Talk:Amateur astronomy

message: An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Amateur_astronomy article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add  to this page. — LinkBot 09:57, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old talk 

message: If skygazing can be done during the day then i need to understand how that is a subset of astronomy. I like the article but it requires re-naming if it is exclusively astronomy, but can remain the same if it includes weather, clouds, ice crystals, vapour trails,  and other day time sky/atmospheric optical phenomena. Rainbows, halos, etc are sun related, and have a clear link to astronomy. moza 14:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: further thoughts; If the purely astronomical components (ie space content viewed through the sky) can be integrated into the astronomy articles, then the nearer sky objects/effects that are not really space, could stay? where is the dividing line, is it at some altitude that sky becomes space? Isn't it ALL skygazing, and then day/night sky/space become the subsets? there should be a warning though, skygazing for clouds and optical effects can be hazadous, the UV can burn the eyes, I know because it just happened to me, after 10 days of awesome clouds, iridation, halos, etc, i had the pain and irritation like sand in my eyes, welders get it as well, called 'arc burn'. moza 10:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The base meaning of the article title is sky

message: A quick perusal of Google brings up no significant links to Skygazing. Skygazing is basically a slang term for astronomy. It is not any defined field in the English language. It is not even a word in some English dictionarys. Large sections of the Skygazing article are redundant; they cover parts that are already entries on their own in Wikipedia (i.e. atmospheric phenomena types, astronomical object types, telescope types. ect). It is full of inaccuracies and incorrect terms. The section/subsection structure of the whole article needs a lot of work. I am not sure this work should even be done. It has some informative sections but those parts seem to violate the "do not instruct" policy of Wikipedia (Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not). I really think "Skygazing" should be redirected to Amateur Astronomy and parts of the Skygazing article it should be added to the relevant articles. Halfblue 23:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this.  For consistency, though, I also think the Beginning in amateur astronomy section of this article needs re-writing or removing.  It's very instructional.  It used to make up most of the article, and I left it there some time ago when I wrote a lot of other parts around it.  Parts of it might be able to be re-written to be less instructional, but I wonder if now it might be time to just do away with large parts of it entirely. Izogi 06:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with deletion and thats probably because I AM A SKYGAZER for many years, but I accept that the article is far less than satisfactory and yes most of it is redundant and in need of work. But there are plenty of processes to take care of that; peer review? perhaps just get someone who wants it to stay to write new content? thats probably the hard part. much easier to delete and feel warm fuzzies.. I am trying hard to understand though, how you equate skygazing with astronomy? perhaps checkout the sky sometime and you might see quite a lot of noy very astro stuff going on. I would think that the term skygazing is quite easy to understand, and writing an article with content that is literally about gazing at the sky could eb fairly simple and straightforward, so i regard all this chatter as some sort of diversion from the real issues, which could be that there is a lot of work to clean it up, but might be just that we dont wanna get entangled, so how about its simplified down to a list of points, we debate those, vote if really necessary, and we get in their and execute them. How about moving all the astro content to relevant astro pages, and leave non-astro skygazing content, as a simplifying exercise. will anyone squeal if i do that? my favorite skygazing website is MetVUW around a million hits a week, and http://www.atoptics.co.uk/ possibly the best world site, certainly referenced by NASA spaceweather.com. I am thinking that many people less priviledged than you and I are skygazers, for survival reasons, but even less are astronomers. Let s at least agree that the article needs to be fixed when someone can be bothered.moza 12:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It turns out there are 17k returns for skygazing in wiki but it maybe of interest that  the Robert Moses State Park actually has an official permit; "SEE DIRECTIONS BELOW MAP, REMEMBER, TO OBSERVE YOU MUST HAVE A SKYGAZING PERMIT! To obtain a permit, call the "Permit Department" at (631)669-1000." . There is also a book, 40 years old now, "Telescopes for Skygazing 	Paul H 	American Photograpic 	Garden City 	1966 	160pages" . So lets not denigrate the term anymore, please.moza 13:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skygazing should be deleted 

message: The astronomical society article looks more like a list of links than something that describes the topic with more detail than this article, so I've replaced the main-article template that User:Joeblakesley added with an inline wiki link.  To me at least, it reads batter this way, but happy to discuss as always.  Izogi 08:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movement of main template 

message: Does anyone have a good photo of amateur astronomers in action?  I was thinking of perhaps one of those dusk photos with silhouettes of people walking around telescopes.  The current photos are just photos, which could really be used to demonstrate anything, but imho it'd be great to open with a photo showing amateur astronomers in action.  Izogi 10:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added one fresh off a Perseid party (Astronomy Amateur 3 V2.jpg). Hope it fits what you were thinking of. Halfblue 05:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly what I had in mind -- thanks for going to the effort. Izogi 07:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to be unpolite, but there are details in this picture that makes me wonder if it is a photomontage. If that is the case, the associated caption would be misleading. Aldo L (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for a good photo 

message: An anonymous user has recently added a section for famous amateur astronomers, one of whom is David H. Levy.
I have a lot of respect for David Levy, but is he really an amateur in the normal sense?  I know he goes to a lot of amateur astronomy meetings and maybe he'd consider himself an amateur astronomer at times if asked, but I'd always thought his main contributions had been more professional.  He certainly seems to make what I'm guessing is at least a large portion of his money from his astronomy-related work.  (Books, radio show maybe?, lectures, interviews, columns, etc.)  His resume on his website lists an impressive number of boards he serves on, and sizable number of publications (research and otherwise), most of which I presume he's been paid to produce in some way.  Or is all of this just brought on by fame for having done so much as an amateur astronomer?  He doesn't exactly seem like a professional in the regular sense, either. Izogi 04:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Levy and amateurism 

message: I've just removed a couple of images from the article which seemed to be more about particular objects in the sky rather than characterising amateur astronomers.  They weren't bad images, but could just as easily fit on at least several other articles.  I hope this doesn't offend anyone, and I wouldn't be really offended if someone wants to put them back.  More broadly though, I was hoping to make some more space for pictures which I think might fit better.  Examples would be photos that are more directly related to the characteristics of amateur astronomy, and would help to differentiate it from everything else space-related.  eg. Does anyone happen to have an photo of a typical back yard observatory that might demonstrate the sorts of equipment amateurs often work with? Izogi 02:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting photos ''of'' amateur astronomers 

message: Removed the whole section to talk because there is no reference as to whether such a debate even exists... so no way to tell if parts of this section are just some editors opinion. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Plausible, uncitable, ridiculous and pretty irrelevant. Good move: be blessed. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 15:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The GoTo debate?

message: The page Skygazing now redirects to Amateur astronomy per decision at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Skygazing.  The old Skygazing page has also been transwiki imported to Wikiversity at v:Skygazing to develop it into a learning project there.  --mikeu talk 20:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skygazing 

message: May not be notable per WP:BLP1E. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Anthony Wesley

message: I'm thinking that many standalone articles on individual astonomy websites, and on the List_of_astronomy_websites itself, are untenable.  They simply don't have sufficient coverage, in terms of discussion of the website as a topic of its own.  This should not mean deletion.  Just because an article doesn't warrant a standalone article doesn't mean that wikipedia shouldn't provide coverage.  The solution I see is to merge these resources to here.  It seems to me that they are all resources particular to amateur astronomy.  Please see Talk:List_of_astronomy_websites#or_merge.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a list (and putting it here) falls under WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Amateur astronomy is an article that describes amateur astronomy, it should not be used as a directory or resource to find amateur astronomy or find "astronomy". The links in question also fall under WP:NOTDIRECTORY #1 "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics"... This topic is "Amateur astronomy", the linked articles are "Astronomy". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What your saying is right, but simply copying the list to here is not really what I mean.  Putting lists into articles is weak article writing.  The exisiting list at the bottom titled “Amateur astronomy organizations” is also poor in that respect.I propose a section titled “Resources for amateur astronomy”.  This section should be written in prose.  It should describe the resources that others (eg popular magazines) have commented on as resources for amateur astonomy.  Several of the websites in the current list should merit mention.  Any amateur astonomy website that is not worth even a mention at amateur astronomy does not merit a standalone article, which means that it doesn’t merit listing in a list article.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is Wikipedia is not a "How-to". "Resources for amateur astronomy" sounds like "Resources on how to conduct amateur astronomy", unless I am missing something. WP:NOT recommends Alternative outlets for such things and I have seen those linked at the bottom of Wikipedia articles. If we are talking about "Resources known to be used by amateur astronomers" that could fly..... but it would need source(s) stating these are common resources used, and something used is a "tool", so it sounds like it would just be a short paragraph on the "Common tools" section. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

text: One problem I am seeing is that only one of the websites listed at "List_of_astronomy_websites" has anything to do with observational amateur astronomy. The rest are Astronomy news sites of one type or another so are "Astronomy", not "amateur astronomy" --- unless we are reclassifying "amateur astronomer" as someone who sits in front of a computer screen and reads about astronomy... which it could be.Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we need to steer clear of “how-to” concerns.  Also, we don’t want to get involved with popular forums.Prominent resources discussed as being used by [amateur] astonomers is an idea that could fly.I predict that most of the content at List_of_astronomy_websites will eventually be deleted or lost to the history behind a redirect.  When I said “merge”, I think “selectively” needs to be inserted.  My intent here is to see if there’s something to be captured before that happens.I think an amateur astronomer is, at a minimum, someone who regularly and deliberately looks through a telescope into space for specific things.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge various websites and other resources of amature astronomy 

message: I cannot see the purpose of the section "Amateur astronomy organizations" in this article.  It is just a subset of the more complete list which already exists at List of astronomical societies, and which is linked from many other articles.  I recommend removing that section from this article, and replacing it with a redirection to the List of astronomical societies.  Thoughts?  Comments?  Alternative suggestions?  --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. The stand alone list and this list will never be anything more than redundant. So this list should be deleted. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have integrated the entries from this list into List of astronomical societies, and put links here to that list instead. That should make maintenance easier.  --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace "Amateur astronomy organizations" with a link to [[List of astronomical societies]] 

message: Most of the amateur astronomical societies which I have been involved with count their outreach and public education activities as a key objective.  They hold open viewing nights, give public talks, arrange to visit schools, scouts and other community groups to bring along a few telescopes so people can have a look at the sky.  Of course, I can't tell how widespread that kind of activity is around the world-wide community so I am asking for comments: is it worth adding a section about outreach/education to this article?  --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section on public outreach and education activities? 

message: This is a little awkward to bring up, but in this section, the article links to a list of amateur astronomers with biographical Wikipedia pages. I glanced at some of these biographies, and I don't think some of them satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. For example, I spotted a few that did nothing more than list the person's equipment, observing awards, and history with amateur astronomy. There's very little in this information that's noteworthy. Moreover, I'm fairly sure that some of them are autobiographical, based on the IP addresses and/or usernames of the page creators and editors. While some of these individuals are noteworthy, others are not.
I don't mean to denigrate these individuals or their achievements, but I respectfully submit that Wikipedia biographies aren't the appropriate forums for recognizing them. Reactions? Astro4686 (talk) 05:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be right on quite a few of these. I can see when it comes to discovering comets/asteroids/nova we may be dealing with people notable for only one event. The list criteria is that they have to have a Wikipedia article. Checking up on your query led me to delete Tim Puckett, he has no article. The procedure from here would be to note/add a template to articles with WP:NN problems. If they are deleted they should then be deleted off this list. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Fountains of Bryn Mawr, thanks for your reply. I'm planning to add notability maintenance tags to a number of the pages, but I saw at least one which has had a notability tag since May 2014. I was thinking that that article might be a good candidate for deletion. Do you concur? It just feels awkward to recommend the deletion of someone's biography from Wikipedia, even though I think that these pages aren't noteworthy per WP:NN and WP:BLP1E. Astro4686 (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

text:  I just reviewed the biographies and added notability tags to the 22 most problematic pages. Perhaps some of them could be fixed simply by adding sourced explanations of why the individual in question is noteworthy per Wikipedia guidelines. If anyone objects to my tags, I'd be happy to discuss my thinking. Astro4686 (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the contrary, I would like to thank you - this is overdue.  Yes, it is awkward, and it needs to be handled carefully because some may just need to document their notability better, but it has become cluttered with non-notable entries.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, Gronk Oz! I just nominated for deletion a biography which has had a notability tag for all but 2 minutes of its existence. I'm  reviewing the biographies that I just tagged, and if I'm convinced that a particular individual is non-notable, I'll nominate it for deletion. If anyone else would like to pitch in with this process, it would be most appreciated! Astro4686 (talk) 08:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

text:  I have nominated 7 biographies for deletion. All 7 discussions are located at the AfD sorting page for astronomy: . I'd welcome your feedback on these nominations as well as your participation in the AfD discussions. Astro4686 (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of amateur astronomers: notability issues? 

message: This article seems to place unwarranted emphasis on CCD imaging; it is not unique in being 'linear' most bog-standard digital cameras are 'linear' and their images can be processed in the same ways. It's even apparent that CCD is becoming a legacy technology as the capabilities of CMOS sensors start to equal or outclass CCD at lower prices. Stub Mandrel (talk) 09:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: CCD Emphasis