Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-09-16 Space Science

Request made by: Mlhooten 19:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC) mlhooten[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?

... Wikipedia Space Science

Who's involved?

... mlhooten and Uncle G

What's going on?

... Uncle G reverted to earlier version without explanation or too small an explanation for size of revert.

What would you like to change about that?

... Would like a mediated Dialogue between mlhooten and Uncle G

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

... Uncle G's Choice. My emial is broadly posted. mlhooten@gmail.com

In Wikipedia the burden of proof is on those who want material to be included. Addhoc 20:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mlhooten asks Uncle G to review Space Sciences at User:Mlhooten. Mlhooten will post this entire version to Space Science under the stipulation that Uncle G will not revert it. Mlhooten asks Uncle G to agree that the overall structure will remain and that Uncle G will only remove offending entries after an explanation for the removal of each entry. With notice by Uncle G to Mlhooten of offending entries, Mlhooten will find scientific citations for any entries not cited excepting entries which merely link to another Wikipedia article. Mlhooten will continue to clean up this version: spelling, grammar, style and proper use of citations. Mlhooten Oct 19, 2006.

mlhooten offers to change style of article to reverted style under agreement that most categories will be included. Claims by Uncle G against listed "sciences" must be discussed with mlhooten under mediation

Jaster asks mlhooten to read wp:bold and understand the concept of Wikipedia ... the article is not yours, or mine or any admin's or even Wikipedia's, anyone can change it (in small ways) anytime they want (and it might get changed back) but major changes should be discussed ... ON THE TALK PAGE of the article, this mediation started because you did not follow this procedure and are still not following it... If you want to make small changes to the article as it is now ... do it! If you want to make larger changes or restructure it, say what you want to do on the talk page of the article (not on your user page) so everyone who is interested can discuss it. You cannot say you want to make vast changes and that no-one can change them!

Your 'offer' is to completely alter the article to a format that was not discussed and it was previously reverted from, under the condition that the person who reverted it does not revert it again? the only thing that has been discussed here is the structure of the article and the only thing that has been even partially agreed is the basic categories?

If you go ahead without discussion then if UncleG does not revert it back then I will... ^Jaster 09:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your 'proposed new version' on you page (please read WP:SP if you are going to do this...but preferabley don't do it ...)

You are still cutting and pasting from other articles e.g.

Stellar-Processes, General Stellar_dynamics, stars, Stellar Evolution, event horizon, black hole, x-rays, nuclear fusion and others. In astronomy, stellar evolution is the sequence of changes that a star undergoes during its lifetime; the hundreds of thousands,.....omitted.........and the star will collapse until its radius is smaller than the Schwarzschild radius. The star has then become a black hole.

Is a copy verbatim of the Stellar Evolution article .. and so it pointless here and was one of the complaints about your previous proposed version(s)

If you want to do this article then ...

"* Don't ramble (you are getting better...)"

• Don't cut and paste from other articles, link to them
• Don't refer to sub-sub-sub-subjects of other sciences that you think are significant but do not (yet) exist?

e.g. gravitational wave gravitational wave observatories, The link does not refer to gravitational wave observatories but to 'gravitational wave' and briefly mentions the possibility of detecting them "...is the hope to detect waves emitted by sources on astronomic size scales." It would be better to add them (or propose to add them) to the relevant page

• Don't include things that are better refered to on other pages (see above) also e.g.

Our Supercluster: Those filaments are made of Superclusters of Galaxies superclusters, tending to line up in filaments. Our Milky Way Galaxy is a galaxy in what is called the Our Supercluster of Galaxies by the National Geographic Society. Some 150 million light-years across, our Supercluster is a great aggregation of perhaps thousands of smaller clusters of galaxies. The largest of these smaller clusters is called the Virgo Cluster. According to National Geographic, The Virgo Cluster contains the center of mass of our Supercluster. Although the The Milky Way Galaxy is a part of Our Supercluster, it is not a part of the Virgo Cluster. Our Milky Way Galaxy is part of a cluster called the Local Group. Gravitationally, our Local Group plays a small role in Our Supercluster because it is a small and distant cluster from the center. A much larger cluster within in Our Supercluster is the Ursa Major Cluster. The following objects are located within Our Supercluster but not within the Local Group; they are objects 100,000,000 light-years to 10,000,000 light-years from the Sun: M49, M51, M58, M59, M60, M61, M63, M64, M65, M66. National Geographic has produced a very good drawing of this region in its Map of the Universe Supplement, October 1999 issue.

This is covered by Virgo Supercluster, Local Group and should not be repeated here ...

• You also do not properly cite sources see Wp:cite on how to do this

I'm sorry this has turned into a bit of a rant but you do not seem to be learning? I was a new member once, I made mistakes, I asked, I looked up the help, I learnt, I try and write/improve articles, I still make mistakes but less so ... My stuff does not seem to get reverted so perhaps I am doing something right? ^Jaster 10:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reply to above by mlhooten. re: "Don't refer to sub-sub-sub-subjects of other sciences " Regardless of Classification Scheme, one cannot logically determine which sciences are sub sciences and which are sub sub and which are sub sub sub unless one CHARTS ALL the subsciences of one science somewhere, like on a piece of paper on your desk. I agree, that the entire penciled chart on your desk should not be on a single Wikipedia entry, however ANY and ALL Wikipedia entries should be logical and COMPLETE. How could you know whether "optics" is a subscience of Astronomy or a subscience of Optical Astronomy or a subscience of Radio Astronomy unless you thought about it for a moment? Optics looks like a subscience of Optical Astronomy to me. So yes, it probably shouldnt be mentioned in Space Science, but lets not slam the door on that either. As a matter of fact Telescope Optics has been big in the news recently (Hubble Grinding Error) and we might actually mention it if we decided, say to put it in a "Current News in Space Science" entry. WHAT are all of the Sciences within Astronomy? Is it your position that the Sub Sciences within Astronomy cannot be listed somehow in the Article Space Science? Is it your position that all the sciences in Astronomy are listed in Wikipedia "Astronomy" and therefore SHOULD NOT be listed in Wikipedia "Space Science"? Is your position that there is only one way to categorize astronomy and that is the consensus at Wikipedia Astronomy? It is apparent that Astronomy can be categorized several ways: 16th Century, 17th Century, 18th Century etc OR Chineese, European, Russian, American etc. My organization was by spectrum: Light, Radio Wave, Gamma Wave, X Ray. At no time in any of the proposed version did i ever say "shall be catagorized" or "is categorized". I always said "CAN BE categorized". Suppose that the consensus in Astronomy is to categorize by Century. Suppose we decide to do it by wavelength. Doesn't Wikipedia become richer by having a second way of categorizing the same topic? I agree that that second way should not be a substitute of the main article, completely filled in. Not at all. But are we writing a dictionary or an encyclopedia? Your version: It is inconceivable that all of the major sciences within Astronomy are made of only "Radio astronomy" and "Neutrino astronomy". It is inconceivable that all of the major sciences within Astrophysics are "Origins of the Universe - Big Bang Theory ". It is inconceivable that all of the major sciences within Exobiology are "Panspermia". It is inconceivable that all of the major sciences within Planetary Science are "Geology of Moon", "Geology of Mercury", "Geology of Mars", "Geology of Venus". Apparently I must have the kindegarten version of Wikipedia on my computer. The LARGEST SCIENCE IN THE WORLD is given in Wikipedia by an entry not much larger than a dictionary! I simply cannot believe this is happening. I thought that my writings on this Universally important subject would inspire anyone, including my antagonists to enlarge the article to its truly gigantic proportions. The Wikipedia article is not enlarging, it is shrinking!!! Gee, my writing must be really really bad to inspire people to reduce the article to a level for kindergardeners. Mlhooten. Oct 25, 2006.

Optics should be in both Astronomy as part of telescope optics and in Physics as the Science of optics, and in many other articles. Astronomy is best described in the Article on Astronomy! but we should list/describe the major subjects of it since it is so all encompassing, to assist the reader, but should not try and rewrite the article on astronomy in the article on space science? the same goes for Planetary Science, we could rewrite the Planetary science article inside the Space Science article but why not refer to it link to it and be done with it?

Space Science is NOT the largest science in the world, it's what the article was and is, an amalgamation of a number of sciences that most people would not refer to as Space Science, but would admit are part of Space Science if prompted, the very fact that the editors of this article are very few would attest to that (very few people find the article because they are not looking for it) Secondly it should not be the largest article on Wikipedia simply because no article should be! see WP:SIZE, Wikipedia has a structure already the Major portals are Arts and Culture,Geography,History,Natural sciences and Mathematics,Philosophy Religion and Spirituality,Social sciences and Society, and Technology: Space Science would come under Natural Science and partly under Technology: the Science Portal has the Sciences divided into Agronomy,Astronomy,Biology,Biotechnology,Cellular Biology,Chemistry,Earth sciences,Medicine,Neuroscience,Physics,Psychology, and History of Science: Space Science would come under Astronomy, Biology, Physics, and History of Science ^Jaster 08:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your insistence on reducing what should be a largest Wikipedia article to absolutely nothing is so unreasonable and in spite of my lengthy explanations, that i am running out of options and am going to have to ask adhoc for intervention. I WILL give in on style, grammar, font, citations, etc.. You can change those freely if there is some reasonableness. I will give in on listing sub sub sub sciences. I will NOT give in on scope. mlhooten. October 26, 2006. Thank you.

re: "Don't cut and paste from other articles, link to them" If we are allowed a different classification scheme than the referred major article then we must list the major headings of that scheme in Space Science. If we decide to not use a different classification scheme than the referred major article then we could copy the headings from the major article, if allowed by Wikipedia. Does Wikipedia actually disallow this? To be visually consistent on the page we should do both. Mlhooten. Oct 25, 2006

re: "* Don't ramble (you are getting better...)" "you think are significant but do not (yet) exist?" Please note that the prose entries were (especially in my earlier versions) specifically given in those sciences that the average reader might not be aware are actually developing. For instance few people know about the real scientific possibility of Silicon being a basis for life. THAT is the reason I made the longer descriptions of THAT unknown science. At the time, I was secretly afraid that my gracious offer to reduce verbage would come back to bite me in claims that such sciences are not valid. That is EXACTLY what has happened! Now that I have graciously reduced all the verbage, my antagonists are saying that the sciences are not valid! I guess we need to go back and put in all the sub sciences i had originally intended. What do you mean "you think are significant but do not (yet) exist?" What is that all about?? There are scientists at NASA that DO think that plants-on-other-planets are a huge science!!! Mlhooten. Oct. 25, 2006.

Propose addition of 3 major categories, equal in heirarchy with exobiology, astronomy etc: SOLAR SCIENCE (concerning the sciences related to Stars), GALACTIC SCIENCE (concerning the sciences related to galaxies), SPACE DEFENSE Mlhooten. Oct 24, 2006. (this sentence also placed in space science discussion)

the original page was well structured with a basic preamble and a list of the subjects User:Mlhooten completely changed this without discussion to a overly long rambling piece that included links to most (but not all) of the original subjects, and many links to subjects that are referred to by the linked subjects. It also had many pices of text that did not link to any other topics at all, and in many cases did not appear to be at all relevant? The text openly coined neoligisms and many sections appeared to be original research. Much of the piece was repeating the contents of the referred articles. The article as it stands is of a good format, if there are topics that this does not cover, and are not covered in the referred to articles, then they should be added ... ^Jaster 11:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mlhooten privately corresponded with the originator of the Space Science article and asked him for permission to change it. He said it would be ok. Mlhooten. 23 September 2006

Mlhooten also added the articles Astrobotany, Astrobiosphere, Astrometeorology, Astrooceanography, Astrosciences all of which were in the same style and all of which have been removed after discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Astrobotany ^Jaster 11:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not how Wikipedia works - the original editor does not own or control an article, yo do not, I do not, we can all contribute ^Jaster 09:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is following the style of an encyclopedia, therefore the vast majority of its article entries are in the style of prose interspersed with links. However, Wikipedia articles covering large areas of science sometimes use the list style. Coverage of larger science areas within one English term makes it sometimes better to use the list style because of article-length constraints imposed by Wikipedia. A perfect example of this is the Wikipedia article Physical science. Physical science is a large area therefore for this entry the consensus decided to use a heirarchial, structured list of very short sentences interspersed with links or where links remain the major part of the sentence. That way more links can be placed in the article and still stay within Wikipedia size constriants. That style used in the article Physical science is actually a hybrid of the two overall possible styles, which makes it all things to all people. This is precisely the style that I used in Space Science, even though it is rough due to its early generation. Space Science is such a large area that Wikipedia page length constraints make using the list style a necessity. MLhooten. Sept 26, 2006

Physical science is a good example of the style that is needed

i.e. Preamble explaining what it is List of major subjects Sections of these subjects with explanation of subject and listing subdivisions (with explanation) List of Major contributors (with explanation of thier contribution) a "See also" external Links

The complaint with your style was it was not a list with explanation but a long rambling text with links (many broken) that made it hard to find the relevant pages Space Science is always going to be a "link farm" that guides people to the pages they actually want, so should be clear and succinct, and not long and rambling The style should be exactly as Physical science, lists of links with short explanation ^Jaster 09:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

per Jaster, Mlhooten will reduce length of explanations to short. mlhooten. Sept 30, 2006.

Short explanations would be ideal, but as short as possible and please note the user reading the article can always click the linkand read the preamble of the linked page - if this does not explain the changed the linked page ... ^Jaster 09:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space Science is a critically important entry in Wikipedia because it represents the doorway that leads to ALL the doorways associated with Space. The space sciences are so vast in number, that if one cannot get to the corridor from where most of the major doorways are visible then doors of opportunity can and will be lost to information seekers of all types. This is particularly true of primary and secondary school teachers and students. By simply printing out the Space Science Wikipedia article as it was before reversion, the teachers (even in Schools blocking Wikipedia) are in a position to give the school children or school teens or school young adults many more CHOICES for study. For example, the teacher can say "Class, on your desk you will find a listing of many of the sub sciences within Space Science. Each of you are to pick one that you want to do a term paper on", etc etc. Mlhooten. 23 September 2006

So the Space Science page should attempt to list the major sub-divisions in a clear and easy to follow manner - well it does now, it did before, it didn't in you revision ^Jaster 13:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Editors that do not write thier articles in a logical, expandable style are doing a disservice to other Wikipedia editors who wish to contribute to the topic. This is critically important in overarching entries like "Biology" and Space Science. Wikieditors should leave room for expansion by making the best terms they can even if the new sciences do not have well defined terms!!! Mlhooten. Oct 14, 2006

This is an Index page that lets the reader choose what to look at 'all' the topics are covered elsewhere and we should not be rewriting them we should direct attention to them and let people who want to expand on a topic expand on 'the topic' not on the reference on this page, the 'only' exception to this is the subject of the page itself ... space science, as opposed to one of the components of space science ... the page on Biology is a bad example is spends much of the page saying what biology is and what it is not, Physics is a much better analogy it does the preamble to explain what the subject is and then shows the sub-divisions, the shows the major people involved, but note even this is not ideal since both Biology and Physics are both well known and well defined subjects (although biology is publicly fuzzily defined), Space Science is however a rather vague subject is sub-orbital flight space science? (is it space) is micro-gravity science? (can be done on earth but is impracticle) is vacuum studies? (could be done on Earth) is NASA? ESA? (these are agencies based on Earth) ... I cannot think of anyone who would call themselves a "space scientist" they would refer to themselves as an astronomer, exobiologist, rocket engineer etc.. and would if they thought of an over-arching disipline as a physicist/engineer/scientist not a space-scientist? ^Jaster 08:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Space" is a term that encompases a vast area, similar to the term "Biology". "Biology" is so vast a science that it is really not even a science within itself but simply a term for all things relatd to life. A dictionary can reduce both the terms "biology" and "space" to one single semi-sentence. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. MLhooten. 23 September 2006.

Reviewing the Wikipedia Biology entry one can get an idea on what may be best for the similarly expansive term "Space". Notice the 100's of links within Wikipedia Biology! Notice also the systematic attempt to describe all the fields within biology. Also one might notice the "Scope of Biology". Perhaps the space science article should be under "Scope of Space Sciences" ? MLhooten. 23 September 2006.

I agree - but the Article is "Space Science", not Space, not Science so many subjects are not included, also Space Science is an artificial division of Science, as Biology is not, Biology is a single Science with many subdivisions Space Science is a collection of difference sciences with the common theme being applicable in space ? ^Jaster 13:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How should "Biology" be divided? What are the major categories of "Biology"? Is there a consensus opinion? // How should "Space Science" be divided? What are the major categories of "Space Science"? Is there a consensus opinion? Whatever the divisions of "Biological Sciences" and "Space Sciences" should be, they should be logical. Mlhooten. 23 September 2006.

For the Comparason to Biology see above ... If you want more subdivions or more categories and they are not on the page, and not simply repeating the linked pages then add them if they are truly relevant ^Jaster 13:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The inherent logic of the 9 proposed divisions of Space Science. There is some good underlying logic to the 9 divisions: Astronomy: One might argue that Astronomy and Space Science are the same. Even if that is true, then Astronomy must be divided into 8 other major divisions. Once we divide astronomy up into other divisions, then we have to face the fact that we must leave a branch within astronomy (overall) for astronomy (looking at stars). In the proposed divisions, astronomy is 1st: LOOKING. Mlhooten. Sept 30, 2006

Geography: After we LOOK at something we MEASURE it, at least and MAP it, and DESCRIBE it, etc. In the proposed divisions, Geography is 2ndt: CHARTING. Mlhooten. Sept 30, 2006

Astrophysics: After we LOOK at something and then CHART it, we try to figure out what it is hand how it works. In the proposed divisions, Physics is 3rd: FIGURING OUT HOW IT WORKS. Mlhooten. Sept 30, 2006

Geology: Geology is admittedly a somewhat anthropmorphic term. Geology traditionally is a surface that is fairly stationary. Sciences are divided into things that man is concerned with. Man is more concerned with solid rock than bubbling rock. I guess that for every scientific paper about bubbling rock, there are 10 million scientific papers about solid rock. (or solid things). Since many planets have the solids exposed at the surface, Geology is a valid major science within Space Science. It is ALSO valid because often we can SEE THE SURFACE of other planets!!!!! In the proposed divisions, Geology is 4th: STUDYING THE SOLID SURFACES. Mlhooten. Sept 30, 2006

Oceans:

Atmosphere: Atmosphere is admittedly a somewhat anthropmorphic term. In terms of Mass, the Atmosphere of a planet is its least significant portion. And yet that is the area that will ultimately determine its suitablility for life. More importantly for Astronomy and Space Science we can SEE the atmosphere of many planets and all visible stars through the telescope!!!! I think its importance for life and its visibility qualifies it for the 6th major Division. Mlhooten. Sept 30, 2006

Life: Just because we cannot see the life on another planet doesnt mean that we shouldnt assign it as a major branch of space science. Mlhooten. Sept 30, 2006

Space Travel. Just travelling in space is such a hurculean task, that this should be given its own major category. Mlhooten. Sept 30, 2006

Space Colonization. Although the science is in its infancy, it will eventually probably be one of the largest overall sciences. Mlhooten. Sept 30, 2006

But there are articles on these subjects, so link to them, this is not a page that has to cover all of space science just link to the composite subjects, Exobiology is 'life on other planets' and more and is a major subdivision on the page?^Jaster 09:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incuding ALL of the thousands of Space subsciences and sub-subsciences within one Wikipedia artcile is not wise nor possible. But to cover at least the major sub sciences is best. So what are the major sub sciences? Is Space FOOD a major Space Science? Probably not. Space food may represent the work of only 1 scientists at Nasa or ESA and may only have a total of 1000 research papers, nevertheless "Food" is a subject very close to the heart of most people, especially schoolchildren. Many of those schoolcholdren or shool teens descrbed above would enjoy doing a term paper on "Space Food". Unless the entry is mentioned here in the doorway they could very well miss it. Mlhooten. 23 September 2006.

If a subject is linked on the page and it includes other subjects they do not need to be repeated here (but could be if required?) so all that is required is the main subdivisions most if not all are already there? Space food is a particularily bad example - it does not currently link to any of the relevant pages, if it did it probbly should link to either one of Space Station Space colonization or similar not directly to Space Science? ^Jaster 13:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For encyclopedias like Wikipedia that serve a general or wide ranging audience, it can be difficult to not confuse sceince with speculation or fiction or even opinion. Much of Wikipedia is actually a review of fictional works. This is perhaps the MOST difficult in Space Sciences where much can be seen through the telescope but so much more cannot be seen. Space itself is so colossally large that it has become the backdrop for endless fictional works. How should the Wikipedia "Space Science" article deal with this? A strong case can be made to exclude ALL fictional references whatsoever. To do this though means that the ficional parts of Space could be put in a separate Wikipedia entry, for example: "Space, Ficional Works of"(?) Mlhooten. 23 September 2006.

The ET and Alien issue is currently solved in Wikipedia by the term "Popular Culture" Does the consensus then propose the Wikipedia article "Space, Popular Culture About"? Mlhooten. 23 September 2006.

This is an article about Space Science, not Science Fiction, not Fiction about Space, not about "Everthing and anything about Space"? should we put a link to Alice's Adventures in Wonderland on the Caving page ?

True. All references to Fiction of any type should be removed. Mlhooten. Sept 26, 2006.

There are two articles in ET Extraterrestrial life which deals with the Science and has a disambiguation link on the top of the page to Extraterrestrial life in popular culture which deals with the claimed and fictional aspects of ET's. Space Science links to Extraterrestrial life under Exobiology as it should and leaves the linked article to expand of this topic ^Jaster 13:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(paragraph below copied to here from above by mlhooten)

Mlhooten also added the articles Astrobotany, Astrobiosphere, Astrometeorology, Astrooceanography, Astrosciences all of which were in the same style and all of which have been removed after discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Astrobotany ^Jaster 11:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity: They were removed for the violation of the rule against neologisms. They were not removed due to content. In fact one reviewer told me to " keep up the good work". All neologisms will be removed from Space Science. humanoidiaonexoplanetae is a neologism. Humanoids on Another Planet is not. Neither is (Humanoids on Other Planets). Neither is Humanoids-On-Other-Planets. Mlhooten. Sept 26, 2006.

The problem is not only neologisms, it is using new terms unnecessarily and excessively, using humanoidiaonexoplanetae, Humanoids on Another Planet, Humanoids on Other Planets or Humanoids-On-Other-Planets rather than Extraterrestrial life is confusing, however using Extraterrestrial life and adding the explaination that it discusses amongst other things Humanoids on other planets is helpful.

Atmosphere a better term than "weather" mlhooten admits that a better term for "Weather on other planets" would be "Atmosphere on Other Planets". "Weather" tends to mean "that meteroogical condition that concerns people living on the surface", meaningless concerning planets we dont normally walk on!!! Mlhooten. 23 September 2006.

Both referred to in the article Planetary science or in artcles they link to and are valid topics Atmosphere referres to the composition of the gases surrounding a planet/oid and weather is the dynamics of this atmosphere (it can also refer to the dynamics of any gaseous field i.e. Space weather

The links from Atmospheric sciences to weather on other planets is mentioned but there are no links currently? there are internal sections in Weather to Weather#Extra-terrestrial weather and Weather#Extra-planetary weather

Space weather is referred to by Space physics and Atmospheric physics but probably deserves a direct link here under Astrophysics along with perhaps links to Atmosphere of Mars and Atmosphere of Venus which are the only articles that appear to exist ? ^Jaster 14:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed that there is a category category Meteorology and a page Portal Atmospheric sciences which cover weather on any body ...^Jaster 14:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the complaint against "rambling" might be valid with respect to the Astrophysics entry. I have just realized that the Astrophysics entry contains many terms that are really just "Geographical" for instance "Milky Way Galaxy" and "Local Group of Galaxies". Astrophysicists aren't really geographers, they are theorizers and researchers to underlying causes of phenomenon. Astronomy could be said to contain the science of Geography. Lets look at Wikipedia Geography for a clue:

"Traditionally geography and geographers have been viewed as the same as cartography and the study of place names. Although, many geographers are trained in topography and cartography this is not their main preoccupation, but rather the spatial and temporal distribution of phenomena, processes and feature as well as the interaction of humans and their environment are. [3] As space and place affects a variety of topics, including economics, health, climate, plants and animals, geography is highly interdisciplinary. Geography as a discipline can be split broadly into two main sub fields: human geography and physical geography..."

It is hard to imagine astronomers not being geographers, but many astronomers are not geographers per se. Astrophysicists, Cartographers, Exobiologists, Space Explorers and Space Colonizers are all really astronomers. Therefore i think that it is valid to put Geography of the Universe into its own category. Evidence that this is valid is from the very popular and central magazine National Geographic which very often "graphics" some part of Space. Mlhooten. Sept 30, 2006

Historical Geography of The Universe includes (Size Shape and Structure of The Historical Universe), Cartography of The Historical Universe, Early Universe and others.

Geography of The Current Universe includes Size Shape and Structure of The Current Universe, Cartography of the Current Universe and others

Geography of The Filaments of Galaxies

Geography of Superclusters of Galaxies includes superclusters,

Geography of the Virgo Supercluster of Galaxiesincludes Virgo Supercluster

Geography of The Local Group of Galaxies including objects 100,000,000 LY to 10,000,000 LY from the Sun: M49, M51, M58, M59, M60, M61, M63, M64, M65, M66

Geography of Nearest Galaxies: Objects 10,000,000 LY to 1,000,000 LY from the Sun: M31, M32, M33

Geography of the Milky Way Galaxy Regions Galactic Center , Disc_Galaxy and Galactic Cartography, Galactic_Coordinate System

Geography of Objects 100,000 LY to 10,000 LY from the Sun: M2, M3, M5, M9, M10, M12, M13, M14, M15, M19, M22, M24, M28, M36, M53, M54, M55, M56, M62

Geography of Objects 10,000 LY to 1000 LY Lfrom the Sun: M1, M4, M6, M7, M8, M11, M16, M17, M18, M20, M21, M23, M25, M26, M27, M29, M41, M42, M43, M46, M47, M48, M50, M52, M57

Geogrpahy of Objects 1000 LY to 100 LY from the Sun: M39, M44, M45

Geography of Objects 100 LY to 16LY From the Sun

Geography of Objects less than 16 LY from the Sun: List of Nearest Stars

Geogrpahy of Nearby-Stars Solar Systems

Geography of The Solar System

Geodesy of The Solar System, also called geodetics of the solar system, is the scientific discipline that deals with the measurement and representation of the planets of the Solar System, their gravitational fields and geodynamic phenomena (polar motion, in three-dimensional, time-varying space.

The shape of the planets are to a large extent the result of their rotation, which causes equatorial bulge, and the competition of geologic processes such as the collision of plates and of vulcanism, resisted by the earth's gravity field. This applies to the solid surface (orogeny; few mountains are higher than 10 km, few deep sea trenches deeper than that.) Quite simply, a mountain as tall as, for example, 15 km, would develop so much pressure at its base, due to gravity, that the rock there would become plastic, and the mountain would slump back to a height of roughly 10 km in a geologically insignificant time. (On Mars, whose surface gravity is much less, the largest volcano, Olympus Mons, is 27 km high at its peak, a height that could not be maintained on Earth.) Gravity similarly affects the liquid surface (dynamic sea surface topography) and the earth's atmosphere. For this reason, the study of the Earth's gravity field is seen as a part of geodesy, called physical geodesy.

Geography of The Moon includes Moon, List of artificial objects on the Moon, List of craters on the Moon, List of features on the Moon, List of maria on the Moon, List of mountains on the Moon, List of valleys on the Moon

Geography of Venus includes Venus

Geography of Mercury And Its Moons includes Mercury

Geography of Saturn And Its Moons includes Saturn

Geography of Jupiter And Its Moons includes Jupiter

Geography of Uranus includes Uranus

Geography of Neptune includes Neptune

Geography of Mars and Its Moons includes Mars

The Earth geoid is essentially the figure of the Earth abstracted from its topographic features. so The Marsgeoid is essentially the figure of Mars abstracted from its topographic features. In surveying and mapping are two important fields of application of geodesy.

No you are going off topic this is a discussion about the Space Science Page .... you should not be attempting to rewrite the Astrophysics article or the Planetary geology, or Planetary science article, this is what was wrong with the contentious version of the article, it attempted to cover all the subjects that were already covered in the linked articles

Currently Space Science refers to this with

• Astrophysics and Cosmology
  • Origins of the Universe - Big Bang Theory

• Planetary science (considered a subfield of both Astronomy and Geophysics)
  • Astrogeology
    • Geology of the Moon
    • Geology of Mercury
    • Geology of Mars
    • Geology of Venus

This covers the subject as far as WikiPedia does if someone writes articles for the 'Geology' of other bodies then these could be added but they are covered in Planetary geology ?^Jaster 09:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note the Section you proposed

Geography of The Moon includes Moon, List of artificial objects on the Moon, List of craters on the Moon, List of features on the Moon, List of maria on the Moon, List of mountains on the Moon, List of valleys on the Moon

All of these are referred to by the page Moon so why not just link there, and let the user find them there, also Geography of The Moon is itself covered un the article Moon so why repeat it?

The same goes for the other Geography of ... sections they can all be covered by the individual articles, and all the individual articles can be covered with Planetary science ? again why repeat?

The whole section is misnamed, 'Geography' is the mapping of the earth, all the planetry entries are covered by Planetary science, all the 'Geography' of planets, stars and galaxys are covered by Astronomical object (which is another list of links to real articles) ^Jaster 10:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geogrpahy is a verbal or cartographic description of something. Such a description does NOT mean the aphabetical index portion of a street map of Paris. Mlhooten. Oct. 14 2006

n-graphy is more than an index but there is a page on Planetry Science that covers this ... if it does not please edit it ^Jaster 07:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Hopefully it wont matter to either of us whether the agree to go to the original with more coverage or go to a cleaned-up version of my proposal.)Mlhooten.Oct 2, 2006

The first or primary issue here, as i see it, is determining the proper divisions of Space Science. Once we can resolve WHICH sciences are the highest categories of space science, then all we have to do is resolve the overall style and then finally just decide what subsciences should be mentioned. I feel pretty sure about the 9 overall categories I have listed. They are listed below with commentary on the shaky ones. Could we first come to an agreement here? If you would kindly approve or disapprove of each category listed below as a HIGHEST category of Space Science, we could then discuss the disagreements. Mlhooten.Oct 2, 2006

Astronomy (not containing sciences better listed in categories below)

Geography (Will respond to your disagreements listed above.)

Astrophysics (Not containing sciences better listed elsewhere. Geophysics might be contained here.)

Geology of Other Planets (Perhaps "planets" should be changed to "bodies".)

Oceans of Other Bodies (This category is somewhat shaky as no oceans have been found. Oceanography can or cannot be a subscience of hydrology. It can or cannot be a subscience of Geology as well.)

Atmosphere of Other Bodies (Almost everything we see in a telescope is an atmosphere.)

Life of Other Bodies

Space Exploration (It could be a part of astronomy.)

Space Colonization (It is a gigantic science.)

How about ...

   * Astronomy
       Solar System
   * Astrophysics/Cosmology
   * Exobiology 
   * Planetary science 
       Atmospheres
       Oceans
       n-ography (or whatever we want to call "Geography" of other bodies)
   * Space exploration
       Space colonization (there is huge overlap with Space Exploration)
       Space Transport (This has much in common with both the above)
       Space Station
         
 The problem here is that most of the categories overlap and so will always be arbitary ...Jaster 07:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jaster; I really do appreciate your proposal of top categories listed just above here, and honestly i really do think that they are very good and workable. However, we both have a problem that even if you and i agree on something we will have to face other indexers. The strongest disagreements from others will, I predict, come from the "consensus indexing" people. The consensus indexing is the Library of Congress Classification or Dewey Decimal Classification. I really really do think that we both would be wise to review what LOC and Dewey do in classifying space sciences, since those people actually do it for a living and have to answer (essentially) to the entire human race for their decisions. If there is any way we can incorporate THEIR classification into Wikipedia we should. Even if we follow our own agreement, we should include the LOC or Dewey call numbers so people can go thier libraries and find supporting or relative information easily. Would you take some hours to review LOC and Dewey? Just follow Wikipedia Links. Mlhooten 10-4-2006

I have spent 2 days reviewing LOC Classification and I have noticed several interesting things, which you will notice too. One thing (on my side) is a very large area of Astronomy LOC calls "Descriptive Astronomy". This is exactly what i was talking about in "Geographical Astronomy". However what i also notice is that LOC Geography does not refer to much astronomical except astronomical cartography. One thing (on your side) is how LOC classifies geology of other planets, etc into Astronomy. A telling indication of the LOC position is the book "Mountains of Mars" that was classified in LOC Astronomy even though the author was a geologist!!! Please keep in mind that scientific papers on "Mars mountains" are appearing now more in Geologic Serials rather than astronomical ones. Mlhooten 10-4-2006

I am working on a proposed consensus between your list, mine and the LOC which I will place here for your review as soon as i can. Mlhooten 10-4-2006

I look forward to your list, and praise you for your diligence - the reason that "Space Geography" is not listed under Geography is that Geo-Graphy is litrally Earth-Writing and so the term is deliberately avoided in the context of other planets

There is another consensus source to look at ... the category tree for Wikipedia, See especially the Categories "Space exploration" and "Astronomy" and the tree of categories below ....^Jaster 09:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomy QB1-139 General Astronomy (Dewey 520) (Dewey "Theoretical Astronomy" 521)

QB140-237 Practical and spherical astronomy (Dewey 522) (Observatories Dewey 522)

QB468-480 Non-optical methods of astronomy

Descriptive Astronomy

QB495-903 Descriptive astronomy (Dewey 523) (Dewey Astrophysics 523.01)

QB500.5-785 Solar system

example: Title: Water on Mars / Author(s): Carr, M. H. (Michael H.) Publication: New York :; Oxford University Press, Geographic: Mars (Planet) -- Geology. Class Descriptors: LC: QB641; Dewey: 551.48/0999/23

QB799-903 Stars

Cartography of Space Bodies

1001-1046 World atlases. Atlases of the Earth G3160-3171 Globes G3180-9980 Maps

G3180-3182 Universe. Solar system

G3190-3191 Celestial maps G3195-3197 Moon G3200-3202 World. Earth

Astrophysics

QB460-466 Astrophysics

QB349-421 Theoretical astronomy and celestial mechanics

QB980-991 Cosmogony. Cosmology (PHYSICAL COSMOLOGY ONLY)

Aeronautics

TL500-777 Aeronautics. (Dewey 629.4) (Space Stations 629.44) (Space Ships Dewey 629.45) (Astronaut Clothing and food 629.47)

(TL500-777) Aeronautical engineering

Astronautics/Space Travel

TL787-4050 Astronautics. (Space Industrialization Dewy 629.44) (Space Medicine Dewey 616.9)

TL780-785.8 Rocket propulsion.

(TL780-785.8) Rockets

(TL787-4050) Space travel example: "The Mir Space Station" Classified TL 789.8 629.44

Military air and astronautics.

UG622-1435 Air forces. Air warfare UG633-635 By region or country UG637-639 Education and training UG640-645 Military aeronautical research UG700-705 Tactics UG730-735 Air defenses UG760-765 Aerial reconnaissance UG770-1045 Organization. Personnel management UG1097 Air bases UG1100-1435 Equipment and supplies

UG1500-1530 Military astronautics. (0UG1500-1530) Space warfare. (Space Warfare Weapons Dewey 358) (UG1500-1530) Space surveillance UG1523-1525 By region or country

Space Colonization (no separate classification found in LOC)

Adding a little to Jasters Proposal:

   * Astronomy
   * Descriptive Astronomy    (putting within Astronomy is possible)
       Solar System 
   * Astrophysics/Cosmology
   * Planetary science (Dont you mean "Science of Non-Earth Non-Suns"?)
       Atmospheres
       Oceans
       n-ography (or whatever we want to call "Geography" of other bodies)
   * Exobiology 
   * Space exploration
       Astronautics
       Space Transport (This has much in common with both the above)
       Space Station
   * Space colonization (there is huge overlap with Space Exploration)
   * Aeronautics  (a part of "Space"?)
   * Space Defense

Comments: It is interesting to note that the huge area of "Geography" in the Library of Congress (probably refers to an entire floor within the library) tends to refer to HUMAN activities (travel, cities, etc) AND to things that tend to move around on the surface (trees, birds and oceans!!) Oceanography is a part of Geography in LOC but in LOC Atmosphere is a part of Physics!! Following this logic, I guess because we don't see through our telescope things moving around on the surface of planets, the LOC decided to keep "Descriptive Astronomy" (an LOC term) out of the huge LOC Geography!! If we decide to put Descriptive Astronomy somewhere else, where do we put it? Mlhooten. Oct 8, 2006.

Is this what Jaster means?:

  * Astronomy
      Methods
      Descriptive Astronomy    
          Universe
          Galaxies
          Solar Science
          Planetary science 
             Atmospheres
             Oceans
             n-ography (or whatever we want to call "Geography" of other bodies
  * Astrophysics/Cosmology
  * Exobiology 
  etc.

It might be wise for us to try to write these sections in the prose style of the original article before my changes, as long as we are as complete in our sublisting links as we would be in a "list" style. Are there any of the sections above that you would like to write in the prose style, complete as possible, that I could review? Mlhooten. Oct 8, 2006.

I have been working on a version of Space science that hopefully we can all agree on. It is at the top of the page at user: Mlhooten. I have removed all of the "Astronomy" sub links because the Astronomy article covers them so well. We could also remove all the "Astrophysics" links I guess, for the same reason if you want? In this version i have created a "Planetary Science" category per Jasters request. I presume that means I can create a "Solar Science" and "Galactic Science" category as well? Do Jaster and Uncle G find it acceptable? I will clean up all the typographical problems and will find more references as needed. If Uncle G and Jaster will tell me exactly which parts they want cited, I will go through the literature for citations. I feel that each section is fully reworkable by others as others may see fit. But I feel that most all of the 11 overall categories are fully legitimate. Mlhooten. Oct 11, 2006.

Continuing to clean up the version. Can view at User:Mlhooten.

Hi, are you going to be bold and copy your version into the article... Addhoc 11:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]