This 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. |
Archive 1 |
Here is the list to work on article assessment. I used the contents of this article and made a subsection for each column. The first thing we should do is to assign importance to each subject, and split this large list accordingly. Then we can work on the most important objects. This could also mean, I think, to add the names of the natural satellites for the planets in our solar system. Awolf002 17:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
why this "list" or grid or anything is in article namespace? it seems that it is not an article..-- Monk 13:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The table needs some revision, because the 2006 redefinition of planet classifies Pluto as not a normal planet, but a dwarf planet. -- Gray Porpoise 21:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Any thoughts on reorganizing this page on this layout → http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects/Structure , thanks, CarpD 9/6/06 I can give a shot at it, but it will take a little time...
Universe | |||
---|---|---|---|
Filament | List of Filaments | ||
Void Region | List of Void Regions | ||
Cosmic microwave background radiation | |||
Cosmic infrared background radiation | |||
Galaxy Cluster | List of Galaxy Clusters | ||
|
Universe | |||
---|---|---|---|
Cosmic microwave background radiation | |||
Cosmic infrared background radiation | |||
Void Region | List of Void Regions | ||
Filament | List of Filaments | ||
Galaxy Cluster | List of Galaxy Clusters | ||
| |||
Galactic | |||
Galaxy types | List of Galaxys |
Universe | |||
---|---|---|---|
Cosmic microwave background radiation | |||
Cosmic infrared background radiation | |||
Void Region | List of Void Regions | ||
Filament | List of Filaments | ||
Galaxy Cluster | List of Galaxy Clusters | ||
| |||
Galactic | |||
Galaxy types | List of Galaxys |
Most of the modifications in the above tables did not address my criticisms. I suggest this:
...
No strangely-structured color-coded tables. No Cosmic Infrared Background (which is not phenomenologically like the CMBR and should not be listed as an "object"). No links to lists of filaments and voids (which would be incredibly unhelpful). Just a list of stuff in general terms. Why can't we do something like that? George J. Bendo 17:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Please do not revert without discussion. Mrwuggs 16:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The description at the top of the page states that these objects include hypothetical and proven astronomical objects. In addition, hypothetical astronomical objects is a subcategory under astronomical objects, and as Consumed Crustacean has pointed out, you have left several hypothetical objects on the list. There is already a list of hypothetical astronomical objects, so they do have their own list, but it still does not change the fact the hypothetical objects are still clearly part of this category. I think Crustean is right, and they should be marked differantly than the other bodies, perhaps in another color. Mrwuggs 22:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't panic-I've deleted the link to The new order of celestial bodies, you don't have to do anything! Asteroidz R not planetz 19:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Hot Neptunes Oceanic planets Lithium dwarfs Methane dwarfs C-type stars S-type stars Shell stars Peculiar A-type stars Metallic A-type stars Thick disk stars Pulsating variables Symbiotic variables Rotating variables Unresolved binaries Circumstellar matter Galactic bars Galactic rings Thin disks Thick disks morphology Giant ellipticals Outer planet crossers White giants —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perseus101 ( talk • contribs) 01:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
18 May 2008 | 21 Jan 2009 |
---|---|
Hot Neptunes | FIXED! |
Oceanic planets | → Ocean planets FIXED! |
Lithium dwarfs | → L-type dwarf FIXED! |
Methane dwarfs | → T-type dwarf FIXED! |
C-type stars | FIXED! |
S-type stars | FIXED! |
Shell stars | FIXED! |
Peculiar A-type stars | FIXED! |
Metallic A-type stars | FIXED! |
Thick disk stars | REMAINING! |
Pulsating variables | REMAINING! |
Symbiotic variables | FIXED! |
Rotating variables | REMAINING! |
Unresolved binaries | REMAINING! |
Circumstellar matter | REMAINING! |
Galactic bars | REMAINING! |
Galactic rings | REMAINING! |
Thin disks | REMAINING! |
Thick disks | REMAINING! |
morphology | REMAINING! |
Giant ellipticals | FIXED! |
Outer planet crossers | REMAINING! |
White giants | (removed) |
We should consider remaking the hierarchy according to our own tastes, but based on external ontologies, foremost:
and similar for other object types. ... said: Rursus ( bork²) 13:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
As this page is primarily in the form of a list, albeit organized as a table, I'd like to propose renaming it to "List of astronomical objects". The existing "List of astronomical objects" is just a redirect to Lists of astronomical objects, which is somewhat different in nature. Any objections? Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 20:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The article states the following:
Astronomical objects can be easily confused with astronomical bodies. The term "body" indicates a simple object, such as a planet. On the other hand, an astronomical object could be an asteroid belt.
Yet astronomical body redirects here. -- Harald Khan Ճ 13:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Now the article says:
Planetary radar astronomy says [1]:
The usage here is body is a planet.
I think astronomical object and astronomical body are synonyms, or perhaps that body implies a named object. HarryAlffa ( talk) 18:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes the contents of the table appear to contradict the definition of object. By that definition, the 'Compound objects' and 'Extended objects' columns of the table don't appear to belong on this page. Also, the table includes the asteroid belt and the Oort cloud, whereas the above definition excludes those from being astronomical objects. The revised definition now seems backwards from what I'd expect. In fact, since an astronomical object to range from a planet up to a galaxy, I think that an astronomical body is either a subset of the astronomical objects, or else they are used interchangably. I'd certainly never expect the asteroid belt to be described as an astronomical body; that's what I'd use for the individual asteroids.— RJH ( talk) 22:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
This does not necessarily mean that science will not disprove their existence in the future. Some astronomical objects, such as Themis and Neith are, in light of more recent findings, considered not to exist at all. Others, like Pluto and Ceres, prove to be of an entirely different nature than first expected. In these cases, the scientific community must come to a consensus as to the new status of these objects. Astronomical objects thought to exist based on indirect scientific evidence are considered hypothetical.
Moved above to talk since it seems to be an argument as to what the definition of this article topic should be. This should be settled in talk. I would note that the parameters of "existence" do not need to be defined for the reader. Also I would note that this article topic has no reference as to a basic definition so may simply be un-encyclopedic. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 20:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
According to the Internationnal Astronomical Union, the new definition of a planet is "a celestial body that 1) is in orbit around the Sun, 2) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and 3) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.
I can't help but nitpick the definition now that I've read it in full. "Celestial bodies" are the class of astronomical bodies that exclude Earth. Therefore, by this definition, Earth is not a planet. I propose moving "Earth" out of the list of planets and into a new category under "Planetary System" labeled "Other". It should remain there until the IAU gives a class of planetary objects that does include Earth.
Fedos 01:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)fedos
Many sources, such as " http://www.galaxymaine.com/SA/SA6dictionary.htm", " http://exterrestriallife.com/tag/celestial-bodies", and the IAU in their definition of planet( https://www.iau.org/static/resolutions/Resolution_GA26-5-6.pdf), consider Earth as a celestial body. Hence I think it would be more appropriate to modify the last sentence in the first paragraph of this article to reflect this fact. We could for instance, modify it from: "The terms astronomical objects and astronomical bodies differ from celestial objects and celestial bodies only in that the latter terms do not include the Earth.[2]" to "In a strict sense, the terms astronomical objects and astronomical bodies differ from celestial objects and celestial bodies only in that the latter terms do not include the Earth.[2] However, many sources don't make this distinction, considering Earth as a celestial body.[references]" or something similar. What do you think? Maaf ( talk) 22:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I've updated the definition of "Celestial body" with a text similar to that I proposed here before. Maaf ( talk) 22:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I want to add links from the sightings section of the International Space Station article to the Astrophotography article.
There are no references on any page to satellites in relation to people who are interested in photographing them, are satellites and the space station considered to be celestial objects or astronomical objects ? it says 'natural bodies' does that need redefining, or should astrophotography be identified as a misnomer, and if so, what is this activities technical definition ?
Where can defining statements be found in relation to man-made objects, and why aren't they mentioned on this page, I'm no expert in this field, I need expert definitive opinion on this matter, please help me if you know where it can be found. Quoting wiki won't help. Penyulap talk 21:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
To make it simple for everyone to discuss this together instead of on different pages, may I suggest discussing it here
Penyulap talk 23:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Per topic. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
This 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. |
Archive 1 |
Here is the list to work on article assessment. I used the contents of this article and made a subsection for each column. The first thing we should do is to assign importance to each subject, and split this large list accordingly. Then we can work on the most important objects. This could also mean, I think, to add the names of the natural satellites for the planets in our solar system. Awolf002 17:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
why this "list" or grid or anything is in article namespace? it seems that it is not an article..-- Monk 13:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The table needs some revision, because the 2006 redefinition of planet classifies Pluto as not a normal planet, but a dwarf planet. -- Gray Porpoise 21:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Any thoughts on reorganizing this page on this layout → http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects/Structure , thanks, CarpD 9/6/06 I can give a shot at it, but it will take a little time...
Universe | |||
---|---|---|---|
Filament | List of Filaments | ||
Void Region | List of Void Regions | ||
Cosmic microwave background radiation | |||
Cosmic infrared background radiation | |||
Galaxy Cluster | List of Galaxy Clusters | ||
|
Universe | |||
---|---|---|---|
Cosmic microwave background radiation | |||
Cosmic infrared background radiation | |||
Void Region | List of Void Regions | ||
Filament | List of Filaments | ||
Galaxy Cluster | List of Galaxy Clusters | ||
| |||
Galactic | |||
Galaxy types | List of Galaxys |
Universe | |||
---|---|---|---|
Cosmic microwave background radiation | |||
Cosmic infrared background radiation | |||
Void Region | List of Void Regions | ||
Filament | List of Filaments | ||
Galaxy Cluster | List of Galaxy Clusters | ||
| |||
Galactic | |||
Galaxy types | List of Galaxys |
Most of the modifications in the above tables did not address my criticisms. I suggest this:
...
No strangely-structured color-coded tables. No Cosmic Infrared Background (which is not phenomenologically like the CMBR and should not be listed as an "object"). No links to lists of filaments and voids (which would be incredibly unhelpful). Just a list of stuff in general terms. Why can't we do something like that? George J. Bendo 17:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Please do not revert without discussion. Mrwuggs 16:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The description at the top of the page states that these objects include hypothetical and proven astronomical objects. In addition, hypothetical astronomical objects is a subcategory under astronomical objects, and as Consumed Crustacean has pointed out, you have left several hypothetical objects on the list. There is already a list of hypothetical astronomical objects, so they do have their own list, but it still does not change the fact the hypothetical objects are still clearly part of this category. I think Crustean is right, and they should be marked differantly than the other bodies, perhaps in another color. Mrwuggs 22:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't panic-I've deleted the link to The new order of celestial bodies, you don't have to do anything! Asteroidz R not planetz 19:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Hot Neptunes Oceanic planets Lithium dwarfs Methane dwarfs C-type stars S-type stars Shell stars Peculiar A-type stars Metallic A-type stars Thick disk stars Pulsating variables Symbiotic variables Rotating variables Unresolved binaries Circumstellar matter Galactic bars Galactic rings Thin disks Thick disks morphology Giant ellipticals Outer planet crossers White giants —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perseus101 ( talk • contribs) 01:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
18 May 2008 | 21 Jan 2009 |
---|---|
Hot Neptunes | FIXED! |
Oceanic planets | → Ocean planets FIXED! |
Lithium dwarfs | → L-type dwarf FIXED! |
Methane dwarfs | → T-type dwarf FIXED! |
C-type stars | FIXED! |
S-type stars | FIXED! |
Shell stars | FIXED! |
Peculiar A-type stars | FIXED! |
Metallic A-type stars | FIXED! |
Thick disk stars | REMAINING! |
Pulsating variables | REMAINING! |
Symbiotic variables | FIXED! |
Rotating variables | REMAINING! |
Unresolved binaries | REMAINING! |
Circumstellar matter | REMAINING! |
Galactic bars | REMAINING! |
Galactic rings | REMAINING! |
Thin disks | REMAINING! |
Thick disks | REMAINING! |
morphology | REMAINING! |
Giant ellipticals | FIXED! |
Outer planet crossers | REMAINING! |
White giants | (removed) |
We should consider remaking the hierarchy according to our own tastes, but based on external ontologies, foremost:
and similar for other object types. ... said: Rursus ( bork²) 13:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
As this page is primarily in the form of a list, albeit organized as a table, I'd like to propose renaming it to "List of astronomical objects". The existing "List of astronomical objects" is just a redirect to Lists of astronomical objects, which is somewhat different in nature. Any objections? Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 20:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The article states the following:
Astronomical objects can be easily confused with astronomical bodies. The term "body" indicates a simple object, such as a planet. On the other hand, an astronomical object could be an asteroid belt.
Yet astronomical body redirects here. -- Harald Khan Ճ 13:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Now the article says:
Planetary radar astronomy says [1]:
The usage here is body is a planet.
I think astronomical object and astronomical body are synonyms, or perhaps that body implies a named object. HarryAlffa ( talk) 18:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes the contents of the table appear to contradict the definition of object. By that definition, the 'Compound objects' and 'Extended objects' columns of the table don't appear to belong on this page. Also, the table includes the asteroid belt and the Oort cloud, whereas the above definition excludes those from being astronomical objects. The revised definition now seems backwards from what I'd expect. In fact, since an astronomical object to range from a planet up to a galaxy, I think that an astronomical body is either a subset of the astronomical objects, or else they are used interchangably. I'd certainly never expect the asteroid belt to be described as an astronomical body; that's what I'd use for the individual asteroids.— RJH ( talk) 22:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
This does not necessarily mean that science will not disprove their existence in the future. Some astronomical objects, such as Themis and Neith are, in light of more recent findings, considered not to exist at all. Others, like Pluto and Ceres, prove to be of an entirely different nature than first expected. In these cases, the scientific community must come to a consensus as to the new status of these objects. Astronomical objects thought to exist based on indirect scientific evidence are considered hypothetical.
Moved above to talk since it seems to be an argument as to what the definition of this article topic should be. This should be settled in talk. I would note that the parameters of "existence" do not need to be defined for the reader. Also I would note that this article topic has no reference as to a basic definition so may simply be un-encyclopedic. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 20:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
According to the Internationnal Astronomical Union, the new definition of a planet is "a celestial body that 1) is in orbit around the Sun, 2) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and 3) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.
I can't help but nitpick the definition now that I've read it in full. "Celestial bodies" are the class of astronomical bodies that exclude Earth. Therefore, by this definition, Earth is not a planet. I propose moving "Earth" out of the list of planets and into a new category under "Planetary System" labeled "Other". It should remain there until the IAU gives a class of planetary objects that does include Earth.
Fedos 01:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)fedos
Many sources, such as " http://www.galaxymaine.com/SA/SA6dictionary.htm", " http://exterrestriallife.com/tag/celestial-bodies", and the IAU in their definition of planet( https://www.iau.org/static/resolutions/Resolution_GA26-5-6.pdf), consider Earth as a celestial body. Hence I think it would be more appropriate to modify the last sentence in the first paragraph of this article to reflect this fact. We could for instance, modify it from: "The terms astronomical objects and astronomical bodies differ from celestial objects and celestial bodies only in that the latter terms do not include the Earth.[2]" to "In a strict sense, the terms astronomical objects and astronomical bodies differ from celestial objects and celestial bodies only in that the latter terms do not include the Earth.[2] However, many sources don't make this distinction, considering Earth as a celestial body.[references]" or something similar. What do you think? Maaf ( talk) 22:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I've updated the definition of "Celestial body" with a text similar to that I proposed here before. Maaf ( talk) 22:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I want to add links from the sightings section of the International Space Station article to the Astrophotography article.
There are no references on any page to satellites in relation to people who are interested in photographing them, are satellites and the space station considered to be celestial objects or astronomical objects ? it says 'natural bodies' does that need redefining, or should astrophotography be identified as a misnomer, and if so, what is this activities technical definition ?
Where can defining statements be found in relation to man-made objects, and why aren't they mentioned on this page, I'm no expert in this field, I need expert definitive opinion on this matter, please help me if you know where it can be found. Quoting wiki won't help. Penyulap talk 21:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
To make it simple for everyone to discuss this together instead of on different pages, may I suggest discussing it here
Penyulap talk 23:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Per topic. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)