Talk:Sky

TV

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)

Difficulty defining "Sky?"

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 color of the sky is in dispute again!

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)

I apologize for not checking back earlier; I didn't mean to "edit and run". I would just warn that color perception is fairly complicated. It can't be that relevant thatt the eye is more sensitive to some wavelengths than others. Even if you change the eye's sensitivity by putting on color-tinted glasses, the effect is only temporary. After a few minutes, paper looks white again and trees look green. Spiel496 17:24, 10 March 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)

I must confess that I most wholeheartedly agree with you; I think that this whole citation needed/POV business is getting way out of hand. Wikipedia is not as good as it once was. However, try not to vandalise again as it wo't get us anywhere. thank you. 211.30.132.2 11:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

User 211.30.132.2: Adding a 'citation needed' tag is not vandalism. While it might be argued as 'disrupting wikipedia to prove a point,' said arguments would need to maintain that a 'citation needed' tag was, in fact, disruption.

Interestingly, I checked out the first citation that the sky is blue (which presented photos--photos are not proof of colour, but I digress). Most of the images were broken, and only one showed the sky as mostly blue (with strong orange and yellow at the horizon).

It does remain interesting that Wikipedia's guidelines on Original Research do not, for some reason, apply to the colour of the sky. Apparently the requirement of citations is only really necessary when convenient.65.87.20.98 (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I would say that the sky is not a physical phemonon but a sensory phenomenon. You could state that the athmosphere is mostly refracting UV and violet, but that is not how we perceive the sky. There is a lot of research done by Minnaert how we perceive the skye trying to describe the shape the skye has to humans. Also the polarization is not that relevant to our eye even though it is possible to see Haidingers figures for the trained eye. For photographers it is relevant maybe to mention the necessity of UV and polarization filters.Viridiflavus (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLUE2Awwsome (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2013 (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)

The perceived color of the sky is often not blue. The text says it is dark at night. What does "dark" mean in this context? I'd say it means black. But look at the sky over most large cities, and the color of the sky is most likely to be pink at night (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/08/23/why-is-the-night-sky-turning-red/#.URIHEmeDfIU - This blog by a science right follows the common error of over-sing "red" when pink is really meant). During the day, I usually see it as light blue or a "rich" (slightly violet???) blue, depending on conditions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.179.19.27 (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Protection or semi-protection

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've been away for a few days. I can't believe how much crap has been done to this article! I vote to Protect the article. Badly Bradley 03:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I've listed Sky at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, but it was declined for not enough vandalism. Maybe we'll have to wait a few more days, or protect/semi-protect Sky ourselves. Those IP have also vandalized other articles such as Happiness, they are here for nothing.Victao lopes 00:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I listed the page again for protection. --Trelawnie (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

check something

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)

Night sky

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)

Photos

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)

It is out of control, yes. However, in my opinion the ones to keep are Trees-sky.jpg and Sunset02.jpg. Spiel496 22:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the photos are the best part of the article. Beautiful photography. --Trelawnie (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I accidentally

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)

Sun

• During the day the Sun can be seen in the sky

Shouldn't this be changed to through the sky, or something like that? --Grubdubdub (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You can also see the stars in the sky, but you have a point. What we perceive as sky can be blue light from 1 meter uptil ~200 km away from our eye. I admit you see the sun through the clouds, maybe because clouds are more objectlike, able to obscure the sun.

Viridiflavus (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

eye color discrimination

what about for those of us, that can't see color

what is blue?

damn right you need a — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.195.232 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I am totally blind, so I also cannot see colour, but I accept that it looks blue to those who can see colours. Graham87 13:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Eye color

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)

Vandalism

In the first paragraph, at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.231.172 (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

All gone now. Graham87 03:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

So wait, why is the sky Blue?

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)

Merge from Night Sky

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)

• Oppose. "Night Sky" has a n Astronomy feel to it. "Sky" has an Atmospheric feel to it. The pictures submitted in each have reflected that theory. In my opinion the problem is the lack of Night Sky Photos that have been posted. For instance: Where are the Stars? All I see is a moon and a chart. I think we need to develop and Enhance "Night Sky"; not combine it with "Sky", which holds up pretty well on it's own. user:Pocketthis 12:25, 26 December 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pocketthis (talk • contribs)
• Oppose. There is room in wikipedia for night sky to serve as a subarticle to this one. For now, the lead from the night sky article has been placed as a subsection within this article. This type of format has worked out well for the weather, cloud, lightning, cyclone, tornado, and numerical weather prediction articles. The night sky article can be expanded out by some editor to become more comprehensive. Just because the articles are relatively short does not mean they need to be merged together. If the night sky article was a stub, with only a lead, you would have a better case for merger. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2012 (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)

Restructuring and expansion

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)

Wow, nice work! Graham87 01:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Almost random

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,

• scattering due to molecule sized particles is almost random: I don't know what "random" is supposed to mean. "Uniform", possibly? But according to Rayleigh scattering, the intensity varies like 1 + cos^2(angle).
• The scattering in a 90 degree angle is still half of the scattering that reflects or goes forward: Does "reflects" mean backward scattering? According to Rayleigh scattering, the backward intensity is zero.
• a cloud ... has the white color because all the light ... is scattered multiple times: Is that really the reason? The 10 um droplets in clouds should be large enough that their scattering is wavelength-independent (white) regardless of whether there are multiple scatterings.

Spiel496 (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. I have done my best to tackle that paragraph, which originated from the Atmospheric optics article. Hopefully it makes more sense now...the content has been rearranged so that the section reads more fluidly. Atmospheric physics was a class I had significant trouble with in college. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Anything missing?

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)

Seam in sunrise pic

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'm too lazy to fix the picture myself, and apparently the editor who added it has gone on to other things, so I'm deleting it. Spiel496 (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. We had one too many pictures anyway. We need no more pictures within this article unless there is significant expansion. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Photo was replaced with the Seamless directly photographed original. I grabbed the wrong photo from my gallery when I originally placed that photo in the free space under photo#1.Pocketthis (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Please Explain this chart to me

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)

I believe it's a measure of how bright the horizon is, as a function of how far down the sun has set. A value of 1 corresponds to the brightness of the sky directly overhead when the sun is up. The implication is interesting: the brightness of the sky is roughly determined by how much atmosphere there is along the direction one is gazing, multiplied by the fraction of that air that has sunlight on it. The problem, in my opinion, is that the chart is "orphaned" -- the text doesn't refer to it. I'm inclined to leave the chart and hope that someone writes something interesting to go with it. The relevant place to mention it would would be in the various definitions of twilight. I don't see a problem with spelling "airmass" as one word. Spiel496 (talk) 07:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Spiel496. Nice to hear from you, and you know I respect your opinion...always have. It seems you agree with me that the relevance of the chart to this article as it stands is weak at best. I'll leave the writing of a twilight section to those more competent than me. I understood the chart to be exactly as you explained it when I blew it up, but thought it was useless where it is, and personally uninteresting. As far as the spelling of Air-mass, Webster agrees with me. It's either two separate words, or one word when separated with a hyphen. I have made the spelling correction under the chart, and leave the rest of decision making to those in the scientific community. Perhaps a move to the Twilight Article would be a good idea for this 'Chart'. Thanks for your reply.Pocketthis (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

How about this suggestion: If we must have a Chart opposite the Dusk text, how about this one. It is certainly more relevant to the text; and much more informative to the subject at hand than what we're using. It doesn't help my "photo quest" ....but I'm easy. Pocketthis (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Dusk is the end of evening twilight

Chart Exchanged

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)

(Old Chart)

Dusk is the end of evening twilight (New Chart)

Pocketthis (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Stars in night sky.

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)

Wikipedia is not an art gallery

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)

• You have misinterpreted the meaning of Wiki is not an art gallery. Just because the word "Gallery" is in the phrase, doesn't mean it was intended to eliminate photo galleries from articles. I'm putting the Gallery back today, and for the following reasons: The relevant importance of any encyclopedia is the education of the viewer. A great number of viewers are young folks. The photos at the bottom of a page named "SKY", keep the young viewers and many older appreciators of beauty on the page longer; and will end up reading more of the article.

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)

• • I am looking at this from wikipedia's standpoint, not web hit wise. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. As far as I'm aware, image galleries don't reside in encyclopedia articles. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Wiki is not like any other encyclopedia. We have the technology today to bring more to the world of knowledge than the printed word.

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)

• P.S. You made a reference to web hits. To quote you: "I am looking at this from wikipedia's standpoint, not web hit wise". My reply to that remark: Without hits, there wouldn't 'be' a Wikipedia; so I doubt very strongly that you are looking at this from "Wikipedia's standpoint". Pocketthis (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Whoa . Assume good faith. I'm looking to improve this article's status within wikipedia, using their standards. I'm sure we can come up with some sort of compromise that can preserve imagery. Article expansion is normally the best way. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• How can I assume good faith when you eliminate photos that are hit on between 5,000, to 12,000 times per month, without coming here first and proposing it? Then after we all had our says, the consensus would determine the outcome. I am easy to please, I just don't like hasty edits that effect thousands of viewers. Thanks Pocketthis (talk) 19:34, 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)

• You think submitting the article for peer review would be helpful here? Thegreatdr (talk) 19:31, 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 don't see any problem with the gallery as it stands. I am constantly exchanging photos in and out of it to keep it fresh. Also, what needs fixing? It's 10 little thumbnails on very bottom of the page. If you are referring to the amount of photos in the main article itself, then I would have to take another look; however, if the reader has found himself at the bottom of the page .....and still clicking on photos, I think the traffic stats speak volumes. Thanks Pocketthis (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I have eliminated half of the Gallery photos to bring the number of photos more into proportion with the amount of text on the page.

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)

• • Thanks for the compromise solution here. The Milky Way black and white is related to the text for the Night Sky section, and needs to stay. I know the dawn/dusk photos are more dramatic colorwise, but the Milky Way image is there for a reason...there is a text tie-in. The barn swallow is there for the same reason...its tie-in to the flight section. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'll go in and remove my giant photo that is under photo#1, and stick it in the gallery, and remove one of the gallery photos to keep it one line. But my friend......The Barn Owl should be history. Always hated that shot, and thought it detracted from the page. If you want that Milky Way shot back, be my guest. Again, I don't like it, and it detracts from the page. Perhaps it's in the wrong spot......maybe.....nah..:) After I remove the big photo from the main page, I'm done here today. I hope all these changes accomplish what you think needed accomplishing. Thanks Pocketthis (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why you'd remove imagery that directly links into text to its left. There's more to the sky than dusk and dawn, my friend. I've used a different bird in flight for the transportation section. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• We were typing at the same time.....so there was an edit conflict. Now that I have read your edit, my reply will change. I did say however, that anything I did in there can be reversed, as I said above. I also suggested you change the flight photo to one that was more appropriate from commons. I see you did that as well. So, you've got the Milky way back, eliminated a giant photo from the page, shrunk the gallery in half, and improved your bird of flight. I'd say you had a very good day, and good day to you Doctor. Pocketthis (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 August 2013 - Reference 11 incorrect

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)

Thanks for pointing this out. Done, with some minor wikification! Graham87 00:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Significance in mythology

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)

Well, as it stands now, there isn't much material in that section. I looked at the article on Wind and found a section entitled Usage of wind. In that section there is a subsection entitled History. If you read the first paragraph in that subsection you'll see that it covers the place of wind in a number of cultures. I think it's quite interesting. (You can click on the links I have provided.)

I then looked at Earth. In that article there is a section entitled Cultural and historical viewpoint. It gives a kind of overview. There is a link to a main Wikipedia article entitled Earth in culture, which you might find interesting.

So you can see that with these two other important aspects of our world -- Wind and Earth -- the place in culture and religion is treated in some detail. Thus, it makes sense to treat the place of the sky in some detail, too -- not, of course, focusing on only one culture or religion, but giving an overview of the importance of the sky in a number of cultures or religions. Are you saying that you would not find that interesting? There is no reason why the heading "Significance in mythology" could not be changed if there is a general agreement to do so. You can see that the other articles use different headings and sub-headings. The heading should reflect what is actually written in that section, so should be selected after the paragraphs are written. If you have access to reliable sources (see WP:RS), you could add material to this section yourself (and be sure to add the references), and thus help improve the article. CorinneSD (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nwac.us/education_resources/Field_forecasting.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080602012700/http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Lighter_than_air/Early_Balloon_Flight_in_Europe/LTA1.htm to http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Lighter_than_air/Early_Balloon_Flight_in_Europe/LTA1.htm

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 23:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110826203901/http://scijinks.nasa.gov/blue-sky to http://scijinks.nasa.gov/blue-sky

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 17:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit suggestion regarding clarification of Rayleigh scattering direction dependency

The article is locked so I have to ask for my proposed edit here. There is a request for clarification in:

The scattering due to molecule sized particles (as in air) is greater in the forward and backward directions than it is in the lateral direction.[clarification needed]

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:

The scattering due to molecule sized particles (as in air) is greater in the propagation direction of light than perpendicular to it.

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)

Who is calling it the celestial dome?

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)

Per WikiBlame, it was added by Thegreatdr in February 2012. Graham87 06:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Um....the related wikipedia article. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I've fixed your link, but (a) we already mentioned that and (b) Wikipedia is not a reliable source for itself. Graham87 02:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I've gone and removed it. Because of Wikipedia's extreme prominence, we need rock-solid sourcing for something like this and it seems none is forthcoming. Graham87 15:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Sky

Sky is also a song made by playboi carti Maxey3 (talk) 04:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

"Alkere" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Definition

"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)