Talk:List of astronomical topics
|
|
| Contents |
Problems cutting n pasting
Looks like there was some kind of cut-and-paste problem here - the whole article is repeated again after "Z". Looks like this was introduced around 15 Jan 03; I'll fix it. Chas zzz brown 11:17 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)
Page too long
It seems that this page might be in need of cleanup or re-write. It is so long that I get the "this page is 34 kB which is larger than 32 kB" warning. I think we could move all the pages of individual astronomers to "the list of astronomer's" page, and add something along the lines "You might also want to have a look at the list of astronomers" (linked, naturally). That would make the page much shorter. Personally, I think Science is interesting, not the Scientists, so this page is not that useful. If someone is interested in the Scientists, he/she can go directly to there. Unless someone lets me know this is a bad idea, I'll start in a week.
lurker Feb 4, 2003.
- Can you, please see also the Talk:List of mathematical topics about your arguments. Inhere it is the same thing as there. The page does not deal with the science or scientists in particular, but, it is just a reference for the Related changes as NaodW29-math7619730949175da700000001 Arxel conceived it. In my opinion it is also a good reference for somekind of an index of related terms, although a Wikipedia search engine serves for this purpose. Yes, the page therefore becomes longer and longer, but this should be solved in some different way. (Don't ask me, 'casue I'm not aka servers expert ...) And BTW along my fashion -- scientists' lives and adventures are quite interesting. What is wrong if we know that Carl Friedrich Gauss was 19 when he discovered as Tarquin says bla, bla, or that Richard Feynman was 15 when he blah, blah..., or that Willebrord van Roijen Snell was 2 years old when Gregorian calendar was proposed by Catholic church to the rest of the world (bla, bla, ...) and Nicolaus Copernicus was already at the place from where there is no return for 39 years. (=> 1582). So I think you can still wait awhile. Kindest regards. --XJamRastafire 00:38 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)
- I totally agree with XJamRastafire, but for the same reasons, I think that some cleanup is necessary; for example most of the mathematical topics should not belong to this list, they just generate a lot of noise IMHO. -- Looxix 01.24 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)
- OK, I have an account now. I was not aware of the technical aspect. The search engine has it's problems, though. If you happen misspell something quite common like Schmidt/Schmitt/... or one of the famous Greeks, the search engine is useless. So therefore, some sort of index is useful for the user. I still think there is plenty of physics/mathematics/chemistry like "circle", "cobalt" and "cosine" that could quite well be moved to the appropriate lists. Of course these all have some relevance to astronomy, but the links should be in articles, so that if you start wondering what the hell is "Elliptical integral" you can check it there. I'll postpone the cleanup for a while. But I'll try to make the list of astronomers more complete, plenty of people with decent articles seem to be missing from there. -- Caid Raspa (ex-lurker) Feb 11, 2003
- Very, very nice to have one real astrophysicist here around. We - not professionals but fanciers - are doing our best to supplement either the list of astronomers, astrophysicist and cosmologists and either the list of appropriate topic. For confirmation of what I am talking see for instance Hipparchus. --XJamRastafire 22:43 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)
The file size of this page is crazy talk... perhaps we could split it up like List of astronomical topics A-L and List of astronomical topics M-Z ?
- See the above arguments: only use it with the Related changes features. -- Looxix 22:01 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)
- This discussion started when the page was 34 KB long, today I got the warning saying "This page is 106 kilobytes long". Do I go ahead with the split as the anon user above has suggested ? Frankly I didn't understand if the discussion so far was for or against the split. Jay 11:56, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Secondly I was freaked out to see all the "talk" links for all the topics, something that takes up 50% of the contents of the page. None of the talk links are complete hence nothing shows up on the page. They are of the form [[Talk:Astro page| ]]. Just a space after the '|'. Does it serve a purpose ? Jay 11:56, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I just read the "use of Talk links for Related Changes" section below. Hence the dummy talk links make sense. But the list of chemistry topics for example, doesn't have dummy talk links. Ok what about the splitting ? Jay 12:09, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
from village pump
Should I leave a disambiguation link on list of astronomical topics? Cassini is linked, but it is in reference to the Cassini probe; should I change the link and leave the disambiguation link or just change the link? Thanks. - Notheruser 19:45 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)
- Since that link is immediately followed by links to the people of the same name, it doesn't make a lot of sense to link the disambiguation page which provides those same links. Link the probe directly. --Brion 21:53 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)
- That's what I was leaning towards...thanks for the clarification. -- Notheruser 22:06 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)
use of Talk links for Related Changes?
I have just removed talk links from section U while cleaning up, but have just read the talk above on using the Related Changes link with the article, and now see they are not useless after all! I'll put them back in my next edit, but is there a better way to have related changes list changes to the talk pages than by having links that are invisible to the user? Should each topic have its Talk page link shown in some way, like (t)? Also should there be an explanation telling editors to be careful not to remove these invisible talk links?-Wikibob | Talk 13:32, 2004 Apr 24 (UTC)
Category:Astronomy?
Now that the new "Category" feature is in place, and there is a Category:Astronomy, is there any need for this page? (Assuming all of the articles on this page get assigned to Category:Astronomy, that is.) —LarryGilbert 03:34, 2004 Jun 4 (UTC)
- Disadvantages of the new "category" feature is that a) you can't list things in alphabetical order b) you can't list things that don't have a page yet (redlinks).
- Still, it is far too impractical to maintain this page by hand. — Curps 23:18, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Changes
The list looks a bit unweildy. Maybe it should be organised into "Stars, Things, Theories, People" to help simplify it a bit? --Rony P Q H Taril 20:31, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)