Talk:Telescope mount

What's the role of this article?

I've edited this article myself, so I'm not exactly exempt from my own criticism, but I was wondering what the role of each of these telescope mount articles is supposed to be. Most of the information in the Telescope mount article is duplicated on the respective mount articles, and it seems redundant to have it in several places. Is Telescope mount supposed to be a disambiguation page? Would there be any negative consequences if we merged most of its content into the more specific articles, and made this a simple disambiguation page? Alternatively, should the various telescope mount articles be merged into a more complete article about telescope mounts? (This could be done quite effectively if done well, I think, and it's what I'm in favour of.) Any thoughts? Izogi 03:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I've got no objection leaving them how they are as they are both encyclopedic and describing semi-different objects. I can't say that I would object to them being merged though either. Either way I think they would be okay. You would just have to make sure that they redirected to the central article from the individual ones if you decide to merge them as I am sure some people would still attempt to look up the individual mount types. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 20:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok--- after wandering around editing diffent telescope related articles I am noticing what Izogi is noticing---> There are a few overlaping articles and a few more that need to be written about "Telescope Mounts". I think they all should be grouped into one article.. maybe this one. The only problem I can see is it may make a long article (not sure what the optimum legth is).

Here are the related articles that could be brought here:

• Altazimuth mount

• Equatorial mount With all it's sub headings:

German mount

Open fork

English fork

Springfield mount

Poncet table

• Transit mount

• Zenith mount

• Turret telescope

Halfblue 21:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

(kicking this down) The "Dobsonian" article you are refering to was incorrect in that it describes the Dobsonian as just a mount style. The Dobsonian is a full telescope design encompassing the telescope and the mount. Should there be a Dobsonian mount listed in a Telescope mount article? It raises the question "is there such a thing as a dobsonian mount?". There seems to be a misnomer that all Altazimuth_mount telescopes are "Dobsonians". This is far from the case. The Altazimuth_mount has been in wide use far before the advent of the Dobsonian. And there are many Altazimuth_mount telescopes that look superficialy like Dobsonians but have none of the design features of the Dobsonian. You may want to list the Altazimuth_mount in such an article and note in that it is used in "Dobsonian style" telescopes.(Halfblue 18:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC))