This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sky article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think a link to the Sky Satelite TV service should be provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blake02 ( talk • contribs) 10:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I argee with this person. [1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip1992 ( talk • contribs) 12:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Its been done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.26 ( talk) 00:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
This statement from the article is interesting: "There is no 'blue object' above the earth in any normal sense, so it is hard to say what object the sky is." Yet there certainly is a blue substance up there. It's called air. Air is colored blue for the same reason that any blue object looks blue: when the air is illuminated by white light, the short wavelengths are preferentially reflected to our eyes. However, the blue of the air is a structural color produced by wave effects, whereas most other blue substances are blue because of preferential absorbtion. (Other examples of structural color: the blue of bird feathers, the blue of human irises, the blue of aerogel and cigarette smoke, ...and the bright colors of holograms, interference filter elements, and soap bubbles.)
Perhaps a widespread misconception is the cause of our misunderstanding. People seem to believe that pure dust-free air is completely transparent. Actually, only a thin layer of air is transparent, while a thick layer behaves as a blue substance, and a very thick layer would appear as white as milk. ("Thin" here means thinner than ten miles or so.)
Analogy: similar things happen when we look at a muddy river, versus a glass of water from the same river. If we look at the glass of clear water and decide that river water is perfectly transparent, then we'd be hard pressed to explain the brown opacity of the river, and might put it down to arcane causes such as "molecular scattering." A simple description would be that river water is a dilute brown color, and a thin enough layer is perfectly clear.
So shouldn't we say that air is a blue substance, but a thin enough layer looks clear? -- Wjbeaty 19:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems that this difficulty may lie in the fact that someone tried to define "sky" by what we see, rather than by defining what objects make it up. This may be valid for phenomenon like Aurora, but I think common terms like "in the sky" imply that the sky takes up real space, and is therefore a real object, as opposed to a perception-based phenomenon.
I have re-worked the definition on this basis, and I think it is quite a bit more clear. Forbes72 ( talk) 04:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The edit indicated by:
2007-02-11T12:29:24 Spiel496 (Talk | contribs) (→Sky luminance and colors - If it "appears" blue, it _is_ blue; not violet)
may merit being reverted, but I will not do it without consensus.
However, I also think the previous explanation was incomplete/fuzzy, which is what prompted this person to "be bold" in his or her edit. But I don't know enough about it to suggest what the correct wording is.
Here is an example of something I know about from first hand experience that might help nail this down. Granted the human eye barely perceives violet, and ultraviolet not at all. That the sky is heavily violet, despite our inability to see it, is easily demonstrated via photography. Film is able to see a wider gamut than the eye, extending well into the violet. I routinely fit my camera with a "Sky" filter for the deliberate purpose of forcing my film to only see what I can see.
Additionally, polarization of the sky's light should at least be mentioned in any truly complete explanation of the sky's appearance.
I understand why Spiel496 changed it. A better explanation needs to be developed. Badly Bradley 08:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello there, i just disputed the colour of the sky by adding "citation needed" to the fact that you call it blue. Im not realy dooing this to despute the colour of the sky (not that i precive the sky as blue since my colourvision is rather fubar but it seems to be the general sensus that it is blue). Instead this is some childish trashing of me since i just got fedup with the resent snobbery of "citation needed" and alikes on Wikipedia. I expect it to be reverted. Yes, this spelling is fubar to. 83.226.168.237 07:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I have a problem with "The sky is blue". It has no citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.220.75.184 ( talk) 20:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Is the sky really deep blue? To me 'deep' connotes a certain darkness when used to characterize colours. Wiktionary defines 'deep blue' as 'intense blue', which suggests not just brightness but purity. The blue of the sky is far from pure; its lightness indicating the presence of white light. 'Sky blue' would clearly be less than helpful. I would describe it as a light blue, but perhaps, rather than attempt to nail down a particular shade/hue, something like 'vivid blue' would be less misleading than 'deep blue'? Grant ( talk) 12:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The Blind demand an objective empirical third-party to verify where in the visible light spectrum the sky falls. The previous citation, "look outside for yourself" doesn't do for the blind. Nor does the citation before that, "Bob told me" qualify as a worthy encyclopedia entry. Who is Bob? I'll check my B volume of the Encyclopedia Brittannica to find out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.167.166 ( talk) 03:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it's time to protect or at least semi-protect this article. Just take a look at the history. How many times has "Sky" been vandalized? I've just erased some vandalism ("Sky is a person, he's small and nice" or something). Does anyone agree with me? Victao lopes 16:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I listed the page again for protection. -- Trelawnie ( talk) 14:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/miscon/miscon4.html#blu see this site and maybe consider that in respect to why the sky is blue. It makes sense that its blue because its blue, like water. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User13752 ( talk • contribs) 01:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC).
the sky is blue 220.239.187.97 23:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Isn't the sky blue because of the high concentration of Nitrogen? Correct me if I'm wrong. Viet|Pham ( talk) 02:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm seeking for a night sky with stars and so one. There is any picture neither on commons nor here. 83.179.69.133 19:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
In all of existence, I can think of nothing that has been seen by more people than the sky, and so it seems silly to have eight images of it. If nobody objects, I intend to remove SI-Sky.JPG, Above_the_Clouds.jpg, Stormy_skies.jpg, and Trees-sky.jpg. -- Headwes 21:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Guys, I accidentally the first line of the article. I don't know how to make it go back. Sorry. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afisair ( talk • contribs) 08:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
That's all right. New editors make mistakes. Even experienced admins make mistakes.-- The Legendary Sky Attacker 08:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be changed to through the sky, or something like that? -- Grubdubdub ( talk) 23:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
what about for those of us, that can't see color
what is blue?
damn right you need a citation needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.195.232 ( talk • contribs) 05:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
then you have no idea of color,
blue to is different to me, and very to different to people of normal vision.
a citation is differently needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.239.134.48 ( talk) 04:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
In the first paragraph, at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.231.172 ( talk) 12:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
The section on sky luminescence is impenetrable. Can someone dumb it down for the layperson? Where's Bill Nye when you need him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.131.92 ( talk) 18:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I've completely reworked this section to try to make it more clear. Added examples, etc. I've done my best to keep all the technical descriptions intact. It could definitely still use some work, though. Forbes72 ( talk) 05:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
As neither of these articles is particularly long, and the two are obviously related, it would be easy to merge them. This would also make it easier to address events like eclipses, comets or supernovae, as they have strong astronomical ties, but don't belong exclusively in the "night sky". Forbes72 ( talk) 23:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
It has been three months, and the consensus appears to be keeping the articles separate. My main concern was organization, but I suppose that the scopes of the two articles are definite enough, with "Sky" addressing the sky in general, and "Night Sky" focusing on the astronomy in particular. Since the vote now appears unanimous, I will take down the merge tags. Forbes72 ( talk) 17:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
This article was missing a bit of content which was already available elsewhere within the meteorology set of articles, a number of which are current good articles (see also: low hanging fruit). Sections from other articles were copied and modified to fit in better with this article's focus. While it still needs a number of references, this article should be a bit more complete now. FYI. Thegreatdr ( talk) 22:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The paragraph starting with the sentence "The scattering due to molecule sized particles (as in air) is almost random" needs work. I dispute nearly every sentence. Does someone have a source we can refer to? Spiel496 ( talk) 23:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Specifically,
Spiel496 ( talk) 01:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Coming from a meteorology background, I filled in the holes in the article relating to weather. The bigger question is whether or not anything is still missing from this article. Common terms such as sky can become very large articles since they usually have numerous aspects. Thegreatdr ( talk) 19:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
The recently added picture, showing the sunrise and moon, is pretty, but it has a weird artifact. There's a perfectly horizontal seam near the horizon. It looks like two photos were stitched together. This article being about the sky, the horizon is unnecessary anyway. Is there a cropped version of the photo available that omits the horizon and the weird seam? Spiel496 ( talk) 20:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't see it's relevance here. I don't even like it on the Sky brightness page, but that's another issue. I don't think anyone is learning anything from this chart. I've been starring at it for an hour trying to figure out what relevance it has to this article; or anything for that matter. On the other hand, there is no Dusk photo, and I'd like to replace the chart with one of the photos you see under it. The author calls this 'chart': Illuminated-airmass. If he is so smart as to have written this puzzling chart of nothingness, why doesn't he know that "air mass" is two words? I think the chart is useless, in the wrong article, and boring. On the other hand, if there is really something to be learned from this 'Chart' or why it's relevant here, and someone wants to come to it's rescue and explain it to me, I'm all ears, and I thrive on learning. Thanks Pocketthis ( talk) 19:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
After 60 days with no objections, the orphaned old chart was exchanged with a chart that relates more to the text it is opposite: Dusk and Dawn. Pocketthis ( talk) 17:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Pocketthis ( talk) 17:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Given Wikipedia's draconian "original research" policies, there should be a citation for the sky having stars at night because apparently observation counts as original research. 203.211.127.70 ( talk) 11:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I removed the gallery section, though I understand why it reappeared in 2012. If you're looking to resolve image loading, a gallery is not the solution. Galleries just perpetuate the problem as galleries grow with time. For years, wikipedia has a policy stating "wikipedia is not an art gallery". Now it reads "do not overload articles with images". The related wikilink. To me, this would include galleries. Images (if uploaded properly) are sorted in commons in such a way that images won't be lost if they are not in this article, as long as they are assigned to the right category. Whenever you work on or edit articles on here, ask yourself, "Would an encyclopedia article look this way?" and you'll have your answer for what should or should not be in wikipedia articles. Food for thought. Thegreatdr ( talk) 03:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I respect your work and your science knowledge, however Galleries DO belong on Wiki, and they will remain here as long as I have anything to say about it. Galleries are not hard to control at all. In fact, they are the easiest part of an article to control. And finally: Did you ever take the time before you hastily removed the gallery to see how many folks have hit on the photos there? I don't think you did, or you never would have removed it. Pocketthis ( talk) 16:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Art and science have always banged heads, however, I'm sure you can find many things here on Wiki to improve without eliminating Photo galleries in appropriate articles that are much appreciated by the viewers. This site is for them sir......not for you. Pocketthis ( talk) 17:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
With the gallery as it is, there is a lack of balance between text & images. A review for good article status would probably look at the current condition as not standard & recommend either reduction or removal. Dawnseeker2000 19:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
No, it might not be ready for that. I just think that if it was nominated for a good article review, the reviewer might want to do something about the over-use of images. I've never done a review, but if I were to look at this article I would see the current situation as needing a fix. Dawnseeker2000 19:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I want to add that in my opinion the problem wasn't the gallery photos; they are at the very bottom of the page, and really don't conflict with text. I do believe that there are a few photos that can be eliminated on the main page. The Milky Way black and white for instance, and the Night Owl photo next to the Flight chapter. I will eliminate those as well today, and if anyone objects, they can reverse me. I hope these removals both on the main page and the Gallery, can be accepted as a Science/Photo compromise, and end this discussion. Thanks Pocketthis ( talk) 20:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to request a fix to reference 11 - the link used to go directly to the referred article, since some time only the main page of the conference is shown. Also the title is not correct as the article was published in the proceedings of the 2002 conference, not 2008. A copy of the article is hosted on the website of our institute, see the suggested change. Current state: eSim 2008 (May 20th - 22nd, 2008) General Sky Standard Defining Luminance Distributions -> http://www.esim.ca/2002/documents/Proceedings/other2.pdf Suggested edit: Darula, S., Kittler, R. (2002). "General Sky Standard Defining Luminance Distributions". Proc. Conf. eSim 2002, September 11th - 13th, 2002, Montreal. -> http://www.ustarch.sav.sk/ustarch/download/Darula_Kittler_Proc_Conf_eSim_2002.pdf Sdaru ( talk) 17:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
The section titled above to page Sky is irrelevant because it covers doctrine of a particular community. Removal of this section would not cause any loss to readers searching for "SKY" and not for any "deities". However time consumption in reading is self evident. Thus tag placed for expansion of this section is irrational. Instead it should be removed from this page (article Sky). Nannadeem ( talk) 20:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Sky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
The article is locked so I have to ask for my proposed edit here. There is a request for clarification in:
I had to pause and think what on earth forward and backward are supposed to mean here as well, so I agree that clarification is in order. I would suggest:
Thoughts? And by the way, the Rayleigh scattering article itself sorely needs an illustration of this fact, similar to the image embedded here, which could then be included in this section as well - but that is another issue. -- 88.74.14.172 ( talk) 02:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
At the beginning, it says "The sky (also sometimes called celestial dome)". Are there any reputable sources to support that? The "celestial sphere" is the closest thing I could find, but that already has its own article and isn't quite the same. - ChainSmoker82 ( talk) 16:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Sky is also a song made by playboi carti Maxey3 ( talk) 04:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Alkere. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26#Alkere until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Certes ( talk) 17:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
"The sky is an unobstructed view upward from the surface of the Earth". Is this really the best definition for it? Barjimoa ( talk) 19:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)