User talk:Curps/archive3

MFN/NTR

I figured MFN might be a generic term, but the article was clearly US-centric so I moved it to NTR, and the redirect got created automatically (it was the best available option at the time, really). You added the right stuff easily, so all is well. --Shallot 19:13, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Reverting

When you revert, can you please mark your revert by placing either "revert" or "rv" in the edit summary, ideally with a reason. Eg, against a common vandal, one might write "reverting blanking of page". That makes the page history easier to read at a later date. Martin 20:41, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OK, makes sense. Curps 00:46, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

SOHO: thanks for pointing that out. I made the title how it is in the other Wikipedia:WikiProject Telescopes pages. I've been wondering if we should include more info on the image used in the infobox, as you put in. If you've an opinion, post it to the talk page. --zandperl 21:16, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Good point. What would you think if I moved the image of the sun down the page and put an image of the satellite/telescope itself in the infobox? I think that's how most of the other telescope pages with the infobox are so far. --zandperl 02:42, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a good solution. Curps 02:44, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I'm the author of the paragraph you commented on on Talk:Astronomy. Celestial Mechanics and Astrometry are taught less and less, that's the reason I wrote "during part of the 20th century". Before that, astrphysics didn't exist, right now, I'm not sure CM and Asm. are on equal footing with astrophysics. The user who put the paragraph for discussion, however, hasn't put it back, and actually replaced it with a much less useful one (in my opinion), and that is talked about later on the text.--AstroNomer 20:59, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph about astrometry and celestial mechanics, but it's fairly different from what you originally wrote. Let me know what you think. Curps 01:58, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Comets

Hi Curps! I see you joined in adding interesting comets at list of comets, great!! Maybe we can make up a "template comet" (something like XP/Template ;-) with some general headings and parameters? This might help the overall look-and-feel, but up to now I just did not have the energy to do it. What do you think? Awolf002 15:24, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comets aren't really my specialty, I was doing bios of the early asteroid hunters and some of them discovered comets too, so I added them.

I'm not sure that templates are as useful as for some of the other celestial bodies, because their orbital elements are constantly getting perturbed. So the information would often be out of date. But if you want to give it a shot, go ahead. Lots of good information on http://www.cometography.com/ Curps 20:48, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ok, let my try it and see what others think... Awolf002 15:23, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for "(disambig William Pickering)" - led me into some very interesting places :Robin Patterson 01:46, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the original disambig I ran into was William H. Pickering... two people by that name, both connected to space/astronomy. And William Pickering was even more ambig.

Just the day before I had to deal with Robert G. Harrington and Robert Sutton Harrington, both astronomers.

Glad you found some interesting stuff. -- Curps 03:13, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Asteroids

Thanks for your help with my asteroid updates and additions! Much appreciated...

Sorry, forgot to sign name... still getting the hang of this... as you can tell... The Singing Badger

Plutinos

On the Plutino page, you say "Some astronomers classify Pluto itself as a plutino." Are there any astronomers in particular that you have in mind? The only reference cited on the page, David Jewitt, does not count Pluto as a Plutino. (According to his web page and an e-mail from him). JoelWest 06:53, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What I wrote was Some astronomers classify Pluto itself as a plutino; others believe it should continue to be considered a full-fledged planet, which I tried to make a NPOV statement of the "is Pluto really a planet controversy".

As you know, there are some astronomers who consider that Pluto might be reclassified as a minor planet, and if so, what category of minor planet would it be? It could only be a plutino, since the definition of plutino is a minor planet in 3:2 resonance with Neptune.

If Pluto is a minor planet it would be a plutino in much the same way that 1992 QB1 is a cubewano. Curps 07:18, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I like the new wording, which doesn't try to summarize who says what or attribute it to astronomers. I just cut it in two parts because the sentence seemed a bit run-on.

hello Curps, I have registered under DESERTSKY

in case I could be helpful with some information or hints, please write a note

to me under Dersertsky

I would not mind to give you my e-mail adress, but as all wiki is open to anybody I fear we would have a lot of spam,

regards

hello Curps, ref. La Silla and Paranal, the ESO observatories I have seen there are already good links finally to www.eso.org, there you will get a full information about all ESO activities and also the ESO history, you will find also (under La Silla Historical Picture Gallery a photo from me, it was my 50th birthday as far as I remember.

somebody interested in Radio Astronomy should also watch the ALMA project ESO with others is preparing in the Atacama desert, there should be information on the ESO pages or under ALMA ESO with google

H.-E.

H.-E. Schuster

hello Curps, That's me again (Desertsky,H.-E.): ref. the various minor planet lists in wiki: there exists a publication by Lutz Schmadel from ARI (Astronomisches Rechen Institut Heidelberg) called: "Dictionary of Minor Planet Names" already 4th edition ? permanently updated and now not anymore a hardcover but on a CD disk. As you know certainly this publiction gives full information about any Minor Planet yet detected (names, numbers, and also the dedication ect.) Maybe it is worthwhile to indicate a link to this publication, if legal and no copyright problems ? (just a link added to the listings mentioned above)

just for curiosity: where on this planet are you sitting, as you know I am in Hamburg,

rgds, Desertsky

right, I just found the link for the "Dictionary of Minor Planets" Montreal: I never made it to Canada, most northern point of the American Continent was Boston/Harvard, H.-E.

hello Curps I have done a small editing in my biography. Deleted after RED Survey the "IIIa-F" Maybe I am too meticulous but I think IIIa-F is a registered Trade Name from KODAK ? and if used credit should be given to KODAK ?? Both surveys mentioned (Blue and Red) have been executed on KODAK photographic material the Blue one on IIa-O and the Red one on IIIa-F behind corresponding glassfilters from SCHOTT/Germany shame enough I do not remember at this moment the exact names of the two filters used, information must be somewhere in the web;

by the way, if ever somebody writes an article about KODAK it should be mentioned with a strong appreciation what this Company has done for Astronomical Photography. (amongst the other fields of buisiness)

private remark: in what field you are busy? Astronomy as your hobby ?

H.-E.

thanks for the information and your understanding, in case I can help you with some information do not hesitate to ask me, getting old many details I am just forgetting, so it maybe a nice exercise to remember,

regrads from Hamburg to Montreal H.-E.

Good work on the List of asteroids. I hope you get a chance to complete it. Any idea of how we should keep it up to date as numbered objects get names?

That's an issue I've avoided so far by only continuing the list up to 4000 or so, where most of the object already have names.

Desertsky -We do have an article on Kodak -dreadful stub that it is. Rmhermen 15:24, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

hello CURPS: ref. Sky Surveys a hell of a job; where to start ?? where to end ?? Only photograpic ones ?? Do not forget there are several "modern" ones now, (with CCD techniques) partly still in progress. What is missing is a sort of review article or even a booklet (maybe approaching from the historical view) and then !wiki" may have a link or a reference to this. But do not forget what a tremendous recherche that means. (time consuming)

ref Minor Planets numbered but without names: the planets in my list have a provisional designation and I do not know if they are duly confirmed with numbers. Only then Names can be given provided the corresponding IAU committees agree,

regds H.-E.

You've got an answer on my talk. BTW: you forgot to sign your question, just add four tildes (~~~~) at the end and the signature will show up automagically. andy 08:14, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

French scientists

Hey, are you going on a tour fixing the pages of 19th century French scientists? :-) David.Monniaux 17:43, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just the astronomers :-)

New astronomer formatting

I'm slowly working on updating the "asteroids discovered" boxes on the articles in the astronomers category. Namely I'm replacing the first line of the table with the following to change the style:

{| align="right" style="border:1px solid #CCC; margin-left:15px;" cellpadding="5"

Also, I'm bolding the title of the table so it is immediately obvious what info is contained in the table. Right now the right alignment seems to have some conflicts with the category display, but I'm sure that will work out shortly (and I'll in fact report the issue) since the category display is quite new.

Just wanted to let you know, so you can help out with the changes if you're interested.

--Jeff 05:22, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

I noticed you moved the table to the front of the page, which causes the text to be squeezed along the left margin while the table occupies the middle of the page. The table probably would work better at the foot of the page as before. Curps 05:31, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Right, that's what I meant regarding the conflict with the category listing (the column should be flush right, and it is in fact in the preview). I guess if the issue with the category display isn't fixed soon, we'll have to move it back to the footer (or else to the left, but I don't think that would look right). --Jeff 07:10, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, what works well is to put the table between the lead sentence/paragraph and the second paragraph, so that it goes underneath the category display - I've done this to several of the pages. If you don't like the placement, please feel free to move the location of the box. I think that the new style is much better, so if you want to keep the style but move the boxes back to the end, here's the code:

{| style="border:1px solid #CCC; margin-left:15px;" cellpadding="5"

--Jeff 07:47, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

OK, I see they've moved the Category listing to the bottom of the page instead of the right-hand margin, so that should take care of any conflict. Curps 17:26, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)