Talk:Astronomy

	This Astronomy related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Blue sky thinking?

How should [1] be classified? Anna Livia (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Wishful thinking? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

We've an article: 'Oumuamua --Annanoon (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

In case a more general reference is appropriate. We are all entitled to 'our particular mad/offbeat/off the wall ideas' (and sometimes the thought experiment can be productive).

The fiction trope of 'mad scientist' rarely includes astronomers. Anna Livia (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Black neutron star

As this is in the news - [2] and many other reputable sources will add to the 'ahead of the astronomy woo' list. Anna Livia (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Bronze

This article should not have bronze. It is largely unsourced, and of the 3 sources: one is to a generic page that doesn't directly back up anything, and another is to the CNN blog of a political scientist. I would say that this qualifies it for at least one template regarding a need for references, which would disqualify it from bronze status. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 01:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The bronze should go. GeeJayK (talk) 01:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I am tempted to take it one step farther - add a {{Needs sources}} tag, making it significantly problematic. But I'll refrain for now. --Andrew5 (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Proof against 'astronomical conspiracy theories'

This occurred before the new space telescope fully unfurled (given that Jupiter and the comet 'a starter for 9' for the Hubble Telescope). Anna Livia (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)