Talk:Q6999

Classification with part of (P361)

I want to discuss the classification of this item made with the property part of (P361):

1. Is it correct part of (P361) -> astronomy (Q333) (a scientific branch)?
2. Has sense here part of (P361) -> Universe (Q1)?

--Paperoastro (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

1. Removed the statement part of (P361) -> astronomy (Q333) (wrong use of the property P361).
2. Removed the statement part of (P361) -> Universe (Q1): astronomical object (Q6999) is a class of object, Universe (Q1) not. Items of the class and subclasses of astronomical object (Q6999) are hierarchically part of (P361) -> Universe (Q1).

--Paperoastro (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Geographical object Q618123

@Infovarius: For Q618123 it says:

• Russian : достаточно устойчивое образование, имеющее определённое местоположение (используется с Property:P107)
• German : Objekt, welches mittels Geodaten eindeutig referenzierbar ist oder war (auch astronomische Körper)

P107 is used on astronomical objects. So Russian and German description support the view that non-earth objects are part of geographical objects. There are also articles about the geography of Moon/Mars. So, "geography" seems to go beyond earth, even if the etymology of the word comes from "earth". Tamawashi (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Tamawashi, I'm right with Infovarius: the classification made with P107 is outdated and that property should be deleted. I'm right with you concerning the surface of astronomical bodies (e.g. Moon and Mars), but not for the astronomical bodies itself. Stars, nebulae, galaxies are not geographical features! So I'm not right with your last modification. --Paperoastro (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

subclass of (P279) : natural physical object (Q16686022)

I find this connexion problematic : other entities considered to be subclasses of astronomical objects, eg. satellite (Q1297322) are not necessarily "naturally occurring". This produces weird statements such as the Hubble Space Telescope (Q2513) which, as a space telescope (Q148578) is thus an artificial satellite (Q26540), thus a satellite (Q1297322), thus an "astronomical object" (so far so good), and thus a "natural physical object" (which the HST is not, in fact).

So which is it ? Is astronomical object (Q6999) about natural astronomical objects only ? Or any astronomical object ? If the former then shouldn't "satellite" not be a subclass of it ?

Should the subclass of (P279) point to physical object (Q223557) instead ? Am I misunderstanding the nature of natural physical object (Q16686022) ?

Eledeuh (talk) 10:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, "astronomical object" - homonym (Q160843): 1) artificial astronomical object 2) natural astronomical object 3) fictional astronomical object --Fractaler (talk) 12:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that linkage needs to change, indeed. --Izno (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Infovarius, what do you think of this ? I see you're the one who initially added the claim to natural physical object (Q16686022), could you provide some insight and/or tell us if what I wrote above is sensible ? Eledeuh (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I made the change from natural physical object (Q16686022) to physical object (Q223557) as suggested above, but I still think this needs further discussion : the nature of astronomical object (Q6999) is unclear to me, the description ("naturally occurring physical entities") hints at a "natural origin" only (bound through part of (P361) to nature (Q7860), which some descriptions describe as "non modified by men"). So either artificial satellites and structures cannot be subclass of (P279) -> astronomical object (Q6999) (which they are now, through the bindings described earlier), or astronomical object (Q6999) cannot be a natural physical object (Q16686022), and is a less specific physical object (Q223557) instead. Eledeuh (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, let's go with physical object (Q223557). --Infovarius (talk) 10:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

cosmic microwave background (Q15605) - astronomical object (Q6999): physical body of astronomically-significant size, mass, or role, naturally occurring in a universe (->physical object (Q223557))? --Fractaler (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand, what do you mean ? Eledeuh (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

cosmic microwave background (Q15605) is astronomical object (Q6999): physical body of astronomically-significant size, mass, or role, naturally occurring in a universe? --Fractaler (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

"Universe"-"all astronomical objects"=?

What is the name of the object that lies between each astronomical object? "cosmic vacuum"? --Fractaler (talk) 09:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

outer space (Q4169)? --Infovarius (talk) 10:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes! Thanks! --Fractaler (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

So, astronomical object (Q6999) is non-Q4169 (absence of outer space (Q4169)) --Fractaler (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Nonsese. What is absence of absence? Reversely: outer space (Q4169) is absence of astronomical object (Q6999). --Infovarius (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

"Universe"="all astronomical objects"+"outer space", => "all astronomical objects"=non"outer space", "outer space"=non"all astronomical objects"; so "Universe" = non"outer space"+non"all astronomical objects" --Fractaler (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Word equilibristics. Not always "non" can be used with words like with mathematical notions. --Infovarius (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, equilibristics, and mathematics is a symbol equilibristics. This linguistic example simply uses its methods. And in this example, we are not based on "non", but on the antipodes (antipodal point (Q505356)/opposite (Q37719470) ) and their universe (Q597663). non (or!) in this case it is simply to create a synonym that demonstrates the relationship between objects (elements of dyad (Q29431432)). --Fractaler (talk) 12:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)