Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Constellations task force

message: Prio column and some reasonable values added. Said: Rursus 21:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prio

message: Should this project also cover the constellation-like features of the night sky that have comparable mythological associations?  For example, the Milky Way (the band of light, not the galaxy), and the Man in the Moon and similar pareidolias.--Pharos 22:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constellation-like sky features 

message: for example, "Lyra in Fiction"--is starting to look like a trivia section in all but name.  In the specific case of Lyra in Fiction, there are about 6 or so items, only two of which have anything to do with the constellation.  Do we need a Lyra in Fiction section, and if so, should the items having nothing to do with the constellation be there?Todd 22:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps creating "X in fiction" articles, and transferring such items there, might be the solution. Such an article exists for α Lyr: "Vega in fiction."  B00P (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "X" in fiction section 

message: Hi, guys. We haven't spoken before but you may have noticed that I have been on vandalism-watch recently on the constellations pages. My question to you all is this: do you think we should consider protecting these pages, and similar ones about stars and other deep-sky objects, to prevent unregistered users from abusing them? The reason I ask is that GoogleSky now has links to these pages. GoogleSky is a brilliant piece of work and is (quite rightly) being promoted as an educational tool. The obvious place for it to link to is Wikpedia. However, I don't think that schools and similar establishments would be too impressed to discover that Sky is linking to pages with bad information or profanity. Wikimapia has a registration period within which you can't make immediate changes. I read that the German Wikipedia is introducing such a scheme too. For the future of the Wikipedia astronomy pages, I'd like to see something similar introduced here. What do you think? Skeptic2 23:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree--Todd 17:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protecting these pages

message: I don't know if it's just on my browser, but in Orion and Cygnus (the only two I checked), not the articles but the categories, the constellation map obscures part of the category listing.  I also don't know how to fix that.--Todd 23:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constellation maps obscuring category contents 

message: Shouldn't the parent wikiproject be Wikipedia: WikiProject Astronomical objects, since the old WikiProject Constellations was merged into Astronomical Objects? 132.205.99.122 (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  parent wikiproject 

message: * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Star_articles_and_navboxes_-_an_idea_by_White_Cat
Please see the discussion in the above link (I want to keep it in one place) -- Cat chi? 19:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Navboxes

message: Therion (constellation) should be created as a redirect to Lupus (constellation) 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, yes. I think so. I've never heard about Therion, but if you've tried to find Therion (constellation), then this redirect page should exist. The name Therion makes sense, since it is greek for Beast, and Lupus was originally not defined as Canis lupis on heaven, but just a beast, that the kentaur Centaurus intended to sacrifice, maybe on Ara, the altar. I'll create this redirect for you now. Said: Rursus ☻ 13:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Therion 

message: I was thinking of splittin the Notable Features subheading by brightnes. eg. Magnitude 4 and above, Magnitude 8 to 4, Magnitude 16 to 8, Faint objects.These would roughly translate to visible to the naked eye (in a moderately light polluted sky), visible with binoculars, visible with a portable telescope, proffesional observatory required. I think it would be useful for amateur astronomers wishing to view objects within specific constellations.
On a related note, should I go ahead and add extra-solar planets on the relevant constellation pages? It's not exactly useful to amateur astronomers, but is of academic interest. I could either list the stars under the appropriate magnitude, or give an entire subheading for extra-solar planets (bearing in mind that there won't be more than five for any given constellation).
Any thought / suggestions? Conrad Leviston (talk) 05:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree to completeness - amateurs, like everybody else, learn the constellations from a "myth" (whether a real myth or a story about astronomer Abbé Lacaille travelling to South Africa), and star patterns, where details makes sense and adds to the "culture" of the constellation. Observability is important but not obligatory, important discoveries and astronomical "freak stars" also add upto the "culture" of the constellation. However: astrology is annoying, since it is a science competing "star religion", and science has it's own "mythology" and heroes, such as Galileo, Newton and Einstein. Said: Rursus ☻ 13:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Features 

message: Several years ago I worked out the etymologies of the stars that I could, including the original Arabic, Chinese, or Greek, but that info has been moved to the talk pages with the comment that it should be added to the individual star articles. I made a start at that, but only got through a few major constellations—I'd already put a lot of time into this, and was tired of it. If each member of this task force could follow up with one major or half a dozen minor constellations, we would clear this up fairly quickly. kwami (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  star etymologies 

message: I requested a GAR for the Leo (constellation) article: Talk:Leo (constellation)/GA1. Please take a moment to comment. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reassessment of Leo (constellation) 

message: Perhaps it's time to create an 
::Category:Astronomical object by constellation heirarchy, and subcategorize the constellation categories by object type? 
With more and more stars and galaxies having articles and being placed into the IAU constellation categories, it may be a good idea at some point. 
* :Category:Stars by constellation & :Category:Stars in constellation X
* :Category:Galaxies by constellation & :Category:Galaxies in constellation X
76.66.201.13 (talk) 05:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  things in constellations 

message: Hi, I have been changing the nearest stars in some of the constellation articles.
I have edited the "nearest star" in a constellation's infobox if I found a nearer star in the List of nearest stars. Then I started going though the RECONS list of the 100 nearest star systems doing the same thing. I am finding the constellation for each star in the RECONS list by querying via this page. I got up to system 61 in the RECONS list and decided I should stop and explain what I was doing. --Cam (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nearest stars 

message: John Sandford claims the following in "Observing the Constellations" () about Hydra:
:In Roman times it was divided into four parts.
Which would have been very practical, indeed, but I've found no support whatsoever for this statement. Is it true, or a garble up of Roman, vs. modern Latin age, having Felis and Turdus Solitarius in parts of Hydra? ... said: Rursus (bork²) 14:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman 4 constellations in Hydra? 

message: See :Category:List of the star names by constellation ; these list articles seem to be in need of help, since they're built like a name dictionary, and in current form would be more suitable to be transwikied to Wiktionary instead of being articles here...
76.66.197.30 (talk) 11:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists of named stars by constellation

message: :Template:ConstellationsByBartsch has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Please have your say! Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 09:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:ConstellationsByBartsch]] 

message: There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space/2010 Reorganisation regarding the future of WikiProject Space and its child projects. The discussion is aimed at defining the roles of projects, and improving the activity and coordination of the projects. The input of members of this project is requested as it is one which may be affected by the issue. --GW… 22:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganisation of space WikiProjects

message: See WT:AST for a discussion about division of constellations by right ascension... (and not by tradition or geographic/cultural origin) 70.24.244.198 (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Western" and "Eastern" constellations 

message: :file:XingXiu(2).png has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 07:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: XingXiu(2).png

message: Thought this might be the best place to discuss...been scared off Cygnus (constellation) as it is just soooo big! Have been buffing Pegasus (constellation) as it is of similar size to Andromeda and would be good to do that whole portion of the sky...but got a bit bored and stuck into Canis Major instead (lots of fun supergiants to write about). The obscure constellations are taking a very long time to get through FAC, so umming and aahing about doing more, though will push through ones that are through GA or nominated there (Musca and Grus (constellation).  worked on Bootes a while ago, and maybe we should try and shove that over a GA line at least. Keilana let us know if you wanna do anything starry. and I guess  you wanna buff Caelum for FAC...? So will give it a look over. Canis Major and Pegasus could do with some help in history/mythology mainly as well as other sections. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, Cygnus will be a huge job; might be the second most interesting constellation in the entire sky, after Sagittarius. For Caelum, I'm honestly kind of stuck on what to do on it...it's such a barren constellation that there really isn't much more that I can write about. I'll probably submit it for PR soon. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see a little bit of fiddling. I like sticking spectral types in as they are more exacting than just colours or sizes. Might be some navigation stuff too from guidebooks etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see if I can do anything - I've been caught up in school and real life issues but starry myth-y things are definitely hanging out on my to-do list, just waiting for a quiet library day. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 06:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright - all input on Canis Major appreciated - bit worried about the history/mythology section currently. Also haven't started on the Deep-sky objects section really yet. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

text: I'm currently working on Serpens, which has a lot of interesting stuff and will take a while, but I'll try to pitch in at Ursa Minor as well. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa - didn't notice that - will pitch in. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ok -  and   - Corona Borealis has passed GA and Ursa Minor will be there soon...just need to get some mythology of the latter sorted....Stringtheory, are you planning on Serpens going to FAC soon? Damn tehre are alot of potential deep sky objects to add (groan..) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm planning on finally doing some more work in a week, and then FACing it in May sometime. StringTheory11 (t • c) 14:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would love to but I'm currently studying for my MCAT and that's taking all my attention. I'll be done in ~5 weeks though, so I can help out then :) Keilana|Parlez ici 15:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Wassat? Aah medicine. Piece of cake. Am sure you'll do fine.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to work on.... 

message: FYI, there's a discussion going on at Talk:List_of_brightest_stars#Proper_name that may impact on usage of proper names of stars. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: "Proper names" for stars

message: Hi, I'd like to help with collecting cultural asterisms and constellations as well as creating a heredity, if you will, that documents the works thats scholars documented the constellations and their evolution. While doing this, improve all the timelines and constellation endonym pages. Nebulösschwarzfahrer (talk) 06:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Cultural and Historical Asterisms and Constellations, and the Heredity of Constellations

message: I have proposed to merge WikiProject Astronomy/Constellations Task Force with WikiProject Eclipses. Please join the discussion on whether we should merge these two articles here. MartinZ02 (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: I noticed that Template:Infobox zodiac carries the banner of this project, so I want to notify the group that I'm making improvements to that infobox so it will issue correct dates of passage of the Sun from one zodiac sign (not constellation) to another. The current Template:zodiac date will be replaced with Module:zodiac date.
The old Template:zodiac date contained equations which tried to predict the crossing dates, and I identified a number of instances where these equations were giving incorrect dates. So I interpolated the apparent geocentric ecliptic longitude of the Sun using a computer almanac from the U.S. Naval Observatory to find the crossing dates, then encapsulated the results in a Lua table. The new version will provide results traceable to a reliable source through most of 2050. Since the only articles calling this infobox are mostly about astrology, I have started a discussion of the change at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astrology. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox zodiac & related pages

message: Like many people curious about many things in life, I looked up Messier 63 because I had seen its fascinating photo somewhere. I was dismayed to find the article to be written exclusively for people forearmed with a knowledge of astronomical terms. I was able to guess, for example, that 'kly' probably means 'thousand light years' which is a value I readily understand, but for the rest of it as an encyclopedic article of general knowledge, as a non-astronomer or astrophysicist, I found it very disappointing. 
Moving on to its equivalent in the German Wikipedia (a language in which I am also a native speaker), I was able to find out far more of what I wanted to know in layman's terms. 
There are probably thousands of articles in en.Wiki suffering from a similar scientific syndrome, could something be done about it? Perhaps my admin colleague  could look into it for galaxies and perhaps come up with an idea where a general appeal for all scientific topics to be dumbed down could be made. Thanks.  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Might take some time tweaking templates.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

text: Well that's at least partly my fault, so I tried to insert some additional clarification of the terminology. But the jargon is linked so you can always drill down and read more. Praemonitus (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astrophysical terms (scientific jargon and alphabet soup)