Talk:Astronomical acronyms

=Please list any acronyms you feel should be included in this section= Use this section to list any acronyms that you feel should be included but either a) don't feel comfortable editing the main page (or don't have time) or b) you are unsure whether the acronym should be included or not. Please keep this section at the top of the talk page so it may easily be seen.

Please remove acronyms if they are added to the article, however one should leave any discussions over whether or not an acronym should be included.Sulfurboy (talk) 07:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC) =This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.=

To comply with Wikipedia's lead section guidelines, the introduction of this article may need to be rewritten. (August 2012)
Guilty as charged. But it needs some sort of intro. Any suggestions for improving it? RayNorris (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll assume that you know more about the subject, as I know nothing :), but some ideas I can think of discussing/explaining:

-Was there any sort of proposed process as to how the acronyms should come about via the wiki community? Could even go further as to whether abbreviations should be considered for a range of major languages, i.e. an acronym for french, english, spainish, etc.; since, for example, the IAU goes by a different acronym in the French language (UAI) -What is Commission Five? And maybe just a sentence about the IAU. -How strong is authority or influence in naming conventions, does the academic community usually pick it up? NASA? Euro Space Agency? (I doubt there is a strong source anywhere for this though.)

Sulfurboy (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all the helpful comments. While the IAU does have significant authority (e.g. it defines the length of the day, and the length of the year, as used by governments around the world, and was responsible for demoting Pluto) it's probably not appropriate to go into that here, as that is all dealt with quite well in the article on the IAU. I've added a bit more detail about the process. RayNorris (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This article may contain original research. (August 2012)
No I don't think so. RayNorris (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This article does not cite any references or sources. (August 2012)
Eh? Every item has a link! RayNorris (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Every item has a link to another wikipedia article, which yes does confirm that acronym, but that is also unsourced. That's not what I was concerned about as much as some source stating the IAU agreed have wikipedia be the home for their acronym naming. I should have clarified when tagging, certainly sourcing every acronym would be redundant in my opinion. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh right. Fair enough. Once the meeting minutes are on-line I will link to them. RayNorris (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This article may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. (August 2012)
Probably true - I'll work on it. RayNorris (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't be of much help here as I'm not good with the page design elements. Sorry to be critical, but of no help. However, to be blunt, the page is just very unappealing to the eye. You have some lines that are only the name of the item, and then others that have explanations. Go with one or the other, in my opinion. Another thought, maybe only describe the item when it either a)may be easily confused with another item or b) does not have a wikipedia page.

Sulfurboy (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

OK - good point. I think it would be most useful if each item had a short description. I'll start doing that now. I think it would be useful to hjave *all* common acronyms (as far as possible) to save users having to do a search each time.RayNorris (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Looked to see how other pages similar to this were laid out and re-did it. Amazing the difference bullet points can make!Sulfurboy (talk) 07:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeh - much better - many thanks RayNorris (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

=Scope of acronym inclusion= I feel it should be discussed the scope for what the list should include. The field of astronomy can include a lot of things and as such creates a lot of grey areas. I'll throw out some examples to ponder:

-SETI, or the search for extraterrestrial intelligence; the entanglement with astronomy should be obvious, but the subject of the study would be considered fringe or pointless by some. I personally feel something like SETI should be included, because it makes uses of various telescopes and searches for ANY unknown signal in the universe, not just little green men in a flying saucer.

-Rockets/Spaceships/Satellites. The boundary between astronomy and space exploration is pretty grey. I certainly think objects such as the hubble telescope, or voyager should be included, but what about planetary exploration like mars rovers, etc. I think there needs to be some limit, I think an acronym for a spaceship that has made a contribution to the field of astronomy should be included, but should be limited to that. I think having SRB for solid rocket booster on the list for example, would be taking it too far.

The issue of whether or not an acronym should be included was part of the reason I created the first section.Sulfurboy (talk) 07:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup I agree. SETI really isn't considered fringe nowadays - it does for example get significant government support around the world. But I agree its worth excluding non-astronomical space scienc terms. And I like your idea of including a "debatable" section at the top of this page RayNorris (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)