Talk:Sky

message: I think a link to the Sky Satelite TV service should be provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blake02 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV 

message: This statement from the article is interesting:  "There is no 'blue object' above the earth in any normal sense, so it is hard to say what object the sky is."    Yet there certainly is a blue substance up there.  It's called air.  Air is colored blue for the same reason that any blue object looks blue: when the air is illuminated by white light, the short wavelengths are preferentially reflected to our eyes.  However, the blue of the air is a structural color produced by wave effects, whereas most other blue substances are blue because of preferential absorbtion.  (Other examples of structural color: the blue of bird feathers, the blue of human irises, the blue of aerogel and cigarette smoke,  ...and the bright colors of holograms, interference filter elements, and soap bubbles.)
Perhaps a widespread misconception is the cause of our misunderstanding.  People seem to believe that pure dust-free air is completely transparent.  Actually, only a thin layer of air is transparent, while a thick layer behaves as a blue substance, and a very thick layer would appear as white as milk.  ("Thin" here means thinner than ten miles or so.)  
Analogy: similar things happen when we look at a muddy river, versus a glass of water from the same river.  If we look at the glass of clear water and decide that river water is perfectly transparent, then we'd be hard pressed to explain the brown opacity of the river, and might put it down to arcane causes such as "molecular scattering."  A simple description would be that river water is a dilute brown color, and a thin enough layer is perfectly clear.
So shouldn't we say that air is a blue substance, but a thin enough layer looks clear? --Wjbeaty 19:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difficulty defining "Sky?" 

message: I think it's time to protect or at least semi-protect this article. Just take a look at the history. How many times has "Sky" been vandalized? I've just erased some vandalism ("Sky is a person, he's small and nice" or something). Does anyone agree with me? Victao lopes 16:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been away for a few days.  I can't believe how much crap has been done to this article!  I vote to Protect the article. Badly Bradley 03:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've listed Sky at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, but it was declined for not enough vandalism. Maybe we'll have to wait a few more days, or protect/semi-protect Sky ourselves. Those IP have also vandalized other articles such as Happiness, they are here for nothing.Victao lopes 00:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection or semi-protection 

message: http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/miscon/miscon4.html#blu see this site and maybe consider that in respect to why the sky is blue. It makes sense that its blue because its blue, like water. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User13752 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  check something 

message: I'm seeking for a night sky with stars and so one. There is any picture neither on commons nor here. 83.179.69.133 19:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Night sky 

message: In all of existence, I can think of nothing that has been seen by more people than the sky, and so it seems silly to have eight images of it.  If nobody objects, I intend to remove SI-Sky.JPG, Above_the_Clouds.jpg, Stormy_skies.jpg, and Trees-sky.jpg. -- Headwes 21:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is out of control, yes.  However, in my opinion the ones to keep are Trees-sky.jpg and Sunset02.jpg.  Spiel496 22:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the photos are the best part of the article. Beautiful photography. --Trelawnie (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: Guys, I accidentally the first line of the article. I don't know how to make it go back. Sorry. :(  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afisair (talk • contribs) 08:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I accidentally 

message: what about for those of us, that can't see color
what is blue?
damn right you need a  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.195.232 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am totally blind, so I also cannot see colour, but I accept that it looks blue to those who can see colours. Graham87 13:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  eye color discrimination  

message: then you have no idea of color,
blue to is different to me, and very to different to people of normal vision. 
a citation is differently needed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.239.134.48 (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eye color 

message: In the first paragraph, at least.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.231.172 (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: All gone now. Graham87 03:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: The section on sky luminescence is impenetrable. Can someone dumb it down for the layperson? Where's Bill Nye when you need him?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.131.92 (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  So wait, why is the sky Blue? 

message: As neither of these articles is particularly long, and the two are obviously related, it would be easy to merge them. This would also make it easier to address events like eclipses, comets or supernovae, as they have strong astronomical ties, but don't belong exclusively in the "night sky".Forbes72 (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from Night Sky 

message: This article was missing a bit of content which was already available elsewhere within the meteorology set of articles, a number of which are current good articles (see also: low hanging fruit).  Sections from other articles were copied and modified to fit in better with this article's focus.  While it still needs a number of references, this article should be a bit more complete now.  FYI.  Thegreatdr (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, nice work! Graham87 01:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Restructuring and expansion

message: The paragraph starting with the sentence "The scattering due to molecule sized particles (as in air) is almost random" needs work. I dispute nearly every sentence. Does someone have a source we can refer to?  Spiel496 (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.  I have done my best to tackle that paragraph, which originated from the Atmospheric optics article.  Hopefully it makes more sense now...the content has been rearranged so that the section reads more fluidly.  Atmospheric physics was a class I had significant trouble with in college. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Almost random 

message: Coming from a meteorology background, I filled in the holes in the article relating to weather.  The bigger question is whether or not anything is still missing from this article.  Common terms such as sky can become very large articles since they usually have numerous aspects.  Thegreatdr (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Anything missing?

message: The recently added picture, showing the sunrise and moon, is pretty, but it has a weird artifact. There's a perfectly horizontal seam near the horizon. It looks like two photos were stitched together.  This article being about the sky, the horizon is unnecessary anyway.  Is there a cropped version of the photo available that omits the horizon and the weird seam?  Spiel496 (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm too lazy to fix the picture myself, and apparently the editor who added it has gone on to other things, so I'm deleting it.  Spiel496 (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine.  We had one too many pictures anyway.  We need no more pictures within this article unless there is significant expansion.  Thegreatdr (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Photo was replaced with the Seamless directly photographed original. I grabbed the wrong photo from my gallery when I originally placed that photo in the free space under photo#1.Pocketthis (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seam in sunrise pic 

message: I don't see it's relevance here. I don't even like it on the Sky brightness page, but that's another issue.
I don't think anyone is learning anything from this chart. I've been starring at it for an hour trying to figure out what relevance it has to
this article; or anything for that matter. On the other hand, there is no Dusk photo, and I'd like to replace the chart with one of the photos you see under it.
The author calls this 'chart': Illuminated-airmass. If he is so smart as to have written this puzzling chart of nothingness, why doesn't he know that "air mass" is two words?
I think the chart is useless, in the wrong article, and boring.
On the other hand, if there is really something to be learned from this 'Chart' or why it's relevant here, and someone wants to come to it's rescue and explain it to me, I'm all ears, and I thrive on learning. Thanks
Pocketthis (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it's a measure of how bright the horizon is, as a function of how far down the sun has set. A value of 1 corresponds to the brightness of the sky directly overhead when the sun is up. The implication is interesting: the brightness of the sky is roughly determined by how much atmosphere there is along the direction one is gazing, multiplied by the fraction of that air that has sunlight on it.  The problem, in my opinion, is that the chart is "orphaned" -- the text doesn't refer to it. I'm inclined to leave the chart and hope that someone writes something interesting to go with it. The relevant place to mention it would would be in the various definitions of twilight.  I don't see a problem with spelling "airmass" as one word. Spiel496 (talk) 07:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Spiel496. Nice to hear from you, and you know I respect your opinion...always have. It seems you agree with me that the relevance of the chart to this article as it stands is weak at best. I'll leave the writing of a twilight section to those more competent than me. I understood the chart to be exactly as you explained it when I blew it up, but thought it was useless where it is, and personally uninteresting. As far as the spelling of Air-mass, Webster agrees with me. It's either two separate words, or one word when separated with a hyphen. I have made the spelling correction under the chart, and leave the rest of decision making to those in the scientific community. Perhaps a move to the Twilight Article would be a good idea for this 'Chart'. Thanks for your reply.Pocketthis (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

text: How about this suggestion: If we must have a Chart opposite the Dusk text, how about this one. It is certainly more relevant to the text; and much more informative to the subject at hand than what we're using. It doesn't help my "photo quest" ....but I'm easy. Pocketthis (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Please Explain this chart to me

message: After 60 days with no objections, the orphaned old chart was exchanged with a chart that relates more to the text it is opposite: Dusk and Dawn.
Pocketthis (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Chart Exchanged

message: Given Wikipedia's draconian "original research" policies, there should be a citation for the sky having stars at night because apparently observation counts as original research. 203.211.127.70 (talk) 11:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stars in night sky. 

message: I removed the gallery section, though I understand why it reappeared in 2012.  If you're looking to resolve image loading, a gallery is not the solution.  Galleries just perpetuate the problem as galleries grow with time.  For years, wikipedia has a policy stating "wikipedia is not an art gallery".  Now it reads "do not overload articles with images".   The related wikilink.  To me, this would include galleries.  Images (if uploaded properly) are sorted in commons in such a way that images won't be lost if they are not in this article, as long as they are assigned to the right category.  Whenever you work on or edit articles on here, ask yourself, "Would an encyclopedia article look this way?" and you'll have your answer for what should or should not be in wikipedia articles.  Food for thought.  Thegreatdr (talk) 03:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not an art gallery 

message: I would like to request a fix to reference 11 - the link used to go directly to the referred article, since some time only the main page of the conference is shown. Also the title is not correct as the article was published in the proceedings of the 2002 conference, not 2008. A copy of the article is hosted on the website of our institute, see the suggested change.
Current state:
eSim 2008 (May 20th - 22nd, 2008) General Sky Standard Defining Luminance Distributions  ->  http://www.esim.ca/2002/documents/Proceedings/other2.pdf
Suggested edit:
Darula, S., Kittler, R. (2002). "General Sky Standard Defining Luminance Distributions". Proc. Conf. eSim 2002, September 11th - 13th, 2002, Montreal.  ->  http://www.ustarch.sav.sk/ustarch/download/Darula_Kittler_Proc_Conf_eSim_2002.pdf
Sdaru (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out. Done, with some minor wikification! Graham87 00:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 25 August 2013 - Reference 11 incorrect 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Sky. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nwac.us/education_resources/Field_forecasting.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080602012700/http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Lighter_than_air/Early_Balloon_Flight_in_Europe/LTA1.htm to http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Lighter_than_air/Early_Balloon_Flight_in_Europe/LTA1.htm
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) 23:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sky. 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/20110826203901/http://scijinks.nasa.gov/blue-sky to http://scijinks.nasa.gov/blue-sky
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) 17:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The article is locked so I have to ask for my proposed edit here. There is a request for clarification in:
:The scattering due to molecule sized particles (as in air) is greater in the forward and backward directions than it is in the lateral direction.[clarification needed]
I had to pause and think what on earth forward and backward are supposed to mean here as well, so I agree that clarification is in order. I would suggest:
:The scattering due to molecule sized particles (as in air) is greater in the propagation direction of light than  perpendicular to it.
Thoughts?
And by the way, the Rayleigh scattering article itself sorely needs an illustration of this fact, similar to the image embedded here, which could then be included in this section as well - but that is another issue. --88.74.14.172 (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit suggestion regarding clarification of Rayleigh scattering direction dependency  

message: At the beginning, it says "The sky (also sometimes called celestial dome)". Are there any reputable sources to support that? The "celestial sphere" is the closest thing I could find, but that already has its own article and isn't quite the same. -ChainSmoker82 (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WikiBlame, it was added by Thegreatdr in February 2012. Graham87 06:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Um....the related wikipedia article.  Thegreatdr (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

text: I've fixed your link, but (a) we already mentioned that and (b) Wikipedia is not a reliable source for itself. Graham87 02:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone and removed it. Because of Wikipedia's extreme prominence, we need rock-solid sourcing for something like this and it seems none is forthcoming. Graham87 15:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is calling it the celestial dome? 

message: Sky is also a song made by playboi carti Maxey3 (talk) 04:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sky 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Alkere. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26#Alkere until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Certes (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Alkere" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: "The sky is an unobstructed view upward from the surface of the Earth". Is this really the best definition for it? Barjimoa (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition