Talk:Galaxy Zoo

message: I'm forbidden by WP:COI from doing this myself, but I think the Galaxy Zoo article would benefit from the inclusion of links to the peer-reviewed papers we've released. Two (to date) have been accepted - Land et al and Lintott et al and one other is available online - Bamford et al.. Could someone oblige? Chrislintott (talk) 14:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - I took a look and thought they were worth knowing about.  I've never met any of the people involved.  --GwydionM (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer-reviewed results

message: An infinite loop is a programming error, and is not the same as an unresponsive site.  Galaxy Zoo can be slow at times, it has a lot of users.  But it remains valid and should not have been removed.  Thanks to Olaf Davis for restoring it.--GwydionM (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infinite loop sites 

message: I have added a link in the "See also" section to the "Pea galaxy" article as I'm sure that it is relevant to this subject,
and deleted some unwanted incorrect material. Rick Richard Nowell (talk) 11:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Pea galaxy

message: The table is excellent, but it consists mostly of detailed references that would only interest a professional astronomer or a very keen amateur.  This could go on a new page, referenced from here.
On this page, I'd suggest just the titles of the articles, maybe grouped by 'Submitted', 'Accepted' and 'Publised'.  Plus a few extra details where these might be of wider interest.  The Sudden Death of the Nearest Quasar is an example: quasars have a high profile and it would be interesting if confirmed that there was one still functining during human prehistory.  --GwydionM (talk) 12:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just trying to update a very out of date page which is why i've been following the current format.  Yes I suppose we could limit the table to just "Name" and "Links".  I think it would however be wise to put in their place discussion on the implications of the findings of each/most.  The discoveries made as a result of this citizen science project is a very important part of the topic. ChiZeroOne (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new page for the Table of Discoveries? 

message: :This article needs a lot of updating really, which is what I've started on. There are numerous refs and links which can be simplified by wikification. An example of this is Hanny's Voorwerp. All the relevant info can be found in that article, so does not need to be repeated here. There were half-a-dozen links that were unnecessary and out-of-date, which explains the chunks of data that have been deleted. My interest is making this article up-to-date and as concise as possible. As for the list of papers that should be shown, leaving some in and others out is a bit hit-and-miss. Perhaps a list can be started here to decide which? Richard Nowell (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The lists are excellent, but they need to be on the main page.  (I'd do it myself but I don't know how.)  --GwydionM (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, a lot of work has been put in to The List, but for reasons outlined in 'Too Many Papers' it got moved here. Ay least the list hasn't disappeared- merely been moved. Certainly The List needs to be updated. IMHO it is ok here, but should be linked to from the main article. The 'selected papers' section I started is OK here, and can be added to as and when. It is only meant for the general reader. I think the main priority is not The List, but a section describing the various GZ projects (past and present) with refs to the results papers. A way forward?  Richard Nowell (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "a section describing the various GZ projects (past and present) with refs to the results papers" would be ideal if you had some journalism which described various GZ projects. The main article should not link to talk pages - that is a Wikipedia rule. There are ways to format and present such a list through links. Probably Wikiversity would be the best host for such a list, but for various reasons I feel that adapting a list is unlikely to be a high-impact outreach tool. I could say more or help do something if the list is really desired.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a complete list of Galaxy Zoo papers (well actually all Zooniverse papers) hosted at https://www.zooniverse.org/publications The GZ science team makes sure that's up-to-date and includes links to open access versions of the papers. So why not link to that? KarenLMasters (talk) 09:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  That seems like a good candidate for an external link and could be put into Galaxy_Zoo#External_links. The policy covering external links is at WP:EL. Right now there are about 10 links, and you are proposing to add another one. At Wikipedia:ELMINOFFICIAL#Minimize_the_number_of_links, the advice is to have one link to the subject of the article, which would be galaxyzoo.org. Perhaps another official link could be added, and perhaps a list of articles would be a good choice. It would be orthodox to delete most or all of the other links there. Could you comment on what external links you thing ought to be there, if the usual practice is one official link and the other links need to comply with WP:EL?  Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Shouldn't the individual projects be at a lower level than 'Galaxy Zoo projects (active and retired)'?  (This would be === Item === rather than  == Item == ).  --GwydionM (talk) 10:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course. I was thinking of another way of doing it, but can't remember now. Thanks, Richard Nowell (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looking for a definitive 'GZ merger' paper. A list of specific results... Richard Nowell (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Changed intro, giving refs and tidying. Richard Nowell (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked out recent edits and yes, this is closer to what Wikipedia expects. Content is added which is derived from third party sources. I removed the content which is sourced from Galaxy Zoo's own publications. Wikipedia community guidelines advise against adding information self-published by the subject of an article, with some exceptions. Is there any compelling reason why this information ought to be in here? This almost never happens.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course. Have re-introduced paragraphs using refs from reliable third party sources which are the University of Oxford and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). The compelling reason why those paragraphs shoud be here is that they are the current active GZ sites. They have now been externally sourced. Richard Nowell (talk) 07:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Thankyou, it's nice to be appreciated. Bluerasberry should also be thanked. I've put a section on WikiProject_Astronomy asking for comments on this update. I'm dubious about the list of universities in 'Origin'. Presumably not ALL the universities credited in the 44 papers are listed, so why should the ones mentioned in the article be here? It seems arbitrary and could be taken as a sign of exclusivety and self-selection. Worth thinking about. Rgds Richard Nowell (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I had paraphrased the sentences on page 142, and then later added 'Michael Nielsen wrote' as if it were all one sentence. Thankyou for pointing this out. I have since changed this. Richard Nowell (talk) 08:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for making the change! Michael Nielsen (talk) 01:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: July 2014 Updating

message: As the above July 2014 Update section was getting very large, I've started a v2. I've endeavoured to place studies into groups, so that all the dust ones are in dust etc. This seems to work ok. I've deleted the 'Selected Science Papers' section from this Talk as it was no longer needed. I suggest the original 'List' of papers (The List) is removed, as this has become obsolete. I'm now trying to source pictures to illustrate the article. There needs to be more wikification and the sections need expanding, but this will happen over time. There is no 'highlights section', nor IMHO does there need to be. The list of some universities has been removed as it seemed arbitrary and did not represent all. I hope the article seems more encyclopedic now. It's certainly a lot easier to understand, access and edit I feel. The 'External links' now has only five in it, in accordance with WP:ELMINOFFICIAL.
Richard Nowell (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  July 2014 Update v2 

message: Have started to try and make it more 'readable' and not just a collection of ref'd sentences; less prosaic.Richard Nowell (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Readability

message: For another project we just collected independent references mentioning Galaxy Zoo as a successful project. I don't have time to properly wikify these right now, but though adding them here as a resource might be useful for others who might want to include some of this in the site. 
The US Decadal Review of Astrophysics? http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/special-events/astro2010-astronomy-and-astrophysics-decadal-survey/
contains the following : 
"One such project, Galaxy Zoo, enables on-line users to classify galaxies from Sloan Digital Sky Survey images; to date more than 230,000 registered users have analyzed data, and a few have produced unique new discoveries (see figure 4-3). The success of Galaxy Zoo has inspired the creation of similar Citizen Science projects to analyze imaging from space missions to the Moon and Mars, and the model is being duplicated in other fields of science. "
A similar mention in a Council of Canadian Science Culture document: 
http://www.scienceadvice.ca/uploads/eng/assessments%20and%20publications%20and%20news%20releases/science-culture/scienceculture_fullreporten.pdf
says "One example of a citizen science project that has attracted widespread attention is Galaxy Zoo. ", and "Well-known examples of citizen science initiatives include Galaxy Zoo,"
There's this from the EU on Environmental Citizen Science, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/IR9.pdf
"With the internet has risen a ‘new wave’ of online crowd-sourcing projects sometimes termed ‘citizen cyberscience’. Possibly the most oft-cited and high profile example is Galaxy Zoo "
A report on New Visions in Citizen Science from the Wilson Center http://www.wilsoncenter.org/ profiled 17 successful citizen science projects (including Galaxy Zoo). 
And David Willetts mentioned Galaxy Zoo as a part of the success story for UK science in a speech when he was minister for BIS. 
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/great-britain-the-best-place-in-the-world-to-do-science
"Indeed 1 of the secrets of our success is what we now call citizen science, which delivers large volumes of research quality scientific data, fast. Thousands of ordinary volunteers have analysed online images of galaxies with Galaxy Zoo,"
KarenLMasters (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Measures of Success

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Galaxy Zoo. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170803172752/https://uk.news.yahoo.com/10th-anniversary-galaxy-zoo-citizen-141722835.html to https://uk.news.yahoo.com/10th-anniversary-galaxy-zoo-citizen-141722835.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)