Talk:Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

message: I went sledding on this observatory's hill as a child, so does that make me biased in favor of it? ;-)
Anyway, this is where Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon work. --Uncle Ed 15:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: A funding section was recently added that contained the following text:
:Indented line "Since 2005 the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory has received more than $467,000 from Exxon Mobil.http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=154"
I just removed this section because the information is incomplete and the amount of funding is less than a tenth of a percent of the budget of the institution as a whole (using an approximate annual budget of $111 million, a figure found from the article on the director Charles Alcock).  Thus this funding is negligible to the amount of funding to the Center for Astrophysics as a whole.  As I understand it, the funding entirely went to support research by Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon who are prominent climate change skeptics at the Center for Astrophysics.  For individual researchers who are studying climate change, this is a non-negligible amount, and thus this information would be much more important to include on on the articles on Baliunas and Soon.  If this information were to be included in this article, the amounts of funding through the National Science Foundation and NASA should be included for perspective and so to give a more complete and unbiased perspective. Spacehippy (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Funding section

message: I just added a notable scientists section since several astronomers at the Center for Astrophysics have Wikipedia articles.  I only included scientists currently at the Center for Astrophysics.  There is also the subjective question of how notable must someone be to be on the list.  There are also several highly cited and influential astrophysicists there who do not have articles.  Anyway, this is just a start.  Spacehippy (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable Scientists section

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: No move -   UtherSRG (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics →  – Better match correct title; it's bizarre that the so-called correct title doesn't even match the word order of the actual title. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 16 September 2022 

message: @Kj cheetham: At 185px, I see some of the logo cropped out, but not when it was set at 290px, or when the size was omitted in your first edit though. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 21:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: , very strange! I saw it cropped (at the sides) initially, still cropped at my first edit, and not noticeably cropped when set to 185px, so not really sure what to do if it's different for other people. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: At 290px vertical lines in the first C and last N are missing. Is that what you mean by cropped? :File:CfA Horizontal RGB.png is 2205px so 290px is an 87% reduction. The missing lines are around 7 px wide and right at the edge of the uploaded file so I'm only mildly surprised they can disappear at some resolutions. All other lines with the same width remain clearly visible so maybe it's affected by a literal edge case in the rescaling software. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @PrimeHunter: Actually its the opposite for me, I see them cropped at 145px, but not cropped at 290px (see screenshot). Don't know what makes it different for me and Kj cheetham, and probably you too. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 13:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: For |290px MediaWiki serves a source set  with both 290px and an alternative 580px. That's why I linked directly to 290px (I should have explained that). I see the 290px version rendered here. I assume you see the  580px version. For |145px the source set is 145px and 290px. When you say 145px looks cropped, it's actually the real 290px version you see. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation. Is there any way to fit the image such that everyone sees the full image? By some html/css trick, or by modifying the source file on commons. Does it require a phab ticket? —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 14:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No html/css trick is possible if the actual rescaled file is missing something. We could look for an acceptable pixel size where both source set versions are currently OK but there is no guarantee it will always work. I think it would be better to upload this:  https://ssp.hco.fas.harvard.edu/sites/projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/styles/os_files_xxlarge/public/ssp/files/cfa_logo_vertical_cmyk.jpg. It has better dimensions for an infobox and it has a little more room around the text so I guess no lines in the text will disappear if rescaling removes a few pixels at the edges. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo