User talk:Dr. Submillimeter/Archive Apr 2007

Thanks for the help

Thanks for the subjections on the galaxy articles. I am just an amateur, I figured if a added a few articles a day eventually the NGC section would start to look some what respectable. I are an engineer so watch my grammar :P. Chris H 17:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also a list of the articles I have made are listed here, if you want to check them over. User:Clh288 Chris H 17:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories and succession boxes

Hi there. I was following up a category discussion that I found here, and the issues there seem related to the one being discussed here. I wonder if you would have time to give your opinion over there? Carcharoth 10:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contributing

Hi Dr., I fully agree that the pages of the two galaxies (NGC 6946, NGC 253) need to be upgraded. I will think about what to put there. Since English is not my native language, it will take a while to produce something acceptable. Renseb

I added a hubble pic to NGC 253 and a sentence about it, might want to add to it and move the picture were you want. --Chris H 03:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please edit "Black hole" to say why unlikely to pass thru solar system

Hi, this is a follow-up to a discussion we had re Black hole. Sounds like you're a genuine expert on why it's unlikely that a black hole would travel through the solar system - please edit this bit and add the references (your own work if appropriate!)Philcha 13:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen your response on my Talk page. Wow, that was quick. I still think "Black holes and Earth" should be in. I appreciate your point about the impossibility of including every misconception in Wikipedia, but I think that there's more call for it in a very technical subject like Black hole - on the other hand I wouldn't include a reference to the "flat earth" theory in an article on geography because a decently-educated educated 12-year-old can explain why it's false. And the explanation you added on my Talk page is at what I think is exactly the right level, so I'll merge it in. Thanks! Philcha 15:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seyfert's Sextet

It is highly improbable that people a NASA made a mistake, The NGC numbers are clearly labeled in the HST image and leaves little for interoperation. Seyfert's Sextet is not really a sextet by my count, I only see 5 galaxies, the sixth is only a tidal trial of B. The people at NASA are a better reference them the raw NASA Data at NED. Real time was and money as put into the Hubble analysis of that picture, allot more attention them NED would have given it. Chris H 17:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomers by religion

It's just occured to me that if we're going around classifying people by their religious background/upbringing, Galileo would be listed as a catholic astronomer. Which is ironic, really. Chrislintott 10:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black holes and the solar system (2)

Hi, Dr S, sorry to raise yet another query about this. On my Talk page you wrote "According to Galactic Dynamics by Binney and Tremaine, significant gravitational interactions between a specific star in the Milky Way (such as the Sun) and any other star will occur approximately once every 10¹⁹ years." For non-specialists (including me) this needs some clarification:

Binary and multiple stars are common - I've seen estimates as high as 50%, e.g. [1] says, "Five to ten percent of the stars visible to us are visual binary stars. Careful spectroscopic studies of nearby solar-type stars show that about two thirds of them have stellar companions. We estimate that roughly half of all stars in the sky are indeed members of binaries." How did they arise if gravitational interactions are so rare?
Binary star says, "It is also possible for widely separated binaries to lose gravitational contact with each other during their lifetime, as a result of external perturbations. The components will then move on to evolve as single stars. A close encounter between two binary systems can also result in the gravitational disruption of both systems, with some of the stars being ejected at high velocities, leading to runaway stars." Implying that interactions which dissolve binary systems are reasonably common.

Please excuse me if these questions are naive, but so, I suspect, are most of our readers.Philcha 12:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being so patient with me :-) Philcha 15:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NGC object tables

Sure I could work on it, I know how to work basic tables, but I dont know much about formating to make them look nice and neat. They way to germens have done it is ok http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_NGC-Objekte but it could be bettter. Chris H 13:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By object type you mean, spiral galaxy, elliptical galaxy, planetary nebula ect. Because anyone who isnt a pro astronomer wont know what a "SA(rs)bc pec" is.Chris H 18:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a prototype for the table of NGC objects, User:Clh288/sandbox. Let me know what you think. Chris H 13:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I looked at it. It looks like you want to put all of the NGC objects in the tables. Which is a good thing but I dont think we have the man power for it. I mean thats got to be over 7000 entries. I will look into getting a wikibrowser set up on my computer, but we will still need help. There are also some things about the table that, could be inproved. I have to go to bed now, I will add more later.Chris H 02:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took so long, somethings I think would make it look nicer are

Its unnecessary to put "Number" under NGC takes up room and I think everyone will know that much.
Other names should be removed or go by Naming conventions (astronomical objects). If we only use Messier objects and Traditional names, its going to be an almost blank column, there are only ~110 Messier objects and not many more traditional names, relative to the thousands of NGC objects.
find a way to shorten Apparent Magnitude so the first row only takes up one line, maybe "MA". There is a link, so it should only take someone about 5 seconds to find out what it means.
Constellations are kind of important thing to have, its something most people can relate to, I can’t believe there are no good sources for them.

Also, I am trying to make the new Spitzer Space Telescope image of NGC 2244 a featured picture, so check it out, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/NGC 2244. Maybe it will bring a few more people into the project.Chris H 00:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bigamists

As you were previously a nominator of a unsuccessful CfD on Category:Bigamists, and you made comments on several of these (1, 2, 3, 4) related CfD's, I'd like to point out that a recent effort is being made to add into Category:Bigamists a group of the articles that were removed from the "Polygamists" categories upon their deletion. These articles make no mention of a conviction of bigamy in most cases (i.e. not documented that the individuals were "convicted criminals"), merely that they were practicing polygamists. Should the inclusion criteria mentioned on the top of the Category:Bigamists page be modified to explained that the category is meant for those that criminally prosecuted for bigamy? This appears to be the consensus for why Category:Bigamists was kept and what that category should be used for. Also, how should Category:Bigamists be cleaned up to only include the relevant articles, while at the same time generating the least amount of conflict? -- 12.106.111.10 19:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New procedure for moving articles out of category space

Just to let you know that I have (belatedly) commented on your Categories for Conversion template at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#New procedure for moving articles out of category space and would be happy to help / discuss further. Bencherlite 16:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realise you'd added it to CfD already - I wrongly assumed you were still waiting for comments, as no-one had replied to you... As CfC is in place already, I won't test it to avoid causing disruption, but I look forward to finding an opportunity to use it for real! Bencherlite 17:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Musicians

I can live with the renames (except Roman Catholic rap which I've never heard of and can find no sources suggesting it exists) and have said so on the relevant pages. The one problem that will remain (less than the current mess, however) is that take a performer who performs one "Christian" song, does that performer get categorized as a performer of Christian music. The reason this becomes murky is the many Christmas albums where I could understand that "Grandma got run over by a reindeer" isn't very Christian, but "Angels we have heard on high" or "Joy to the World", etc. are very Christian and many performers have recorded songs such as these even though not known for the genre. We even have adherents of Judaism (e.g., Irving Berin) - as opposed to Christians of Jewish extraction (e.g., Bob Dylan) - who have written or recorded "Christian" music, so the category transcends the actual religion of the artist oddly enough. One more muddle: there is some POV calls in what is Christian music (is "Easter Bonnet"? is "Jesus is Just Alright"? what about "God Bless America" or "God Save the King/Queen"? or the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" (check out the second verse for a big eye-opener)? like is Adam Sandler's "Chanukah song" Jewish music? Any way, usually I don't like categories where we cannot objectively determine who is in and who is out, but let this develop for a while if kept, pruned, and renamed, and we'll see if consensus develops over who exactly belongs. Sorry for the long-winded blurb, but I can't sleep and you are the victim of my insomnia. :-) 07:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Supergiant planet

Hi, in your expert opinion, should supergiant planet be deleted? Vegasprof 21:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seyfert status & source

You deleted my reference to the Seyfert status of the galaxy in your efforts to remove the remainder of my dull comments. For people unfamiliar with the subject matter a brief explanation of the picture was thought to be helpful (boring as it may have been). If the Seyfert status is wrong, I could care less, but it was sourced from this article Photo Release - heic0706: Hubble’s view of barred spiral galaxy NGC 1672: "NGC 1672 is a member of the family of Seyfert galaxies, named after the astronomer, Carl Keenan Seyfert, who studied a family of galaxies with active nuclei extensively in the 1940s. The energy output of these nuclei can sometimes outshine their host galaxies. The active galaxy family include the exotically named quasars and blazars. Although each type has distinctive characteristics, they are thought to be all driven by the same engine – supermassive black holes – but are viewed from different angles." [2] User:Sweetmoose6

Units of...

~~Since you volunteered to sort out the astronomical measurements,~~ I thought I'd drop some links your way : )

Category:Measurement
Category:Units of length
Category:Units of measure
Category:Units of length in astronomy
Category:Units of measure in astronomy
Units of measurement - working on being a member of every subcat : )

Hope this helps : ) - jc37 16:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you volunteered to sort out Category:Greek and Roman astronomers (which is now closed). I'll leave the links though in case you have the time or inclination to help with that as well : ) - jc37 16:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Greek and Roman astronomers is now empty. You may now annhiliate it.

Note that Category:Greek and Roman astrologers probably needs to go through the same process. Dr. Submillimeter 21:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Annihilation accomplished" : ) - jc37 06:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit at Heraclides Ponticus

Hello. I noticed this edit It is common and in my opinion, very useful practice to link authors to their article on Wikipedia. Can you explaing why think this is a bad idea? Your edit summary said because "IT GIVES THE FALSE APPEARANCE THAT WIKIPEDIA REFERENCES ITSELF". Could you please elaborate on that? I don't understand what your're getting at. Paul August ☎ 21:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Author links

I noticed you have removed author links from some citations. There seems to be some confusion here. Such links are standard, and in fact encouraged by support in our citation templates. Linking an author name, if we have an bio article, supports the reader in assessing the claims. This is not at all the same as having an article that says "astronomers are sexy", using another Wikipedia article to support the claim. (Of course, we do encourage "See also" sections, in which such links to other articles are appropriate; but those are understood as different from external sources used as references.) I hope this clears up the confusion. --KSmrq^T 11:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star cartography versus astrometry

You may want to check astrometry to make sure it is not redundant with what you are writing. Dr. Submillimeter 15:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Åh, thanks a lot! Not exactly the same thing, but similar enough to be a good help to me. Said: Rursus 17:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding (no problem)

Yeah, I know the forum is not a legal site. I think that is where BlueEarth is getting some of his information. Thanks, CarpD 20/4/07.

Deletion review of Category:Women television writers

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 21#Category:Women_television_writers. Having nominated the category for deletion review, I am notifying all those who participated in the original CFD, plus the closing admin and the independent reviewer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for making the proposal. I do hope it will catch on. I'm glad to see that some of those who have voted against these categories are as sick of the discussions (and often the tone) as I am. I'm afraid if I contributed to those extra-gallactic articles there'd be a lot of work needed to fix 'em back up when I was done, so it's going to be back to poetry and history articles for me.A Musing 20:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have you know I came across a 16th century Korean women poet today, Hwang Jin-i, and had to resist the urge to create that Category:Korean women writers! A Musing 23:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		I am proud Dr. Submillimeter to award you this barnstar, for great contributions to science and astronomy related articles. Well done Retiono Virginian 15:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Distances in astronomy articles

Thanks for the heads up on the distances issue. Admittedly, I don't edit much in the astronomy area. I was pretty much just going through unsourced articles at random to see if I could help by providing sources for some things. I was only trying to provide a source for information which was there in the first place, and certainly wouldn't have added that as new information to the page. In the future I'll keep your advice in mind and use better sources for astronomy articles. --Bachrach44 14:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recreated articles

I recreated subterrestrial planet article with references. Please don't delete this article; Thank you! I will eventually make planetary mass type article later; it will have references. BlueEarth 18:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creating article with reliable source without deletion

How can I create article without deletion? How can I get reliable source for creating articles?

I created subterrestrial planet article and you deleted; I was going to the talk page to talk about not deleting this article, and put {{hangon}} to the article.

In order to recreate subterrestrial planet and planetary mass type articles, I have to get reliable source and should prevent another deletion. BlueEarth 20:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Systems

Hi,

The CfD and the DRV concluded that the original category was over-broad: if you can come to a consensus to recreate the category under different specifications, you may do so at any time without fear of infringing CSD G4. WP:BOLD encourages one to try different alternatives. Best wishes, Xoloz 00:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autodidact

Yes, but it does not appear to have a pattern of people recreating it against consensus. I'll keep an eye out, though. >Radiant< 07:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]