User talk:Dr. Submillimeter/Archive May 2007

Minor FYI in re Fulvio Melia

I noticed your posts on User talk:69.242.225.215 in re policies and guidelines and I wondered if you have also seen the subsequent similar edits, beginning a few hours later, by user 128.196.188.165. — Athænara ✉ 00:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that 69.242.225.215 is Melia's home computer and 128.196.188.165 is his work computer.

Note that any conflict with Melia could have professional implications for me, especially since my field of research crosses into Melia's field of research. On the other hand, this may put me into a position to contact him in real life.

Also note User:Patty144, whose sole contribution has been the addition of a picture and links to commercial websites to Fulvio Melia. Dr. Submillimeter 22:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now user 71.226.55.159 also. — Athaenara 08:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procyon references

Hi George. Thanks for your comments on referencing. I like the style you use. If you have time, please feel free to go ahead and change the references in Procyon to the the same style you use in the Sombrero Galaxy. At the moment I don't have much spare time for Wiki-editing, fun though it is! Timb66 22:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constellation article improvement

I may be willing to help out with some of the constellation pages, at least in terms of writing about the deep-sky objects in the constellations. However, I think it might be good to choose one constellation to focus on first and then to "copy" the style to other articles. Do you have a suggestion for an article to use as a starting place? Dr. Submillimeter 15:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be very welcome. Your suggestion of copying style is of course the correct method, since it makes it easier for wanna-help-editors to understand what's to be achieved! The best thing would be to start at a constellation which is from antiquity and "has everything", including an obsolete constellation, f.ex. Andromeda, Cassiopeia, Aquila, Aries, Auriga, Hydra, Ophiuchus or Perseus according to your personal preference. Then the template constellation covers everything that will be needed. However, IMHO, the template constellation needs by no means be complete to be assessed to acceptable quality according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Constellations Task Force. First I aim towards looking acceptable, which means the articles are navigable and truthful. Said: Rursus 15:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I think your range of choices is decent. I suggest working on Andromeda (constellation). A couple of other suggestions:

The constellation infobox templates need to be reviewed. Some of the items are vaguely named (such as "bright stars" and "nearby stars").
The article in general needs inline references.
Every line in the infobox should have an inline reference, as is done with galaxies (see Sombrero Galaxy, for example).

I have seen a lot of pages that you have created for this task force, but I have not seen a good central discussion area that includes comments from editors other than yourself (no offense intended). Could you please direct me to one?

Also, you may be interested in Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser. Dr. Submillimeter 15:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andromeda (constellation) then. Your items are now numbered 13-15. I'll take a further look on the constellations. Regarding central discussion, that shall of course be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Constellations Task Force! I've messed on the wrong place hitherto ;-). Regarding Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser: I'll stand over till the Linux version comes. Said: Rursus 17:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would move the infobox template review up on the priority list. Maybe I can just propose a new version of the template? Dr. Submillimeter 18:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it's actually not a priority list, just a list. Better then to define the contents of the currently stubby Structure section. Or actually make the list a priority order, then feel free to modify as you wish. Said: Rursus 19:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Priority column added to todo table, the infobox template review got 1 (meaning = highest). Constellations Task Force now free for talk, actually. All else moved to project page. Said: Rursus 21:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu mathematicians

This is now a subcat of a deleted cat. Should it also be deleted? Geometry guy 12:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category is listed on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working for eventual deletion. Do not worry about it (unless it appears at WP:DRV). Dr. Submillimeter 13:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. To save me worrying too much, I've moved your reply over ;) Geometry guy 14:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You showcase yourself to be ignorant

in terms of musical history by your insistence that the Peel Sessions artist classification is not important. It is important, and the category needed to stay, and I am very angry that you took it upon yourself to foist your lack of knowledge about the topic at hand via your vote to delete the category. The category was necessary and valid and needed to stay on Wikipedia for the site to be full in scope. Peel Sessions artists were by and large artists who were marked by a sense of innovation and musical experimentation, and the fact that you discounted that in favor of your chosen ignorance of the subject matter means that your vote, as well as the vote of the other individuals who chose to vote for deletion, was and is tainted. (Krushsister 04:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Interesting task needed for List of NGC objects

I might start this tommorow, I just got done fixing the Category:NGC objects for every NGC object, it took wile but it looks pritty good now. Chris H 02:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy morphology

You're right, it probably makes sense to have a separate page on morphology not pertaining to galaxies, but I'm afraid I don't really have the expertise to do much more than make that small comment. However, to clarify the "extended source" comment - in galactic astronomy, morphology is mostly used to describe the shape of resolved sources with some sort of surrounding nebula. Stars are generally point sources with uninteresting morphology. I think most galaxies are also resolved to some degree, though I'm probably biased from seeing the HST ultra deep fields and seeing few point sources. I'll see if I can find any sources with a definition, though. --Keflavich 14:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More worries

Hi Dr. Submillimeter. As I predicted a while ago at WikiProject:Mathematics, Category:Jewish mathematicians has become controversial. I find myself in the awkward position of trying to inject rational argument into a debate from entrenched positions. I have little experience of CfDs, but note that you have not yet commented on this one, despite your previous involvement in this issue. Do you think there is consensus, or is it hopeless? Or something inbetween? Geometry guy 20:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halley's comet

There is a lot of unsourced material on that page, and I'm not sure I can locate it alone. I was wondering if you could give it a once-over to see if you can find some more "official" sources. Thanks. Serendipodous 21:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That should help. Serendipodous 10:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cats on redirects

With respect to removing the NGC category on redirects, I'm not sure why you think that is a bad idea. I've seen that done in many places, like for the Messier objects. That way, the category has an entry with the expected name, instead or in addition to the name which the redirect takes you too. Why wouldn't we want to see the alternate name in the category listing? WilliamKF 19:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The O.C.

This was recently kept at CFD and the closing admin is blowing me off about helping with a cleanup via bot. Would you mind going in and botting out all the articles for people? Thanks. Otto4711 17:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uneducated hick

I don't perceive you as an uneducated hick at all, but I'm guessing you're specialty is not related to the Middle East (for me, M.E. history is a passed up career option - I did once consider it). I'd like to do an article; I'd also like to read more of the 20th century guys - I haven't decided one way or another on them, and don't want to jump to a conclusion. It may be better to figure out who tagged them in the category and see what they say. But, I'm going to have to dust off a few books before tackling an article - it may be I can start a stub before that. These guys are fascinating, and while their work has been well known for a while, there has recently been a deluge of popular work on some of them.A Musing 13:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Walters

Why would it be inappropriate to categorize journalists by their employers? Walter Cronkite, Ed Murrow, Dan Rather - all intimately associated with CBS News, and it makes perfect sense to me to have them categorized as such. Same for Barabar Walters and both NBC and ABC - can you provide a reason? Thanks Tvoz |talk 02:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying but honestly it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Having a journalist in more thn one of these categories would just be another, faster, way of seeing all of the networks they have been associated with, and looking from the perspective of the categories, seeing who worked there. Not a big deal - this sounds to me like more deletionism run amok, but I don't feel strongly about keeping them in, so I probably won't follow up on this. Thanks for the reply Tvoz |talk 07:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorising astronomical redirects

Hi there. I saw your comment here, and I wondered if you would have time to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of categorising astronomical redirects? You mention that Messier objects are sometimes known by there catalogue number, and sometimes by a more commonly known name. One possibility here would be to have one category just for Messier numbers. Some would be articles, and some would be redirects. The Messier numbers that have articles would still stay in the categories they are already in, but they would just be added to this new category as well. I am aware of List of Messier objects, but wasn't aware of Category:Messier objects, which is exactly the advantages I was trying to explain for categorising redirects. Carcharoth 18:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was thinking of two categories. One just for the articles (this is the one in which you would find Sombrero Galaxy, but not Messier 104), and once just for the numbers (in this one you would find the redirect Messier 104). An example of an article that would appear in both Category:Messier objects and Category:Messier catalogue numbers (not yet created) would be Messier 59. In other words, Category:Messier objects would have 110 entries, all of which would be articles (some names, some numbers), and Category:Messier catalogue numbers would have 110 entries (all Messier numbers), some of which would be redirects and some of which would be articles. The category Category:Messier objects is small enough (110 plus a few general pages) that it all fits on one category page. Look at Category:NGC objects for a example of a bigger category (I'll conveniently avoid the Principal Galaxies Catalogue or the Uppsala General Catalogue, which have thousands more members) that has nearly 8000 members. In cases like that, you would end up needing to use a version of {{largeCategoryTOC}}, but adapted for numbers instead of letters (something like {{TOC001}} might be suitable - see Category:TOC templates for more ideas). Anyway, my point is that if organsied slightly differently, it becomes more obvious at a glance which article are residing at "names". At the moment, in Category:NGC objects, the listing for "A" is three pages deep, and, strangely, under 'N' you have some of the "redirects without spaces" (eg. NGC1128), which are just confusing to have littering the category. Also hidden away on page 3 is the subcategory Category:IC objects. I've now pipesorted that category so it is immediately visible on the front page of Category:NGC objects. There are so many NGC articles that ultimately is won't make much difference how it is organised - there will always be a lots of pages for the reader to flick through, but putting the redirects in their own "pure numbers" category could help. Does that make any more sense than what I said before? I won't be around to reply for a few days, but maybe we can continue the discussion when I get back? Carcharoth 11:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few more minutes.. :-) (Bank Holiday here in the UK). Actually, at the bottom of Messier 83, to use your example, the reader would be faced with a choice of two categories. That might be confusing initially, but whichever one they chose, they would end up with a list of all 110 Messier objects. There would also be a bit of explanatory text at the top saying "see the other category for a list of numbers/a list of Messier objects by their 'common name'", so people could switch to whichever view they preferred. Or even to List of Messier objects if they prefer that. The current "pipesorting instructions" text was needed until all 110 objects got articles, but now that text is no longer needed. It would only be a slight improvement on the current setup, but the categories would have 110 members each (well, 113 in the objects category actually, given the three general articles), which would be more logical than seeing a category with 138 members and then realising that 25 of the Messier numbers are redirects. I could set up a series of 110 edits, plus creating the new category, that would demonstrate what I mean, and those could easily be reverted, but ultimately it might not be worth the time involved if you are dead set against it. Anyway, I really have to go now, so let's leave this until later. Thanks for discussing this with me! Carcharoth 11:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M102

Dr. Sub - I was looking at thumbnail images for List of Messier objects and put NGC5866 in without thinking (I don't work on galaxies, cut me some slack). I pulled it off, but was wondering if I could get a feel from you as to how contraversial any identification of M102 remains and whether anything worthwhile can be done to "nicen up" list of Messier objects. Thanks WilyD 18:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC) P.S. - this is the image - I hope you can understand how a starting graduate student working on debris disks could get sucker-punched. WilyD 18:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Tessarakonteres

The mythology/not debate is getting well and truly underway. I see you edited against mythology and thought you might be interested in weighing in. (Plus you might be interested in archiving your talk page! :-) )Neddyseagoon - talk 09:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]