User talk:Dr. Submillimeter

Welcome!

Hi there. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your astronomical contributions. I hope you like it here and stick around. If you want, you can drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log to introduce yourself.

Before you start doing a lot of editing, you might want to take the Tutorial. It gives a lot of basic info you'll want to get you oriented on Wikipedia.

You can sign your name on talk pages by using three tildes (" ~~~ ") for your username and four (" ~~~~ ") for your username and a timestamp.

If you have any other questions about the project, then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Help desk. You can also drop me a question on my talk page.

Happy editing, Nebular110 15:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Your efforts on astronomical articles

Hello, I wanted to thank you for your efforts on various astronomical (galaxy) articles and the improvements you made to them. I'm one of the amateur enthusiasts you speak of on your user page, even though I do try to get things right when editing (and I abhor plagiarism and copyright violations), so I do appreciate the revisions you are making.--Kalsermar 20:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. Note that some of my harsher comments ae aimed at other people (who I have subtlely left unnamed but who you and I know are responsible for things like the misnamings in Wikipedia). I think your contributions and attitude are generally very positive. GeorgeJBendo 21:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Galaxy Question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marasama#M104_group CarpD (^_^)

Re: M104 Group

I took a look of the Atlas of the Universe website which has pretty good lists of various galaxy groups. On this page M104 is listed as being a member of the NGC4594/M104 group, but on this page M104 is listed separately and some of the members in the "NGC4594 group" are listed as being as members of the NGC 4699 group. What comes to the Wikipedia page, it is not only almost empty, but also ridden with errors. I think it deserves deletion.--JyriL ^talk 18:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Edits on Herschel 400 Catalogue

Hi George, thanks for your help on the H400 page, its my first real edit so am interested in the process and some of your corrections.

The M102 edit I am confused by, I understand that it is now broadly accepted that M102 is a duplicate observation of M101 as uncovered by Hogg et al. Although many cats still erroneously site NGC 5866. I included it for completeness. Do you know anyone who is working on the M101/M102/NGC 5866 pages to clarify this?

Your edits on object names are interesting, I have to admit I have gathered them from the net and books (Stephen James O'Meara for example) where I have seen them or heard them at star parties. Is there an official list, maybe maintained by the IAU? If so I will use this and update my site. If there is no official list yet names are used how do you or I know what is acceptable?

Also since I'm a newby at this any hints on style, content etc greatly appreciated. I have to admit the whole process of just diving in is liberating. Should new articles on Astronomy like the H400 have been discussed somewhere first?

Jim Cornmell 08:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Galaxy Groups

F.Y.I., Richard takes a while to reply back. Please be patient on that email. CarpD (^_^)

WikiCast

I hope you don't mind - someone from WikiCast was looking for knowledgable types and i sent him your name. Here is the link to his request.

Thank you, I feel honored. However, someone is going to need to explain what I need to do next. GeorgeJBendo 22:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing. I think this guy will come to you, if he is interested. I have no idea what it's about. Maybe you'll get famous ;) --Exodio 01:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiCast: A Request

Hi, (Sorry if this rambles on)

I am the indvidual that asked on WikiProject space..

WikiCast is an attempt to do 'free' content net radio with a Wiki Focus. It is very much in Alpha Development. One of the programme ideas for WikiCast was an astronomy/space show called 'Nocturne'.

A possible format would be to have one 'big' topic in the programme, (say black holes), but alongside have a short 'space news' section and have coverage on appropriate recent or expected events.

The audience for this would be essentialy general, but effectivly Wikipedians, so in places stuff could get reasonably technical.

Would you be interested in produing 'Nocturne' for WikiCast? I can explain some of the 'technical' side if you are interested. ShakespeareFan00 22:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Have got your response, give me time to put some more detial together. ShakespeareFan00 16:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Editting Astronomica Acronym

Sure you can edit it. No problems, thanks, CarpD 8/27/06.

Finished the Acronym page

Finished the List of astronomy acronyms, or least, all that I have listed on my personal list. Thanks, CarpD (^_^) 8/30/06

Thanks

Thanks for the useful tip on redshift. WilliamKF 19:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the pointer to the paper that includes distances to galaxies. WilliamKF 01:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm already doing that, per your footnotes that led me to do so before I even got your first message. BTW, is there a place on NED that gives distance? WilliamKF 20:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Why does the prime go mid number as in 6′.3 as opposed to 6.3′? Or should it be in seconds as in 6′ 18″? WilliamKF 22:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

What should I use for radius of a Galaxy, half its widest or half its thinest or the average of the extremes? Also, given the distance in parsecs, what is good formula from visual arcseconds to distance it spans? WilliamKF 00:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm using this: distance × sin( diameter_angle / 2 ) = xx kly. radius based on the wider size since I imagine the thinner one is due to inclination towards us.

If you are going to propose radius be removed from galaxy template, might I suggest that we also add parsec distance in addition to ly distance like some other templates (like cluster) have already? WilliamKF 16:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In Tonry et al. the distance modulus (m-M) from Column 10 from Table 1 has a second number to right. For NGC 4826 this is 29.37 0.20. Do I take the second number as margin of error? As in value is 29.37 +/- 0.20? WilliamKF 22:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would like the formula for uncertainty. I made a guess at it for NGC 4826 and got +/- 2million. I computed the formula for the value given plus the error and took the difference to be 2 million. WilliamKF 06:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I used the spitzer image since I could not find any other public domain ones for NGC 3627. If there is a better image out there (i.e. normal color) I couldn't find one that was good quality and public domain. WilliamKF 20:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do point me to the "FITS files in the optical wavebands (BVR) that (I think) qualifies as public domain". WilliamKF 22:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Now that you have dropped some items from the Galaxy template, I'm wondering if we should add any? For example, should the distance modulus be added as a typical fact that one would want easy access to? WilliamKF 23:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding distance modulus being redundant, their is precident for this in the template including both light years and parsecs. I'm thinking the distance modulus is handy to have calculated for you since for example you can use it to derive the absolute magnatude. WilliamKF 16:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I saw the empty parens but didn't think it a big issue since I have seen this done in other templates (i.e Template:Cluster). But if you feel strongly, then remove it is okay. I'm thinking keeping it is good because it prompts folks to enter a value, without it in the template unless you see other galaxies doing such, you wouldn't think to put in a parsecs value. Better yet, is there a way to have the parens only show up if there is a value? WilliamKF 18:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Mind-numbingly long lists of acronyms

Wow, it is longer than letter 'S', for now. No problem, this page is not as pressing as some. So no need to stress over it. Thanks, CarpD (^_^) 8/31/06

New Caldwell catalogue

Hi George, I've loaded up a new version of the Caldwell catalogue, I would appretiate your comments. Can you think of anyone else, or any other forum who might review my work. -- Jim Cornmell 17:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. A new version is online, let me know your opinion. Also I keep on pestering you, is there a more generic area I should pester about these kind of stuff? Or should I just get on with it and leave it for whomever to speak up? -- Jim Cornmell 15:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you know any planetary scientist?

Hi George, I been looking to email some planetary scientist to see if my classification for planet is descent to warrent a paper and presentation? Thanks, CarpD (^_^) 9/02/06

Give me a few days to look up an old friend or two. GeorgeJBendo 07:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, CarpD (^_^) 9/02/06

Anything on the Planetary Scientist? Thanks, CarpD 9/13/06

After thinking about who to contact, I emailed Chad Trujillo. I will see what he says. GeorgeJBendo 20:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Chad said that only the IAU has the ability to classify planets. You should probably communicate with the IAU. GeorgeJBendo 09:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be a lost cause then. The IAU is pretty closed when it comes to the Planets. Too bad for that. I was hoping that this would help them transition to all objects that were below brown dwarfs. Unless you know someone or somehow to contact the IAU, I don't think they are going to listem to me. I asked them before and they only responded once with lack of interest. I guess, the only other route is to submit a paper? What do you think? Thanks, CarpD 9/14/06

I honestly agree with the IAU's decision myself. I think too many people get caught up in semantics issues too much and do not understand the importance of trying to understand how everything works. Whether or not Pluto or Jupiter is technically called a "planet" does not matter that much. What is important is understanding that Jupiter has a substantial amount of hydrogen and that it radiates more radiation than it received from the Sun but that it does not contain enough mass to trigger nuclear fusion. What is important is understanding that Pluto's chemical composition and orbit make it more similar to the Kuiper Belt than to either the Jovian planets or the terrestrial planets. Does this make sense? GeorgeJBendo 17:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don’t necessarily disagree with the demotion of Pluto. I do not believe that composition of the surrounding bodies should be a factor. But, the situation does support Pluto's demotion. My classification is more complex than the IAU's. But we all know that there are more than just Jovian (giant), Terrestrial, and Minor Planets (so called). I made the list. Reasoning is like electron degeneration, run away gas accretion, tenuous atmosphere, etc. are my reasoning for the segregation of the groups. If anything, (at least from my amateur-ish knowledge), mine supports the IAU reasoning and is robust enough to include ExoPlanets and even some Planets in the Science Fiction relm. I also made it similar to the spectral classification, ie. I (hypergiant, overlay of objects that can be either brown dwarfs or planets), II (supergiant, electron degeneration), III (giant, metallic hydrogen - Jupiter), IV (subgiant, Uranus), V (dwarf, earth size), VI (subdwarf, mars size), etc. I also have subscriptors, (ie. r = ring system, t = venting atmosphere (tail), etc.), composition, (ie. A = metal-rich, B = metal-poor icy, C = metal-poor gas). Thanks, CarpD 9/14/06

Halton Arp

Here are some references to creationist organizations who laud Halton Arp's work with redshifts and QSOs:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Though some Arp supporters may balk, these articles clearly show that the creationists have picked up on Arp's innuendo and use it to advocate "cosmology is wrong" positions to make their young Earth creationism seem more reasonable.

Arpians are aware of this:

apologies for this being an internet forum

Here is a blogger who reports on a creationist cosmology conference that apparently mentioned Arp:

[8]

Hope this helps.

--ScienceApologist 16:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

NGC 2812 and Theta Pictoris

I see that you have created pages on NGC 2812 and Theta Pictoris. Out of curiosity, why did you create these pages? As a professional astronomer, I have a difficult time finding even basic references on NGC 2812. I also do not understand what is special about Theta Pictoris. Are these objects somehow important in a way that I do not understand? Also, would you like information on formatting the pages? GeorgeJBendo 18:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Both were mentioned, in a roundabout way, in Star Trek -- CaptainMike 17:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I do, in fact, understand the difference between stars and galaxies. While I have not created many of the deeply scientific articles on Wikipedia, i have worked on many star and galaxy articles on the Star Trek wiki. I left those two articles as stubs with the hopes of improving them by formatting the data, unfortunately translating scientific info from Esperanto was a little difficult and i stopped work for the moment. If you wanted to help improve the articles, that would also be great, but i'll look into the other articles of that sort for format hints also.

NGC 2812 was shown as a reference point on a star map created as a piece of background artwork, in Star Trek: Insurrection. Theta Pictoris was listed as the home-system of the Catullans in a book called Worlds of the Federation. -- CaptainMike 04:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Response on NGC reorganization

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marasama#Revision_of_list_of_NGC_objects Thanks, CarpD 9/13/06

Updated on the response. CarpD 9/13/06 2nd

Updated on the response. CarpD 9/15/06 3rd

Thanks for the time we had. User_talk:Marasama#Revision_of_list_of_NGC_objects_2nd, thanks, CarpD, 9/16/06

Hi George (CarpD)

This is CarpD. No I'm not mad at you, I think I just needed some time away, possibly stress of other things and work. Anyhow, I don't think I'll be joining the WikiProject Astronomical objects any time soon. Anyhow, I'm still writing a sci-fi story/game and still will benefit from the NGC listing of nebulae. So, for now, I'll just create the table. The data will be what is listed there, (for now). So, most likely it will only consist of NGC#, Common Name, and Object type. Which brings the question of, what do with the Seyfet or Radio galaxies? Should that group be something else?

As for the RA and Dec & Apparent Magnitude may come later. But that is something that I will not pursue heavily.

Also, if I'm reading wikipedia correctly. Nebulae are dense regions of space. While a Molecular Cloud is a type of Nebula. Is this correct?

Thanks, CarpD (^_^)

Yeah, that helped out. Thanks, CarpD (^_^)

Double vote on Antichthon/Counter-Earth merge vote

It's actually supposed to be one vote (the top Oppose), the two subpoints are the reasons I oppose it. I've made it clearer. 132.205.45.206 01:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk page located at: User talk:132.205.44.134. 132.205.45.206 01:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

1181 Lilith

Hi George,

I've already made the move from 1181 Lilit to 1181 Lilith, since it seems clear and uncontroversial. You can do the same by using the "Move" button at the top of the page, and there's no need to go through Requested Moves. Cheers — SteveRwanda 18:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh well - I still think I was right to move it. According to WP:SNOW it's permitted to do clear, uncontroversial things without following due process if it's clear where that process is going. The WP:RM page is crowded enough without having completely clear cases there to waste people's time... SteveRwanda 09:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

NGC 1569

Yes, putting back the other is fine (they don't disagree by much), it seems this galaxy is tricky to estimate the distance to. I noticed a 2006 paper refer to the 1988 paper, so maybe that work is still considered the best? Take a look at the 2003 paper and let me know if you think it is credible enough to supercede the 1988 work. However, in the 15 years between the papers, wouldn't the science have advanced to the point that the 2003 estimate is more reliable? WilliamKF 01:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

feedback

Please keep the comments coming, you are more knowledgeable than I, so I appreciate your feedback. WilliamKF 16:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

RA and DEC templates

Thanks for catching that, I managed to not notice. The issue was the <noinclude> needed to immediately follow the template definition, whereas, I had it on a newline, which was inserting a newline after each template usage. WilliamKF 16:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Galaxy Groups

It appears you have some books that you have been referring to on the groups. Are there any on-line sources which are better than NED?

For the Abells and Hicksons, I'd suggest a single "Compact Galaxy Cluster" which can be used for both. I like adding the z and angular size for ones further away and agree that a more precise RA/DEC is appropriate for those. However, why not provide the number of members? For example, the Stephan's Quintet has a clear number of members. I'm not understanding why the template would not include number of members, it could always be left blank when not known. WilliamKF 19:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a third template would be required. It would suffice to have the membership number be an optional field, which when not provided, causes the whole line to be omitted instead of showing a line with a blank value. WilliamKF 20:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Significant Digits

I notice that in several papers I have read, for example this one: Distances and metallicities for 17 Local Group galaxies the distance and error are not rounded as you suggested. For example, they show NGC 205 to be 824 ± 27 instead of what I understood you to suggest as 820 ± 30. It seems to me that the 824 ± 27 is okay, as it clearly gives the margin of error and is more accurate since the error is not overstated. I think that if there were no margin of error given, and it only have 824 that would be misleading and one would instead want to write 820 so show that the error includes the tens digit, whereas 824 implies the error is in the ones digit.

Please let me know what you think. Thanks. WilliamKF 22:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Subcategories

In reading WP:SUBCAT I wonder if Black Eye Galaxy should be in both Category:Spiral_galaxies and Category:Unbarred_spiral_galaxies. I'm thinking just one, unbarred spiral. WilliamKF 21:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey Q

Have you ever been to the southern hemisphere, click here to reply.AstroBoy 01:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC) Deadline for entries is December 15th Hey! I like astronomy too!

W cloud

Are you aware that the W cloud article is included in Category:W Cloud cluster? You might want to take a look at this, if there's ever been a category in need of deletion, it's this one. W cloud is the only article in the category as well so if it is deleted (which I hope will be the result), the category will be completely empty. --Nebular110 16:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with you on the whole "galaxy clouds" thing. As for Field of the Nebulae, I've never heard the term used myself but perhaps it was a term in use well before the 1930's? It sounds rather like something you would read in a Messier or Herschel logbook. After all, M31 used to be referred to as the "Andromeda Nebula" before the whole idea of other galaxies was conceived by the likes of Slipher and Hubble. --Nebular110 18:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is a paper that refer to the W Cloud (I think I saw another one today too, but am not finding it now): WilliamKF 00:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Structure, mass and distance of the Virgo cluster from a Tolman-Bondi model

Field of the Nebula

I would not mind a redirect with mention in the other article. 132.205.44.134 23:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Distance measurements

I generally look at the dates and figure that if the alternatives are several years older that the science has progressed enough to outright favor the newer one. I was preferring eclipsing binaries on the basis that it is a direct measurement and less susceptible to errors carried over from base assumptions that could have their own errors that get compounded. It certainly is a tricky subject, but I would be hesitant to combine distinct results, and instead perhaps list more than one with their basis TRGB, cephid, etc. But you are probably much more experienced in these areas since this is your full time focus, so I am happy to follow your lead. WilliamKF 00:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

UGC and PGC categories

I wonder why NED lists PGC numbers as being 6 digits? That was my basis for doing 6, so if you certain it is wrong, I will use 5. WilliamKF 19:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Halley and his comet

Thanks for your comments. I definitely see your point about Halley's comet being the historical use and Comet Halley being the technical use. I myself am not keen either way on the debate, but I do think we need to make it clear that we are setting something of a precedent by choosing between the two options. I respect your opinion absolutely and can see the argument for calling it "Halley's comet". However, I can also see the other side and I don't think that there was enough analysis done when the move was decided last time. I just want to make sure that everyone knows what the consensus is on this subject. Cheers, --ScienceApologist 22:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Galaxy list

Hello.

I did none of the data-gathering for the list (although I did write that long, dull warning), still it seems wrong to eliminate someone else's work that isn't hurting the page. Yes, it's long. Yes, it overlaps other articles. And, yes, the distance-estimates are shaky for the bottom half of the table. However, I can think of one simple reason to leave all the entries in.

As better values for the distances are produced, the order of the entries may well change. Let us say that #102 moves up to #88. With #102 on the list, whoever does the update need merely change the distance and cut-and-paste the item. Without it, the whole thing would have to be typed in all over again.

In any event, when I wrote that intro, I also created a reformatted version of the list itself. Having waited a month to see if there were any complaints about the warning, I was about to substitute the new table, so I'll be putting that in anyway. Hopefully, you'll think it's an improvement. (I do, but results may vary.) My layout is physically shorter, as I've fairly well managed to kep each item to one line. Anyway, I hope that you find it less "unwieldy."

B00P 08:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:American League All-Stars added

Before I had a chance to add the subcategories of Category:American League All-Stars to the CFD list, you've added your opinion. Since I'd like these to be discussed together, perhaps you could edit your comments to reflect both sets of categories. Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 23:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Your sig

Hi George: just a reminder to substitute {{time}} if you want to use it when signing talk pages, as otherwise the time continually updates and the time you signed the page is unknown. —Mets501 (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Otherwise, you can just use "~~~~" (four tildas) to sign your messages as most of us do. It gives both your user-id and the time-stamp. Three gives just the user-id. Five gives just the time-stamp. JRSpriggs 05:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Magnitude sign

I was just following what I saw elsewhere. What do you see done in the literature, is it mostly with or without the sign? I'll go with whatever the scientific literature uses predominately. Please let me know. Thanks. WilliamKF 21:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll leave them out of both magnitude and redshift.

For the info boxes, I am manually adding the content from NED together with the automatic edits with AWB. Thus far my sophistication with AWB is limited to simple searches and replaces (not even using regular expressions yet.) Adding the new info from NED is still tedious.

I am finding an issue in one page and when possible adding it to my bag of tricks for AWB to do automatically, then running them on the galaxies based upon their categories.

If there is a pattern you want replaced, feel free to drop me a note and I will try to incorporate it. WilliamKF 21:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

NGC 6872 and IC 4970

The NGC 6872 and IC 4970 article might be worth splitting in two since I saw you do this to another. WilliamKF 00:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Some more: NGC 7752 and NGC 7753, NGC 5257 and NGC 5258, NGC 4656 and NGC 4657 and NGC 5090 and NGC 5091. WilliamKF 03:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

More: NGC 2207 and IC 2163 and NGC 7318. WilliamKF 23:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

M83 Group

I'm thinking that all the members of M83 Group not cited as being members should be moved to a different group (perhaps the one mistakenly given in the prior NED search?). Do you agree? WilliamKF 19:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and do your edits on this one. WilliamKF 16:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say go ahead and do the rename (to your proposed new name) without messing with the formal process you allude to since this is not controversial and if someone objects we can always address that later. WilliamKF 19:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Rename Canes II Group

Seems NED doesn't know either group by those names. I guess M106 per our norm of Messier names taking precedence. WilliamKF 19:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

External links

Hi there, yes essentially I reverted as spam. The IP came up as a spam alert in the IRC channel #wikipedia-spam, as having added over 40 external links to articles (and these were their only edits ever). So I posted a spam warning telling them to stop or they'd be blocked for spamming. I came back an hour later and they'd just continued, ignored the warning and not tried to contact me. By that stage we were up to 60 links with no discussion at all (with myself nor on the talk pages), the IP was blocked for a day and all edits reverted. Hope this helps?  Glen  22:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I've put them all back  Glen  23:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Status of Spitzer and SINGS data

Hello George. I'm currently making some pics of galaxies from Spitzer data. I'm really fond of SINGS enhanced data which are really wonderful, the usual artefacts being cleaned. However i'm a bit unsure about their legal status. Those are public data but do i have the right to use them for any purpose? Especially to produce new pics to put on commons. I'm not talking about scientific work here, Rob Kennicutt made it clear that we could use them for that at the last IAU meeting, but just pics for the general public. For instance i've made this one: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:M63_3.6_8.0_24_microns_spitzer.png . If you don't know, is there a kind of "legal" point of contact? I'd like to be sure the data are release in public domain (or alike). The spitzer site isn't clear about this aspect. Thank you very much. Med 11:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC) P.S.: as i work at CEA/SAp i was looking for your talk on tuesday, unfortunately i will be away for the week.

Actually there is a notice on the Spitzer site: http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media/mediaimages/copyright.shtml . However i don't know if they include FITS images. The site is rather a communication site about spitzer and its results. So when they talk about the images i am not sure what they mean actually. I could interpret this as really any image so the SINGS FITS would be included. I also wanted to ask you, are the ancillary data also part of the SINGS project. Making an optical or near-infrared image along with a spitzer mid-infrared image would be nice and it would show the tremendous differences to the reader. Anyway, being certain about the legal issue would ease the work a lot. I would be sad to have to erase the images i've made due to incompatible license. Astronomical images are always a headache, so many institutes are involved, each one with a different policy. Med 13:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I'll keep adding new images then. About your page actually i already had found it before as i was looking for SINGS pages on google. It is very useful. For now i'm going through your page and for the galaxies which have an article i check if there is a spitzer image already on commons. If not i see if i can make pretty images quickly from IRAC and IRAC+MIPS and i upload them on commons. I just skip harder images for now. Some are quite hard to make. By the way, do you have scripts to automatically build a galaxy infobox querying data from NED and also a script to convert the ADS bibtex entry of an article to the wiki template? Med 14:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

About the legend, i agree that one like in the Messier 74 is much better. However i don't see how to put one in a galaxy infobox without making it look ugly. Any idea? Med 16:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but may I inquire as to which answer you think I have? --ScienceApologist 21:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Obliquely acknowledged your point. You might check out some other interesting obliquely related articles such as plasma cosmology, intrinsic redshift, nonstandard cosmologies, tired light, and quasi-steady state to see what insight your obliquity may have to offer. --ScienceApologist 13:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

IC 442

Because it's there. I think the real question is, why shouldn't we have this article? --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 19:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions on the Template:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects/Structure#Extragalactic

Would Ultra Blue Compact Dwarf Galaxy & Ultra Compact Dwarf Galaxy not appear as a subset for Compact Dwarf Galaxy? And, is HII a galaxy, molecuar cloud, or both? Thanks, CarpD 04/12/06

Agh, AGN and Starburst Active Galaxy is too wordy and too bizarre. As for the compact galaxy subtypes. I will keep an eye on it and list the papers if I find them. Thanks, CarpD 04/12/06

Take a look

I imagine that you probably do not want to get your hands dirty with some of the more contentious stuff at Wikipedia, but you might find the current discussion at Talk:Wolf effect to be interesting or even worthy of comment. --ScienceApologist 15:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ian Tresman

If Ian is disruptive, is overtly inserting POV into a page, or engaging in other problematic behavior, report it here. He is currently under probabtion and isn't allowed to be disruptive. --ScienceApologist 18:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:IAU planet debate

don't forget about Cubewano, Oort cloud / kuiper belt objects... McKay 14:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

NGC 5195 classification

What does the type SB0_1 mean for NGC 5195 in particular the 0_1 part from NED? WilliamKF 17:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:William G. Tifft could use some contributions

Hello Dr. Submillimeter. Since you previously edited this Talk page I'm assuming you may have views. I'm trying to get an opinion from each person who previously submitted to Talk or has edited the article. See the bottom of Talk:William G. Tifft for my attempt to poll the recent editors. User:Iantresman and User:ScienceApologist have agreed to hold off on editing for a week so the remaining editors can arrive at a consensus. I hope I am correct in believing that in a week's time, the other editors can coordinate their views. EdJohnston 23:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

hello

Hello, I haven't logged in for a while, so I didn't get your message. Sorry about that.

Yes, I do use the old templates, because I find them easier to use on pages that contain little data.

Zzzzzzzzzzz 02:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hank Aaron

Thanks for your message! I think being in the Wikipedia record books is the least of Mr Aaron achievements! And Willie Mays, for that matter. That will make George H. W. Bush top - he didn't play baseball, did he?! Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 14:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• PS, you don't have time to nominate subcategories of Category:New York Yankees players do you? --RobertG ♬ talk 14:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

me

Hello Dr. Sub-mm

My background? It's not the greatest, just some college introductory astronomy and astrophysics... plus alot more non-astronomy science. So I am not an authority, (and have never claimed to be one), just someone with interests in the field, and a limited "official" background in it.

132.205.44.134 20:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Tifft draft needs indirect speech?

Hello Dr. Submm.

Rather than using straight quotes, can we simply cite the sources and restate the information in this article? Including direct quotations in this article seems to be a sensationalist way to present the material. I would rather present the material in a more straightforward tone. Dr. Submillimeter 18:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be eager to see any rewording you can propose. Do you have time to re-draft one or two paragraphs the way you described? EdJohnston 21:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have begun editing a new version of the Tifft article at User_talk:EdJohnston/Tifft_draft, appending your two paragraphs onto the original article. Trying to do the mechanical stuff first, with the references. EdJohnston 19:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the 17 December version of User_talk:EdJohnston/Tifft_draft. I tried to moderate the language about Tifft's citation counts in hopes of winning over User:Lou Sander to this version. If you would like further changes, please edit directly on this draft article. In particular, many references need to be filled in properly. I will try to do the ones that I can figure out, but you'll probably need to do several. In terms of the language, I'm happy with this version, though Lou might not be. I'll ask him to look at it. EdJohnston 03:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As I continue to track references for the two new paragraphs you created for the Tifft article, I am struck by the fact that Redshift quantization already covers these issues in more detail. As a selfish labor-saving move for myself, do you think that the gist of your two paragraphs could be moved across into the Redshift quantization article? Then the Tifft article could merely point across to the fuller discussion there. I see that you've added new work by Salpeter, and you've also referenced the book by Peebles which is not already in the references of Redshift quantization. These could certainly be added to the other article. Let me know if you think this is doable. EdJohnston 04:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I played with the references a little in Tifft_draft, and added Sobel(1993). You may want to critique the wording I used to cite Sobel. I am now done, and withdraw the suggestion to move stuff to Redshift quantization. If you and Lou will bless this draft, I'll see that it gets checked in to the main article. EdJohnston 17:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

All done now, thanks so much for your contribution! I checked in the draft contents to the main article; will ask an admin to delete the draft. EdJohnston 20:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Galaxy types

I created it to mirror Category:Star types which seemed useful. I don't think it overlaps active galaxies, as Galaxy Types contains articles about various types of galaxies, while active galaxies is the parent category to active galaxy categories. As active galaxies organizes articles on individual galaxies, they serve different goals. If you were to supercategorize Category:Active galaxies, then you might create a Category:Galaxies by type...

As for morphology, it may be useful to subcategorize Galaxy Types into Morphological Types, etc. We could also create a mirroring heirarchy to classify galaxy articles Category:Galaxies by morphology.

While articles in Active Galaxies also appear in Galaxy Types, they are in Cat:Active Galaxies because it is informative to people looking at various individual galaxies that are active galaxies. The articles appear in Galaxy Types, because it is informative for people looking at various classifications/categorizations/types of galaxies as a general case.

I would say this would be analogous to occupations vs people by occupation.

Zzzzzzzzzzz 06:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hypothethical galaxies

For including only theoretical galaxies. I'm ok with that. Zzzzzzzzzzz 22:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Messier 94 distance

Hello George, on your recent change to M94 distance, please give the method of combining the two results as part of the footnote. I imagine you averaged the two? Also, why not take the 2003 one as a single source? Is it not a better estimate than tony et al? WilliamKF 01:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but I'm not clear on how you average the two figures and end up with a smaller margin of error. I think the method of the averaging should be included in the foot note. If you need me to find an example that cites the formula to compute a value let me know (i.e. diameter is dist times sin of angular size). WilliamKF 01:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

And I thought you were just a fast typist... But what is the calc to average the two, I'll footnote it if you explain it to me in a formula. WilliamKF 01:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with just doing a mean and std dev when combining. I think that as long as the distance methods used are independent i.e. TRGB and CEP for example, then using the formula is fine if it is cited. I don't think it is OR if a formula is used which if one wanted could be cited in a textbook for example. Now if there are more than two measurements, it would need to be three distinct independent methods. WilliamKF 23:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Episcopacy in Protestantism

See reply on my talk. I think I want to scream  :( --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 19:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

[9] Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:United Methodist bishops by U.S. State

Hi, I see that at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 12#Category:United_Methodist_bishops_by_U.S._State you recommended keeping the area categories, and deleting the state categories. I thought that it might be useful to point out that this would mean keeping 32 categories for 55 artcles, an average of less than 2 articles per category. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 10:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you keep live CFD discusions on your watchlist, so I hope you'll forgive me for drawing the attention of all participants in the CFD to some counting I did on how many bishop-by-area categories we would end up with if all the possible categories were fully populated. My estimate (see my comment marked "some counting" is between 100 and 200 categories for 569 bishops, which seems to me to be a navigation nightmare. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we have a solution: Category:United Methodist bishops by Jurisdiction, which PW created a week ago, with a very useful explanation of how it works. This divides UM bishops into five groups, which seems to be a very useful level of sub-division: much better the than the hundreds of cats which would have eventually been created in Category:United Methodist bishops by Episcopal Area. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 07:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I've made a list here of the cats (over 100 - I may easily have missed some - he has over 500 category edits in Dec) created by PW in December. He is certainly prolific. Category:Deaths by cerebral hemorrhage is a good one, as is Category:People from Henrietta, Ohio. Another (pre-Dec) was Preacher's kid. roundhouse 21:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your action

I saw your post where you implied that I was employing bad faith in that "A user has apparently created a series of categories under Category:California Bureau of Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education (BPPVE) to give Pacific Western University the appearance of accreditation." You knew that the category labels were taken directly from the California State website, you knew that motivation for creating the categories was set out in detail [[10]], where I explained that it was to allow Wikipedia editors to avoid the potential of violating defamation laws. You also posted that " This appears to be some type of debate between Jreferee and FFGGGFFFF." There was no debate. FFGGGFFFF had only three posts on Wikipedia before moving the Categories I created to deletion. I was not aware of any of FFGGGFFFF's three posts and had never responded to FFGGGFFFF's three posts to create the debate you claimed existed. Repeating the bad faith conclusions of a sock puppet no excuse for your action. Before assuming bad faith in the future, please take at least a little time to review the situation. -- Jreferee 23:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrocausality

As per JzG's recommendation, I've totally reworked the above article as a revamped stub. Please take another look if you like. Thanks Bwithh 20:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Help with Peg DIG/dSph confusion

I believe I have found problems in the literature and NED around the similarly named galaxies Pegasus Dwarf Irregular Galaxy and Pegasus Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy. In particular, the Peg DIG is shown by NED to be both dIrr and dSph whereas I think the dSph entry is confusion with Peg dSph and it should only be dIrr. Also the TRGB distance estimates done by Karachentsev et al in 2004 (760 ± 80 kpc) vary widely from the ones given by McConnachie et al 2005 (920 ± 30 kpc). I'd appreciate your help resolving these either by finding corroberating references or other suggestions you may have. Thanks. WilliamKF 23:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, It seems the conversion from distance modulus that I am doing does not agree with that used by the authors of:

 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005MNRAS.356..979M

I'm using: 10^(0.2*(m-M) +1). For example, Pisces Dwarf I get 769 ± 24 versus the paper's 769 ± 23 and for WLM I get 933 ± 34 vs their 932 ± 33 WilliamKF 00:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I notice another error in McConnachie they write "At the same time, Karachentsev & Karachentseva (1999) independently discovered And V (which they named the Pegasus dSph)" but Peg dSph in And VI not And V right? Maybe McConnachie is not a reliable reference given this and the issues with computing distance from modulus? WilliamKF 01:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

LINERs

Thanks for the offer. Although it would doubtless be good for me to go off and read a few review articles, it would be far better if someone with some experience made a start on this. Mhardcastle 17:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Good start on the article. I've added some linking text from active galactic nucleus. Mhardcastle 13:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Galaxy distance references

Oh ok, I wasn't aware of them not being reliable. I'm going to try to contribute to Astronomy articles a lot on Wikipedia when I have time, so it would be nice if you could give me some reliable sources to use when I'm adding to them. I just created List of Spiral Galaxies, in which I think I used some unreliable sources now that I think about (e.g. Celestia). When I have more time I will seed out the unreliable sources. Thanks for the advice. Imaninjapirate^{talk to me} 20:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Brahe

The Danish Wikipedia is no problem since it lacks the article completely (that project is way behind.) I will not have the time to search for a lot of material, but if I can find information in the Danish Biographical Lexicon and the Great Danish Encyclopedia, I'll add references to them. Regards. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 21:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I just remembered that the Great Danish Encyclopedia is not the first of its kind. Salmonsens Konversationsleksikon from 1915 is partly digitized (including B) so I could start with that. [11]. The Swedish Nordisk familjebok is the same [12] and [13] and they are considered PD by their respective Wikipedias. Even a direct translation will still take some time, though. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 21:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Expatriots / Emigrants

I thought about it long and hard and eventually decided that what you had suggested is the right thing to do, although perhaps not for exactly the same reasons... I agree that it would be unwise of us to speculate as to intent, so in cases where it's unclear we should just call them expatriots until the moment they become citizens. However, at that moment they stop being Fooian expatriots and start being Fooian-Americans. So really, the emigrants category is nothing more than the first generation of People of Fooian descent. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Expatriates is one source for the difference. There is also Category:English immigrants to America, and English is not even a nationality (naturally enough we find some of PW's articles in it - there was a failed attempt to merge it). (If all categories were to be deleted, imagine how much time would be saved.) It's almost impossible to determine if someone is English; you would have to ask them (and most deny it, citing an exotic grand-parent or similar). roundhouse 21:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Pastorwayne

I left a comment on User:Pastorwayne and his rapid category creation at WP:ANI. The comment asks for Pastorwayne to be regulated regarding category creation. Feel free to comment. Dr. Submillimeter 22:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up : ) - I commented there after I responded to his response to my request for clarification. Personally, I have hope that he can once again be seen as a positively contributing member of the Wikipedian community. I was rather disappointed to see votes on CfD based on the category creator rather than concerning the category in question. In this case, I think the best solution may be just a bit of Wiki-Love, and the opportunity for edumacation : ) - jc37 09:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I respect your efforts. However, I doubt that Pastorwayne will respond to any calls for voluntary action on his part at this point. While I would ideally prefer not to pursue administrative action, I feel like it is necessary at this point. Moreover, if I did not find Pastorwayne to be confrontational and uncompromising, I would not have chosen to ask for administrative intervention.

Ideally, I would prefer it if Pastorwayne channeled his energies into writing articles on Methodists rather than simply attempting to spam Wikipedia with categories. It seems like he has a large wealth of knowledge on historical and contemporary Methodist pastors that would be very useful for Wikipedia. Instead, his constant category creation is having a negative impact. Dr. Submillimeter 09:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Per your first paragraph: He's stated that he will. At this point, one merely need watch his contributions list. As I said, I have hope, and I hope that I will not be disappointed.

Per your second paragraph: I agree, though, as I mentioned, I'm hoping that this disruption is not intentional, but misguided due to lack of information. Sometimes, one has difficulty finding the forest, due to the many trees in the way... - jc37 09:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Pastorwayne now clearly disruptive

Pastorwayne made a number of edits to Beverly Waugh on 3 January 2007, including the creation of a link to Category:Christian editors. This category was deleted on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 8. This looks like Pastorwayne is creating categories again following the instructions at Wikipedia:Categorization. Moreover, this is the recreation of content that was renamed following consensus at WP:CFD, a clear violation of Wikipedia policy.

I will now pursue definitive administrative action. Dr. Submillimeter 15:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

According to ProveIt, Pastorwayne did this in multiple articles on 3 January 2007. It looks like either Pastorwayne is trying to game the system (i.e. he is adding categories without actually creating the category pages) or he clearly does not understand anything about categories in Wikipedia. In either case, definitive administrative action is clearly needed. Since you are an administrator, can you suggesty a course of action? (Several other people would also potentially want to be involved.) Dr. Submillimeter 16:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

See WP:AN/I#Pastorwayne and category creation - jc37 18:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Merging proposal

Can we merge Category:Editors of Christian works with Category:Editors of religious publications? - Kittybrewster 00:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we merge Category:Scottish immigrants to America with Category:Scottish immigrants to the United States? Canadian immigrants too. - Kittybrewster 14:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Emigrants

Re your last comment - Expatriates/emigrants - I seem to recall that / is not recommended but 'Expatriates or emigrants' might work. It seems unworkable to have both. Or just unworkable - how does one categorise immigration between (say) USSR - Israel (which will be substantial) over 300 years or so? The debate was excellent I thought - high quality stuff throughout. Hope you have some time left for astronomy. (Expatriate - I was surprised not to find the assumed definition anywhere. I find that my son is an expatriate, b. in Malawi, British passport, resident in England, and from Sheffield.) Or consider the Chelsea football team, all notable. Or say Davor Suker, very notable. There is another strategy for deleting a small cat - empty it and it can be speedy deleted after 4 days of being empty. I am trying this with Category:People from Henrietta, Ohio - or perhaps it should be preserved as a ridiculous example of a cat (see Henrietta, Ohio - I see it has been recently edited). roundhouse 03:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:People from Henrietta, Ohio has gone - I didn't have to do anything. roundhouse 20:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

LINERs

I will create at least a short page on LINERs in the moderate future; I have professional experience with the objects. 13:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. — RJH (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I replied to (and agreed with) your suggestion on Talk:Ocean liner. Thanks. Kablammo 14:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have now created a small page for low ionization nuclear emission regions. This page will grow substantially; I still have a lot of information from a couple of my scientific papers that I can copy into the article. (Having written on this topic before makes it easy to write a Wikipedia article on it.) Dr. Submillimeter 17:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It's looking good. Thanks again. — RJH (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Improved names for SAB and SB galaxies

Sounds reasonable, but please also add a new category:

 Category:Weakly barred lenticular galaxies

to your list and include a citation showing the usage of weak and strong barredness to the main article of each strong / weak pair and briefly explaining the difference, this would apply to both Barred spiral galaxy and Barred lenticular galaxy. WilliamKF 18:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

US State Related Ships

Thanks for being willing to wait. What is your reservations? --71Demon 21:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I want to know why you feel the category is a bad idea? --71Demon 22:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I kind of see what you are staying, and agree with you in part, but that is not the reason for the category. Yes, other than being US Warships they don't really have anything in common. However that is not the intent of the category. The category takes into account what is related, and that is the naming of the ships. Ships names are important, if not we would only refer to them as hull numbers. WE don't the destroyer DE-576 was given a name, USS Barr (DE-576). The Barr family is proud that a ship was named for Woody, I saw his nefew today. The town has a model of the ship on display. I do see your point, but these ships really are related because of the naming convention. Woody's name is inscribed in the state captial 4 hours away from Keyser. These people and places are important, important enough to honor people and events by naming them after people. That is what makes them related. I believe this is were Wiki shines. People looking for info on Barr find he has a ship named for him, then they see the category for WV related ships. Looking at the list they will see one named USS Mineral County which is the county Barr (and my) home town is in. The categories drag you in and teach you in the process. This is a category that represents a specific category of honoring, and that is the naming of US Warships. --71Demon 22:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Astronomy/Physics

(In response to your message on my talk page.) I count articles such as Supernova as falling under astrophysics - i.e. the point where astronomy meets physics. As no astrophysics wikiproject exists, I tagged them as physics. Articles such as these being tagged as physics doesn't really hurt, especially if they are also tagged as astronomy (see below)

The situation with astrophysical/astronomical wikiprojects seems to be a bit messy at the moment. We have:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy, which is pretty much dormant
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects, which is surprisingly active
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Space, which should also cover astronomy, which is fairly acquiescent at the moment.
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Constellations, which I guess should be a sub-project of Astronomical Objects; this also seems fairly quiet at the moment, although according to the discussion about merging Astronomical Objects with Astronomy it is fairly active.
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Telescopes, which should be a sub-project of Astronomy, and which would be inactive were I (and possibly another editor) not doing bits on it occasionally

Then there's all of the space exploration wikiprojects too. Wikipedia:WikiProject Space/Projects lists all of them that I know of.

Why am I mentioning the above? Ideally, I'd like to see some of them merged, but the discussion on Astronomy/Astronomical Objects went down like a lead balloon, so that's probably not going to happen. Another option would be to style Constellations, Astronomical objects and Telescopes as "work groups" or "task forces" of WP Astronomy, similar to how WP:WPBIO does things, but that probably wouldn't go over too well either. So, I would like to see a single WikiProject banner that covers the astronomical subjects, which lists the various WikiProjects that should be able to help with the article page in question. That would hopefully guide users to several support venues for the article, and hopefully enliven WP Astronomy at the same time.

For examples:

• Supernova would give WikiProject Astronomy as the main contact, but also WikiProject Physics as another contact. This would replace the existing physics bar on those pages. I'd do this by using something like {{WPastronomy|astrophysics=yes|class=|importance=}} on the talk pages of appropriate articles. If a Astrophysics wikiproject started up in the future, this would allow the template to be changed fairly easily.
• Articles on constellations would list WP Constellations as the main contact, WP Astronomy as a secondary. This would be via {{WPastronomy|constellation=yes}}
• Articles on astronomical objects (excluding constellations) would give WP Astronomical Objects as the main contact, WP Astronomy as the secondary contact, via {{WPastronomy|object=yes}}
• Articles on telescopes, observatories and surveys would give WP Telescopes as the main contact, WP Astronomy as the secondary, via {{WPastronomy|telescopes=yes}}
• Articles on "pure" astronomy, e.g. Right ascension, would just be listed as WP Astronomy, via a simple {{WPastronomy}}.

I should be able to set up Peelbot to tag articles as such, obviously once a WPastronomy template's been put together (which I should also be able to do). I will need either a list of categories, or preferably/additionally a list of articles, to pass into Peelbot to be tagged. After the problems that emerged when tagging articles with the physics tag, I'd want to get these lists sorted out and checked over before starting tagging. I'd also need to seek approval at WP:RFBA to add the tags, but that shouldn't be an issue.

This has turned into a bit of a long reply, considering the relatively simple questions you asked on my talk page. Sorry about that. It seems I ramble when tired. Anyhow, please let me know your thoughts on the above, and/or ask for clarification where needed. Thanks. Mike Peel 23:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've now created Template:WPAstronomy, which does at least part of what I laid out above. I've left a more detailed description at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy and WP:ASTRO. Mike Peel 22:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) NCurse _work 18:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Andromeda Galaxy removed text

Hello. I noticed that you cut the text that read,

Andromeda is also a LINER-type galaxy (Low-Ionization Nuclear Emission-line Region), the most common class of active nuclei galaxies.

from the Andromeda Galaxy article. The NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database[14] lists M31 as a LINER, and an article by Keel 1983[15] said that 80% of local Sab galaxies are of the LINER type. I was wondering if this was an obsolete result? Or is the the issue over the use of the phrase "active nuclei galaxies"? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I cut the statement because it was in the Structure section where it did not belong. The AGN activity should be covered in the Nucleus section. However, I did not see how to place the statement into the Nucleus statement without rewriting the section, so I moved the statement to the talk page.

Also, NED should not be trusted for its AGN classification. NED garbles some AGN classifications and sometimes chooses strange references for its AGN classification. Look up "NGC 4826", for example. NED lists this as a Seyfert 2 because someone found that this objects lands in a weird place in a diagram. On the other hand, Ho et al. (1997), using systematic line diagnostics, categorize this as a "transition type" galaxy (transitory between LINER and HII). I would recommend finding another reference for the AGN classification. Dr. Submillimeter 16:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That's good information. Thank you. I'll see what I can do to address it. — RJH (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Low-ionization nuclear emission-line region on DYK

On 6 January, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Low-ionization nuclear emission-line region, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thank you for your contribution. — ERcheck (talk) 11:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Galaxy cluster

Thanks for fixing the RA/ra and DEC/dec bug I introduced on Template:Galaxy cluster. I guess I'd somehow got it into my head that they should be capitalized to match the template names. I've checked the other templates I've modified today, and I don't think I've made the same mistake on the other templates. Thanks again for fixing it. Mike Peel 22:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Please revisit and consider

Thanks for your input on the Category:Categories for deletion proposal, but be advised per User:Tim! and your point, I've modified my proposal. Template:I0re: See this summary, and my comments on clear documentation all along our project pages. This alternative is more consistent with normal category practices. For your convienience this is a direct link back into the discussion. Thanks // FrankB 21:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

William Tifft - response

Please see my response to your comment. EdJohnston 22:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for defending CatDiffuse

Thank you for your defense of CatDiffuse: I had no idea it was up for deletion, and I am amazed at the response it has generated. I invite you to review and participate in WP:∫, to bring order to Wikipedia. Cwolfsheep 05:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Revert in the article NGC 4631

Hello. A few comments about my edits you reverted:

• The nickname among the catalog designations look odd, especially as the field is labeled as "other designations". However, this is just a matter of taste and it is pointless to argue about that.
• Forced linebreaks in the infobox are not good. The template could have a relative width so the infobox doesn't grow too wide.
• Italics should be used only in titles, quotations and such. Only the topic term should be bolded when introduced, including possible alternative names. Nicknames hardly need bolding, italics should be sufficient.
• External links are usually located below references. Since galaxy articles don't seem to follow that rule so there's no point changing the structure.

--JyriL ^talk 18:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Category:Rhythmic Top 40 acts

I was planning to delete this in the first place but thanks. Plus most of the artists featured are already placed in their respect genres, including the Dance musicians and Dance musical groups categories, but I might look at revisiting this issue in the near future. As for Alanis Morissette, she did start out as a Dance artist in Canada and "Ironic" did crossover to the Rhythmic Top 40 chart in 1996, peaking at #15, so there is some credibility to this. Robert Moore 17:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The decision has been made. I will go ahead and officially delete it. Robert Moore 05:13, 13 January 2007

Wien lawlessness

I have been stuck on trying to find a good name for the Wien approximation for the blackbody function. It looks like the redirect Wien's law should be made into a disambiguation page or the article on the Wien approximation for the blackbody function itself. I will be discussing this further at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. Dr. Submillimeter 22:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a disambig is an idea I was thinking about. I would call the article: Wien approximation. I'll probably be able to contribute to this in the future, after I do more background reading about Wien. --Sadi Carnot 14:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Shouting?

Your last comment at CfD ended up all in bold. It doesn't look like it was your intention to shout. -- Samuel Wantman 08:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)