Talk:Lick Observatory

Untitled

shouldnt the asteroids of James Edward Keeler be included, or are asteroids not considered significant? Justinhoude 19:30, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

edited appropriatelyJustinhoude 00:07, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Lookin' good Gentgeen! I put in the coordinates of San Jose and the altitude in meters (rounded to the nearest hundred). Do we want to keep the "equipment" section, or roll it all into the tabel? Or should we remove that section of the table? --zandperl 23:06, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with putting the equipment in both the article and in the table, as there is more info on the list than can fit in the table. Also, I only put the largest, most important pieces of equipment in the table, while the CCD camera and the 0.2m scope (ect.) are not on the table.

By the way, I found this page [1] that list the exact location for each piece of equipment on Mt. Hamilton. I changed the location in the table to that of the 3m reflector just because it's the most used telescope on the mountain right now. Gentgeen 08:27, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Photos

Nice new color photo. If we're going to have both photos up, can we identify which telescope is in which dome? Elf | Talk 14:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Living near San Jose, I often see both towers of the Lick Observatory on clear days much clearer than in the view from central San Jose picture in the article. Anyone have a better picture? 71.131.38.240 02:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"Extremely calm" or laminar flow?

Is it the case that the night is "extremely calm" or is it the case, as I vaguely recall reading somewhere, that the important thing is not the air is calm but that the movement of the air is laminar? Dpbsmith (talk) 18:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Discoveries

Page says that Lysithea was discovered at Lick, but Lysithea (moon) says it was discovered at Mt. Wilson. What is the source for this statement? Same story for Ananke (moon). Jwissick^(t)(c) 03:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Lick Telescope Image

• I've uploaded an 1889 image of the Great Lick Refractor, but adding it to the article throws off the balance. Here's a link to the image for anyone else who wants to try: Image:Lick Telescope 1889.jpg Cuppysfriend 19:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, that certainly should be in the article. Particularly considering that a current picture wouldn't be very different... when I visited it I was very struck by the panelling decoratively (I assume the intention was decorative) tilted at different angles. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

NRHP

As to the historic status, the National Register of Historic Places contains two listings for Lick, one, the building itself, and two the telescope, or more specifically the Lick Crossley 36 inch Reflector. The article should reflect that, maybe have seperate sections about each. Good public domain (or what I assume to be public domain anyway) sources exist at the National Park Service's website, building here, telescope here. A mcmurray 08:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no argument that the site is historic, e.g. JPR Historical Consulting, but I can't find the site in the Elkman Infobox Generator that uses the 2010 NRIS database, NRHP.com, NRHP FOCUS, or in National Register of Historic Places listings in Santa Clara County, California. I am removing the WikiProject NRHP from the Talk page. This does not say anything about the historical nature or that it could be on the NRHP. KudzuVine (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand the NRHP listings differently. There are indeed 2 listings, as stated. But each listing is about a building and the 36-inch telescope within it. Two buildings, two 36-inch telescopes. Oaklandguy (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Trivia

Wasn't it starring in the movie: Deep Impact?

WikiProject University of California

Several editors are organizing a WikiProject to better organize articles related to the University of California. A preliminary draft is available here. You are invited to participate in the discussion at Talk:University of California#Developing Wikiproject University of California. szyslak 22:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Before UC Santa Cruz

Wasn't Lick managed from UC Berkeley before UC Santa Cruz was opened in the 1960s? If so, this should be mentioned. Tmangray 07:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Automated Planet Finder

The Automated Planet Finder information says it was originally set to open in 2006 but will open in 2008 at the earliest. It is now 2011. Jeffholton (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

According to it's article it is now supposed to open in the first few months of 2011. So, maybe we should wait a bit to avoid correcting it again (if it's delayed again). --MarsRover (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

1888 "special edition" of the Mining and Scientific Press

I found an entire 32-page edition of the Mining and Scientific Press out of San Fransisco devoted to the new observatory from June 23, 1888, scanned and available for free at the Internet Archive. It's laden with images, technical drawings, and information that may be useful for the article, especially on the observatory as-built and its history. It's now under "Further Reading" Morgan Riley (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Huyghens Peak or Huygens Peak?

I was wondering what the correct spelling is. If anybody has a proper source for this, this would be most welcome. Tony Mach (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a good reason to believe that Huygens is the correct spelling. Christiaan Huygens was a major figure in the history of astronomy, and other points on Mt. Hamilton are named for other figures of similar importance such as Tycho Brahe and Kepler. For scientists, at least, Huygens is the standard spelling. I have edited the page accordingly. However, the spelling Huyghens is found in a listing by Steve Allen and if Wikipedians decide that his listing (and other listings that probably derive from it) is definitive, please change it back! Oaklandguy (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

correct aperture vs automatic unit conversion

At some places in the article the aperture of the "Great Lick" telescope appears as 90cm at others it says 91cm. While this might not really matter much, and how exactly it should be measured is usually open to interpretation, I still find this inconsistency unacceptable for an encyclopedia. I don't dare do anything about it though so as not to break these strange unit conversion constructs... --BjKa (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

In 1939 accident, which telescope *wasn't* damaged?: Sentence modified due to likely confusion

Regarding the 1939 accident, the article has stated: Perhaps more notable was the lack of fire or damage to the 91-centimeter (36-inch) Crossley reflector dome. I have modified this sentence for the following reason. In 1939, Lick had two 36-inch telescopes: the James Lick refractor and the Crossley reflector. The refractor was (still is) in the Main Building, which the airplane hit (see photo) So in 1939, when people worried about damage to a famous telescope, they probably worried about the refractor, rather than the reflector. But I don't have ready access to all of the article's sources, so just maybe people were worried about the reflector instead. So I edited the article to be vague about which telescope stimulated the concern. Oaklandguy (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lick Observatory. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070817095443/http://www.ucsc.edu/oncampus/currents/97-98/05-25/asteroid.htm to http://www.ucsc.edu/oncampus/currents/97-98/05-25/asteroid.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lick Observatory. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080827170111/http://www.donrjordan.com/lickcrash.html to http://www.donrjordan.com/lickcrash.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090422182251/http://www.donrjordan.com/licka17crash.html to http://www.donrjordan.com/licka17crash.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

What's wrong with this article's infobox?

I see only a single listed parameter: "location=near San Jose, California". None of the other information is editable, or even visible in the editor. I've never seen anything like this. Can someone please fix it? 1980fast (talk) 04:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

GO HERE: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q461613 UserTwoSix (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)