CZ Talk:Astronomy Workgroup: Difference between revisions
imported>Robert Tito mNo edit summary |
imported>James F. Perry (IAU) |
||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
[[User:James F. Perry|James F. Perry]] 17:30, 1 February 2007 (CST) | [[User:James F. Perry|James F. Perry]] 17:30, 1 February 2007 (CST) | ||
a short question, the IAA "degraded" Pluto last year to dwarf, shouldnt they be in the list? | :a short question, the IAA "degraded" Pluto last year to dwarf, shouldnt they be in the list? [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]] 20:59, 1 February 2007 (CST) | ||
[[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]] 20:59, 1 February 2007 (CST) | |||
I thought that was the IAU (International Astronomical Union), which is on the list. Of course, a wag such as I might be tempted to say that since they "degraded" Pluto, maybe they themselves should be degraded! | |||
Seriously, though, I'm not done and I am having some difficulty with the list of organizations. RAS. AURA. AAS. I think they should be included. [[User:James F. Perry|James F. Perry]] 21:22, 1 February 2007 (CST) |
Revision as of 21:22, 1 February 2007
High priority articles listing
When the listing of high priority Astronomy Workgroup articles is brought to a more complete state, I anticipate that there will be approximately 150 to 200 such articles.
The Citizendium has about 50 Workgroups and if each developed a similar list (and similarly sized), that would represent about 7,500 to 10,000 articles total. This is not overly large for the project goals and thus the number of articles in the Astronomy Workgroup list does not appear to be excessive.
Considered from another point of view, Wikipedia has about 1.6 million articles. Eliminating the well over half which are insipid stubs, incapable or highly unlikely to ever be developed beyond that stage, and then eliminating the very large number of other artilces which only by a great stretch of the imagination belong in any Encyclopedia, we are still left with a few hundred thousand articles. The 10,000 figure mentioned above would then represent the top 5% (approximately) of the total.
Likewise, the Philip's Astronomy Encyclopedia states that it contains a total of about 3,000 entries, so again, the 150 - 200 entries on the "high priority list" for Astronomy represents about 5% of that total.
Thus the list would appear to be properly selective.
If it is felt that some sub-set of the articles should be designated "of extreme importance" (or something similar) then this could be done with an asterisk or some other prominent marking.
James F. Perry 17:30, 1 February 2007 (CST)
- a short question, the IAA "degraded" Pluto last year to dwarf, shouldnt they be in the list? Robert Tito 20:59, 1 February 2007 (CST)
I thought that was the IAU (International Astronomical Union), which is on the list. Of course, a wag such as I might be tempted to say that since they "degraded" Pluto, maybe they themselves should be degraded!
Seriously, though, I'm not done and I am having some difficulty with the list of organizations. RAS. AURA. AAS. I think they should be included. James F. Perry 21:22, 1 February 2007 (CST)