Talk:Deep-sky object

rewrite[edit]

This is still badly written... I tried to reword, but someone who knows the game really needs to work on this. (Booyabazooka 23:33, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC))

It's good. But shouldn't deep sky objects be those outside the Milky Way? --Stillkent 05:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It greatly depends on who you ask.

Outside the solar system
Outside the Milky Way
Outside the Milky Way's system of satellite galaxies
Outside the Local Group
Beyond the Local Supercluster
Beyond 100 Mly / 200 Mly / 500 Mly / 1 Gly
Beyond z = 0.01 / 0.02 / 0.05 / 0.1 / 0.2 / 0.5 / 1.0

76.66.203.102 (talk) 04:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was started in 2007, but never mind... I think the term originated to describe any object that did not appear to move in relation to surrounding stars, but that also did not appear point-like in contemporary telescopes. Distance isn't really the point. --Shirifan (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it started in 2004... still, different people use "deep sky object" in different ways... 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (2009)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved. Skomorokh, barbarian 18:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deep sky → Deep sky object — - This page appears to have been improperly named in the first place. WP:Naming Conventions: "Use nouns: Titles should be nouns or noun phrases. Adjective and verb forms ... should redirect to articles titled with the corresponding noun." --GHJmover (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's amusing how the article was started to be about "Deep Sky, in the game Skies of Arcadia", but later hi-jacked to be about Deep sky objects. Clearly the article should be renamed. However "Deep sky" seems to be used in a somewhat wider sense in terms like "deep sky photography", "deep sky software" etc., which might possibly give merit to having a "Deep sky"-article too. --Shirifan (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the third edit, one month after article creation, way back in 2004, it's been astronomy related... 76.66.203.102 (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name is a problem. But it points to the bigger problem that the article may not be encyclopedic. As stated in the intro, "Deep Sky Object" is another name for star cluster, Nebula, and Galaxy. Those articles already exist. Encyclopedia's do not have redundant articles for things that are already described, and that opening definition makes this topic little more than a dictionary entry. The recent edits have made the article a little more problematic because the article is skewing farther into WP:NOTHOWTO with (un-referenced) expanded material and headings such "Observing deep sky objects". All the redundancy with star cluster, Nebula, and Galaxy should be removed along with the "how-to" stuff. I think that paring back may leave a very short article and a case for moving it off to the Wiktionary. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think at the very least the Deep sky object article is a reasonable place to cover the historical study of such objects, as little was known then about what they really were (i.e. they could not be described as star clusters, nebulas, galaxies etc.) "What links here" on the Deep sky article has more than a hundred entries which says something about how other editors feel about the importance of the existence of the article. Unencyclopedic material should of course be challenged as usual. --Shirifan (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The opening paragraph has now been rewritten to make clear the distinction between DSOs and generic astronomical objects. GHJmover (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point about mentioning how the article was started (besides the comical aspect) was mostly that it may explain why it was originally misnamed. --Shirifan (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move per GHJmover, there is no such place in astronomy as the "Deep sky" (no one ever points a telescope at a blank part of the sky and says "I'm looking at the deep sky"). They are all "objects". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Move and that "Deep sky" is not a "place" since it's mostly used as a adverb rather than a noun. I can see you're working on a re-write that looks promising! I just wanted to mention that I don't think there is such a thing as a "blank part of the sky" - there is always objects to see it you collect enough light. Compare Hubble Ultra Deep Field. --Shirifan (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field when writing about the "blank sky", and also noting they didn't call it the Hubble Ultra Deep Sky. I also was thinking the objects in that image would never be called "Deep Sky Objects" since you could never see them visually. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Invariant to distance[edit]

"Since surface brightness is invariant to distance" - could use some explanation. I think what this means is that an object that's further away covers less sky and also appears dimmer, so these effects cancel out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.208.164 (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-write[edit]

Article was rearranged and edited for content and logical definition. Looking through the reference we have to base this article on I have come up with these definition parameters:

Deep sky objects are visual objects, you have to be able to see them.
Deep sky object is a post 1940 term limited to the amateur astronomical realm.
Deep sky objects are non-solar system non-stellar objects.
Deep sky object is a visual, not a technical term (any non-single star object can be a Deep sky object). Also, parts of structures are Deep sky objects.
Many extra solar system non-single stellar objects are not Deep sky objects such as the Milky Way, dark matter, structures in the radio and high energy realm (i.e. if you can't see it in the field of an amateur telescope it is not a Deep sky object).

Cleanup also per:

Cleaned up some redundancy with other articles.
WP:DICTIONARY and WP:V - def did not match references and "phrasings such as "is a term for"" is not encyclopedic.
WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:EL - cleaned up directory of loseley related material or external links. Links deleted in deference to directory link.
WP:NOTHOWTO - cleaned up for allot of advice and how-to links.
DSO's are a post 1930s-40s general concept so they do not have the specific history described in the "History" section, that material is relevant to what it describes (galaxies, nebula, etc).
Messier and New General Catalogue are not catalogs of DSO's since DSO is an informal term and they predate that term. Uppsala General Catalogue is a catalogue of galaxies.
subbed a more descriptive image. ESO 510-G13 is a very pretty image but it belongs at Galaxy.

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To hyphenate or not to hyphenate...[edit]

It seems that both spellings are good, "deep-sky object" and "deep sky object", but they are interechangeably used within the article, which is not quite along the guidelines of Wikipedia. We should adopt only ONE spelling, and mention the variant in the intro, and stick to the first one for the rest of the article.

However, I do not make the change myself, as I wonder whether or not we should hyphenate. English is not my first language, and while I'm pretty good in Shakespeare's language, I would not pretend to be even near perfect... My understanding of English grammar is that it should be hyphenated, but maybe I am wrong...

CielProfond (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common usage does not seem to hyphenate... 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (2011)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. GB fan 19:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deep sky object → Deep-sky object — Consistent spelling of deep-sky object, going the grammar route (<http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/34516/is-it-deep-sky-object-or-deep-sky-object/34519#34519>). Mortense (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Support. Sure. This is a simple application of a widely supported principle for the use of a hyphen in a compound attributive modifier. See WP:HYPHEN, which is part of WP:MOS. Wikipedia, like any publisher (construing that term broadly) imposes its own preferred style for punctuation, rather than attempting to follow the wildly unreliable punctuation of "reliable sources", however reliable they are for their content or for their choices of terms. WP:TITLE has nothing to do with style choices, and is appropriately silent on the topic of punctuation. Noetica^Tea? 02:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per Noetica Darkness Shines (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

changing the redirect for "Deep sky"[edit]

Hi there. I was told to ask on this page how the community feels about changing the redirect for Deep sky from this page to Deep Sky, the article that I created yesterday for the documentary. How do we feel? Osh33m (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article would be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The film uses this topic as a title. So the current redirect and hat seems correct as is per WP:AMBIGTERM---> primary topic article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]