This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Astronomy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 12 months

Astronomy has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones Date Process Result February 17, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 10, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed September 16, 2006 Good article nominee Listed February 9, 2010 Good article reassessment Kept April 11, 2023 Good article reassessment Kept September 9, 2025 Good article reassessment Kept This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of July 10, 2006. Current status: Good article

This  level-2 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Astronomy Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Physics Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Science Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was previously the Space Collaboration of the Week.

Archives

1, 2

Archive 1, September 8, 2006 Archive 2, August 31, 2008

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 365 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 10.

When you compare this article to other high-level summaries such as chemistry, geology or physics, I think you can see a need for more detail. For example, there is very little discussion of planet types, brown dwarfs, circumstellar disks, binary- or multiple-star systems, variable stars, interacting stars, and star clusters. There's no mention of galaxy types or interacting galaxies. Praemonitus (talk) 02:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two things here: 1) make any additions brief, the account must be short. Each of the things you mention has its own article. 2) we must not conflate the science with its object of study ('the stars', ie the universe). Medicine and Botany are sciences; they study Disease and Plants, which are separate articles and should not be repeated in the articles about the sciences. Similarly here, we do not need to talk about all the kinds of astronomical object, all the components of the universe, as that is not the science of Astronomy but the object of its study. Finally, you compared other articles; they too may have conflated subject with object, which does not mean we should follow them. So perhaps you don't need to add as much as you thought: perhaps nothing. The 'History' chapter is a grey area, as it necessarily covers discoveries, which are both subject and object in character. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I observe, this article, mainly the history section is focused of the development of astronomy mainly in Europe and Babylon. It does not give enough attention to the development of the subject in Asia, mainly in India, China, and many other countries. As an encyclopaedia, the page must be neutral to all of the globe and not centred towards a particular region. I wish to bring your attention to the topic. Various attempts by me were reverted due to various reasons even after providing sources and references published by reputable institutes and were termed as bias or unsatisfactory. Please discuss the topic and find a way so that all the scholars who have worked for the subject get the due credit and the bit of colonial mindset of the page is neutralized. The page must be edited accordingly, using local sources too. Thank you IND123456 (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of a balanced presentation. I think this issue is more about the particular contents you proposed.

According to the page history, you must be referring to

• this edit which adds
  • Method to determine the coordinates of a place using a gnomon or Sanku also prevailed, as mentioned in many treaties such as the Aryabhatiya and the Surya Siddhanta. The commentary written on the Aryabhatiya by Yallaya has a mention of such coordinates. They were measured in angulas. The records correctly match the location of Skandasomesvara near Shrishailum in Andhra Pradesh.

In my opinion this content is not appropriate for an this article. It does not seem to have anything to do with astronomy.

Or perhaps you mean

• this longer edit
  • Various Ancient and mediaeval astronomers from India also made valuable contributions. They worked on the motion of celestial bodies, their time periods, sizes and distances, eclipses and much more. Many mathematical concepts were developed by them during their work. Most of the work is in Sanskrit in the form of verses or shlokas. Indian astronomy begins with the Rigveda. The mentions of the year being of around 365 or 366 days was known to the Indians far before the Rigveda was written i.e. c.2000BCE, since the period of the Ramayana. The Hindu Calendar is divided into 12 months of 30 days each that is 360 days. An extra month is added to the year every 5 years to account for the 6 days out of the 366, and to keep up with the Solar year. The Hindu Calendar is known to be one of the most accurate and logical calenders in the world. The Jyotisa Vedanga mentions records of events as early as 4000BCE or before. Indian scholars were the first ones to say that the illumination of the Moon and other planets is due to the reflection of the sunrays and not by self illumination. The masterpiece of Aryabhata, the work named Aryabhatiya, composed in c.499CE requires special mention. He calculated various figures with great accuracy. He stated that the rotation period of the earth is 23hrs 56min 4.1s, while the corresponding modern value is 23hrs 56mins 4.091s. Other scholars such as Brahmagupta, Bhaskara I, Bhaskara II, Latadeva,Madhava of Sangamagrama, Nilakantha Somayaji, the scholars from the Kerala school of astronomy and mathematics also played a pivotal role in developing the astronomical concepts in great detail.

The addition has sources at the end, but it covers a lot of territory: placing verifying citations near the content is more effective. Overall the claims in the passage are either vague ("many mathematical concepts", "a pivotal role") or using words that are questionable ("masterpiece", "great accuracy", "most accurate", "great detail", "requires special mention"). The section is also confusing by placing "Indian astronomy" in the middle of the paragraph. I think these are the reasons for the reverts.

We have a paragraph that includes Aryabhata. How can it be improved with well sourced neutral claims? For example what would be a source for "Indian scholars were the first ones to say that the illumination of the Moon and other planets is due to the reflection of the sunrays and not by self illumination." Johnjbarton (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better to have a shorter version of this that I had added earlier as we don't want to extend it further as it is already mentioned in the history of astronomy section since it will be too messy. Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 07:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand what you are trying to say. I agree that I made many errors from my side. But as I mentioned earlier, it would have been possible to edit those errors, cite better references and edit accordingly, instead of entirely deleting the paragraph. I also agree to Myuoh kaka roi, that a paragraph can be added, summarising important points, but the volume and it's importance must be at par with others. Also, as stated by Myuoh kaka roi, Indian astronomy was to a certain extent influenced by the developments in Greece. But it was not a complete copy of the Greeks.

I hope there is scope for improvement. Many other articles need similar revisions, but for now let's focus on this one. Thank you IND123456 (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the starting line in the history section it says

Civilizations such as Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, India, China independently but with cross-cultural influences created astronomical observatories and developed ideas on the nature of the Universe, along with calendars and astronomical instruments.

so it already mentioned the contribution of other civilizations so no need to expand it and secondly mentioning ones contribution will also lead to the mentioning of other civilizations like the astronomical work during vedic period is similar to that of all civilization around that time so no need of that ,the reason for greek astronomy mention is the major advancements happened during astronomy like aristachus of samos heliocentricsm and also the further advancement did by aryabhatta and other astronomers during classical period,it also talk about the mention of islamic astronomers and yes indian astronomy did had influence from greek astronomy but you need to see the counter sentence in that same paragraph which states that

Earlier indigenous traditions, such as those recorded in the Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa, provided calendrical foundations

so it is already mentioned.Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 08:01, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, why not add the content you added, along with some improvements as necessary. Any other additional information about any other scholars from any other country (eg.China) is also welcomed. IND123456 (talk) 12:50, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The proper place for this kind of change is in History of astronomy. The content in Astronomy#History should just be a summary and if anything we should be cutting out material here, its too long overall. Especially the Post-classical section is too long. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Astronomy#History is currently too long overall. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What changes do you suggest in the history section. IND123456 (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The best solution would be for Astronomy to have two or three paragraph summary of History of astronomy which would coordinate with eg Indian astronomy.

I suggest three paragraphs here.

1. Early observations. Empirical estimates of astronomical object motion.
2. Invention of the telescope.
3. Modern era.

In my view verifiable sources can be found for most cultures participating in #1 and we should present this phase in that way. We may have more historical record for say Greeks and reviewing that record is useful for the history of astronomy article. But for a one paragraph summary, the most notable aspect is the breadth of human interest in the motion of the stars and planets.

The change in astronomy brought on by the invention of the telescope (#2) is without question the most dramatic event in its history. It coincided with a shift in focus to model-driven astronomy (Copernicus/Kepler/Newton).

The application of general relativity and nuclear physics (#3) allowed astronomy to address change over time rather than just the present day.

As part of an change to this briefer form, content and sources here should be moved to history of astronomy and that article improved. I think a briefer form would help readers understand these three key aspects of the history of astronomy and encourage them to read more in the main article. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I too agree to this idea, others, please give your opinion, so that we can go ahead into action. IND123456 (talk) 05:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For Indian Astronomy, I think Aryabhata's Aryabhatīya would do a great job…

Āryabhaṭīya by Āryabhaṭa, on Wikisource Starstuffseyyon (talk) 13:29, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Images relating to nine major branches of astronomy, rightwards across rows^[a]: the planet Saturn (planetary science), the star BD−08 1203 (stellar astronomy), a total solar eclipse (solar physics), the Paranal Observatory being used on the Milky Way (observational astronomy & galactic astronomy), the M87* black hole (astrophysics), two interacting galaxies (extragalactic astronomy), a CLUES cosmic web simulation (cosmology & computational astronomy), the Rho Ophiuchi cloud (astrochemistry), and an astronaut in Earth’s outer biosphere (astrobiology).

Hi.

The lead image of this article, File:Laser Towards Milky Ways Centre.jpg, is actually a decent choice for astronomy; however, as with any attempt to represent a broad scientific discipline with a single image, it is inevitably narrow in how it reflects on the field as a whole.

As I have done for the physics article and for the chemistry article in the past, I would be eager to implement a collage (shown on the right) for the lead here as well. Astronomy spans a wide range of scales, methods, and subfields, and a single image cannot adequately convey that breadth. A collage offers a more representative overview of the discipline.

For those who would like to see how it would render in the actual article, I have a sandboxed copy of the article with the collage implemented. While the current lead graphic is certainly cleaner and more satisfying aesthetically, I believe that—strictly in terms of technical accuracy and scope representativeness—a collage is more appropriate for a field as expansive as astronomy.

I’d be interested in hearing (and discussing) thoughts from other editors, such as any concerns about caption length or specific image choices.

Kind regards, Xyqorophibian (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is with the size of the caption. Per WP:CAPTION, it is supposed to be succinct, but the caption is bloated. There is also considerable of abuse of MOS:BOLD. The current image is satisfactory, IMO. Praemonitus (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete everything in parentheses. It downplays overlap between subfields. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:38, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Or delete everything and let the images speak for themselves. They don't have to be explained. Lithopsian (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Xyqorophibian, I think it will be better to use Photomontage template like i had done on Lists of astronomical objects also remove those blue bold characters in brackets without it will look better. Abdullah1099 (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Abdullah1099, thanks for the suggestion. The blue bold text in brackets has already been removed in the latest (third) version — the explanatory note now uses definition‑list formatting, which applies bolding in a MOS‑compliant way without adding any extra markup.

I also tested {{Photomontage}}, but for this particular set of images, it introduces issues that aren’t present with {{multiple image}}. Because the images all have different aspect ratios, the template has to force each row to a single height, which results in dark empty regions (letterboxing) and other layout artefacts. These are unavoidable with this template. The current {{multiple image}} version avoids these problems and keeps a clean, consistent 3×3 layout.

Happy to hear any thoughts on the updated version. Xyqorophibian (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Good but can you make the image combo even bro like 2 per level rather that 2 first then 1 then 2 and so on Abdullah1099 (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Abdullah1099, I apologise if I’ve misunderstood, but are you referring to the distribution or pattern of images across the rows?

If so, I’d be in favour of keeping the 3×3 grid. The images are square‑enough in their displayed proportions that the layout stays visually balanced and compact, without anything looking squished or distorted. Changing the pattern would make the collage occupy too much space and disturb that balance. Xyqorophibian (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Then no problem Abdullah1099 (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks — appreciate it. Xyqorophibian (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nine images relating to astronomy. ^[a]

Hi all, and thanks for the feedback so far.

Based on the concerns and suggestions raised, I’ve prepared an updated version of the collage. The visible caption has been reduced to a simple one‑line label, with the descriptive material moved into an efn note so the lead graphic isn’t carrying detailed text.

Regarding @Praemonitus’s point about caption length, this removes the wall of text from the caption while still preserving the information for readers who want it.

On the MOS:BOLD issue, the bolded field names have been kept within the efn because they help readers quickly identify the relevant discipline, and they read more cleanly in list form (because of the visual contrast) than when they were clustered together in the caption.

As for @LaundryPizza03’s comment about overlap between subfields, I agree this is an important point. Each image is still associated with its most relevant discipline, but the efn now includes a brief sentence acknowledging that subfields often overlap and that the examples are conceptual.

Thoughts on this version? Xyqorophibian (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's an improvement, but, again, the bold face should be used sparingly per MOS:BOLD. If you don't remove it, a knowledgeable editor will likely remove it anyway. If you want to highlight certain words, I'd suggest MOS:EMPHASIS. Praemonitus (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nine images relating to astronomy. ^[a]

Hi, thanks again for raising the MOS:BOLD point.

I took another careful look through MOS:BOLD and MOS:NOBOLD, and while explanatory notes can sit in a bit of a grey area, I suppose it’s clearer to avoid any potential ambiguity.

I’ve therefore reworked the note using definition‑list formatting, which is explicitly supported by MOS and avoids boldface in running text altogether.

It’s not quite as compact as the bullet‑list version, but it’s a safer option from a style‑guideline perspective. I also removed bolding from a few object names (stars, galaxies, etc.), since that was a genuine MOS issue.

Let me know if you (or anyone else) have any further thoughts on the new layout.

Xyqorophibian (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since there don’t appear to be any objections to the collage itself, and the points raised above have been addressed, I’ll go ahead and implement the 3×3 version in the lead. Further adjustments can be discussed here if needed. Xyqorophibian (talk) 06:41, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]