This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Image:Caldwell.all.750pix.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 03:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The article mentions that compilation errors are "listed below" but they are not.
CielProfond ( talk) 02:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
It says
The reference (only available through web archive) is to an opinion by a person who is not famous enough to have a Wikipedia entry. If there is not a more substantial claim, then I think this is Wikipedia:OR and a possible Wikipedia:BLP violation and should be deleted. Man with two legs ( talk) 11:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:CentaurusA.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 10:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
Arianewiki1 ( talk · contribs) has reinstated tags with the comment "There are serious issues with the statements article, and the warnings are justified". If there are serious remaining tone issues, I invite discussion here. -- Elphion ( talk) 15:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
@ Elphion: You are really wanting to pushing this issue. Most of the problems here are objectivity and it is clearly about bias, based mostly on the recent death of Patrick Moore and the publishing of O'Meare's book on the Caldwell Objects. People seem determined to promote these Caldwell objects without any heed to convention or usage for deep-sky objects, and worst, ignore any negativity of its use. (Like of Patrick Moore himself!))
The main objection and serious issue is with "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."
Earlier completely unverified statements like; "Since its publication, the catalogue has grown in popularity and usage within the amateur astronomical community.", "As stated above, the list was compiled from objects already identified by professional astronomers and commonly observed by amateur astronomers." (No Professionals use Caldwell!)
Furthermore all the references here are are based on Sky and Telescope and related publications, which they are strongly promoting. (Is this article advertising?) I mean there a six references just from O'Meara's book.
I am very disturbed with your statement on my user page, when you said; "But the Caldwell numbers are acquiring a currency among amateurs that we should not ignore. -- Elphion (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)"
This seems not just a personal opinion, it seems to infer motivation to promote it or that you have a personal stake in it. Please prove this statement is true and verify it from an independent source. (I experience the exact opposite when other talk of Caldwell Catalogue, as below.)
Also there are other modern listings as well. I.e. The Bennett Catalogue for Southern Objects, "RASC finest NGC Objects List." . Should these be we listed as well?
Many of the pages with Caldwell objects have the statement "...known as Caldwell Cxx…", but the fact is they are place catalogued as Caldwell, and few people state an object is C87, for example, and no one would know what you are talking about. In fact, this article is looking more like promoting Caldwell objects over all others.
As the BAA review of O'Meara's book ( http://britastro.org/jbaa/pdf/113-3omeara.pdf) by Stewart Moore clearly states;
"Controversy has arisen because, while Messier’s list was compiled for a good reason – to locate the many objects that could be confused with comets in small telescopes - the Caldwell list is of objects already catalogued. Some people feel that to give these objects (only four of which do not have NGC or IC designations) another name is unnecessary. Others have argued that any list which gets people out observing must be good."
Traditionally we use valid names based on the discovery. I.e. Messier, Lacaille, Dunlop or Herschel. These should be in preference to all other listings.
Most of the objections to the Caldwell objects is it non-uniformity, having bright objects looked over and fainter difficult objects promoted. I.e. NGC 6882/5 is included. but the vastly better NGC 6930 is not.
There are many negative views on Caldwell too. I.e. http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/1,2,3,4,5,8,9,10/Number/4775788/page/34/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/1/vc/ another objection in 2008 is here http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/2440391/page/0/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/1
Another is from the "East Valley Astronomical Club" in 1998 in the Article "The Caldwell Catalogue : A Good Idea Gone Bad - Besides Good Ideas Already Exist." http://evaconline.org/nl/nov-1998.pdf
As Jack Kramer in 2002 once said; " I had never thought of it as anything but a potential target list. From my experience, the Caldwell List is ignored by most observers as entirely superfluous." This was in reply to "I was quite shocked to find out that some folks are strongly against it."
There is enough evidence here to prove the main point against its use.
Clearly this is strong evidence of non-objectivity, and the non-encyclopedic nature of this article.
I.e. The article states;
So unless you can improve the balance article, we could try WP:ER. I recommend you also read WP:POV again, because the tone is certainly not neutral.
It is a poor quality article on many fronts, and it fails badly on many counts with Wikipedia's quality standards.
(Perhaps an extension of this article under the section "Criticism" should be included.)
For more balance it should refer to other lists too. I.e. Bennett or RASC lists.
Note; The Caldwell is a object "list" not an object "catalogue"
Arianewiki1 ( talk) 18:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
"Plenty of people dislike Moore and carp about the catalogue. This article had, by contrast, a generally positive slant before Arianewiki1 and I came to it. That has since been removed. The discussion here now is perfectly neutral."
""catalogue" (noun): list, register. (ref Merriam Webster) It also falls under the definition of Astronomical catalogue. To avoid calling it a catalogue now, even though Moore did not, would ignore the practically universal current usage."
There is no such "evidence above". I am no more biased for calling the catalogue "useful" than Arianewiki1 is for calling it "junk" [1]. It is clear that Arianewiki1 dislikes the notion of the catalogue and the fact that people use it. (Since the start of this discussion Arianewiki1 has taken to systematically removing the Caldwell catalogue template from southern objects -- and at least one northern one as well),
The implication that no one uses it is belied by pages about it or supporting it at various well-known sites, like SEDS, the Deep Sky Observer's Companion, and the Astronomical League -- and by the WP Astronomy Project's guidelines for notability.
Looking through the discussion above, the only major disagreement about this article appears to concern the advisability of using O'Meara's book as a reference. Arianewiki1 appears to feel that use of the book promotes the catalogue, but the references don't do that. They answer points of fact: Moore's motivation for creating the list, his desiderata for inclusion, his choice of number, his choice of name, and corrections to errors in the original, Arianewiki1 asked for references on those points, and I provided them.
-- Elphion ( talk) 11:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
When was the Caldwell catalogue released? RJFJR ( talk) 18:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Caldwell catalogue. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Caldwell catalogue. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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) 22:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Image:Caldwell.all.750pix.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 03:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The article mentions that compilation errors are "listed below" but they are not.
CielProfond ( talk) 02:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
It says
The reference (only available through web archive) is to an opinion by a person who is not famous enough to have a Wikipedia entry. If there is not a more substantial claim, then I think this is Wikipedia:OR and a possible Wikipedia:BLP violation and should be deleted. Man with two legs ( talk) 11:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:CentaurusA.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 10:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
Arianewiki1 ( talk · contribs) has reinstated tags with the comment "There are serious issues with the statements article, and the warnings are justified". If there are serious remaining tone issues, I invite discussion here. -- Elphion ( talk) 15:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
@ Elphion: You are really wanting to pushing this issue. Most of the problems here are objectivity and it is clearly about bias, based mostly on the recent death of Patrick Moore and the publishing of O'Meare's book on the Caldwell Objects. People seem determined to promote these Caldwell objects without any heed to convention or usage for deep-sky objects, and worst, ignore any negativity of its use. (Like of Patrick Moore himself!))
The main objection and serious issue is with "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."
Earlier completely unverified statements like; "Since its publication, the catalogue has grown in popularity and usage within the amateur astronomical community.", "As stated above, the list was compiled from objects already identified by professional astronomers and commonly observed by amateur astronomers." (No Professionals use Caldwell!)
Furthermore all the references here are are based on Sky and Telescope and related publications, which they are strongly promoting. (Is this article advertising?) I mean there a six references just from O'Meara's book.
I am very disturbed with your statement on my user page, when you said; "But the Caldwell numbers are acquiring a currency among amateurs that we should not ignore. -- Elphion (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)"
This seems not just a personal opinion, it seems to infer motivation to promote it or that you have a personal stake in it. Please prove this statement is true and verify it from an independent source. (I experience the exact opposite when other talk of Caldwell Catalogue, as below.)
Also there are other modern listings as well. I.e. The Bennett Catalogue for Southern Objects, "RASC finest NGC Objects List." . Should these be we listed as well?
Many of the pages with Caldwell objects have the statement "...known as Caldwell Cxx…", but the fact is they are place catalogued as Caldwell, and few people state an object is C87, for example, and no one would know what you are talking about. In fact, this article is looking more like promoting Caldwell objects over all others.
As the BAA review of O'Meara's book ( http://britastro.org/jbaa/pdf/113-3omeara.pdf) by Stewart Moore clearly states;
"Controversy has arisen because, while Messier’s list was compiled for a good reason – to locate the many objects that could be confused with comets in small telescopes - the Caldwell list is of objects already catalogued. Some people feel that to give these objects (only four of which do not have NGC or IC designations) another name is unnecessary. Others have argued that any list which gets people out observing must be good."
Traditionally we use valid names based on the discovery. I.e. Messier, Lacaille, Dunlop or Herschel. These should be in preference to all other listings.
Most of the objections to the Caldwell objects is it non-uniformity, having bright objects looked over and fainter difficult objects promoted. I.e. NGC 6882/5 is included. but the vastly better NGC 6930 is not.
There are many negative views on Caldwell too. I.e. http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/1,2,3,4,5,8,9,10/Number/4775788/page/34/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/1/vc/ another objection in 2008 is here http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/2440391/page/0/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/1
Another is from the "East Valley Astronomical Club" in 1998 in the Article "The Caldwell Catalogue : A Good Idea Gone Bad - Besides Good Ideas Already Exist." http://evaconline.org/nl/nov-1998.pdf
As Jack Kramer in 2002 once said; " I had never thought of it as anything but a potential target list. From my experience, the Caldwell List is ignored by most observers as entirely superfluous." This was in reply to "I was quite shocked to find out that some folks are strongly against it."
There is enough evidence here to prove the main point against its use.
Clearly this is strong evidence of non-objectivity, and the non-encyclopedic nature of this article.
I.e. The article states;
So unless you can improve the balance article, we could try WP:ER. I recommend you also read WP:POV again, because the tone is certainly not neutral.
It is a poor quality article on many fronts, and it fails badly on many counts with Wikipedia's quality standards.
(Perhaps an extension of this article under the section "Criticism" should be included.)
For more balance it should refer to other lists too. I.e. Bennett or RASC lists.
Note; The Caldwell is a object "list" not an object "catalogue"
Arianewiki1 ( talk) 18:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
"Plenty of people dislike Moore and carp about the catalogue. This article had, by contrast, a generally positive slant before Arianewiki1 and I came to it. That has since been removed. The discussion here now is perfectly neutral."
""catalogue" (noun): list, register. (ref Merriam Webster) It also falls under the definition of Astronomical catalogue. To avoid calling it a catalogue now, even though Moore did not, would ignore the practically universal current usage."
There is no such "evidence above". I am no more biased for calling the catalogue "useful" than Arianewiki1 is for calling it "junk" [1]. It is clear that Arianewiki1 dislikes the notion of the catalogue and the fact that people use it. (Since the start of this discussion Arianewiki1 has taken to systematically removing the Caldwell catalogue template from southern objects -- and at least one northern one as well),
The implication that no one uses it is belied by pages about it or supporting it at various well-known sites, like SEDS, the Deep Sky Observer's Companion, and the Astronomical League -- and by the WP Astronomy Project's guidelines for notability.
Looking through the discussion above, the only major disagreement about this article appears to concern the advisability of using O'Meara's book as a reference. Arianewiki1 appears to feel that use of the book promotes the catalogue, but the references don't do that. They answer points of fact: Moore's motivation for creating the list, his desiderata for inclusion, his choice of number, his choice of name, and corrections to errors in the original, Arianewiki1 asked for references on those points, and I provided them.
-- Elphion ( talk) 11:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
When was the Caldwell catalogue released? RJFJR ( talk) 18:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Caldwell catalogue. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Caldwell catalogue. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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) 22:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)