Talk:Skygazing

message: The bulk of this article should be translated from :fr:Observation du ciel, which is a featured article. However, the name of the article is dubious. Possible suggestions are at Wikipedia:Translation into English#French. But more likely, this is a merge job --Thewayforward 23:34, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: ...as suggested on 9 June 2006 (UTC) by Halfblue.  (Initial list added by Izogi 04:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To-do list

message: I'll post my translation work as I write it here, so that if I get interrupted someone else can make use of the work. Sbwoodside 22:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation from [[fr:Observation du ciel]] 

message: Pleae note the existence of the article Amateur astronomy. They should link each other, or perhaps even merged. --Pjacobi 15:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: Why is this article called "skygazing" instead of "stargazing?"  As an amateur astronomer I've never really heard the word skygazing before as everyone stargazes.  I'm not the only one on this: in a Google search, for example, stargazing gets around 2 million hits but skygazing gets around 10,000.
::I strongly concur and encourage a merger.  "Stargazing" is the fitting English translation of "observation du ciel," not skygazing ("skygazing" in my dialect would imply daytime viewing).    Additionally, stargazing is a popular term for what's more technically termed as amateur astronomy which makes this entry entirely redundant.  Many elements can surely be merged, but this entry should only be a redirect to the amateur astronomy article.  Spad xiii 19:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that there's a quite developed discussion about this on the Amateur Astronomy Talk Page, mostly in favour (it seems) of merging this article into that one. Izogi 17:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skygazing Versus Stargazing 

message: My view is that sky visual phenomena is all cool, but atmospheric optic effects are what a lot of people understand by skygazing. Less popular than stargazing maybe, but still a distinctly different activity. In the digital age of increased mobility we have storm-chasers, for instance, no astronomical content there, and my specific interest is in sun/moon effects on airborne ice crytals, often at high altitude, but not really astronomic as far as i know. The cross-over takes place in the very high altitudes, where the solar energy sometimes creates light called aurora. Now thats typically referred to as astronomical. I have recently split my astro websites into two, one astronomic and one atmospheric. Skygazing clearly includes ALL sky visual features, astronomical AND clouds, optic effects, aircraft, flocks of birds, etc. Astronomy generally refers to ONLY objects/effects in space, or caused by illuminators from space, ie high altitude and further distant. I vote for an individual article, skygazing (atmospheric) but maybe stating  up front its boundaries of interest, and skygazing (astronomy) to be directed to astronomy.  moza 02:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes i think something like that.. but happy to have more comment, as there is a small element of astro style skygazing, with the sun, sunspots, moon, and venus during the day, and even other planets and things like comets and space station etc, at dawn and dusk. Even meteorites can be day time objects when they burn up in the sky. We also talk about 'dark sky' in relation to how well you might be able to look through the sky at space objects, although often in relation to light pollution. Aurora are fringe dwellers, in both camps also. moza 10:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skygazing (atmospheric) vs Skygazing (astronomic)

message: The section on telescopes is full of inaccuracies (that may have come from translation?). Most of those entries are also redundant since each type of telescope has its own Wikipedia entry. And the description of observable objects seems to imply only that type of instrument can observe it, which is incorrect. I guess those things can be fixed if and when this article is merged with amateur astronomy. Halfblue 23:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: clearly the article needs help, my view is sure, move the astro stuff to astro articles, but how about DAY time or SKY ONLY phenomena watching, thats not going to be appropriate for astronomy pages. Maybe a sun halo is astro but a rainbow not? its a fine line now, with some crossovers, such as the halo, the aurora, etc being astro, and the clouds and mist, fog etc not. So while the original intent may have been astro in another language, the title here includes both activities by English speaking skygazers. I spend more time and take many more images of the day sky than i do of the night sky, for instance. You could have Skygazing(day) and Skygazing(night) or just mention it at the top, and send the night skygazers to an astro site if you must, but there are likely plenty of night time skygazers that are not astro, for instance New York residents watching air transport around their city, probably cant see a single astro object for half the time. It all comes down to someone proceeding with doing something, taking into account all comments, and some common sense.moza 00:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem I am seeing is can this article be helped?. As you point out it’s about a lot of things... and that’s its problem. Wikipedia articles are about one thing... a noun you can describe. The loose translation of the original title from the French Observation du ciel is Observation of the sky (please excuse my french translation). That gives you the two almost un-reconcilable problems right from the start. It’s not a noun and Wikipedia is not an instruction manual (Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not). Making the title into the (noun?) Skygazing creates a new problem. That is an incorrect term, and for the most part it’s not even a word in most English dictionaries. At best the word Skygazing is a slang term for Astronomy or Amateur Astronomy. When you have imprecision you redirect to a disambiguation page. Once you move off all the redundant parts of this article to their more relevant pages and AfD all the "instruction" parts there wont be much left. Its not a bad article... its just not an encyclopedic entry. It should be saved in some way for the day when someone launches a Wiki-How-To or Wiki-Manuals.Halfblue 13:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, you have lots of very good points, quite hard to work through for me, I note that the article is featured in french wiki.moza 13:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: A railfan or rail buff (American English), railway enthusiast (Australian/British English), or (often with a more specialized meaning, described below) trainspotter (British English), is a person who is strongly interested, in an amateur capacity, in railroads. Railfans can be found worldwide.
That is where this article sits right now... it really should be a redirect to Amateur astronomy. What this article needs for a start is an opening paragraph that explains what Skygazing is... and if that that paragraph also describes Amateur astronomy then there is the heart of the problem. I have been an Amateur astronomer for 30 years or more and I have never come across a separate field called "Skygazing". That does not mean I may not be woefully ignorant of the term. So I would give you "To Do" #1.... an opening paragraph that describes Skygazing as a separate distinct well known field (or one that should be well known) in the English-speaking world. Halfblue 21:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article needs work - should it even be done?

message: "Light playing on water drops, dust or ice crystals in the atmosphere produces a host of visual spectacles - rainbows, halos, glories, coronas and many more. Some can be seen almost every day or so, some are once in a lifetime sights. Find out where to see them and how they form. Then seek and enjoy them outdoors." I'm not suggesting that we copy that, but that we use that for inspiration.  I think we need to be very careful that we dont throw out the baby with the bath water; a bit of how-to is inevitable in some ways, that doesnt have to make the article a manual though. the term skygazing is both a verb describing the action and a noun describing the process and person. Encyclopedic answers to standard queries such as what is it? who does it? why do they do it? why is it done? how is it done? what do they see? ie what are the benefits? what are the hazards? ( I recently had 'eye arc-burn' from too much cloud irisation watching), where do i go for more info? how can i identify what I see? how rare is the effect? what different sorts of skygazing is there? history, why is it useful, cultural, different uses. If the translated French article can be moved to a more appropriate title, Observation of the sky, (Astronomy is observation of the universe, mostly space) then a new article could easily emerge. perhaps go back in the history to before i added stuff and messed the translation up. thoughts? moza 15:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: see also Storm chasing they are definitely skygazers like me at skygazing. moza 15:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested style of opening and content for an improved (whole or part) article

message: In one of the very first sections in this article I read the following line:
"Sunspots and solar eclipses can be viewed during the day using a telescope or binoculars to avoid permanent blindness."
I think this needs to be rewritten before someone hurts themselves.
David
::Good spotting!! you are completely correct, and it should never have existed like that. I havent read the article seriously, just skimmed a few parts and added some bits, because I expected it to be cut up long ago. I cant walk past that though, and altered it to read: "Sunspots and solar eclipses can be viewed during the day using a telescope or binoculars fitted with approved safety filters.  Extreme caution must be exercised to to avoid permanent blindness.  Some solar filters supplied with cheaper telescopes are not safe enough, use only filters clearly identified as complying with current safety standards.  and "  cheers and thanks. moza 21:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solar observation warning 

message: In the section about the moon there is a picture of an increasing moon that is inverted so that it looks like a decreasing moon.  The note describes it as a decreasing moon which is incorrect but fixing it would probably be confusing to some people.  I would recommend finding a different picture.
::us down unders look at it that way so maybe it was one of us? youre correct that it should be labelled accordingly,moza 15:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it actually is an increasing Moon (aka waxing gibbous, just after first quarter), whichever way you look at it.  You can tell, because the terminator moves away from Mare Crisium, which is clearly visible on the left of the picture.  It's rotated 180° (rather than inverted, I think) for Northern Hemisphere viewers, but that doesn't change the direction of the terminator.  If this were a waning gibbous, Mare Crisium would be hidden in the dark area.  I'll update the article, and I might also make the picture somewhat smaller because right now it's dominating the section. Izogi 20:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Increasing moon picture 

message: I propose a move to "Stargazing" per earlier arguments and (1) "stargazing" is the more common term in English, (2) the whole content of this article is devoted to observation of the celestial realm, not meteorology and (3) the much-discussed merge with amateur astronomy has never reached consensus.--Pharos 05:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In case you hadn't noticed there are no stars to gaze at in the day sky, and zillions of people gaze at day skies all over the world, always have and likely always will, re-write the article is another possible solution... and the sky is cool at night too.. whatever, so much talk and so little  copy-editing..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.132.126 (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to "Stargazing" 

message: :Image:Telescope Newton Celestron.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 08:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Telescope Newton Celestron.jpg

message: :Image:Telescope Schmidt-Cassegrain Celestron.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 08:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Telescope Schmidt-Cassegrain Celestron.jpg

message: This page has been transwiki imported to Wikiversity at v:Skygazing where it will be developed into a learning project.  --mikeu talk 20:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transwiki to Wikiversity