Category talk:Polar aurora

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Category name question[edit]


The word "polar" appears rather extraneous, Neptune being the only planet in the Sol system where the magnetic and rotational poles do not coincide.

More usefully, one could categorize the auroras by planet.

Wikiborg 03:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


Image deletion warning Image:AuroraBorealisFromSpace.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

  — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Misleading category header[edit]

  • First, agree with Wikiborg: the word "polar" is useless in this category's NAME, the phenomenon is always referred to as just Aurora. [1]

  • Next, the various contributions in the page header are confusing, and even outright wrong in cases.

They should rather be discussed on the Atmospheric optical phenomena discuss page, but since it's here, I answer here.

Images fitting the distinction so that they "could be viewed off Earth" or are otherwise "not dependent on Earth's atmosphere" (Such as storm clouds on Mars, Jupiter, Solar corona etcetera) should be placed within Atmospheric optical phenomena or a subcategory, not in this category.

No: storm clouds or solar coronas are NOT optical phenomena. Storm clouds on Mars might go to a subcat of Clouds, Storms and/or a subcat of Mars, but not in Atmospheric optical phenomena.

Similarly, solar coronas should go to a not-yet-existing subcat of Sun, unless they fit into Solar eclipse or subcats.

If it's of Earth, or on Earth so that it is a phenomena:
... dependent upon Earth's atmosphere bending light: ←→ Category:Atmospheric optical phenomena of Earth → or one of it's subcategories.
... something viewable not only from Earth: ←→ Category:Atmospheric optical phenomena → or one of it's subcategories.

No: Atmospheric optical phenomena traditionally include auroras, which are not "dependent upon Earth's atmosphere bending light" but are light produced within Earth's atmosphere.

On the other hand, some phenomena where sunlight is diverted by Earth's atmosphere are visible from space, such as glories.

The distinction should be between phenomena in earth's atmosphere vs in other planets' atmospheres (apart from auroras, and some artists' rendering of speculative ice haloes seen from Mars or elsewhere, I don't expect to see many pics in those sub-cats... yet!).

But I wonder if it is really the best option to make this choice at the Atmospheric optical phenomena level (having At opt ph of Earth and At opt ph elsewhere cats, and the same type of phenomena subcats in each (auroras, haloes, etc).

I think a better option might be just one Atmospheric optical phenomena cat with type of phenomena subcats, and on Mars, on Jup sub-sub-cats in each of the type of phenomena subcats only when necessary (ie: aurora on Jupiter).

Not to be confused with such phenomena that occur outside Earth's atmosphere, such as Corona, which could be viewed from space or from another planet.

No: the Corona subcat here is indeed about Atmospheric optical phenomena of Earth (diffraction around water droplets), and the pics do fit. This is a confusion with Solar corona, see above.

(I just removed a lonely image of a Sun eclipse from this subcat and sent it to Solar eclipse, the others are OK.) 01:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)