Template talk:Infobox constellation

message: What is this parameter supposed to represent?  Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 23:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The number of Bayer/Flamsteed designated star in the constellation apparently. Can't see how it's useful. I too would like to know what the "number of main stars" parameter means.--JyriL talk 02:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numberstars parameter 

message: Someone wishing to be so exact and tryly technical in language as to by necessity have "known" in the slot List of known planets. It makes the template too wide, and the articles bug out by a fat righthand box. We don't actually need the "known" in the slot head, everybody knows that in science, everything is "as much as we know". Said: Rursus ☻ 08:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Stupid

message: There's a thing at the end of the template that says "Best visible at 9.00pm in the month of ***", and encourages you to fill in the appropriate month. Best visible from where? Doesn't the visibility depend on your location? Or am I missing something? Arsia Mons (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: These are times of upper culmination, i.e., times when an appropriate point on the sky reaches maximum altitude.  This will not depend on location, assuming that you take 9 PM to be a local time for your location. Spacepotato (talk) 04:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, it would be better to change the name to "upper culmination", because 'best visible' is misleading; a constellation might reach its upper culmination at a time when it would still be invisible in many parts of the world. Right? Arsia Mons (talk) 14:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At upper culmination, the constellation will be visible throughout the world, except for those parts of the world where the constellation can never be seen at all, or where the sun is still up at 9 PM.  Spacepotato (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then would 'most visible' be better than 'best visible'? Best implies quality of vision, which isn't necessarily the case across the world? Arsia Mons (talk) 13:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's best visible in the sense that it's as close to the zenith as possible, and so has minimum obscuring air mass.  Again, this is the case everywhere in the world.  (If the constellation is permanently invisible, the minimum zenith distance is sufficiently large that it is still below the horizon even at its upper culmination.) Spacepotato (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Best visible at"

message: I would like to propose adding a "Pronunciation" field to the Constellation Infobox, then move the pronunciation out of the lead where it tends to clutter up the flow. This has been implemented for the starbox template and it seems to work fine. (See Sirius and Vega for example.) I think it makes sense to insert the pronunciation just after the abbreviation row. Does anybody object to this?—RJH (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no objection so I implemented this change. I'm going to proceed with updates of the constellation articles accordingly.—RJH (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: The number of nearby stars (d < 50 ly) in almost all of the constellation articles are not accurate because there are a lot of nearby stars that are not important and are not in list of stars by constellation. I couldn't find a good source that list all stars up to 50 ly away. Can somebody find a good source and correct the number of nearby stars in almost all of the constellation articles. Also the nearest star that User:Cam corrected in some constellation articles, he only corrected when the nearby stars are less than 20 ly away and are found in list of nearest stars and RECONS 100 nearest star systems. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 22:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest decreasing the distance limit as censuses of nearby stars are quite incomplete even up to 10 pc (32.6 ly.)  Two catalogs in VizieR that might be useful are J/AJ/121/2189 (see also ), which lists nearby stars within 8 pc and with declinations above -35°, and V/101, which lists stars within 10 pc.  These catalogs are both rather old and the RECONS list should be more accurate for sufficiently close stars. Spacepotato (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I would decrease the distance limit to 10 pc (32.6 ly). There is the website for Stellar Database that list stars by distance even beyond the 100th nearest star. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 03:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  An alternative would be to just limit the list (in the infobox) to the nearest 3–5 star systems in each constellation, regardless of their distance. That would keep the list from getting too bloated on some articles.—RJH (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  There isn't any list, it's just a count.  This also means that we need to give the cutoff distance in the infobox caption as otherwise the count is not meaningful. Spacepotato (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Now I'm all done in every constellation articles! BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 00:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nearby stars in infobox 

message: My understanding is that a magnitude such as 3rd corresponds to stars that are fainter than magnitude 2.5 and brighter than 3.5. The  has a field "Stars brighter than 3m" that includes stars in the range between 2.5 and 3.0. Wouldn't it make sense to change the field to say "Stars brighter than 3.0m"? Thanks.—RJH (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Stars brighter than 3.00m" would be even better since brighter than 3.0m means that the magnitude ranges from 2.95 to 3.05. So I'm going to change that in template:infobox constellation.BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 23:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  That works. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stars brighter than 3<sup>m</sup> 

message: The slot family points to the fringy article Constellation Family referring to one source only. There's nothing official in this arbitrary "classification", there's nothing astronomical in this emotional classification. I empathically propose that the fringy family slot is removed. It is prob added by the article creator of that encyclopedically weak article. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it, because consensus will take 2 years to achieve on Wikipedia, and this was such an obvious case of encyclopedic irrelevance. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The source for that concept is perhaps a little surprising: SEDS. Normally the SEDS authors will list at least list a few references, but that one has none. I support the decision to remove the family slot for now.—RJH (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Constellation Family

message: Discussion here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quadrant field 

message: While we're at it, is it better to have a "point" RA and declination or the ranges, which I would have thought was more logical given constellations are fields and not points on a map? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, a range would be much more beneficial to the reader; while a center point tells the general location of the constellation, a range can also help tell a reader the general size and shape without the reader's having to read the body of the article. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Add an apparent diameter parameter. Can  be made to support apparent diameter? -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't it be better to tweak the fields to be ranges rather than points plus diameters? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps both then? The apparent diameter gives an approximate areal size for the constellation giving readers a ready simple value, and could then be directly transferred to the SKY template, were SKY modified to be able to support that (it'd be more useful that the current third value of "distance" which was originally proposed to be used for scaling the viewing area. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Ranges would be better, as it gives some idea of how large the constellation is. Diameter is problematic because they aren't circular. Consistency across all the constellation articles is perhaps more important. Modest Genius talk 14:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: To add to this, diameter would also cause problems about where in the constellation to measure from. Do we take the average diameter, or the max diameter? Range eliminates this problem. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, rather than diameter we have constellation area already within the infobox. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Looking at this, everyone who has commented appears to support a range...so will look at infobox parameter. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

text: Duh, looking at the template...we can use range anyway....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think once the other discussion on WT:AST achieves consensus, I'll start rolling this out (since if I start now, we'll just have to make another round of edits later if the other proposal achieves consensus too. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh - may as well add the sections while we're at it....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  RA/declension 

message: I vote yes (for accuracy). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at this, everyone who has commented appears to support a range...so will look at infobox parameter. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

text: Duh, looking at the template...we can use range anyway....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think once the other discussion on WT:AST achieves consensus, I'll start rolling this out (since if I start now, we'll just have to make another round of edits later if the other proposal achieves consensus too. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh - may as well add the sections while we're at it....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: So proposing - shall we move to ranges rather than point in the infobox? Yes/no?

message: Discussion about possibly deprecating this field: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#Nearest_star_in_constellation_infoboxes. Lithopsian (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nearest star 

message: Sizing images in pixels is deprecated because it overrides user defaults, causing problems for readers with poor vision that need larger images, and readers who have hi-res monitors that make our chosen size too small. I changed 250px to 'frameless', which uses the reader's default. If that's too small for the box, we can append, say, 'upright=1.25' after 'frameless', which will make the image 25% larger than reader default and so accommodate all readers. — kwami (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image size