User talk:Modest Genius
Sections older than 31 days days may be automatically archived by .
About Hayabusa2's mission extension
Hi, Modest Genius, regarding your recent edit at Template:Space observatories, the asteroid probe Hayabusa2 actually is planned to observe exoplanets, so in this aspect, it's now a space observatory. During its mission extension from 2021 to 2026/7, Hayabusa2 will study the diameter of known exoplanets using the transit method. It's similar to the 'EPOCh' mission of the Deep Impact/EPOXI comet probe. Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 05:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- That's pushing the definition of a space observatory. Hayabusa2 can only observe a handful of already-known exoplanets around bright stars, and are doing so partly because they don't have anything else to do during the cruise phase. It's not the purpose - or even major activity - of the mission extension. New Horizons also performed some astronomical observations (background light, parallax etc.) but that doesn't make it an observatory. I don't think EPOCh should count either, as it performed literally seven exoplanet observations that produced just one scientific paper (unless I'm missing something). Modest Genius talk 12:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hayabusa2 can only observe a handful of already-known exoplanets around bright stars
- >>The fact that a spacecraft only observes known celestial bodies and doesn't search for new ones doesn't necessarily mean it's not a space observatory. ESA's CHEOPS satellite also observes known exoplanets exclusively. We've known of Jupiter and Saturn's existence from prehistory, yet we still point space observatories like Hubble and Hisaki towards them, as there's still much to learn about them. Same goes for exoplanets.
- and are doing so partly because they don't have anything else to do during the cruise phase.
- >>Yes, that's the truth.
- It's not the purpose - or even major activity - of the mission extension.
- >>While indeed it's not the purpose of the mission extension, to cite this space.com article,
This new extended mission will send Hayabusa2 on a decades-long cruise through space to focus on planetary defense, interplanetary dust and exoplanet detection.
- Two among the three focuses, interplanetary dust and exoplanet detection are astronomical observation, so I believe it's safe to say that during its mission extension, besides being an asteroid probe, Hayabusa2 will also function as a space observatory. Although this is a primary source, this video from the Japanese space agency about the mission extension mentions about observing the zodiacal light and exoplanets, albeit briefly, at around 1:12.
- New Horizons also performed some astronomical observations (background light, parallax etc.) but that doesn't make it an observatory.
- >>New Horizons' observation of background light was conducted for around a year (August 2018 to September 2019) with seven imaging programs, and the parallax observation lasted for around two days. For Hayabusa2, observation of zodiacal light and exoplanets lasts for five years (2021 to 2026) at the minimum. The time allocated for the observation made by each probe is fairly different, and I don't recall the observation of background light and parallax to be featured in any summary about the entire New Horizons mission extension. The priority given to the probe's astronomical observation differs significantly between New Horizons and Hayabusa2.
- I don't think EPOCh should count either, as it performed literally seven exoplanet observations that produced just one scientific paper (unless I'm missing something).
- >>While I don't have strong objections regarding EPOXI, note that this was before Kepler's age, and at the time (with the exception of CoRoT and MOST) spacecraft missions focusing on exoplanet observation was mostly nonexistent, and thus has historical significance. Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 04:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Well, I think there's a qualitative difference between a spacecraft that was deliberately designed for astronomical observations and is dedicated to performing them, vs a brief and/or temporary re-purposing of a spacecraft that was intended for something else or that already completed its primary mission. Observing a transit of a well-known exoplanet around a nearby star is not hard - it can be done with amateur-level equipment from a back garden and doesn't require a space telescope. I'm still not convinced that Hayabusa2, New Horizons or EPOCh constitute 'space observatories'. However I'm not particularly invested in the issue and only made one edit to one template. If you want to revert me I won't be offended. Modest Genius talk 11:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
This article was listed in the category Articles with long short description. See here
With short descriptions, we have a situation where we are aiming to have a maximum of 40 characters. The driving reason is that the short description is displayed on the mobile access to the article in a search result. 65% of access to Wikipedia is now via mobile devices or tablets. With courtesy, your reversion somewhat defeats that objective to display a short description that is readable on the mobile device. Descriptions over 40 characters get chopped off. In this instance, your guidance is sought. What form of short description would you consider appropriate? --Whiteguru (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Whiteguru: Fair enough. I reverted because a nonsensical short description is worse than useless for those users. I agree that the pre-existing text was too long, which is why I then cut it down, but apparently not by enough. 40 characters is really short. I'll have a think to see if I can come up with a briefer description, but am struggling to do so. Some scientific topics cannot be explained to non-experts in such a brief phrase. (For anyone wondering what we're talking about, see  and ) Modest Genius talk 11:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Steven Weinberg ITN
ITN recognition for Antony Hewish
I suggest you actually read the RfC. It certainly did not conclude that the template should not be changed. It concluded that either size was okay: which means the original size when the postnoms were added should be retained, not the size when the template was first used (given some editors applied the template to thousands of articles that already had postnoms, that would mean that the small size was preferred over the normal size - not what the RfC conclusion said). However, I can't be bothered to argue further. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Necrothesp: I did read the RfC. The original question (which you wrote!) refers specifically to the template: "should we keep the template default for the size of post-nominal letters at 85% or increase it to 100%?". The outcome was 'no consensus' and the closing rationale stated "status quo ante should remain with the template default at 85%" and recommended "seeking consensus on the talk page before changing the size in an individual article (either to or from the default)". I agree that this isn't worth arguing about, and suggest it's not worth changing in articles either. Modest Genius talk 11:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)