Talk:Star/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 30 August 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Revalations

Revelations section - do we really need to add anti-Bible snark to every science article? ħuman 14:04, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Why not? Proxima Centauri 14:08, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Because it gets old, seems obsessive, and detracts from the actual content? "Stars in the Bible" just seems rather tangential to me. Shall we also have "rocky planets in the Bible", "Quantum Mechanics in the Bible", etc.? The anti-Bible stuff makes more sense in articles that directly relate to it. Should we also include any poetic or literary references to stars that are at odds with modern astrophysics? ħuman 15:13, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Stars in the bible was added to demonstrate the idiocy of taking a literalist "Conservapedia" interpretation. If a third of the stars of the universe were really cast down to earth it would definitely harm the climate. Xena 12:15, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

Variable stars

Could someone help me expand that bit? --<choose> <option>^Input The Resistor^Output</option> <option>Coyote^{Over 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages}</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 19:56, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

I think some of this stuff about Zeta Reticuli and Proxima Centauri and what-have-you were created by people who thought RW was going to be a parallel encyclopedia to WP or something. Then we all started to see the dreaded "MISSION" banner. Xena 16:11, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

The Proxima Centauri section was created by Proxima Centauri, who makes terrible writing styles into an art. If it can go on for more than a few sentences without using any forms of punctuation other than full stops, you know she wrote it. Wisest evil Phantom Hoover! 16:18, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

Zeta Reticuli actually sort of fits in, it is mentioned in various UFOlogy, though it does fit better as a section. Proxima Centauri isn't actually the nearest star (it's Alpha Centauri).

Astronomy FAIL. Wisest evil Phantom Hoover! 16:28, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

Not so, Proxima Centauri is 4.22 LY away. Alpha Centauri A/B is 4.35 LY Xena 16:30, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

Got any ideas?

For example, any other stars, like Alpha Centauri, we might want to have a section on? Any more articles that should be merged with it? --<choose> <option>^Input The Resistor^Output</option> <option>Coyote^{Over 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages}</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 12:01, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

Wait a second. I wasn't paying attention to these Star articles, but we had a Proxima Centauri article, which you copied and pasted into a section on this article, yes? And then deleted what would have been an OK article? Now, it's a redirect? That doesn't make much sense. What was your rationale for doing that? DogP 12:23, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

It was a perfectly fine article, but it seemed to fit better here. If you want, I will revert that. --<choose>

<option>^Input The Resistor^Output</option> <option>Coyote^{Over 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages}</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 15:28, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

Sirius, which is where dogs flew here from. Beetlejuice, which is where, well, beetle juice comes from. ħuman 19:40, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

From "Talk:Neutron star"

Mission? Wisest evil Phantom Hoover! 15:54, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

I say merge with star. If we are going to cover stars, instead of having thirty small articles, we should have one big article. If a section gets too large, we can always give it a seperate article. --<choose>

<option>^Input The Resistor^Output</option> <option>Coyote^{Over 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages}</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 15:56, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

Precious little we can say about this. Neutron stars were once proposed as a possible method of time travel (you need a neutron star ten times longer then its width, apparently), but that's it really. Yeah, merge. Totnesmartin 15:59, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

I was initially going to include this in the article on stars, but I thought it would be too large and so I created a different article altogether. Admittedly, neutron stars per se don't really analyze and refute the anti-science movement, ideas and people, analyze and refute the full range of crank ideas, or explore authoritarianism and fundamentalism. --e|m|c ^[TALK] 16:02, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

Paraphrase

That bit on brown dwarfs (the sub-sub-section) is almost entirely from Wikipedia. If anyone could rephrase it without deletion, that would be helpful. --<choose> <option>^Input The Resistor^Output</option> <option>Coyote^{Over 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages}</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 16:48, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

What do you mean, "without deletion"? Is there at least some part of this article that relates to the mission that I missed during my cursory proofreading? Oh, and using WP as a "reference" is poor form, you should find where they got it, make sure it's correct, and cite the original source. ħuman 19:46, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

Cover story

Please do not archive this section

CUR seems to think this is cover material, since he added the "cover" template to it.

• Disagree. Not even related to the mission. ħuman 16:58, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
• Agree (with Human I mean). There is nothing wrong with the article but not as a cover story. Ace McWicked^Revolt 17:03, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
• Not Cover. It's good but not on mission at all. _and marmite 17:18, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
• No - off-mission. This is just Felidae part 2 isn't it? Why not transfer the whole page to aSK, it'd be fine for there. Totnesmartin 17:37, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
• Okay, pulling nomination, if I can. --<choose>

<option>^Input The Resistor^Output</option> <option>Coyote^{Over 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages}</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 17:44, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

Next question: Since we seem to agree (?) that it is least a good article (is it? I haven't the patience to slog through all of it - is it well-organized?) perhaps it does, or might with work, qualify for the "best of science" cat? ħuman 18:00, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

I didn't know we had one, but if we do it qualifies. Totnesmartin 18:06, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

That cat is used to generate the random articles listed under "science portal" on the main page. ħuman 19:30, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

PS, I don't think it's "best of" while some of the footnotes are to frigging WP articles, not even using permalinks. That needs to be addressed. ħuman 19:31, 5 April 2009 (EDT)