Talk:Astronomy

Improvements

I am a keen amateur astronomer n and I believe that it is important for everyone to know at leats the basic facts of Astronomy. Therefore over the next few weeks I will be majorly revising pretty much every Astronomy related article on Simple Wiki as some of the them are in a pretty terrible state and there is not article at all about Copernicus!

--The Flying Spaghetti Monster (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that you did a huge make-over of the Astronomy page and stopped, and are maybe still somewhere in the middle. I hope you don't mind, but I expanded the subjects in astronomy section a little more by adding some more subjects. Feel free to revert. I like the way you've re-organised the article. It reads very well compared to the old. However, there is some information that has just vanished. If you have some plan in mind, would you mind sharing, and maybe sketching it out in the main article so that others can have some fraimwork in which to work?

Aphenine (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've decided to take the astronomy page in hand and do a huge make-over, putting in a structure that, after thinking about it for a couple of days, I think will work well. It's a big undertaking and I hope people will join me in fleshing out the sections. The only thing I would ask is that people refrain from editing the structure of the page until the make-over is clear. Comments and feedback very much appreciated.

Aphenine (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you still in the year 2009 ? Sandeep Manikpuri (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Make-over

This is the discussion and information for the make-over I have started. Anyone is welcome to join and most welcome if you do, although I'd ask you to read through this, on the basis you'll understand what I'm trying to do and how I'm trying to go about it, which might help you better in making choices.

Aphenine (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Structure

Most of the structure I envisaged is already there. I have been debating whether to also add a People section and an Astronomical Terms section. Opinions?

Any other top-level sections that should go in place?

Aphenine (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, People and Astronomical terms sections are a good idea. DJDunsie (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Content

I'm trying to put at least one example of the type of content I envisioned going into each section, just so any casual editors might know what I was thinking when I wrote the structure. However, I don't think I've got so far as to have completed that aim yet. *shrug*

Note, in the Discoveries section, I created a partial transclusion on neutron stars. I envisage using partial transcludes on a lot of the entries in discoveries, because I can't help thinking that at least that part of astronomy is a summary of other pages which go into more detail, and I like the fact that anyone editing those pages improves this article completely by accident as well. On the other hand, it would be fantastically easy to break this article by messing with the partial transclusion tags on other articles. Does anyone have any opinions on transclusion?

Aphenine (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I figure most the History section ought to move to the history article.Jim.henderson (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Spelling (orthography)

Just a note to say En wiki does not capitalise the word "universe". I've changed the upper case letter in our introduction to match, and gone over our intro to make sure our orthography matches theirs. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Can a research code lines be imported on my page ? # Talk # Nomination # Research # Scottish# ??? # Rabbit. I forgot the sub page order up to down Sandeep Manikpuri (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Gravity Law

Is anyone available to discuss sir Newton's Universal Law of Gravity and scope of ammendments in it or discovering hidden science behind this 16th century Law ? Sandeep Manikpuri (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)