User talk:Dr. Submillimeter/Archive Dec 2006

Thanks

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but may I inquire as to which answer you think I have? --ScienceApologist 21:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obliquely acknowledged your point. You might check out some other interesting obliquely related articles such as plasma cosmology, intrinsic redshift, nonstandard cosmologies, tired light, and quasi-steady state to see what insight your obliquity may have to offer. --ScienceApologist 13:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IC 442

Because it's there. I think the real question is, why shouldn't we have this article? --M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 19:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions on the Template:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects/Structure#Extragalactic

Would Ultra Blue Compact Dwarf Galaxy & Ultra Compact Dwarf Galaxy not appear as a subset for Compact Dwarf Galaxy? And, is HII a galaxy, molecuar cloud, or both? Thanks, CarpD 04/12/06

Agh, AGN and Starburst Active Galaxy is too wordy and too bizarre. As for the compact galaxy subtypes. I will keep an eye on it and list the papers if I find them. Thanks, CarpD 04/12/06

Take a look

I imagine that you probably do not want to get your hands dirty with some of the more contentious stuff at Wikipedia, but you might find the current discussion at Talk:Wolf effect to be interesting or even worthy of comment. --ScienceApologist 15:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Tresman

If Ian is disruptive, is overtly inserting POV into a page, or engaging in other problematic behavior, report it here. He is currently under probabtion and isn't allowed to be disruptive. --ScienceApologist 18:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:IAU planet debate

don't forget about Cubewano, Oort cloud / kuiper belt objects... McKay 14:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 5195 classification

What does the type SB0_1 mean for NGC 5195 in particular the 0_1 part from NED? WilliamKF 17:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:William G. Tifft could use some contributions

Hello Dr. Submillimeter. Since you previously edited this Talk page I'm assuming you may have views. I'm trying to get an opinion from each person who previously submitted to Talk or has edited the article. See the bottom of Talk:William G. Tifft for my attempt to poll the recent editors. User:Iantresman and User:ScienceApologist have agreed to hold off on editing for a week so the remaining editors can arrive at a consensus. I hope I am correct in believing that in a week's time, the other editors can coordinate their views. EdJohnston 23:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hello

Hello, I haven't logged in for a while, so I didn't get your message. Sorry about that.

Yes, I do use the old templates, because I find them easier to use on pages that contain little data.

Zzzzzzzzzzz 02:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Aaron

Thanks for your message! I think being in the Wikipedia record books is the least of Mr Aaron achievements! And Willie Mays, for that matter. That will make George H. W. Bush top - he didn't play baseball, did he?! Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 14:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS, you don't have time to nominate subcategories of Category:New York Yankees players do you? --RobertG ♬ talk 14:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

me

Hello Dr. Sub-mm

My background? It's not the greatest, just some college introductory astronomy and astrophysics... plus alot more non-astronomy science. So I am not an authority, (and have never claimed to be one), just someone with interests in the field, and a limited "official" background in it.

132.205.44.134 20:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tifft draft needs indirect speech?

Hello Dr. Submm.

Rather than using straight quotes, can we simply cite the sources and restate the information in this article? Including direct quotations in this article seems to be a sensationalist way to present the material. I would rather present the material in a more straightforward tone. Dr. Submillimeter 18:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be eager to see any rewording you can propose. Do you have time to re-draft one or two paragraphs the way you described? EdJohnston 21:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun editing a new version of the Tifft article at User_talk:EdJohnston/Tifft_draft, appending your two paragraphs onto the original article. Trying to do the mechanical stuff first, with the references. EdJohnston 19:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the 17 December version of User_talk:EdJohnston/Tifft_draft. I tried to moderate the language about Tifft's citation counts in hopes of winning over User:Lou Sander to this version. If you would like further changes, please edit directly on this draft article. In particular, many references need to be filled in properly. I will try to do the ones that I can figure out, but you'll probably need to do several. In terms of the language, I'm happy with this version, though Lou might not be. I'll ask him to look at it. EdJohnston 03:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I continue to track references for the two new paragraphs you created for the Tifft article, I am struck by the fact that Redshift quantization already covers these issues in more detail. As a selfish labor-saving move for myself, do you think that the gist of your two paragraphs could be moved across into the Redshift quantization article? Then the Tifft article could merely point across to the fuller discussion there. I see that you've added new work by Salpeter, and you've also referenced the book by Peebles which is not already in the references of Redshift quantization. These could certainly be added to the other article. Let me know if you think this is doable. EdJohnston 04:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I played with the references a little in Tifft_draft, and added Sobel(1993). You may want to critique the wording I used to cite Sobel. I am now done, and withdraw the suggestion to move stuff to Redshift quantization. If you and Lou will bless this draft, I'll see that it gets checked in to the main article. EdJohnston 17:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All done now, thanks so much for your contribution! I checked in the draft contents to the main article; will ask an admin to delete the draft. EdJohnston 20:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy types

I created it to mirror Category:Star types which seemed useful. I don't think it overlaps active galaxies, as Galaxy Types contains articles about various types of galaxies, while active galaxies is the parent category to active galaxy categories. As active galaxies organizes articles on individual galaxies, they serve different goals. If you were to supercategorize Category:Active galaxies, then you might create a Category:Galaxies by type...

As for morphology, it may be useful to subcategorize Galaxy Types into Morphological Types, etc. We could also create a mirroring heirarchy to classify galaxy articles Category:Galaxies by morphology.

While articles in Active Galaxies also appear in Galaxy Types, they are in Cat:Active Galaxies because it is informative to people looking at various individual galaxies that are active galaxies. The articles appear in Galaxy Types, because it is informative for people looking at various classifications/categorizations/types of galaxies as a general case.

I would say this would be analogous to occupations vs people by occupation.

Zzzzzzzzzzz 06:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothethical galaxies

For including only theoretical galaxies. I'm ok with that. Zzzzzzzzzzz 22:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messier 94 distance

Hello George, on your recent change to M94 distance, please give the method of combining the two results as part of the footnote. I imagine you averaged the two? Also, why not take the 2003 one as a single source? Is it not a better estimate than tony et al? WilliamKF 01:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but I'm not clear on how you average the two figures and end up with a smaller margin of error. I think the method of the averaging should be included in the foot note. If you need me to find an example that cites the formula to compute a value let me know (i.e. diameter is dist times sin of angular size). WilliamKF 01:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I thought you were just a fast typist... But what is the calc to average the two, I'll footnote it if you explain it to me in a formula. WilliamKF 01:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with just doing a mean and std dev when combining. I think that as long as the distance methods used are independent i.e. TRGB and CEP for example, then using the formula is fine if it is cited. I don't think it is OR if a formula is used which if one wanted could be cited in a textbook for example. Now if there are more than two measurements, it would need to be three distinct independent methods. WilliamKF 23:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Episcopacy in Protestantism

See reply on my talk. I think I want to scream :( --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 19:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

[1] Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United Methodist bishops by U.S. State

Hi, I see that at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 12#Category:United_Methodist_bishops_by_U.S._State you recommended keeping the area categories, and deleting the state categories. I thought that it might be useful to point out that this would mean keeping 32 categories for 55 artcles, an average of less than 2 articles per category. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 10:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you keep live CFD discusions on your watchlist, so I hope you'll forgive me for drawing the attention of all participants in the CFD to some counting I did on how many bishop-by-area categories we would end up with if all the possible categories were fully populated. My estimate (see my comment marked "some counting" is between 100 and 200 categories for 569 bishops, which seems to me to be a navigation nightmare. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have a solution: Category:United Methodist bishops by Jurisdiction, which PW created a week ago, with a very useful explanation of how it works. This divides UM bishops into five groups, which seems to be a very useful level of sub-division: much better the than the hundreds of cats which would have eventually been created in Category:United Methodist bishops by Episcopal Area. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 07:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a list here of the cats (over 100 - I may easily have missed some - he has over 500 category edits in Dec) created by PW in December. He is certainly prolific. Category:Deaths by cerebral hemorrhage is a good one, as is Category:People from Henrietta, Ohio. Another (pre-Dec) was Preacher's kid. roundhouse 21:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate your action

I saw your post where you implied that I was employing bad faith in that "A user has apparently created a series of categories under Category:California Bureau of Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education (BPPVE) to give Pacific Western University the appearance of accreditation." You knew that the category labels were taken directly from the California State website, you knew that motivation for creating the categories was set out in detail [[2]], where I explained that it was to allow Wikipedia editors to avoid the potential of violating defamation laws. You also posted that " This appears to be some type of debate between Jreferee and FFGGGFFFF." There was no debate. FFGGGFFFF had only three posts on Wikipedia before moving the Categories I created to deletion. I was not aware of any of FFGGGFFFF's three posts and had never responded to FFGGGFFFF's three posts to create the debate you claimed existed. Repeating the bad faith conclusions of a sock puppet no excuse for your action. Before assuming bad faith in the future, please take at least a little time to review the situation. -- Jreferee 23:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrocausality

As per JzG's recommendation, I've totally reworked the above article as a revamped stub. Please take another look if you like. Thanks Bwithh 20:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Peg DIG/dSph confusion

I believe I have found problems in the literature and NED around the similarly named galaxies Pegasus Dwarf Irregular Galaxy and Pegasus Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy. In particular, the Peg DIG is shown by NED to be both dIrr and dSph whereas I think the dSph entry is confusion with Peg dSph and it should only be dIrr. Also the TRGB distance estimates done by Karachentsev et al in 2004 (760 ± 80 kpc) vary widely from the ones given by McConnachie et al 2005 (920 ± 30 kpc). I'd appreciate your help resolving these either by finding corroberating references or other suggestions you may have. Thanks. WilliamKF 23:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, It seems the conversion from distance modulus that I am doing does not agree with that used by the authors of:

 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005MNRAS.356..979M

I'm using: 10^(0.2*(m-M) +1). For example, Pisces Dwarf I get 769 ± 24 versus the paper's 769 ± 23 and for WLM I get 933 ± 34 vs their 932 ± 33 WilliamKF 00:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice another error in McConnachie they write "At the same time, Karachentsev & Karachentseva (1999) independently discovered And V (which they named the Pegasus dSph)" but Peg dSph in And VI not And V right? Maybe McConnachie is not a reliable reference given this and the issues with computing distance from modulus? WilliamKF 01:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy distance references

Oh ok, I wasn't aware of them not being reliable. I'm going to try to contribute to Astronomy articles a lot on Wikipedia when I have time, so it would be nice if you could give me some reliable sources to use when I'm adding to them. I just created List of Spiral Galaxies, in which I think I used some unreliable sources now that I think about (e.g. Celestia). When I have more time I will seed out the unreliable sources. Thanks for the advice. Imaninjapirate^{talk to me} 20:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brahe

The Danish Wikipedia is no problem since it lacks the article completely (that project is way behind.) I will not have the time to search for a lot of material, but if I can find information in the Danish Biographical Lexicon and the Great Danish Encyclopedia, I'll add references to them. Regards. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 21:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just remembered that the Great Danish Encyclopedia is not the first of its kind. Salmonsens Konversationsleksikon from 1915 is partly digitized (including B) so I could start with that. [3]. The Swedish Nordisk familjebok is the same [4] and [5] and they are considered PD by their respective Wikipedias. Even a direct translation will still take some time, though. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 21:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]