Talk:Vatican Advanced Technology Telescope

Performance of the VATT
The article currently says 'Given its excellent optical qualities... ...it regularly outperforms much larger telescopes located elsewhere'. This is quite a sweeping statement, in fact it doesn't have a source at present so it's currently just an assertion. It also doesn't say what telescopes it is being compared with. Much older ones perhaps?

Generally large telescopes are expensive so it isn't as if designers of other large telescopes don't also aim for 'excellent optical qualities'. A source to back up the assertion of 'outperformance' is needed, and very preferably one that explains why this telescope achieves such excellent optical qualities where others have presumably not been able to rise to these heights of optical perfection.

I'm not just being cynical. Maybe this telescope doesn't have to make compromises that others do for some reason, or maybe it was the first to hit on an excellent design which is now being copied at a larger scale. But this would all require explanation and a source, that are not currently present in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.37.175 (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * From the article: "Because it has such a short focal length, a Gregorian design could be employed which uses a concave secondary mirror at a point beyond the primary focus; this allows unusually sharp focusing across the field of view." and "The unusual optical design and novel mirror fabrication techniques mean that both the primary and secondary mirrors are among the most exact surfaces ever made for a ground-based telescope. In addition, the skies above Mount Graham are among the most clear, steady, and dark in the continental North America. Seeing of better than one arc-second even without adaptive optics can be achieved on a regular basis." This is what I think is meant when the article argues that it "outperforms much larger telescopes located elsewhere." Granted, these assertions are unsourced as well, but they point in any case in the direction of how one might go about verifying them. --189.126.194.194 (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

merge into Mount Graham International Observatory
Since this article is relatively short, and the telescope itself is part of the Mount Graham International Observatory, it should be merged in as a section of the MGIO article rather than keeping it independent. that would allow faster, nore efficient access to complete information about the MGIO. Log&#39;a&#39;log 02:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As the article has been expanded considerably since the above was written, I would object to such a merger. __meco (talk) 08:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Which infobox
Why should this article have Infobox settlement? It's not a city/town/village/hamlet. Infobox Telescope is probably the ideal on. -- User:Docu
 * Infobox Observatory is even better. I converted it. -- User:Docu
 * Infobox "Settlement" is correct because the VATT has its geographical location. Rb85z37 (talk) 10:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What is its population? There is an explanation on Infobox_Settlement describing the type of location it's meant for. If you are looking for a locator map, try the one below. -- User:Docu
 * It shouldn't be placed in the lead as it is now, imprisoning the text between the map and the observatory infobox. I believe there is a way to nest the location map within the observatory infobox such that the map image appears below it. Viriditas (talk) 07:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is the "Vatican City topics" mentioned at the end of the article?
Shouldn't it be removed? There should be a disambiguation page, so it seems unnecessary, no?62.57.50.138 (talk) 09:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, half the staff of the Vatican Observatory does live within the Vatican City State, so it's not completely unreasonable... Jonathan Stott 15:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjstott (talk • contribs)