Talk:Ruth Crisp
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
|
 |
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. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
So, um, who was Ruth Crisp that the observatory is named for? DS 16:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- YES!! a really important point, and part of the reason this page exists. The information about the person Ruth Crisp is on its way, a bit delayed, but I will ensure that it is published here in due course.
ALSO, a lot more information about the telescope and drive, and the ongoing research program, is available in hard copy, and i need to look at it carefully and decide whatcan be put here, what is appropriate etc..
Basically, the intent of this page is to make universally available the knowledge that was held with a few humans until recently. Mozasaur 01:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- really good to see someone working on this page today... I will go to the facility and check on all th ehistorical information available and bring it back to this page to share. Interesting abou the spelling of Chivens though, my error of chivons was altered to chivins, I have no real way of verification, I chose the spelling used in 28,000 google pages, chivens, as opposed to 4, chivins. I note that Science Base24 has lifted this complete article for their own use. Mozasaur 22:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merging This Page
It is a mark of respect to article contributors to discuss major changes here. I see this occur elsewhere in wikipedia, but I also see these heavy handed attempts. I suggest the reasons for such a merger are tabled here, and given a reasonable period of consideration by interested parties, of which there are few. I see no reason to dissolve this article and merge it into another, I will be keen to have advice on the subject from all who wish to give. This is an article about a telescope that is very signficant to many people, and a country, not about a collaction of telescopes, there is a difference. This telescope was recently used for exceedingly important data collection about a very rare occultation, by a worldwide recognised astronomer and in conjunction with a large team/s spread out across New Zealand and Australia. Maybe the negative cut and paste energy can be re-directed to researching this important information, and writing it up for this article? So no, dont merge the article until more consensus has been obtained.moza 06:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Moza, you're understandably very protective of this article - it's obviously a subject close to your heart. The change I proposed is not heavy handed, and indicates respect for the subject, rather than a lack of it. If I was showing a lack of respect to the article contributors, I would have made the change immediately myself. However, you can relax - I merely proposed the change, and was allowing the recommended five days or so to judge the reaction before taking any action. The guidelines for such changes are at Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages - you will note that the discussions for such mergers are to take place on the destination page, rather than the source, to avoid duplication. I stand by my comments: I think both articles would benefit significantly from a merger. However, you've made your opinion very clear, and you're far more passionate about this issue than I am. The best thing to do now is wait and see what others think. I'll leave you alone now, and direct my "negative cut and paste energy" elsewhere. - Gobeirne 20:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- I am relaxed, I said the proposal wasnt necessary as such a 'formal' thing, yes, it could and should have been discussed here and at the destination first, and then could have been activated if needed, under those guidelines. It hasnt been shown to be needed yet, there hasnt been enough discussion either way.moza 02:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- I would support the merger of the page. At minimum it should be renamed "Ruth Crisp telescope" or similar since this is not an article about the person Ruth Crisp. Especially since there appears to be a person called Ruth Crisp (see here ) who might justify an article. I'm also concerned about the tone of some of the article. Bits like the "Issues" section read a little funny. - SimonLyall 05:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- fix it then, but perhaps AFTER youve fixed your other mess(es)..moza 02:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oh I see youve 'fixed' it already with your especially sharpened knife. [User:Mozasaur|moza]] 02:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- fix it then, but perhaps AFTER youve fixed your other mess(es)..moza 02:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ruth Crisp the person
The info about the telescope and facility is appropriate for the Carter page, until the Carter article becomes overloaded, and that would happen if the intent of wikipedia was in process; adding information about a subject to its article. There is simply a huge amount of material about Carter for that purpose. This article is actually supposed to be about a person though, and that was my original intent, but that requires gathering info about Ruth Crisp, and thats scarce. I was hoping that the process of putting up an article about the person, initially using the facility that she apparently paid for as a kind of proxy for her article info, would enable and encourage someone who had that info to add it here. I committed to doing it myself if necessary, and Ive formally requested the information today. I still feel that any person prepared to GIVE the kind of funds required to provide such a facility would be notable enough to be included in wikipedia. The replacement cost of this facility is in the 6 figures. Many articles that I have created have stimulated the inclusion of information new to wiki, previously hidden from general view, although previously published one way or another. Anyone in the astronomical community knows that change takes place often on an astronomical time scale, and this article is merely waiting for the appropriate info. I see no real pressing need to apply pressure to that process. Being so pedantic about these two articles, when there are hundreds and probably thousands that actually need attention, and have little or none, begs the question, why? research and addition is difficult - Inclusionism. Endless cutting and pasting is easy - Deletionism, in the name of improvement, less is supposedly more, yeah easy.moza 01:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Moz, I suspect that somebody whose only important thing they have done is leave a largish amount of money to a good cause will not qualify as noteworthy enough. Many people who die these days will have an estate of a million or two and leaving that to charity doesn't make them notible. - SimonLyall 07:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey Moz, any progress on finding about about the person? Current material in the article is a little minimal - SimonLyall 06:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- yeah mate, went to Carter today and photocopied pages from a hardcopy book ok poetry, a 1962 publication of Ruth's Estate, I got all the verification pages, one of the poems, and two pages of personal monologue. Dont think they had ISBN back then but the book possibly has one. So she is a published author. I am confident of delivering even more relevant info, it just takes connecting with the people that can provide it. I'll add details to the article later.moza 12:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
