Talk:Lists of stars by constellation

message: I had originally depended on Star Names by constellation for decoding the ambiguous word 'Sadachbia', and since he translated it to mean "lucky star of the tents", I assumed that the original Arabic must have been الخباء al-xiba' which means tent (lit. hiding/shelter), but now I believe it could be الخبايا al-xabāyā meaning the "hidden" (future destiny), which is more related to horoscopes and astrology. There are other explanations in the abovementioned source that I disagree with also, and will come to mention in their place. --Alif 20:18, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've based the translations on standard English-language references. Since they get the transcriptions wrong half the time (especially with c/ʿ!), I wouldn't be surprised if the translations are off too. What we really need is someone who has access to the medieval almanacs, but what you're doing will probably be reliable most of the time. It's a good start, at least! kwami
I now understand that it is not الخباء al-xiba' but rather the plural الأخبية al-axbiyah. my doubt was wrong, and the translation I had assumed earlier, as tents, is thus correct. --Alif 20:22, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sadachbia

message: If anyone has reliable sources for Betelgeuse originally being "the house of Gawza" or anything else beginning with a B in Arabic, please let us know what they are. Meanwhile I'll follow the article on that star in taking it as a corruption of يد الجوزا yed el gauzā "the arm of Gawza". I have a feeling this is the kind of thing that might be changed back and forth, over and over. --kwami 06:13, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Betelgeuse

message: As of today, it's obvious this isn't a list of stars by constellations, it's simply a List of constellations, and someone might find a little bit insulting what is stated here: obviously each constellation has its stars listed on its own page, but people (like me) come here precisely to avoid opening 88 different Wikipedia articles, hoping instead they were all listed nicely in this single article. I'd thank in advance anyone who actually made this list into what it claims to be. --Kreachure 17:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the same when I first came here. If you look at the history, it seems it used to be a list of stars by constellation, but then someone came along and tagged them all "mergeto" the individual constellations.
Having done that, this article seems a bit bare.
Now this has been done, I likewise don't see the point in retaining the article. Alternatively, do we want a list of stars by constellation? AndrewRT - Talk 22:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the best way to do this is to create star lists for every constellation (e.g. List of stars in Andromeda) this page being the index for individual lists. It would solve several problems (star lists are too large for constellation articles and this article would become too massive if all stars were added here). Btw, don't add Messier objects to this list—they're not stars.--JyriL talk 22:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your thoughts. Having started the article I quickly came to the conclusion it was impractical. We already have a list of stars (and other objects) under the categories, e.g. :Category:Andromeda constellation, plus a fuller discussion of the objects in the articles, e.g. Andromeda (constellation). Perhaps this article should just point readers in the direction of those pages? AndrewRT - Talk 22:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already started to move those star tables into own articles. This one could serve as a "list of lists". Categories have the problem not having missing articles and lists could include information (especially catalogue numbers and alternative names) which make navigation easier.--JyriL talk 22:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOT a list of STARS 

message: Can somebody open up (or turn blue) articles in selections of constellations soon (<1 month) in the list of stars by constellations such as Cepheus and Canis Major since if those list and table of stars are not there as in these two examples of specific constellations above. Also by next summer, hopefully, it should at least one-third to one-half of all constellations were opened. And sometimes in 2008 at latest, all articles in selections of constellation of list of stars by constellations should be opened or turned from red to blue. They should create the articles with just the star table, just like the first five stars that are already opened and also Vulpecula and more soon. The more information about how to make the table, go to the talk page in Talk:List of stars in Andromeda, Talk:Sagittarius, Talk:List of stars in Vulpecula, and Talk:23 Ursae Majoris. Cosmium 22:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "They" have a thing called "real life" (believe or not) and they are not paid to edit Wikipedia. Therefore if you so dislike seeing the red links, do a favor and create them by yourself easily by copying the lists from the constellation articles. The lists of star are found in the respective constellation articles.--JyriL talk 12:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did this several times but kept on getting reverted.  The simple thing is to point to the list section in the existing constellation articles to begin with and as a specific article is created to change the pointer to that article rather than a section of that article. --- Safemariner 15:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OPENING up ARTICLES 

message: Having a lot of red links in a list is heavily frowned upon in Wikipedia.  One solution is to link to stars in the existing constellation articles and as new articles are added, the link in the list can be changed to point to the new article. --- Safemariner 04:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was my intention to move the far too long star lists into new pages, but I had no time nor will to continue the tedious work. I will (hopefully soon) replace the ugly lists with much better ones. For now, copypasting should be enough.--JyriL talk 12:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The simple thing is to point to the list section in the existing constellation articles to begin with and as a specific article is created to change the pointer to that article rather than a section of that article. I kept on getting reverted when I did this. --- Safemariner 15:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I got that. The user who reverted your edits didn't seem to bother to give any reason for his actions. Anyway, I created stubs for each articles, so the red link problem is solved. Hopefully I get rest of the lists moved quickly. Although the lists are horrible, there's no point fixing them since I'm going to create a small Java program which combines a few catalogs and produces pretty tables.--JyriL talk 23:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blue and Red

message: Notice how it says in the criteria for inlusion header that stars need a 6.50 magnitude to be included, well take a look at the list of stars in andromeda and notice how immediately at the bottom of the list there are astars well into the 7's 8's 9's and even 12's, i do't call that very organised, i right now have to be somewhere, but i will try and do somethin about in the future - 210.54.229.151 04:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for inclusion