Category talk:Astronomy stubs

This category is maintained by WikiProject Stub sorting, an attempt to bring some sort of order to Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to improve/expand the articles containing this stub notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Stub sortingWikipedia:WikiProject Stub sortingTemplate:WikiProject Stub sortingStub sorting

Astronomy

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy

Space-stub

Hi!

There I was minding my own business among the meteorites, when I encountered Octahedrite, which was erroneously labeled as a mineral stub. That is when I came upon Category:Space stubs and Category:Astronomy stubs. They both refer to the same stub categories, except that Category:Space stubs appears to be a small (probably defunct) depository of random articles, while the bulk of stubs are in Category:Astronomy stubs or its subcategories.

I would suggest getting rid of Category:Space stubs altogether, and just sorting them all out into Category:Astronomy stubs. I've done this for a few obvious ones, but if anyone feels like a sort, here's a good place to try.

Also, Category:Astronomy stubs has lots of articles which need to be sorted into the subcategories. Deuar 21:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not all space is astronomy. In fact, astronomy is only "space" when we're trapped down here on the planet, looking up at it. As we get more spaceworthy ourselves, thanks to private enterprise, we will have more space-oriented stuff that's not astronomy at all. For example, I just added the space stub to two companies which are building private, reusable spacecraft. --Kaz 21:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I guess I didn't see the needle of genuine space stubs in the haystack of badly categorised astronomy stubs. Deuar 18:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that the more logical, less provincial approach would be to make astronomy a subcategory of space, instead of vice-versa. Galaxies, nebulae, stars...none of that is "astronomy" except while trapped in a planet's gravity well. In fact, "astronomy" should really just be stuff relating directly the act of to observing from a planet, not all things which could be seen from there. Imagine if microorganisms, nanotechnology, and all other small objects were listed under "microscopy". Think of NASA missions...they're not astronomy in ANY sense. --Kaz 18:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. If you want to try to change the construction, i'm all for it. Deuar 18:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)::::::::Good point.[reply]