![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Is there an official correspondence between the Bortle scale and the colour key? The article's colours are split in a slightly different fashion from the Northern Virginia Astronomy Club colour scheme found in the External Links section. Bortle's article in Sky & Telescope doesn't mention colours. As far as I can tell, what everyone's trying to do is to match his 9-point scale to the light pollution maps on the World Atlas of Artificial Night Sky Brightness (also in Ext. Links), which has only 8 colour gradations -- so of course the two scales don't quite match up. Considering that the World Atlas dates from 2000 and Bortle's article appeared in 2001, I don't think the Atlas was created with Bortle's scale in mind. 98.199.232.32 ( talk) 06:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Ref #2 appears to be nothing more than a link to an exact (and therefore redundant) duplicate of the Bortle scale already displayed in the article. 111.69.236.13 ( talk) 02:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Anyone know the relationship between Bortle and Sky Quality Meter (SQM) which measures in mag/arcsec2? -- Chuunen Baka ( talk • contribs) 12:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
The whole question of a standardised, objective methodology for assessing sky quality (darkness) remains an unresolved one. SQM, like any digital device, gives a numerical output, but there are assurances only about "precision", and nothing about "accuracy." This should be a source of caution, if not concern.
The Bortle scale suffers from many difficulties; very low, possibly unattainable visual magnitudes, underestimation of cloud illumination from distant sources (high clouds can give more LP over a wider area than low ones, for example.)
So, in looking at this whole question, it's obvious that a standardised, calibrated and reliable method that can be repeated 100 years in the future with no problem, simply doesn't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.20.131.196 ( talk) 08:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved, for the moment. We generally do allow the proposed title to be changed mid-RM but it often creates a bit of a mess for closers. So I'm closing this RM but would recommend that a new one be started up as soon as Dicklyon is ready, with "Bortle scale" as the proposed title. Jenks24 ( talk) 12:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Bortle Dark-Sky Scale →
Bortle dark-sky scale – per
MOS:CAPS, caps are not necessary; not a proper name; many reliable sources use lowercase.
Dicklyon (
talk)
02:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved. -- BDD ( talk) 20:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Bortle Dark-Sky Scale → Bortle scale – Per the closing advice of the first RM above, I've revising the proposed new name and starting a new RM. This scale is widely referred to by various names, including very commonly "Bortle scale". A large number of the instances of "Bortle Dark-Sky Scale" in books are references to Bortle's paper title "Introducing the Bortle Dark-Sky Scale", which is usually but not always capitalized. Based on the diversity of things it's called, and lowercasing, there's little evidence that there's a proper name here. Might as well go with the concise generic term used in about 50 books. With wiki-mirror books excluded, few books use the full expression. Relisted. — Darkwind ( talk) 01:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Dicklyon ( talk) 16:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bortle scale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Where I live, rural skies are something like 21.4 SQM, and dark sky sites at national parks only surpass 21.7 if it's exceptionally transparent (as measured by my SQM-L device). The current SQM ranges don't match up with the cited Nomogram. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.183.78 ( talk) 20:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I recommend changing the Bortle 1 SQM column from 21.75 - 22 to > 21.75. I have measured sqm fainter than 22 on exceptional nights, including not at the zenith. DrRogerNClark ( talk) 19:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
I quickly added a link in Bortle Class 1 to point the bullet item "zodiacal band" to "zodiacal light".
I then wondered if those two bullet points, the 1st and 3rd, (zodiacal light and zodiacal band) should be merged into a single bullet like "the zodiacal band and the zodiacal light is visible and colorful"
I would have made this change, but wanted to ask if this is something agreeable, or if they do need to be two points as is, or there is a better way to phrase a single bullet point similar to my example. AreThree ( talk) 23:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Is there an official correspondence between the Bortle scale and the colour key? The article's colours are split in a slightly different fashion from the Northern Virginia Astronomy Club colour scheme found in the External Links section. Bortle's article in Sky & Telescope doesn't mention colours. As far as I can tell, what everyone's trying to do is to match his 9-point scale to the light pollution maps on the World Atlas of Artificial Night Sky Brightness (also in Ext. Links), which has only 8 colour gradations -- so of course the two scales don't quite match up. Considering that the World Atlas dates from 2000 and Bortle's article appeared in 2001, I don't think the Atlas was created with Bortle's scale in mind. 98.199.232.32 ( talk) 06:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Ref #2 appears to be nothing more than a link to an exact (and therefore redundant) duplicate of the Bortle scale already displayed in the article. 111.69.236.13 ( talk) 02:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Anyone know the relationship between Bortle and Sky Quality Meter (SQM) which measures in mag/arcsec2? -- Chuunen Baka ( talk • contribs) 12:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
The whole question of a standardised, objective methodology for assessing sky quality (darkness) remains an unresolved one. SQM, like any digital device, gives a numerical output, but there are assurances only about "precision", and nothing about "accuracy." This should be a source of caution, if not concern.
The Bortle scale suffers from many difficulties; very low, possibly unattainable visual magnitudes, underestimation of cloud illumination from distant sources (high clouds can give more LP over a wider area than low ones, for example.)
So, in looking at this whole question, it's obvious that a standardised, calibrated and reliable method that can be repeated 100 years in the future with no problem, simply doesn't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.20.131.196 ( talk) 08:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved, for the moment. We generally do allow the proposed title to be changed mid-RM but it often creates a bit of a mess for closers. So I'm closing this RM but would recommend that a new one be started up as soon as Dicklyon is ready, with "Bortle scale" as the proposed title. Jenks24 ( talk) 12:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Bortle Dark-Sky Scale →
Bortle dark-sky scale – per
MOS:CAPS, caps are not necessary; not a proper name; many reliable sources use lowercase.
Dicklyon (
talk)
02:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved. -- BDD ( talk) 20:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Bortle Dark-Sky Scale → Bortle scale – Per the closing advice of the first RM above, I've revising the proposed new name and starting a new RM. This scale is widely referred to by various names, including very commonly "Bortle scale". A large number of the instances of "Bortle Dark-Sky Scale" in books are references to Bortle's paper title "Introducing the Bortle Dark-Sky Scale", which is usually but not always capitalized. Based on the diversity of things it's called, and lowercasing, there's little evidence that there's a proper name here. Might as well go with the concise generic term used in about 50 books. With wiki-mirror books excluded, few books use the full expression. Relisted. — Darkwind ( talk) 01:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Dicklyon ( talk) 16:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bortle scale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Where I live, rural skies are something like 21.4 SQM, and dark sky sites at national parks only surpass 21.7 if it's exceptionally transparent (as measured by my SQM-L device). The current SQM ranges don't match up with the cited Nomogram. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.183.78 ( talk) 20:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I recommend changing the Bortle 1 SQM column from 21.75 - 22 to > 21.75. I have measured sqm fainter than 22 on exceptional nights, including not at the zenith. DrRogerNClark ( talk) 19:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
I quickly added a link in Bortle Class 1 to point the bullet item "zodiacal band" to "zodiacal light".
I then wondered if those two bullet points, the 1st and 3rd, (zodiacal light and zodiacal band) should be merged into a single bullet like "the zodiacal band and the zodiacal light is visible and colorful"
I would have made this change, but wanted to ask if this is something agreeable, or if they do need to be two points as is, or there is a better way to phrase a single bullet point similar to my example. AreThree ( talk) 23:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)