Talk:Telescope/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Adding BTA-6 to the list of notable telescopes.

--Korvin2050 (talk) 20:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Protected

I have fully protected this page due to the edit warring that has been going on. For the moment, I suggest some other form of dispute resolution than edit warring. I may have more comments later. Kevin (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have unprotected for now. I strongly suggest that you all stick to 1RR. Kevin (talk) 07:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution has been tried with one of the editors involved[1] to no avail, and the next step recommended by those involved seems to be sanctions. It is obvious from the lack of participation (and the flat out ignoring) of the talk on this page since the article was protected that the editors adding the "pro-Alhazen" material have their own agenda. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Potential sources

I found a few sources relating to Al-Haytham and the development of the telescope. They may help in determining whether to include his role. Kevin (talk) 03:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Stefoff, Rebecca (2006). Microscopes and Telescopes. Marshall Cavendish. ISBN 0761422307.
• Calvo Labarta, Emilia (ed.). Shared Legacy, A. Islamic Science East and West (Homage to professor J.M.Millàs Vallicrosa). Edicions Universitat Barcelona. ISBN 8447532852.
• Ilardi, Vincent (2007). Renaissance vision from spectacles to telescopes. American Philosophical Society. ISBN 0871692597.
• Huff, Toby E. (2003). The rise of early modern science. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521529948.
• Ganchy, Sally (2009). Islam and Science, Medicine, and Technology. Sarah. The Rosen Publishing Group. ISBN 1435850661. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• de Weever, Jacqeline (1996). Chaucer name dictionary. Routledge. ISBN 0815323026.

These (and/or similar) sources have already been discussed in extreme detail here and at Talk:Optical telescope. I am not sure what rehashing them is going to accomplish. We can either read the old talk or start a cut and paste debate here. I can give a "jist" of what we have here re the questions at hand:

• Did Alhazen pay a pivotal roll in the invention of the telescope?

-Rebecca Stefoff says he was the first to write about optical theory (that means that he is the earliest known existant written record, not that he developed all of it.)

- Calvo Labarta is on the topic of Islamic Science, not telescope, and has that POV (WP:RELY)

- Vincent Ilardi says flat out no[2]

- Toby E. Huff talks about development, not invention, and shows a continuum of thinkers, not just Alhazen

- Sally Ganchy and Sarah Gancher is on the topic of Islamic Science, not telescope, and has that POV (WP:RELY) and discusses specifically how Alhazen contributed to the general scientific method, not any one invention (scientific method may be off topic for something that was invented by accident by optical craftsmen[3][4])

- Jacqueline De Weever is a typo, the book was "Book Of Optics"

And we have the general problem with the usability of these sources. I think I saw 20 different documentaries and overviews on the history of the telescope (this being the 400th anniversary of its invention) and Alhazen did not come up in one of them. Bolstering a "position" with a few vague outlying sources wile ignoring the overall scholarly record is ignoring WP:V and creating an article section by synthesis.

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to drag up old history here. Kevin (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Meh. If a glass is 99.9999% full, it is NOT full. It's not a good idea to let yourself be purged into finding references that try to inhibit the goal of Wikipedia. Again, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Meh. InternetHero (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Fresnel imager

What do you think of adding Fresnel imager in the list? Since it can focus visible, UV and infrared light, i didnt know in which category it should go. It's a rather new type of telescope, but it looks very promising. Moumouza (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it would go under optical telescope since it focuses visible light. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that it should go under the Other types of telescopes section, since it can work with light of any wavelength. Moumouza (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The article describes a Fresnel imager as viewing visual light and working into the IR and UV, which is the same description as an optical telescope (they do that to...especially if you put them in space). But it brings up another question, whats the def of an optical telescope? A telescope that works with visual light? A telescope that uses optical principles (optics) to form an image? I am not seeing a hard def on that. The Fresnel imager seems to be falling under "optical telescope" with both those defs... since it does both, but a better overall def for "optical telescope" may need looking into. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I added it under the Optical telescopes section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moumouza (talk • contribs) 22:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Relevancy of past discussions being re-discussed

There is hardly any relevancy pertaining to the title above. I have the right to edit and we've had a clear position aknowledged here in the talk-page: here, here, here, and here. InternetHero (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

spyglass

Why is there no page or section for spyglass? spyglass just gives you a disambiguation with a refrerence to telescope but this page barely mentions them. There should be a page or at least a section on the old spyglass style telescopes used by sailors. 59.167.199.179 (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It probably redirects here because of the nature of an encyclopedia, a spyglass's description and a telescope's description is exactly the same, an objective lens and an eyepiece. Spyglass is also slang for a telescope, which is again usually handled by redirect. The only difference in a def for a "spyglass" may be that a spyglass is collapsible and portable/concealable. Searching "A spyglass is" at Google books[5] brings up no hard def or further description that you could hang an article on. Google web brings up a little more[6] including this, that may be enough WP:V for an article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Astronomical filters

I've added a paragraph to introduce the 'astronomical filter' in the optical telescopes section, and to link to the article of that title, which was previously orphaned. I feel it enhances the original telescope section on optical telescopes. Though I would imagine all telescopes benefit from filters, in some form or other, such as DSP (digital signal processing), but I thought I'd just stay with the intent of the author of the filters article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bathat (talk • contribs) 02:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This added paragraph was Optical telescope material, but even there is was "advice" on using optical filters so falls under WP:NOTGUIDE so deleted it. It could probably go under the "Common tools" in Amateur astronomy, if reworded not to be advice. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Greek use of the word

The claim that "telescope" was used by ancient Greeks is a misnomer. In some translations the word is translated as [telescope]. The brackets indicating that this is a word that in modern terminology can be equated to a telescope. The actual Greek word used was dioptras (δίοπτρας). See for instance Jamie James, The music of the spheres: music, science, and the natural order of the universe, Springer, 1995, p 33 (footnote). [7] --AnnekeBart (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You beat me to this by seconds. In the actual source used the brackets are present. Another translation I find is 'surveying instrument'. Thanks for finding the Greek word. This claim is most frequently found on fringe pages, claiming that the Greeks invented the telescope (as did the IP). Dougweller (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I find it highly amusing that the usual suspects are here claiming that the professional translators have got it all wrong and that they know how to translate the word "telecope" better than professional translators. For anyone interested in actual history, Iamblichus used the word telescope in the 3rd century, "... sight is made precise by the compass, rule, and telescope." On and Doug, here is the word telescope without your beloved brackets (as if that actually matters) http://books.google.com/books?id=6HAIAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=telescope+iamblichus&source=bl&ots=EqWonMkOTN&sig=MBDoC7wED67NypFb5QlIfLQdPTk&hl=en&ei=Z3qGTcfECpS0sAOfrOXtAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false 76.216.196.209 (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I find it rather sad that some here insist on violating WP:CITE (misusing sources) and do not know how to properly research any topic, leading to addition of fringe elements and unscientific material. The above mentioned source clearly states what the original word in the Greek text was (δίοπτρας). Not anywhere close to τηλεσκόπος (telescope). And if you do not understand the meaning of the use of brackets in translations, here it is: Whether you’re simply stating sic, translating a term, or adding explanatory text to the quote, enclosing it within the brackets tells your audience that the added text is yours and not part of the original quote. So yes, those brackets make a big difference in translations. Hope that helps you understand the issues a bit better. --AnnekeBart (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Improved

We are told that Galileo greatly improved on the earlier designs. No details are given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.208.21 (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

If you know of any details that should be included and can point to a reliable source, please let us know. Dauto (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I. Bernard Cohen spoke of a baffle introduced by Galileo. I will look for any source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.208.21 (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Others deny that Galileo ever used a baffle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.208.21 (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

"microscope" and "computer" claims

A major offshoot development of the telescope is the microscope, for magnifying small things.(Citation needed|reason=It seems that microscopes were developed before telescopes, so how are they offshoots of telescopes?|date=November 2011 note by KHirsch) Classical telescopes are an optical computer that form an image by replicating a Fourier transform in real-time using the same medium collected for processing and display output.(Citation needed|reason=I don't even know what this means, but even if true it doesn't seems inappropriate for an introductory paragraph. date=November 2011 note by KHirsch)

rm cited sentences above to talk. Claim in first sentence is dubious at best and the second is just WP:JARGON in an introduction. If it can be cited it may be worth adding, but probably only to the Optical telescope article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Dittoscope

Wikipedia needs a page on the Dittoscope. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you can provide some reliable sources? I just did a good faith search, and came up with only a few mentions here and there, but nothing that suggests coverage enough to warrant an entire article. It doesn't even appear that anybody has successfully implemented a dittoscope on a large scale. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Too short

This key article is sadly undeveloped. Why so? Zezen (talk) 09:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Telescope#Types#Light Comparison table

User:Isambard Kingdom hello, please excuse me for the unexplained edit. Notice that EHZ is a 1000 times bigger than PHZ, and so it makes more sense to have an ascending values in the table than a sudden descend (in all other places the smaller scale value is mentioned last and the bigger is to its left- for example 300 GHz – 3 Hz or (and) 300 GHz – 300 MHz or(and) 405 THz – 300 GHz or(and) 30 EHZ – 790 THz and then suddenly 30 PHz(smaller scale) – 30 EHZ(bigger scale) )..213.8.204.9 (talk) 11:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Telescope. 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/20101101113623/http://www.nustar.caltech.edu/about-nustar/instrumentation/optics to http://www.nustar.caltech.edu/about-nustar/instrumentation/optics

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 23:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Citation needed

I removed the Wikipedia tag {{Citation needed|reason=Which definition includes electromagnetic radiation?|date=February 2018}}. All of them. The standard definition of the word "telescope" is that it is a device that gathers electromagnetic radiation, and the text even explains that "light" is electromagnetic radiation. Our eyes are electromagnetic radiation detectors. In the Wikipedia article GW170817 the authors use this definition as a matter of course. And Wikipedia has Radio telescope, Infrared telescope, X-ray astronomy, and Gamma-ray astronomy, all of which describe telescopes that gather invisible electromagnetic radiaion. If the original poster, or another editor, wishes to re-insert this tag, I respectfull request that they post a response here to explain more fully why they think this common plain meaning of the word telescope needs a reference. Nick Beeson (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The Wiktionary entry at telescope has "A monocular optical instrument that magnifies distant objects, especially in astronomy." The Wiktionary entry at optical has "Of, or relating to visible light Optical telescopes don't work when it is cloudy." The Wiktionary entry at light has "Visible electromagnetic radiation. The human eye can typically detect radiation (light) in the wavelength range of about 400 to 750 nanometers." So the original request for a citation was due to the requestor's not knowing that the definition of "telescope" is indeed "A monocular visible electromagnetic radiation instrument that magnifies distant objects, especially in astronomy." Thus no reference is needed.Nick Beeson (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The handheld telescopes used by sailors

I am struggling to find any history on the handheld telescopes used by pirates and ships captains. Shouldn’t these be mentioned here? Or perhaps even a link, if they don’t qualify? Josh.beckett (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

There is a discussion with links/sources at stackexchange. May be a good add but not here, probably over at History of the telescope. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Greater detail about Galileo's work

See http://people.fas.harvard.edu/~chsi/docs/PW_Pt4.pdf . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7C87:4F00:8156:D470:EDE7:E0C6 (talk) 11:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

See "Mario Biagioli has recently emphasized the

importance of a letter of Paolo Sarpi to an Italianborn Huguenot, Francesco Castrino, which was first published in 1833 but was excluded from Antonio Favaro’s edition of Galileo’s Opere. This letter discloses the fact that a telescope was brought to Venice by an artisan who attempted to sell it to the Venetian Senate for the price of one thousand zecchini as early as the eighth of July 1609. The bid of the artisan was unsuccessful, but because of this it is plausible that Galileo might have seen the telescope before attempting to build one himself or at least received important technical details from his friend Sarpi, who witnessed the event. Taking this into account Biagioli has proposed a new chronology for Galileo’s invention of the telescope, according to which Galileo was given a detailed technical account by Sarpi or saw the instrument himself on the nineteenth or twentieth of July. Returning to Padua the next day he uncovered the secret of its construction and built a prototype. He took a 9x power instrument to Venice on July twenty-seventh and showed it to his friends." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7C87:4F00:8156:D470:EDE7:E0C6 (talk) 11:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

See Paolo Sarpi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7C87:4F00:8156:D470:EDE7:E0C6 (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The wording implies that Galileo's telescope existed before the one Sarpi saw. I am not sure that this is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7C87:4F00:8156:D470:EDE7:E0C6 (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

What exactly Sharratt said needs study. I am not sure Sharratt is reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7C87:4F00:8156:D470:EDE7:E0C6 (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Naval telescopes

I'm wondering if Wikipedia has any information on naval telescopes. The only meaning of "telescope" encompassed in this article is "telescope used to explore space" despite the ubiquity of the naval telescope in the 18th and 19th centuries. I've searched for "naval telescope" and "military telescope" and found nothing. Is there another word used in the US to describe them that I'm not aware of?

They are marvellous little instruments that differ somewhat from the type of telescope mentioned here, and in my opinion deserve some mention. How should this be done? 24.76.103.169 (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you are referencing a spyglass? They were tiny telescopes used by sailors in the 18th and 19th centuries, just like you mentioned. There is a disambiguation page about spyglasses, which leads to the refracting telescope page in the first definition. CC4684 (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

"Astronomical telescopes"

Telescopes are a pretty broad category, including UV/IR and even radiotelescopes. If you want to restrict it to optical telescopes, UV and IR ones still belong in the article. Since early 20th century, professional telescopes don't have eyepieces. CCD's are used in conjuction with a ton of other instruments to derive meaningful data, most notably spectroscopes. Kleuske (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

We should add a separate section that just focuses on astronomy telescopes this article is written badly.95.0.32.95 (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

That's what most of the article is already about. No one is using an X-ray telescope to spot ships on the horizon. They don't even work in atmosphere. - MrOllie (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Then we should rename the article to radio telescopes if it only talks about radio ones and not astronomy. Can we request to re name it and make the page and make a disambiguated page that will be better.95.0.32.95 (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a summary article that provides information that about all sorts of telescopes, then we have additional, more detailed articles on specific types. Also, radio telescopes are used to conduct astronomy. Is english your first language? Perhaps that word does not mean what you think it means. MrOllie (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

If it’s about ‘all telescopes’ then I can’t see at least one paragraph that talks about astronomy telescope.95.0.32.95 (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I can speak English and Turkish.95.0.32.95 (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

They're all 'astromony telescopes' MrOllie (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, what do you mean by the term 'astronomy telescope'? Please define it for us. - MrOllie (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately your written English isn't very good. And please indent properly, following WP:TALKREPLY--it's basic internet etiquette. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

A tool that astronomers use to see and observe faraway objects in space.95.0.32.95 (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, An X-ray telescope does that. Why isn't that an 'astronomy telescope'? MrOllie (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

X-ray telescope and Astronomy telescopes are different. Astronomy telescopes are ground based and are used to focus light by using pieces of curved, clear glass, called lenses (Mirror). They can be used either with the naked eye or use cameras (CCD) for enhanced observing. Where as X-ray telescope is an instrument designed to detect and resolve X-rays from sources outside Earth's atmosphere. Because of atmospheric absorption, X-ray telescopes must be carried to high altitudes by rockets or balloons or placed in orbit outside the atmosphere now get the difference.?95.0.32.95 (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

X-rays are also a wavelength of light, and mirrors are not always clear. Those inaccuracies aside, as far as I can tell, you're describing an optical telescope. - MrOllie (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Can we merge the Optical telescope article with this one because it is misleading.95.0.32.95 (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

No, I oppose any merge. This is the summary article (with a short section on optical telescopes) and specific details are on the more specific page. - MrOllie (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Like how i mentioned before Renaming the article would be better and less misleading.‘Radio telescope’ would be better title because it only talks about radio ones more. Can we open up a vote on the talk page and leave the other optical telescope as it is.95.0.32.95 (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

We already have an article on radio telescope. —C.Fred (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Then can’t we merge this page with that it’s about the same thing anyway.95.0.32.95 (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is about telescopes, broadly defined—optical and radio. —C.Fred (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

We should move the optical section to the optical telescope page and just move the left over to radio telescope to the radio telescope article how about that?95.0.32.95 (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Otherwise it’s like having four separate articles.95.0.32.95 (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It is appropriate to have a summary of the other articles in a broad article like this; otherwise, readers have to jump to four or five different articles to get the overview that they currently get on one page. —C.Fred (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

No because this is the one that should be split because it has the most information on here.95.0.32.95 (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

This one has more information about radio telescopes than the other radio telescope article.95.0.32.95 (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

This page appears to summarize radio telescope. It may also summarize some of the articles that radio telescope summarizes, because of the volume of information. —C.Fred (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I still believe all information should be kept on the radio telescope article because reading something more then once isn’t helpful.95.0.32.95 (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

That's great--now please indent properly. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

That’s the reason why I think we should merge. Turkish is my first language and I couldn’t explain it properly in the first place.95.0.32.95 (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Looking at just the articles linked with {{Main}}:

• History of the telescope: 73 kB
• Optical telescope: 51 kB
• Radio telescope: 24 kB
• Radio astronomy: 33 kB
• X-ray telescope: 8 kB
• Telescope mount: 8 kB

That's pushing 200 kB of text, which is getting toward the length of article where a split is appropriate. There might be merges that could be made elsewhere, but I don't think pulling them all back into this article is productive. —C.Fred (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

What’s the KB for this article? This is why we should move relevant information to one of those articles depending what the subject is about.95.0.32.95 (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

You have been calling for text to be merged to this article, though. —C.Fred (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

This article should not exist.95.0.32.95 (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a level-3 vital article on technology. Please give a clear reason why you think we should not have an article on telescopes. —C.Fred (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The X-ray article has very low KB due to the fact that all of the information is on this article. Also title telescope is misleading.95.0.32.95 (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Please give a clear reason why you think this article should not exist—why you think readers should not get a summary of what telescopes are. —C.Fred (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The reason was because the information on this article should be in the X ray telescope article. It has very little information on the other one.95.0.32.95 (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

So if you agree that this article needs to remain, I think this thread is finished. —C.Fred (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

No do not agree because like how I said all of this information should be MERGED to the X-ray telescope article because that one has little information.95.0.32.95 (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The last remaining information will go to optical telescope article.95.0.32.95 (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, this is a level-3 vital article. You're proposing it should be nothing but links to subarticles? That is bad practice and against the Manual of Style. —C.Fred (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

This is common practice on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Summary style. When we have lots of subtypes of a thing, we have an article on each one and then a summary article (this one), which summarizes and points to the others. There isn't any information unique to X-ray telescopes on this article that could be put on the sub article without causing duplications. And we are not going to delete a bunch of stuff from this article to match some personal definition you have of what a telescope ought to be. MrOllie (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok then but how about we add under sub heading MAIN ARTICLE that talks about one subject. I have not seen than everywhere on each subject. We should keep radio and astronomy telescope all in one paragraph and only have two contents.95.0.32.95 (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I find this comment incomprehensible. Your phrasing and vocabulary are so odd that I have no idea what you're trying to say. MrOllie (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

IP editor, you don't seem to be very familiar with how we write articles. That's OK - everybody was new once - but you have been told now by several very experienced editors that your ideas for this page aren't good ones. How about we draw a line under this now and all go do something productive? Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 17:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I have made an example on the actual article.95.0.32.95 (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

You must stop editing the article like that, what you're doing is just flat out incorrect factually. MrOllie (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

This is the final version I was just trying to show you.95.0.32.95 (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

You showed us. Please self revert. Next time use the WP:SANDBOX, that is what it is for. - MrOllie (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok do you agree we should keep it like that.95.0.32.95 (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

No. You have introduced numerous factual errors. MrOllie (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP editor from editing the article for 48 hours. IP, you know perfectly well that your edits to not have consensus, per the lengthy thread above. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah. They had to go and do it, didn't they--I was on the verge of blocking them a few hours ago already. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Titanis25.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits

Since there were many bold changes and edits made based on what seems to be opinion, better to discuss them here. The components section is unnecessary and even incorrect, not all telescopes do Imaging via astrophotography or astronomical filters, "Light-gathering" is not a feature of radio telescopes nor are Augmenting lens or filters, space based telescopes do not have "mounts". These are details about the components of optical telescopes and belongs at sub article Optical telescopes.

In general, this is a WP:SUMMARY article so should have basic details on all types, not details, that is what their parent article is for.

Lead image change of a telescope at a tourist stop is not an improvement.

I agree that gravitational wave, cosmic ray, and other particle-based detectors that are being called telescopes by their builders may not belong here with the article def of used to observe distant object's electromagnetic radiation but that may be debatable. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The current lead image is a design unrecognizable to the general public and should certainly be changed to the better known version of a telescope.

This article is extremely short and underdeveloped; it is one tenth of the recommended size limit. Thinking about how the "article so should have basic details on all types, not details, that is what their parent article is for", is no where near a priority at the moment. Aza24 (talk) 02:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Since this is a SUMMARY parent article, it would not be a matter of developing it to a target size, it should simple summarize its child articles. Per WP:SYNC "editors should first add any new material to the appropriate places in the child article, and, if appropriate, summarize the material in the parent article". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Question about infrared section

Could a section under infrared telescopes have a small summary? or what was the thinking with just links to their main articles? Afv513 (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)