more detailed history in the works in a separate page. It isn't perfect, but I think it's more motivating than a laundry list.
Lir, could you please put the removed information back on this page? -- CYD
The only difference I can see between this and the physics page is that we have moved the history of astronomy to it's own page. You say you want a brief discussion of each "important topic" but what is important? What good will it do to cut and paste the first paragraph from each subject page onto this page? Lir 16:50 Nov 4, 2002 (UTC)
i restored some but it looks way messy to me. The list without comment is much more useful. Lir 17:19 Nov 4, 2002 (UTC)
I have changed the article to a form that is closer to its former self. In particular
Your revert erased subfields. Lir 15:40 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)
Your brief history was pointless. It's all in history of astronomy and it is meaningless to those who know nothing and redundant to those who do know the history. I believe the only question here is whether there should be a paragraph explaining the difference between radio astronomy and X-Ray astronomy[?] and optical astronomy. I see no reason for such madness. If somebody wants to read about optical astronomy they can click on the link. That's what it is there for.
Infrared astronomy deals with using infrared radiation
is about as pointless as
Radio astronomy deals with using radio telescopes
Lir 15:53 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)
Imho both are useful albeit too concise explanations for outsiders. Erik Zachte
Once again the revert is losing a lot of data by going back so far and since it doesnt add anything that isnt on another page... rerevert Lir 22:00 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)
It was you modifications that lost a lot of information. And the previous edit back was not a simple revert, but I tried to incorporate several of the changes you had made. You, instead, simply put back your last copy, that doesn't read like an article, and misses information.--AN
Now look. As the page says, Astronomy is a big topic. Thus, Astronomy needs some disambiguation. Go look at a disambiguation page-see how they have a big list that is clearly visible? You have all this history of astronomy stuff clogging the top of the page-there is a page for history of astronomy its all there. Lir 22:49 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)
I am not disputing that information should not be on this page, I am only disputing the type and location of it. To be honest, I really don't care what you put below the links-but those links need to be high up on the page so they are easily used by someone. Lir 23:51 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)
That said, I'll be content to abide with whatever the consensus on this is. Tally ho! Stormwriter
Do astrologists claim that its a science? Yes, I guess they do...
The study of the positions and aspects of celestial bodies in the belief that they have an influence on the course of natural earthly occurrences and human affairs.
I would word it that astrologers argue that they are conducting science BUT the key tenent of the scientific process is that a scientific hypothesis leads to predictions which can be proven as correct. This argument is ignored on most "astrology IS a science" websites. So the question then is, "Do any astrologers have any predictions that we can test for validity?" and wait to see if anyone offers up a prediction.
Lir 04:41 Nov 7, 2002 (UTC)