User talk:Thorsten Alteholz

[User bio is in User:Your Name]

Welcome

Tasks: start a new article • add basic, wanted or requested articles • add definitions • add metadata • edit new pages

Welcome to the Citizendium! We hope you will contribute boldly and well. Here are pointers for a quick start. You'll probably want to know how to get started as an author. Just look at Getting Started for other helpful "startup" links, our help system and CZ:Home for the top menu of community pages. Be sure to stay abreast of events via Twitter. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forum is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any administrator for help, too. Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and have fun!

You can find some more information about our collaboration groups if you follow this link CZ:Workgroups.You can always ask me on my talk page or others about how to proceed or any other question you might have.

Have fun and Happy editing!

--Matt Innis (Talk) 10:01, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

Welcome, Thorsten--thanks for the articles on astronomical topics. --Larry Sanger 14:28, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

NGC vs. Messier vs. English name

Have you discussed naming conventions for astronomical objects with anyone, Thorsten? I think you should.

I think we should use common English names for things when available, as part of article titles. But if Astronomy editors wish to do otherwise, I'll respect their wishes. For example, I'd like to see Crab Nebula or Crab Nebula (NGC 1952), not simply NGC 1952. The latter is simply not as findable for most people who are looking for information about the Crab Nebula. --Larry Sanger 13:12, 22 October 2007 (CDT)

hmm, the redirection Crab nebula to NGC 1952 was deleted :-( Thorsten Alteholz 13:06, 23 October 2007 (CDT)

Did you notice that you redirected some of these names to pages without "NGC" (e.g., to 1976)? Please fix that.  :-) --Larry Sanger 12:56, 23 October 2007 (CDT)

oops, it is too late :-) Thorsten Alteholz 13:06, 23 October 2007 (CDT)

Hello, Messier objects are generally more noteworthy than NGC objects. So, I am surprised that articles about Messier objects (those ones without English name) are named according to their NGC number. Can you explain your choices? --Patrice Gross 17:51, 12 December 2007 (CST)

Why do you think that M-notations are more noteworthy? If you search all astronomical journals on http://www.journals.uchicago.edu for M 110 you get 20 hits. On the other side if you search for NGC 205 you will find it 212 times. Same with M 81 (18 times) and NGC 3031 (189 times). Anyway, all M-numbers will be also found on any search, so there won't be any loss of information. Thorsten Alteholz 12:56, 13 December 2007 (CST)

The 110 Messier objects are amongst the brightest distant objects of the night sky which are not stars. So, they can be easily observed with small instruments, and are a subject of interest for more people (a webpage about Messier objects)). A number in the Messier catalogue (3 digits for 11 objects, 2 digits for the others) is also more easy to memorize than a number in the New General Catalogue (generally 4 digits).

The Messier objects are marked with a M-number in most constellation maps:

• maps in Wikimedia Commons
• map of Canes Venatici in Wikimedia Commons
• another map of Canes Venatici in Atlas Imago Mundi

In fact, I didn't find constellation maps with NGC numbers for Messier objects: we could have difficulties to obtain suitable maps if we keep the NGC numbers.

The English Wikipedia has named its articles Messier X, due to the numberous homonyms with the notation MX. I think it is a sensible choice. Of course, when a Messier object has an established English name, the name would be prefered to the number.

I am not convinced by your searches in the Astronomical Journal, which is not a publication for the family, in my opinion. --Patrice Gross 16:52, 14 December 2007 (CST)

Redirect tool

Hi there. I moved your re-direct tool to User:Thorsten_Alteholz/Control_ngc_messier_ic and out of article space where it does not belong. You might want to place a link to it somewhere at CZ:Astronomy_Workgroup where others can find it useful. I'd add it there myself but just don't know enough astronomy to do it as well as you would. :-) Stephen Ewen 15:08, 28 October 2007 (CDT)

Also, you might place a link to it at various relevant talk pages. Just an idea. Stephen Ewen 18:23, 28 October 2007 (CDT)

Ceres & Orion Nebula

I've sent you a couple of emails. Better late than never! - Ro Thorpe 20:12, 31 October 2007 (CDT)

Message for you

Hi Thorsten, nice to see you active. Please see: Talk:List of NGC objects 1-199‎. Naming convention stuff. --Larry Sanger 10:46, 3 November 2007 (CDT)

ok, is there an easy way to move the List...-page to a catalog-subpage?

Bot?

Hi Thorsten, either you're running a bot or you've set new wiki editing speed records... Could you, please, explain what your bot does? Actually, it would be nice if you did so on citizendium-tools (see CZ:Communication for a link). --Larry Sanger 11:39, 18 November 2007 (CST)

Great, so I have got my first record. Truly, there is no bot running, I just prepared these articles offline and now just cut and paste the contents. Thorsten Alteholz 11:53, 18 November 2007 (CST)

And I thought I was the fastest =[. --Robert W King 11:56, 18 November 2007 (CST)

I am sorry, I practised alot :-). BTW, is it possible to automatically create the talk and approval pages? I start to hate typing 'subpages' on any talk page ...

It's in the plans somewhere in the ether to make the creation of the clusters "one click"... --Robert W King 12:04, 18 November 2007 (CST)

OK, I see! I'm impressed! You've seen CZ:Start article with subpages, right? It's not "one click" but it does save you from typing {{subpages}}. --Larry Sanger 12:53, 18 November 2007 (CST)

Yes, I know I am a niggler but changing ARTICLE_NAME four times is not really better :-). Thorsten Alteholz 13:06, 18 November 2007 (CST)

This is what do. Start your new article with subpages template at the top (you'll have to type it if you don't use the start article option then save). Then click on the metadata page link. That will create that page and all you have to do is fill out the pagename field (you have to cut and paste, or write, in the article name and save). Preferably you could do checklist too but only the pagename is essential. Then click the talk page link in the subpages template header and added the subpages tempalte to that page (you have to type {{subpages}} and save). Can automatically start the approval page from there by cliking the link (you have to clcik save). Done. I hope this helps a bit. Chris Day (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2007 (CST)

Hi Thorsten

Please see Talk:Taurus --Larry Sanger 10:54, 14 December 2007 (CST)

"Data may not be used with CZ licence"

What do you mean by that? Please contact me, or someone, before you start removing large amounts of content from the Citizendium, even if it is content that you yourself added. --Larry Sanger 09:26, 5 January 2008 (CST)

The articles about NGC-objects were made by using data of a compilation published by Sky Publishing Corporation and Cambridge University Press. A copyright notice states that "data should not be used for commercial purposes without the explicit permission of Sky Publishing Corporation." I asked them for such a permission but did not get it. So with the commercial CZ licence these data may not be used anymore and I removed them. Other parts of the articles were not affected Thorsten Alteholz 10:48, 5 January 2008 (CST)

You might want to consult with cz-astronomy about this. Some data isn't copyrightable at all. --Larry Sanger 11:53, 5 January 2008 (CST)

Yes, maybe, but until this issue is totally clarified, I prefer not to be involved in any copyright case. Thorsten Alteholz 12:08, 5 January 2008 (CST)

I appreciate Thorsten's concerns here, and am known for being especially sensitive to copyright concerns. But let me say that the sort of information he is concerned about, basic facts like apparent magnitude and dimensions, simply are not copyrightable. I have no qualm with reverting his removals under my own name. Stephen Ewen 14:19, 5 January 2008 (CST)