Talk:List of astronomy websites

"The Planetary Society"
Why is The Planetary Society listed here? It's not a website, it's an NGO. Are you going to add NASA because it has a website? Or the Keck Observatory, because it has a website? -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 05:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This has subsequently been removed. Thanks for your attention. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 06:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Generalise further
I think this page, a merge of several not-quite-wikipedia-notable astronomy websites, is a good idea. I think it should be generalised further, to contain all well-known, well-used, reliable popular astronomy resources, not just those with stand-alone article. Limiting the list to standalone articles kind of defeats its purpose.

I'd like to see the few material removals in the history reversed.

I guess, but do not know, that sources discussing these resources exist, probably in subscription magazines and popular books. If so, this could merit a standalone article. If not, the list could be merged to Amateur astronomy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Feel free to restructure and retitle the list as long as the changes do not violate WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which were concerns at Articles for deletion/List of astronomy websites. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, WP:NOTDIR is an issue. I expect that some research may reveal a compilation of amature astronomy resources, probably in a subscription magazine.
 * It would not be satisfying to see Universe Today merged and redirected to here, and then to see its section cut on the basis that it doesn't have itw own article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think a list of astronomy resources could be useful, but it should be a separate page from this one. We already have a list of astronomy journals, and WPBiology set up a list of biology authorities (though I don't remember what article name they used). -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 04:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * List of astronomy journals is a poor example, because it doesn't have explicit inclusion criteria. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If a reliable and occasionally updated index of notable astronomy websites cannot be found, one option would be to generate inclusion criteria based on Alexa rank or similar traffic information. Alexa rank is not a suitable criterion for determining notability of a stand alone article, but nothing keeps us from using it to determine if a web site should be included on a list. VQuakr (talk) 06:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If it has an article on Wikipedia, we can assume it is notable (or else it would be deleted) -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 07:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just wandered in here an have to say this is a very odd list. This should be a bullet list with very short descriptions, or non at all (WP:LIST). There is no need for redundant long description or references. Lists (such as this) list Wikipedia articles, they are a similar function to Category, and articles by definition are notable. Going beyond Wikipedia articles (making a list of just websites) falls into WP:NOTDIR. This should be bulleted, the long descriptions should be knocked down to a sentence, and references should be removed, they already exist at the subjects article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

or merge
I think that too few editors really interested in this, and that an RfC would just increase the existing RfC exhaustion. There are already enough comments at DRV and the multiple AfDs. I think that List of astronomy websites is a dubious list article. It purports to be a listing of websites with their own articles, but each of the articles is very weak, and I think should be converted to a redirect. This then invalidates the standing of the website on the list. I’m thinking it needs to be merged to Amateur astronomy, in a section titled “Resources”. These websites, and some other resources, are all part of the topic "amature astronomy". I feel there is a clear distinction with professional or academic astronomy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I endorse 's suggestion. If no one disagrees with this suggestion after one week has passed, then I suggest that SmokeyJoe boldly implement his suggestion. Cunard (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Endorse - go for it. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of astronomy websites. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6Nz583a55?url=http://www.capjournal.org/issues/06/06_26.pdf to http://www.capjournal.org/issues/06/06_26.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of astronomy websites. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120330172229/http://www.absw.org.uk/news-events/news/761-embargo-system-is-broken-says-universe-today-and-leaves-the-game to http://www.absw.org.uk/news-events/news/761-embargo-system-is-broken-says-universe-today-and-leaves-the-game

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)