This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related toAstronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofPhysics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
This article is supported byWikiProject Color, a project that provides a central approach tocolor-related subjects on Wikipedia. Help usimprove articles togood and1.0 standards; visit thewikiproject page for more details.ColorWikipedia:WikiProject ColorTemplate:WikiProject Colorcolor
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Measurement, a project which is currently considered to bedefunct.MeasurementWikipedia:WikiProject MeasurementTemplate:WikiProject MeasurementMeasurement
This article made TFA with a mixture of spelling variants in it (which shouldn't be possible but oh well). I thought to standardise on US English perthis old revision which seems to be predominantly American ("analyzing"; "quantized");SchroCat has changed it to British English. PerMOS:RETAIN we are supposed to keep the spelling variant of the original author, and perWP:ENGVAR the article should all be in the same variant. Personally I don't care which one this article uses, but promoting something on the main page which was in such a state is less than ideal. TFA is not supposed to be article rescue.John (talk)14:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
19 out of 5529 words in the current revision are British English(0.34%)
14 out of 5529 words in the current revision are American English(0.25%)
4 out of 1340 words in the revision you gave are British English(0.37%)
3 out of 1340 words in the revision you gave are American English(0.22%)
(Rounded to 2 decimal figures)
This means that in around 20 years, The use of British English dropped by 0.03%, and the use of American English increased by 0.03%. These numbers are not very high, so they are probably not significant. However, this means that the paper was actually leaning toward British English by 1 word above American English in the revision you gave, but the use of American English in this paper has increased since then, even though British English is still used slightly more.
I just checked@SchroCat's edit, and apparently 18 words were changed from American to British English. The fixed calculations are:
1 out of 5529 words in the current revision are British English(0.02%)
32 out of 5529 words in the current revision are American English(0.58%)
In 20 years, the use of British English dropped by 0.36%, and the use of American English increased by 0.33%. These numbers are probably significant. The revision you gave was still leaning slightly toward British English, but beforeSchroCat's edit, this article was definitely in American English. I'm fine with this article being changed to American English with this new information in mind.Tactical Falcon (talk)01:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lead states:" The terms derive from the colours red and blue which form the extremes of the visible light spectrum."Blue is NOT at the extreme of the visible light spectrum! I'm 99.9% sure most readers KNOW better. Blue is what is OFTEN seen in natural displays of the spectrum (rainbows and ice halos) at the edges opposite that of the red edge, but violet is the extreme of visible light (high frequency, short wavelength). (ignoring that some people can see a bit into the UV) The lead needs to be reworded, imho. (I've no idea why blue was selected rather than violet for the term blueshift, I suspect it was to keep the word to two simple syllables, but that's a wild guess.75.90.13.139 (talk)21:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the phenomenon is called redshift. Blueshift is not a distinct phenomenon, just a shift in the opposite direction. The section of this article on blueshift just amounts to examples with opposite sign.Johnjbarton (talk)01:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that splitting the pages doesn't make sense. But "redshift" is not any broader of a term than "blueshift" is, and I could see potentially naming the the page "redshift and blueshift". (I can't think of a widespread term that encompasses both, except potentially "Doppler shift" but that's not how gravitational shifts are usually framed even though they are equivalent.)Aseyhe (talk)01:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redshift might be more significant than blueshift, but blueshift is still something separate. So I think this would be better renamed. Does anyone else have an opinion on this?Tactical Falcon (talk)22:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As stated by others above, blueshift isn't "something separate", it's just a different sign. The number of blueshifted astronomical objects is tiny in comparison, and the term is not used very often. I don't see a need for a rename either. -Parejkoj (talk)17:33, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that redshift and blueshift are different phenomena,WP:AND seems appropriate. (Sure, they are closely related mathematically. But it would not be standard to call a blueshift a redshift.)Aseyhe (talk)18:56, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is ratedFA-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale..jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
