Talk:Canis Major

message: Uuurgh! What are the ABSOULTE Magnitudes of Muliphem and Furud?! I can only find the apparent magnitudes, and I've been searching for half an hour!
My understanding is that Sirius is called the "dog star," not because of the hot, dog days of summer, but because it is part of the Canis Major, one of Orion's hunting dogs. Please help me with this.  Thanks. (Douglas Arvidson, author of the Sci-Fi/adventure novel, THE EYE OF THE STALLION)
:"Hot, dog days of summer" seems too modern a source, but who knows? Otherwise read Poeticon astronomicon (an external link to an English translation at the end), I don't remember the why of "dog star", but I believe it's therein. Said: Rursus 16:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ?

message: Can you add a table list of stars in this constellation with the columns Bayer designations{BD}, Flamsteed designations{F}, Names and other designations, right ascension, declination, apparent magnitude{App Mag}, absolute magnitude{Abs Mag}, distance (Ly), spectral type, and comments
in order of apparent magnitudes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rursus (talk • contribs) 19:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding Star Table List

message: ...in antiquity. I removed an unnecessary speculation, saying that "(or perhaps only the star Sirius)" regarding what the Romans and the Greeks regarded as the dog of Orion. We nowadays make a distinction between the constellation and the brightest stars, since for us such a distinction makes sense, we have a myth and we have a lot of physical information about the real stars. For the people in the antiquity, only the myths were available. They generally regarded the brightest star as the representative of the constellation myth. Said: Rursus ☻ 19:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sirius equalled Canis Maior

message: See here and here and here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, Z Canis Majoris looks really interesting, and worthy of inclusion, as does HD 45677 (FS CMa). There's several others that maybe would be good to mention, but as you mentioned, it's already a bit long, and these are the only two that I think really need something about them. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok - yes both look interesting at first look of refs - will try to buff for DYK and then summarize for constellation article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bookmark.... 

message: Minor comment on refs: to be included in the "references" list (and cited Harvard-style), the criterion appears to be that the source is a published monograph. However there are several books in the notes that don't follow this principle. For example notes 21,23, and possibly 78, 79, 80 (maybe some others). Have i missed hte pattern here? Is something else determining how the referencing is being done?hamiltonstone (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The criterion is if I use more than one page from a book. Then I will list it at bottom and cite different pages used when used. If I use a only 1 or two (adjacent) pages of a book, will just leave in body of notes. Some of this predated my involvement  maybe....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, OK. Just as long as there is a consistent system. I was figuring that otherwise it would get asked at FAC :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 12:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference consistency 

message: * The article uses at least 4 different units of distance: metre, light-year (ly), astronomical unit and parsec (pc).  I noticed one conversion between ly and pc but in general the reader is left to fend for himself or herself.  Are so many different units really needed?  And if they are indeed considered necessary, it would help to convert all distances to metres or light-years or something that the reader can understand.  
* And while I'm here, what is the reason for not following the IAU's recommendation of symbol for the astronomical unit? Shouldn't it be au (not AU)? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The former point is certainly true; I'll work on it. (Unfortunately, this is a common -- if understandable -- issue with astronomy articles.) The latter is one that certainly doesn't have consensus in the current active discussion at Talk:Astronomical unit. (And focusing on consistency within articles such as your former point is, in my opinion, a much better use of editors' time that harmonizing the symbol used for astronomical unit across Wikipedia.) —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 19:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: @Dondervogel 2, which units in this article would you change? Generally we use appropriate units to help the reader get a sense of scale. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good question.  Taking a quick look through the text I think the unit most commonly used is ly, which is good because lay readers are more likely to be familiar with ly than au or pc.  Why not provide conversions to ly throughout? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Choosing one of light year and parsec is certainly a good idea. But AU and ly are used for very different scales. In fact, looking at the article, the only use of AU is for describing the orbit of a stellar system and the size of a dust cocoon, both of which are probably most-sensibly described in AU. A conversion to m or light-years (not sure which is most helpful -- probably ly at least for 13,000 AU) would certainly help. And pc is never used without a ly conversion. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 20:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

text: I've done some cleanup. I don't actually see any occurrences of m (except a km I just added as a conversion of 50 AU because I don't think converting 50 AU to ly is terribly helpful; This issue -- the very different scales involved in astronomy -- is why we have the proliferation of units to begin with). Could you point me to the use of m? "m" is hard to search for! —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 20:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that pc is still used in the infobox, but keeping all constellation infoboxes the same unit-wise makes sense to me, and the two units are less disruptive in the table than in prose. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 20:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  The lede ends with "radius of a mere 5 km".  I guess that one does not require conversion.  I don't know if m is used elsewhere. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on multiple units of distance 

message: I was looking up the largest star in out galaxy. VY Canis Majoris. When you go to this or many other stars in Wiki, a depiction of that segment of sky and constellation is shown. However it would be helpful if there was a marker or circle or something showing which star is the article referring. Not everyone is up on their Greek alphabet and in the case of VY, I don't see it shown or listed in the picture.
I looked up another star somewhere else and again, I could not find it in the alphabet soup shown on the chart. Just circle the darn thing please. It saves a lot if time wasted searching. Chicago Chilibob (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't labelled in the given (generic) chart because it isn't shown in that chart, because it is far below naked eye visibility.  Nothing to do with Greek letters (it's called VY Canis Majoris, no Greek there), although I suggest you learn to distinguish them because you won't find many stars without knowing them.  Lithopsian (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star identities 

message: While there are good references to the constellation, where is it located in the sky?  I suppose it could be found independently, but it would seem appropriate to do so here, both from the perspective of the Northern and Southern skies.  Thank you. 96.63.53.152 (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It moves!  Or did you mean in relation to other constellations?  I'd have thought that mentioning neighbouring outside of the infobox would be good information, even mentioning very prominent not-quite-neighbouring constellations like Orion.  It is after all, a bunch of stars visible to almost anyone on Earth.  Lithopsian (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location? 

message: *History and mythology > In non-western astronomy: What's "164 Canis Majoris"?--Jarodalien (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Baffled - will look later. Gotta run now. Ping me again if I don't look again in next 48 hours Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Good pick up - it is Nu1 Canis Majoris and changed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo or?