Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal | Cases

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mlhooten (talk | contribs) at 13:02, 8 October 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
ArticleSpace science
Statusopen
Request dateUnknown
Requesting partyUnknown
Parties involvedUncle G, JasterMereel
Mediator(s)Addhoc (talk · contribs)
CommentOngoing discussion...

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab active cases|Space science]][[Category:Wikipedia Mediation Cabal maintenance|Space science]]

Mediation Case: Space Science

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.


Request Information

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

Mediator response

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

Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

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

Discussion

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.


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 Prose Style vs List Style

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]

Critical Importance of Space Science Wikipedia entry

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]

"Space Science" Can Only Refer to An Overall Scope

"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]

Overall Scope of Space Science Must Be, At Least, Logical

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]

Importance of Properly Determining the Subsciences Within Space Science

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]

Science vs sci speculation vs speculation vs "popular culture" vs publ. fiction

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]

Space Science and Neologisms

(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.

Proposed Improvements

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]


proposed heading Geography of The Universe

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

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]


Resolving the Major Issue First

(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]


Library of Congress Classification of Space Sciences

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.


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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-09-16_Space_Science&oldid=80201120"