Talk:Carter Observatory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Architecture Portal
This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale.
Flag Carter Observatory is part of WikiProject New Zealand, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

[edit] VFD

trolling nomnationa for vfd at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Carter Observatory #Dunc|☺ 18:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

I propose that the information contained in the Ruth Crisp article be merged into the Facilities section of this article. The info on the Ruth Crisp facility would fit well into the Carter Observatory article, and the Ruth Crisp article can be used for information about Ruth Crisp the person, should they be notable and wikiworthy. Anyone agree? - Gobeirne 02:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

STRONGLY DISAGREE until further significant discussion. The article has its own talk page for such discussion prior to making this move. There is much that can be done to that article prior to any such reductionist action, how about changing this cut and paste energy into research and article improvement. Notability and worthyness are already clearly established to a number of us real world humans, maybe not wikipedians, and therefore the need to verify that information is also clear. Why not pursue that line of activity? It would probably require some alterations to mental set and setting, some emails, maybe some phone calls, or visits to your public library to search through newspapers, all harder than cutting, but true to the spirit of this space. The Carter article could also do with a huge amount of positive contribution by some editors and researchers, how about that as well?moza 07:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Agree. I quite like the idea of merging the two articles, on the grounds that the Ruth Crisp telescope is administered by the Carter Observatory (even within the main building), and it's generally seen as part of Carter by most people who I know. (Even when it was at Black Birch, it was still a Carter outpost.) My own preference in Wikipedia is to see a smaller number of detailed articles that can be really well written and informative to read, rather than a greater number of short articles that tend to thin out. I think that Ruth Crisp might deserve its own section in the Carter article, though, rather than just putting it into the Facilities section. With the section headings removed, all the text of the existing article could be refactored to make a nicely informative section in the carter article. If the information about it grows to stand out enough in the future, it might warrant splitting it back into its own article at a later date, though it should still have a summarised section in the Carter article regardless. My two cents. Izogi 05:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Agree, The Thomas King Observatory (and material in Thomas King (New Zealand) ) should also be merged in. I think I good sized article about the carter could be created with sections on Thomas King and Ruth Cusp. - SimonLyall 05:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons has media related to:

Well I've just attempted to port some of the text over to see how it might go, and personally I prefer it in the Carter article. I was also windering if the gallery has to be at the end of the article? It'd make more sense to put the gallery over in Wikimedia Commons, and then put a commons template link in the Carter article (such as the one I've put above this paragraph). That's exactly what Wikimedia Commons is for, whereas Wikipedia isn't really. Izogi 04:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  • The new section reads well there. In general, I like the galleries scattered through Wikipedia, and Mozasaur's photos are great. Eight photos is probably the upper limit, though. One tactic might be to leave four really good images in the gallery, and have a link to Commons for more. - Gobeirne 06:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. That would be fine as far as I'm concerned. I guess the main concern I have is the text of the article getting flooded out by too many images, which just overflow everywhere... particularly for people with smaller browser windows. Ideally they should be there to enhance the text, imho, and be as relevant as possible to what the nearby text is describing. Otherwise the readability doesn't flow quite so well. ie. The text is describing the Thomas King telescope, so wham -- there's a photo of the Thomas King telescope. Something like a photo of Saturn taken through the Thomas King telescope isn't really directly relevant, unless the text is specifically talking about taking photos of Saturn through it. Izogi 07:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for getting into this Izogi. The pics can be reduced in size and quantity of course. I dont like the gallery much, but I'm letting it sit with me for a while to see if that changes. I like the simple right hand side thumbnails. There were no pics before I came along and if a pic is worth a thousand words then thats a good thing now. Youre correct, the pic should have some referring text, but its very hard to talk about that Saturn pic, as its supposed to be published and verifiable. That there are no other pics of what it looks like through a telescope at Carter is the reason those exist. I know that it is possible to produce infinitely better pics, but i havent the gear or the funding to spend that amount of time doing it. Perhaps another editor can contribute relevant text about the pics. This article could easily blow out into a huge work if the appropriate information was brought here, making it ok for there to be sub-articles about each facility, my intent was such forward planning. I am of the belief that making this article look good in its minimalised state is a waste of effort, such effort could be applied to expansion by gathering the information available. I have copies of the newspaper articles for instance, but again its just a matter of time and energy and therefore motivation. looking at the history this article was barely existing when i came along, how bizarre for me to watch it be shrivelled back to that state.
Hi Moza. Thanks for the efforts that you've gone to so far -- it really is great having some pictures to match with the article, and I'm not sure people have been removing your contributions as much as you make out. Comparing the current article with this one shortly after you'd edited it in Feb, for instance, I really don't see it having shrivelled back into the pre-moza state at all. You've clearly had a strong influence in the current article, and I don't think it's something to be concerned about. What's happened is that people have come along and refactored some text, removed text that wasn't really relevant to the observatory, picked out the pictures that best match the text, and just generally kept on editing in the same way that happens all over Wikipedia. It's writing practice that would probably come out of most writing courses, and it's what results in articles all over Wikipedia that people use as references to find information on all kinds of abstract things. The whole point is that articles should really be presentable at any state of their development, irrespective of the amount of information. It's supposed to be an encyclopedic article that provides objective information... not a flyer, not a newsletter. This doesn't mean that it has to be in such a form immediately, but if it's not like that, it's grounds for someone to drop in and fix it. That's how I see it, anyway.
Irrespective of whether the sibling articles are redirected to the Carter article (or whatever), I really do think that this article is a whole lot better for including their information. I'm not of the belief that it's wasted effort to make this article look good in a minimalised state. It doesn't take a lot of effort, particularly for people who aren't in a good position to search for new information. I've yet to actually see all of this extra information, and I don't think it's necessary to wait for it before fixing what's here now, because there will always be space for more. I'm sure it'll become available eventually because someone (you, me, whoever) will provide it, but meanwhile I'd just like it to be a good article to read.
I'm not sure about the Saturn pictures. They're definitely interesting, but Carter isn't exactly known for astrophotography (as far as I know), so I'm not sure how to get it to fit cleanly as part of an article about Carter -- unless it were a specific section about astrophotography at Carter. It's up for debate, but to me, simply including it because it's possible to include it would seem a bit like editing the Helen Clark article to include details about what she had for lunch yesterday. Personally I'd have thought that this was exactly what Wikimedia Commons was for -- media that people want to make available for use when someone wants/needs to use it, but which might not be directly applicable in a Wikipedia article context right now. Two more cents. Izogi 08:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
all good, i know i can get myopic at times. Nice to have someone giving good sense perspectives for me to think hard about. The Saturn pic is hardly a good astro photo in many ways, although best effort on my part. It seemed odd to me for an article on an astronomical observatory to exist without some representation of what can actually be seen through one of the telescopes, and an authentic image from one of their instruments, as opposed to any old astro pic from somewhere else. I try and think of the articles as a standalone work; something that can be printed and taken away for reading perhaps, but certainly with a sense of completeness. Imagine someone discovering Carter and Astronomy for the first time, and NOT getting any quick idea of what you can see through a telescope there. I know the images flow differently for different users and thats a concern, but thats possibly best fixed with smaller pics all on the right.

I ran across some articles tonight that have been stubs for 3 years, and it provokes me into thinking about the seemingly endless editing of some articles versus the massive need for adding to stubs that are often more than a year old. Our highest waterfall for instance, Sutherland Falls, 8th best in the world perhaps, and Rock_and_Pillar_Range, dunno what more you could do for that article though. Really all i'm saying is that less isnt always more; that that itself is actually a point of view, and endlessly debatable. I asked for discussion prior to moving, i thought consensus was the idea, but also boldness means we can actually do anything. It's really quite a mixture of seemingly conflicting attitudes and behaviours, and quite difficult to understand and work with, but i continue to try and learn what it really is. For all that I think I now undestand it better than most. There seems to be some sort of 'feel good factor' from using whatever is here in wikipedia, ripping it down and re-constituting it as many times as seems necessary, and thats SO easy for anyone to do and get the feeling. A real encyclopedia is built by bringing many external and verified sources together in one mix, and that takes a significantly greater effort. The info on Ruth Crisp is most likely held at Carter, Ive been told it is and I can have access, but thats harder than just poking fun at her possible non-notability. The info on Carter is also available to build a fantastic wikipedia article, with or without my pics, but thats also a very much bigger energy and time consumer. So please correct me if I'm wrong, but how can we make wikipedia better by ignoring the need for more information about the article subject? by improving its minimilistic readability? well i guess thats an improvement, and generates some feel good points, but the real issue is bypassed; a useful and complete article about the subject. Isnt that the only real purpose here? so what about the recent work at Carter on Pluto occultation, anyone got the time, enery and inclination to bring it here? There is simply a MASSIVE amount of material to add, and the apparent pre-occupation with having a perfect little article is bewildering.moza 15:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wiki pictures and visitor screen sizes

As for screen sizes, I regularly look at the visitor returns and consider the changes over the years. one of the reasons behind creating a Ben Hana fan site was just that; to study the wikipedia traffic that cant be studied externally. The visitors are relatively stable at 600+ per month, with 78% coming from en.wikipedia. here is screen size breakdown. personally, i havent used less than 1280 screens for two years, but i have browsers open at the equivalent of 800 and 1024 to give me space for rapid access of other stuff, although with spreadsheets and mapmaking I'm using two screens with 1280x2 for the entire window. Designing for the lowest common denominator sucks, what about a consensus for viewing size? 3 or 4 of us hardly make a consensus, but yes it is an important issue to have some understanding of. Anyone can surf the following data at source, at any time:

june visitors - data source

screensize, uniquevisitors, %share

1024x768 159 50.96%
1280x1024 84 26.92%
800x600 31 9.94%
1152x864 19 6.09%
Other 8 5.77%
1600x1200 1 0.32%

The main point, as I see it, is the diversity of skins and screens, and the relative unpredicability of what the user sees, but thats the same challenge for all web publishing.moza 04:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)