Talk:Bayer designation

message: The flier says "the tone of this article may not be appropriate", but it looks OK to me.
The tone doesn't seem inappropriate to me, either.
:Rogermw (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone

message: : Constellations with no alpha include Vela and Puppis, formerly part of Argo Navis, whose alpha is Canopus in Carina.
I like it better without the new comma after "Navis"; paired commata look like a parenthesis, so the reader could see it as 
: Constellations with no alpha include Vela and Puppis (formerly part of Argo Navis) whose alpha is Canopus in Carina.
... and be at least briefly puzzled. —Tamfang (talk) 06:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. I've changed it. Rothorpe (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: a relative clause and a parenthetical comma

message: ===Various arrangements===
I find most of this text dubious or not relevant and reads like original research e,g.
Saying "The "First to Rise in the East" order is used in a number of instances." (Who says this?) The rest of this text appears to be based on this premise. I cannot find any source for this material, so I added a template.  
Should this whole section be removed?
===Problems===
* A general explanation is: "The Manual of Scientific Style: A Guide for Authors, Editors, and Researchers" Edited by Harold Rabinowitz, Suzanne Vogelpg.369
*Most of the text hinges  on one source: Ridpath (1989)
* There is no mention of precession (nor why it is relevant to Thuban). 
* Proper motions changing order is not stated. Even Table of stars with Bayer designations has no cites at all!
* Bayer likely didn't observe these stars but used other sources and tabulated them arbitrarily himself by deduction and assumption. (The JHA article "A Star Catalogue Used by Johannes Bayer" by N. M. Swerdlow (1986)  explains this. This source "roughly following the outline of the figure or by increasing [ecliptical] longitude" pg. 189.) Yet the article under section Bayer designation#Order by magnitude class doesn't allude to this. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I did a bit of tweaking and a lot of rearranging.  Still needs tidying and more citations, but I think it is improved.  Lithopsian (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely improved. Eta, theta, and iota Ori are sort of a puzzle -- clearly not in the same magnitude class as kappa, though apparently Bayer (and Ptolemy) considered them all to be 3rd class, along with several of the pi's. On Bayer's chart, kappa appears the same size as these others and noticeably smaller than Bellatrix and the belt stars. -- Elphion (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The reverse of Bayer's chart lists the stars, grouped by class.  There are clearly only four of the third class: η, θ, ι, and κ.  λ through υ are grouped as fourth class.  No point complaining, Uranometria contains quite a few dodgy things.  I'll see about making the article match without too much speculation and hand-waving.  Maybe put all four third-class stars in the table.  Lithopsian (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Problems

message: * A general explanation is: "The Manual of Scientific Style: A Guide for Authors, Editors, and Researchers" Edited by Harold Rabinowitz, Suzanne Vogelpg.369
*Most of the text hinges  on one source: Ridpath (1989)
* There is no mention of precession (nor why it is relevant to Thuban). 
* Proper motions changing order is not stated. Even Table of stars with Bayer designations has no cites at all!
* Bayer likely didn't observe these stars but used other sources and tabulated them arbitrarily himself by deduction and assumption. (The JHA article "A Star Catalogue Used by Johannes Bayer" by N. M. Swerdlow (1986)  explains this. This source "roughly following the outline of the figure or by increasing [ecliptical] longitude" pg. 189.) Yet the article under section Bayer designation#Order by magnitude class doesn't allude to this. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I did a bit of tweaking and a lot of rearranging.  Still needs tidying and more citations, but I think it is improved.  Lithopsian (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely improved. Eta, theta, and iota Ori are sort of a puzzle -- clearly not in the same magnitude class as kappa, though apparently Bayer (and Ptolemy) considered them all to be 3rd class, along with several of the pi's. On Bayer's chart, kappa appears the same size as these others and noticeably smaller than Bellatrix and the belt stars. -- Elphion (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The reverse of Bayer's chart lists the stars, grouped by class.  There are clearly only four of the third class: η, θ, ι, and κ.  λ through υ are grouped as fourth class.  No point complaining, Uranometria contains quite a few dodgy things.  I'll see about making the article match without too much speculation and hand-waving.  Maybe put all four third-class stars in the table.  Lithopsian (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems