Talk:Retrograde motion/Archive 1

This talk page started by copying the following two sections from Talk:Apparent retrograde and direct motion to here. Discussions beneath section 2 will be comments added since the split. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

WASP-17b
WASP-17b is the first planet (really exoplanet) discovered that exhibits true retrograde motion, like Triton. The article about Retrograde and direct motion talks mainly (or exclusively, I'm not sure) about apparent retrograde motion. Now that a retrograde planet has been observed, this should be made clear, possibly with links to Triton and WASP-17b. I'd do it myself but I'm not an astronomer. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 12:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've split this into two separate articles for apparent and actual motion. Zbayz (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

We need separate discussion pages
The discussion links at the tops of the articles Apparent retrograde and direct motion and Retrograde and direct motion both direct a user to the same talk page. This is confusing. Both articles should have their own talk pages, because not everything on the talk page is applicable to both articles. For example, when I questioned the need for an astrology section, I based that question according to Apparent retrograde and direct motion, which has an astrology section, not on Retrograde and direct motion, which lacks an astrology section (as it should). Gary (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for this Article while it's Under Construction
Zbayz, since you're doing most of the revamping work, I'm putting these suggestions on the talk page. If you would like me to do some (or all) of them, we'll have to work out a schedule so that we don't run into either actual or conceptual edit conflicts.


 * First and most important, both articles should not have a name that ends with and direct motion. The main purpose of both articles is retrograde motion. They are not articles that contrast or compare direct versus retrograde motion. Thus these names are against the Wikipedia naming policy. We should split them up into: Direct motion (if necessary), Retrograde motion and Apparrent retrograde motion. The Direct motion article could subsume anything about prograde motion.


 * Second, the first paragraph in the article states "Such motion may be real (that is, defined by the inherent rotation or orbit of the body) or apparent (as seen in the skies from Earth). This article only deals with real retrograde motion; please see Apparent retrograde and direct motion for information on apparrent motion." Given the hatnote above the article; is there any reason not to remove these two sentences?


 * In the first example, the article states that "...this is because Venus' poles are aligned oppositely to Earth's." The Wikipedia article on Venus says that the retrograde motion may have begun due to something about atmospheric tides, not the poles. In my opinion, one of the articles should be changed. Or have I missed something? (I'm not an astronomer.)


 * We should also include something about the theories of what causes retrograde motion: atmospheric tides (see point above), gravitational slingshot and/or the Kozai mechanism.

In my opinion, whatever we do, we should first tackle point #1 above. Once that is accomplished, splitting up the rest of the work on all three articles should be easy.

--RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I tried moving the page to Retrograde motion, but that page already exists so this will require admin intervention. I don't think we need a page on direct motion becuase that is only mentioned in the lead as a prelude to explaining retrograde. I agree with your other points. Zbayz (talk) 12:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Zbayz (and sysop doing the db-moves), I assume that:
 * We agree that Retrograde motion should replace Retrograde and direct motion in the sense that Retrograde motion should inherit all the talk, history and logs of Retrograde and direct motion. You have already moved (last Saturday) Retrograde and direct motion to Apparent retrograde and direct motion so what is there in R&DM is only the last few days.
 * We agree that virtually all the links from Wikipedia should be changed from Retrograde and direct motion to Retrograde motion, once the sysop has done his thing (see point 1 below).
 * You are editing the articles on Retrograde motion and Apparent retrograde motion for now. I have created Direct motion (see point 2 below).


 * Also, I did the following:
 * I added a db-move to Retrograde motion and Apparent retrograde motion. You can continue to work on Retrograde and direct motion and Apparent retrograde and direct motion until the sysop moves them but watch out that he doesn't step on you :).
 * I created the Direct motion article stub. Please feel free to extend or modify.
 * I noticed in Poles of astronomical bodies that all of the Milky Way revolves in a retrograde direction. (This has something to do with the Galactic coordinate system.) If retrograde means going in the opposite direction to most of the bodies in that system, how can most of the Milky Way be orbiting in retrograde? That seems to be a contradiction. My guess is that it depends on what "system" you choose. The Galactic coordinate system seem to be based on Earth orientation. At any rate, I think you should detail this in your article on Retrograde motion. Or fix the statements about retrograde in Poles of astronomical bodies and Milky Way.
 * Who is going to deal with the over 200 links (in the sense of What links here) to Retrograde and direct motion, once we replace it with Retrograde motion!?! Is there a bot to do it?


 * --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Bots have already fixed the double redirects and I've just redirected titles such as Prograde motion to Direct motion. The rest of the links Retrograde orbit or Retrograde and direct motion all redirect to here and are not a major problem. It may be that some articles should now link to Direct motion instead of here, but this article links to direct motion in the first couple of lines, so any such article can be edited when someone comes across it. Zbayz (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)