Revision 1290596 of "Topic talk:Astronomy" on enwikiversity

== [[Portal:Physics and Astronomy]] ==

Please coordinate with [[Portal:Physics and Astronomy]]. <nowiki>[[Portal:Physics and Astronomy]]</nowiki> contains material that was imported from Wikibooks. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

== [[Wikiversity:Astronomy]] ==

I imported this from wb, but I'm not sure where you want it to go, so please feel free to move it.----[[User:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">'''SB_Johnny'''</font>]] | <sup>[[User talk:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">talk</font>]]</sup> 20:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

== Cleanup needed ==

The astronomy pages are in need of cleanup.  I'm willing to [[wikiversity:Be_bold|be bold]] and do some editing, but I'm new here and a bit confused by the namespace conventions.  What is the difference between School and Topic namespace?  I see that there is the [[School:Physics and Astronomy|School of Physics and Astronomy]] which contains the [[Topic:Astronomy|Department of Astronomy]].  That sounds fine to me.  (Although, the [[Wikiversity:Browse]] page lists astronomy as a school, and that redirects to the topic namespace.)  Within [[Topic:Astronomy]] (and also in [[School:Physics and Astronomy]]) there are long lists of "courses" with names that begin with Topic.  Should a learning project like [[Topic:Introduction to Astronomy]] really be in topic namespace?  Then we have Category:Astronomy_learning_project and Category:Astronomy_project which seem to be the same thing.  I would delete the first instance and add the second to the Category:Learning_projects.--[[User:Mu301|mikeu]] 16:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that my edit got posted to School_talk:Astronomy despite the fact that the page is in topic namespace.--[[User:Mu301|mikeu]] 16:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:Your questions in order:
:''What is the difference between School and Topic namespace?'': the School namespace was meant as a way to structure and present larger sets of related topics. How they are used specifically is up to each area. Within that area, however, they should be arranged in a way that appears intuitive and consistent so readers don't have to guess too much where to find information. If the structure doesn't appear to make too much sense to you, feel free to change it. From what I remember, there's not been too much activity in this area so feel free to move things as you see fit.
:''Should a learning project like Topic:Introduction to Astronomy really be in topic namespace?'': No, it probably should not. Individual learning projects (often in style not unlike courses) should go into the main namespace so they can be easily found when searched and linked to.
:If you want to delete pages and redirects which are no longer used within this area, feel free to use {{tl|delete}} or {{tl|dr}} to propose deletion. Also, if you need any administrative help, feel free to contact anyone with the mop. It's our job to help. [[User:sebmol|sebmol]] [[User talk:sebmol|<sup>?</sup>]] 16:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::I proposed deletion for one of the Astronomy project catagories.  [[Topic:Introduction to Astronomy]] has been moved to [[Introduction to Astronomy]] and Topic: has been removed from all the items in the list of proposed courses.  I can see a future need for major astronomy subtopics, for instance [[Topic:Planetary Science]] but I would say that with so little content it is too early to go creating subdivisions.--[[User:Mu301|mikeu]] 17:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I moved the list of subjects to another page called [[Topic:Astronomy/Courses]].  A long list of subjects that don't exist clutters the main page and is more of an impediment to growth.  New users are going to be confused trying to find content that exists, and it preimposes a structure for the future growth of what will be covered here rather than just letting it happen naturaly.--[[User:Mu301|mikeu]] 19:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

In the search box type "astronomy" and click the '''Search''' button.  The page claims that it lists "Results 1-20 of 46" but there are only 4 items returned.  Click on Next>> and there is an error message about no more matches.  Only two of the four results are astronomy pages.  The page I created on [[Observational astronomy]] is not listed.  By default the search only looks in the Main namespace so the results do not include the most important page which is [[Topic:Astronomy]].  That is very confusing for new users.--[[User:Mu301|mikeu]] 20:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:I thought I read that the databases used for search functions were going to be updated more than once a week, but I'm not sure that has happened yet. If that page does not show up in searched by Tuesday we will have to look into this for sure. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 20:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::There seems to be a database update problem that is not unique to Wikiversity. "[http://en.wikizine.org/2006_11_01_wikizine_archive.html all wikis should be re-indexed every 30 hours]", but they are not. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 17:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:::There are some rather serious issues with the "toolserver", which does these sorts of things for us. Be patient (very patient, perhaps)... it will get cleared up as soon as resources allow. --[[User:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">'''SB_Johnny'''</font>]] | <sup>[[User talk:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">talk</font>]]</sup> 00:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

== Cranbrook ==

[[w:Cranbrook|Cranbrook]] has an observatory.

==  Amateur astronomers pursue next great discovery ==

What does everyone think about this: [http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/01/15/virtual.astronomy.ap/index.html]?  Should we get involved?--[[User:Rayc|Rayc]] 16:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

:I'm familiar with a few of the references in that article.  I just came across Systemic and transitsearch.  In fact, I'm planning to create a project on exoplanets which would tie in with that.  There is a stub article at [[Observational astronomy/Extrasolar planet]] which, at the moment, just has a few references.--[[User:Mu301|mikeu]] 17:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

== Images ==

There's a fantastic picture of the day on Commons today - [[commons:Image:Orion_Nebula_-_Hubble_2006_mosaic_18000.jpg]] - and plenty more at categories like [[commons:Category:ESA_images]] - they might brighten up a resource or two here on Wikiversity... :-) [[User:Cormaggio|Cormaggio]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Cormaggio|beep]]</small></sup> 17:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

== Rearrangement of the front page ==

hi there!! am very eager to know more about each of you working on the astronomy page. the thing i suggest is that the first page is reserved to introduce the courses .i mean like
*basic courses
*advanced courses
*choosing your course propperly
i think guiding the student in the proper course would be great!! --<small>(''The preceding [[Wikiversity:Signature|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:Astro|Astro]] ([[User talk:Astro|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Astro|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.)</small>
:Hey there! Welcome aboard! Yup, feel free to edit...I think you've got a great idea, expanding the outlines and such. We can also link to resources on [[w:Wikipedia]] and [[b:Wikibooks]] too. --[[User:HappyCamper|HappyCamper]] 22:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

:Hello, and welcome!  You might also want to take a look at [[Portal:Physical Sciences]].  The [[Wikiversity:Major portals|Portal pages]] are intended to be a more user friendly introduction to the information that Wikiversity offers for those interested in learning.  The [[Topic:Astronomy]] page was originally intended more for those developing educational materials to coordinate the creation and editing of lessons.  At this point, content creation is probably needed more than anything.  Most of the "courses" listed are redlinks to pages that do not yet exist.  Even some of the existing links (ie. [[Solar System and Stellar Astronomy]]) have no content, yet. There has been some discussion about just how usefull it is to new visitors to have lists of non-existing content.  For example, see [[User:JWSchmidt/Blog/28 February 2007]]. If anyone is interested in collaborating on content, feel free to [[User talk:Mu301|drop me a note]] and we can pick some pages to improve.--[[User:Mu301|mikeu]] 16:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

==Astronomy vs Astrophysics==
There ought to be some unison between the supposed deparments of Astronomy and Astrophysics. I believe the two things are slightly different but very related, so much so that they should be in the same 'sub-department'. Astronomy relates to making observations and categorizing objects, Astrophysics is about understanding the objects (the physics that governs said objects). So perhaps it makes sense to merge Astronomy and Astrophysics on the same page but note the division between the two via their associated topics. 

I have to admit that I have great scepticism about this Wikiversity project and what will actually be gained. Excessive compartmentalisation of topics invites inefficiency: leading to pages that have great overlap with one another.

{{unsigned2|15:57, 2 November 2007|Augustus}}

:I have no problem with merging Astronomy and Astrophysics.  I also have no problem with merging astronomy back into [[School:Physics and Astronomy]].  A couple things to keep in mind [[Topic:Astrophysics]] emphasizes university level instruction.  That seems to me to be apropriate.  The [[Topic:Astronomy]] page also seems to be somewhat oriented to the university level.  However, some of the astronomy activities being created are for younger children.  (I plan on creating new astronomy activities for high school and younger students)  I do wonder if the bias towards higher education topics in the course listing is discouraging people who are interested in producing introductory content from participating in these coordination pages.  In any case, my own personal preference is to create content pages (lessons, activities, learning projects, etc) first and then add them to the list at a school or topic page. Sometimes I just use a category to organize the content.  The list of courses have been changed and then reverted or rewritten so many times that I no longer feel that it is a worthwhile use of my time to participate in editing the course lists.  I would like to see these project pages used more for coordinating the creation of learning projects.  For example, perhaps astronomy and astrophysics could work together on a subject area like supernova.--[[User:Mu301|mikeu]] 00:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

==MORE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE EDITORS==
i think that there is a lack of communication between the editors of this page as it is contantly updated but without ANY NOTICE in the discussion page.i think that we will waste our time if one creates a thing then the next come and delete and replaces  it by his own content.i think that putting more effort in communicating more efficience will make lose less time in retyping all the work we did and rewritting the thing that the editor chage.i think it is essential.without communication this page will be a constant battle.which we would certainly not like/so plz everyone.let's try to communicate more by posting any suggestions here.thanks  

{{unsigned2|12:45, 22 May 2007|Astro}}

== astronomy: school or topic ==

It looks like someone has changed [[School:Astronomy]] from a [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=School:Astronomy&diff=125097&oldid=44689 redirect] to [[Topic:Astronomy]] into a coordination page.  Is there really a need for both?  Because there are so few editors working on astronomy related pages I feel that it is better to keep things simple and have one central place to coordinate our efforts.  I really don't care if we use a page in school or topic namespace.  I'm going to hold off on merging the two until I see some agreement here on which page to use for astronomy.  Please respond to this note at [[School_talk:Physics_and_Astronomy#astronomy:_school_or_topic]] to keep the discussion in one place.--[[User:Mu301|mikeu]] 23:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

== stubs ==

There is now a [[:Category:Physics and Astronomy stubs]].  --[[User:Mu301|mikeu]] 03:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

== similar solar system to ours found... ==

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/02/14/sciplanet114.xml --[[User:Remi|Remi]] 06:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

== Skygazing ==

The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skygazing&oldid=248601134 Skygazing] page as wikipedia is now a redirect to [[w:Amateur astronomy]].  The old Skygazing content has been transwiki imported to wikiversity at [[Skygazing]] for development here as a learning project page.  --[[User:Mu301|mikeu]] <sup>[[User talk:Mu301|talk]]</sup> 20:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


== First impressions of the school; upcoming changes and some questions for the community==
First thank you for highlighting orphoned and incomplete material for me.

I spent a few minutes reviewing portal/school.  Let me give you some of my impressions as well as some of the ways I would like to help.

first, please DON't take this personally, but I thought the portal was a rough!
  
There is extensive interest in astrophysics/physics/etc (as I found last night; spent over two hours talking to someone about the whole relatively/quantum mechanics things).  But EVEN so, you almost can't find the Amateur astronomy section. its behind (beyond) all the physics stuff.

an aspiring or beginning observer might feel quite intimidated or lost in all the astrophysics and it creates an misconception, that somehow advanced astrophysics is a 'requirement' for observer.

as you know, people can do some very enjoyable observing with only minor knowledge of these things.  I also found stuff about actual observing poorly developed. (I hope to help there). Its possible my limited search was merely insufficient to find these kinds of topics.

but what I think we need to do, is create  better 'forks' 
* Astronomy and Physics
* Observing and Astrophysics
* Beginning (untelescopic), Intermediate (visual telescopic observing), or Advanced (imaging)
** The challenge of this scheme is the impression that somehow imaging is King or best and untelescopic work such as meteors is simplistic or beginning

Now if we could someone separate physics/ astrophysics/ and astronomical observing
I would be interested in fleshing out courses in astronomical observing (when there's interest)

so here's what I want to do
#Develop backyard astronomy (solidify content)
#Create a course around 'beginning backyard astronomy.' basically, if I have some advice, how effective or useful is it for someone to take my advice?  I would like to see how the advice works with begginners eyes.  
#Create a department clarifying what is backyard astonomy and begin fleshing out the fork between untelescopic, visual, and imaging
#Lastly penn up some kind of proposed organization for a series of forks that will organize the school (perhaps the portal?). It would be good to get a lot more feedback for this

Could someone kind of fill me in (if possible) at the history of this layout?  what efforts have been made, what kind of vision did people who set this up have?  I think this is rough, but I know nothing about the history of interactions here.  Perhaps, most people visit for the physics???  perhaps you guys are all physicists!  I see several names of people I don't think I've met.   
I'd also be interested to know if there's fleshed out courses and who was thinking about doing what.--[[User:Jolie|Jolie]] 20:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

:Re: history of the layout.  There have been a number of attempts to reorganize the topic and school spaces related to astronomy.  For example, astronomy and physics have at times been seperate, then they were combined, then astrophysics was created, and then there was a motion to merge that into astronomy and physics, and then...  Take a look at the posts above for a sample of the changes that have been proposed.  See also [[School talk:Physics and Astronomy]] and [[Topic talk:Astrophysics]].  A number of people have dropped in, made some changes, and then later others have changed things in a somewhat different direction, etc.  There have rarely been times when two or more people have actually worked on organizing things at the same time.  For the most part I have not spent much time on editing these pages, and instead have used category names to organize content.  My general philosophy is to create content first, and then organize it second.  If you are interested in trying to clean up these pages, I'd be willing to help, though.  One thing that is not obvious is that the idea of Topic pages was modeled on [[w:Wikipedia:WikiProject]]s.  The idea was that when you have a number of people collaborating on creating content in a particular subject, then you create a project page for organization and discussion of how to proceed on developing pages.  There is also the idea of pages like [[Portal:Physical Sciences]] which were intended as a user friendly directory to content.  Note, that not everyone at wikiversity shares my view of how these namespaces are used, and so there are different ideas about how they should develop.  Some feel that having these lists of redlinks to subject pages that do not yet exist will encourage the creation of those pages.  I'm open to just about any scheme for organizing content and making is easier to collaborate on developing learning pages.  I'll make a start on this by creating some sort of inventory of what we currently have.  I have also created a new [[:Category:Amateur astronomy]] and moved some pages to it.  --[[User:Mu301|mikeu]] <sup>[[User talk:Mu301|talk]]</sup> 14:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

::We are both thinking in the same direction.  I want 'amateur astronomy' to organize the hobby and study of celestial objects and to provide an obvious fork between 'basic astronomy' and 'astrophysics'.I've also sent lots of courses into the neitherworld as I completely agree with you that a mass of red links do not inspire participation.  my old work on 'backyard astronomy' is being undone as I attempt to divide

:: * visual eye work (mostly recreational)
:: * telescope visual work (mixed)
:: * and imaging work (mostly oriented towards scientific contribution)

::thus my current 'backyard astronomy' is mostly stargazing.  I'll leave the large misc material alone but I have misgivings about it; it still looks cluttered. but no doubt, people will fill it in if I remove it.
:: hopefully people only put courses in that are developed and that will deter the sea of red.
:: I want to twist my current backyard astronomy page into a course/learning project.--[[User:Jolie|Jolie]] 21:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


I think that both of you make valid comments and I agree with the general flavour of what is being said. I disagree with an unnecessary sea of red but I am in favour of creating place holders for core topics. Ie a red link for Cosmology would be acceptable in my book but a red link for hidden secrets of extra-dimensional super-strings with added branes theory (intentionally facetious) would be a no-no. The latter is an example of wishful thinking, pulling us in too many directions, while such a topic might be highly fascinating and perhaps even necessary to understand the universe it can hardly be considered a core topic of an undergraduate course. I'd suggest focusing on core topics for an undergraduate course. I have more knowledge of the physics side of astronomy than the actual practical side. I'm a little bit reluctant to separate astronomy and astrophysics but I understand your reasoning and have come to accept that having the two as separate pages is perhaps the best way to proceed. [[User:Augustus|Augustus]] 20:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

== Improvement drive ==

These pages are in need of expansion and improvement:

<DynamicPageList>
category = Astronomy
category = Stub pages
order = ascending
ordermethod = lastedit
count = 20
</DynamicPageList>

== Plan of further organization ==
ok here's the plan for further organization.

I'm trimming Topic: astronomy and hoping someday it becomes a school.  Its status is less important to me than other issues although I would like it be be neat, and organized.

I will not alter basic_astronomy and astrophysics pages for a while; I'm not ready to take them on (time) and there appear to be plenty of people qualified to organize, teach and contribute to both.  ''Please don't Clutter up Topic: Astronomy''' with astrophysics, and miscellaneous information.  Fork, Then feel free to unleash!  a zillion uncompleted courses can be found with the link and you're free to reinsert them AFTER the fork.

On Amateur Astronomy; I want to describe the appeal and bring down by what equiptment you use.
Then I intend to describe cover some basic information about each choice.  In These pages, I want to have Some content but still forks for more information.  I want to use wikipedia heavily to describe things.

Lastly at the lowest levels I will define course that will basically be some content, some suggested activities and a link back to me for questions and collobaration.

I will paste a link of each developed 'course' back up on this page.  '''Feel free to do the same IF ITS DEVELOPED'''. --[[User:Jolie|Jolie]] 16:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

== Subpage hierarchy ==

So, we have, just for the *overall topic*, and in mainspace:
*[[Astronomy]]
*[[Astronomy college course‎]]
*[[Amateur astronomy]]
*[[Astronomy outline]]
*[[:Category:Astronomy Project]]
*[[Introduction to astronomy]] (this was written on wikibooks in the Wikiversity namespace there and was transwikied here when WV separated from WB).
*many subfields loose in a large category (more than one page, which makes use much more difficult).

I'd like to develop a systematic approach to organizing these resources. As one principle, when there is a resource [[Astronomy]] and a resource [[Radiation Astronomy]], it's an obvious categorization to move the latter to [[Astronomy/Radiation]] (The lede would call it explicitly Radiation astronomy. Then [[Principles of radiation astronomy]] would become [[Astronomy/Radiation/Principles).

(I'm not completely against [[Astronomy/Radiation astronomy]]. But shorter page names are a value, as long as they don't cause confusion. )

A text book might well be called ''Principles of Radiation Astronomy.'' Wikiversity is not for textbooks. Wikibooks is. (There is [[b:General Astronomy]] which seems rather well-developed.)

Wikipedia has this vast flat mainspace. In theory, we do not duplicate Wikipedia, we are not about "articles," though articles are written here. Rather, we are ''used'' for learning, and for creating "educational resources," which supplement and complement what is on Wikipedia. In some cases we can balance what is on Wikipedia.

I notice that [[b:General Astronomy]] uses a vast subspace. An idea occurred to me to import that entire structure here, as stubs that refer to wikibooks and wikipedia, then if pages fit, here, move them into place, if they are redundant, merge, and if something important is missing from the wikibook, add it. Our pages would then have research projects, studies, student notes, quizzes, discussion, and supplements that for one reason or another are not appropriate for wikibooks. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Abd|contribs]]) 21:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

:Some problems encountered so far with subpage hierarchies have been mentioned on the [[Talk:Solar System, technical|discuss]] page for [[Solar System, technical]]. I think we need more people from the Astronomy department to talk about what we'd like to do especially regarding courses, resources, and some pages that are already subpages like [[Astronomy/Laboratories]] and [[Astronomy/Problems]]. Do we want individual lectures or articles subpaged say to [[astronomy]] or to the [[Topic:Astronomy|department]] or to specific courses when they may serve multiple courses. --[[User:Marshallsumter|Marshallsumter]] ([[User talk:Marshallsumter|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Marshallsumter|contribs]]) 22:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

::There is a lecture called [[Radiation astronomy]] which is the keynote lecture for the course [[Principles of radiation astronomy]]. There is also a lecture entitled [[Radiation]]. Now, [[radiation]], which is more [[physics]] oriented could go under physics as [[Physics/Radiation]]. But, I doubt the Physics department of the [[:School:Physics and Astronomy]] would want to put all of their courses under [[physics]], since they are already listed under departments. Another problem with say [[Physics/Radiation]] is that the physics lecture already presents some aspects of radiation. --[[User:Marshallsumter|Marshallsumter]] ([[User talk:Marshallsumter|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Marshallsumter|contribs]]) 15:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

One of the things I like about the subpage hierarchy organization is the benefit of multiple resources with some overlap of material. I have restored material to each of the course components of [[Solar System, technical]] so that they stand as part of the course. If another name is agreed upon, all but three resources could be moved as a unit to a new course title.

In addition, those resources associated with astronomical objects within our solar system exist as independent resources from which information and images may be used in additional subpages for additional courses.

One problem with using subpages in the course [[principles of radiation astronomy]] is that the course uses some 186 resources. The lectures averaged more hits (40-2100) per semester than the quizzes (20-80), lessons (50-140), problem sets (40-90) or laboratories (30-260). Using midpoints, the estimated hit total for the first fall semester in 2014 is 76,000. The benefit of subpages would have been a more accurate hit total. --[[User:Marshallsumter|Marshallsumter]] ([[User talk:Marshallsumter|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Marshallsumter|contribs]]) 20:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Individual lectures received about 1/20 th of the hits as same-named entries on Wikipedia. One exception was the lecture [[Radiation astronomy]], not such an entry on Wikipedia, which outhit [[Gamma-ray astronomy]] or [[Ultraviolet astronomy]] on Wikipedia. --[[User:Marshallsumter|Marshallsumter]] ([[User talk:Marshallsumter|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Marshallsumter|contribs]]) 20:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)