Talk:Phil Plait

message: Surely it is preferable to have the article under the guy's real name, and have 'Bad Astronomer' as the redirect, instead of the other way round?--Fangz 20:57, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I reckon you're right, I just turned the Phil Plait one into the redirect because it was the shorter of the two. Because both already exist I reckon we'll need an admin to do the swap-over. Sockatume 12:38, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Real name?

message: Umm...why in the world does this page redirect from "babb"?  Babb is my last name and it has alot of history dating all the way back to England before William the Conqueror(pre-1000 AD).  Im going to change it unless someone could give me a good reason why not too.
BABB used to stand for the Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board, so that's why it redirected to this page. The board is now BAUT (Bad Astronomy and Universe Today), so it's fine by me if you change it. -Phil Plait
I second the notion to stop the re-direct from "Babb" to this page.  I was curious why it did so and had to look all the way here on the Talk page to find out why it did so.  Does that necessitate that we create a page for the "Babb" entry?  Michaeloz 23:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect from Babb 

message: Since there's a Bad Astronomy article for the book, it seems like it'd be appropriate to put the website section on that page.  So the Phil article is about Phil and the BA article is about the book and website. --ndc (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems OK to me.  I'll let others weigh in though.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The approval of another person made it worth sticking merge proposal tags up. =D --ndc (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think it is necessary to remove the section on BadAstronomy.com. In its current state, it adds to the article about its creator and, seeing as how the subject of the article is known for his work on BadAstronomy.com, the section compliments the article. If this specific section grows so large that it detracts from, rather than enhances the article, a move might be prudent. As things are at the moment, I find it wholy unnecessary  Anrie (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue there is a large enoug difference between the book and the badastronomy.com website that the two should remain seperate. The blog covers general science news, science fiction news, skeptic news, and examples of "bad astronomy." This section could use a little cleanup, but besides that I think it should stay where it is for now. 3Juno3 (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, do not converge this section into Bad Astronomy. BA Blog and the book are different. 76.114.240.3 (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move BadAstronomy.com? 

message: Phil Plait is not even a minor celebrity. He is not famous and therefore doesn't deserve mention. I suggest this article be deleted. Wamboman (talk) 04:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully disagree. Having a show on the Discovery Channel and featured, no matter how brief, on Time.com makes him notable. From Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research  is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." There is no mention of celebrity status. Blehfu (talk) 04:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Disagree with deletion. Phil Plait is a notable public figure. He has the media appearances and mainstream media citations to support that. As for the claim that "smarter people have smaller articles," well, I agree with Sgerbic. Get to work beefing up their wiki articles. I don't even understand the "not even a minor celebrity" argument. I mean Vine star Curtis Lepore has a wikipedia page. What, never heard of him? Basically, he's famous with people who use a particular phone app. The idea that a published author who had his own Discovery miniseries, plus appearing on numerous others, should have his wikipedia page deleted makes no sense to me. I don't understand people who have all this spare time that they want to spend their time nominating well-written articles for deletion. Dustinlull (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Dustinlull, if you would like to weigh in, the discussion page for the deletion nomination is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Phil_Plait. While I agree with you that the subject meets General Notability Guidelines (outlined at WP:GNG), I'm hoping the discussion actually results in the improvement of the article, reducing its reliance on primary sources. Deletion nominations can seem frustrating, especially if you've been involved in helping to write the article, but they hopefully result in a stronger Wikipedia article in the end. Nmillerche (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: This article does not meet wikipedia standards

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Bad Universe award.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Phil Plait**:
"New CEPHEI is the farthest star you can see with the naked eye" - which he states in his own youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UHGLcNDGvA at approx 3:00 - 3:35
correct answer: Eta Carinae is.
Its getting better! Phil Plait also claims that ALL shuttle astronauts has been through the van allen belts!!!!!!!!: "Every single shuttle astronaut who has ever gone into space" - which he claims in a radio program with Joe Rogan http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvIC1QDSnIc at approx 6:00 - 6:13
Two lies, and still his website is used all over wikipedia to debunk the moon hoax theory? 
91.145.38.53 (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if they're "lies" so much as misstatements, but they're not even incorrect. According to Wikipedia (I'm sure you've heard of it), Eta Carinae is a stellar system, not a single star. And the Van Allen belt extends from 1000 km above the surface of the Earth. Whether they've all passed through it depends on your definition of astronaut. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

text: 91.145.38.53 (talk), if there are statements in the article which do not accurately reflect what the source says, then please feel free to update it or add the appropriate maintenance templates for uncited information. However, it sounds like the objections here are to statements made in Youtube videos that are not mentioned in the subject's Wikipedia article. 31.209.16.177 (talk), if you have suggestions for improving the article then I invite your participation. Disagreeing with the subject's views regarding moon landing hoax conspiracy theories is not itself grounds for the article's removal. Nmillerche (talk) 12:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Note both those IPs are the same editor, or at least highly suspected of being so, and both have been blocked over incivility and personal attacks. Canterbury Tail talk 16:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  False and misleading quotes by Phil Plait 

message: Someone put a wikilink to Nibiru cataclysm and labeled it Planet X. These are two completely different things, and links should not be mislabeled to mislead the reader. We need to fix ths, but I'm not familiar enough with Plait to know exactly which idea he's debunking. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planet X, or Nibiru cataclysm?