Talk:Sagittarius (constellation)

message: You should add a responding datas into the Infobox in every, 88 constellation articles, such as Number of Bayer-Flamsteed stars under the number of stars, the number of bright stars (magnitude < 3), and the number of nearby stars (distance < 100 ly). For the brightest stars in the editing page, put 'brightest' before "starname" with no space; also every others with the same thing depending what it say in the three parenthesis mode. Put the nearest stars in the constellation under "neareststarname" and "stardistance"-with a parenthesis like apparent magnitude of brightest star. You should put every distances in the blanks in the distance column in light years except for the unknown in every constellations with the table of stars even under the red icons and lots of Flamsteed and Bayer stars like apparent magnitudes. For the constellations that is already done, even though, you must change the responding datas to the absolute number under the number of nearby stars except for the unknown distance for some of the stars unless if it is right. Rarely, the nearest stars also, you could check to see if it is right, and if you want, you could check every other new datas and you could check the "number of bright stars". Cosmium 02:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  For every constellations 

message: Sagittarius, according to the article, is Greek, Saturn is a Roman deity whose Greek equivalent is Cronus. Which is correct?--Jcvamp (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Son of Saturn 

message: There is another (and I believe more widely-accepted) origin story: the poet Hyginus asserted that the stars are in fact Crotus the Hunter, son of Eupheme and companion to the nine Muses.  After his death, the Muses asked Zeus to place him in the sky  -- 141.156.188.132 (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crotos the Hunter 

message: I've just come to this article to point out that there is a new feature found in the constellation... Somewhat creepy if you've watched this year's series of Doctor Who. They bring it up in the comments section.
*http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/06/image-of-the-day-the-ghost-snake-of-the-milky-way.html 62.252.178.158 (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feature found in the constellation 

message: I have just added a new article on the Stars of Sagittarius. the name is gliese 745. it is a binary system with two red dwarfs. please help.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clammybells (talk • contribs) 05:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  gliese 745 

message: Picked up by the "Big Ear" in 1977, the wow signal is believed to be from the Sagittarius constellation, worthy of a mention? 2.127.84.37 (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Wow Signal 

message: Seriously, we can't include a decent traditional illustration depicting the figure the constellation...sorry, "asterism"...is supposed to portray? I never would have learned to recognize the constellations as a child without the visual image to overlay the stars to make them make sense. Maybe some people can be shown a cluster of stars with random lines drawn between them and be able to recognize them later when looking at the sky. That's the whole point of constellations, that they are supposed to form an IMAGE. It is much easier to remember them later when you already know that this part is supposed to be his "arm", this part is supposed to be his "bow", etc. Otherwise it just looks like a bunch of stars, even with random lines drawn between them. Even I can't tell how this is supposed to be a centaur with a bow just by looking at the pictures provided, not easily, anyway (and I used to be quite familiar with it even). Sure, when someone points out a constellation, you have to use your imagination to visualize the figure, but you usually have that persons help to "see" the image, and a person shouldn't have to rely on their imagination to follow a Wikipedia article. Maybe to the sort of person who would be inclined to write an article like this, it would be embarrassing to fall back on quaint and simplistic practices such as actually viewing the "asterism" as an image, rather than a distinct star pattern, but I personally think it would be a great help to many people. And yes, I realize there IS one image on the page depicting "The Archer". However, it is very old, and basically worthless. What it really needs is to have one of these photos showing the lines drawn between the stars, with a "ghost" outline of the the image overlaid on top of it, so people can interpret it easier. Part of why this bothers me is that I glanced at a couple other pages on constellations before I came here, and they didn't appear to have any illustrations of their figure either. It's possible that they have one down in the body of the text somewhere, but personally, I think it ought to be at the very top..45Colt 18:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  A proper illustration 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Sidney Hall - Urania's Mirror - Sagittarius and Corona Australis, Microscopium, and Telescopium.png will be appearing as picture of the day on June 26, 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-06-26. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Sidney Hall - Urania's Mirror - Sagittarius and Corona Australis, Microscopium, and Telescopium.png]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: This 4th magnitude asterism is not as notable and not well known as some of the more common and brighter ones (e.g. Orion's Belt and The Big Dipper in the northern skies and the Teapot in this constellation which is best visible in the southern hemisphere). The article is not as long as other asterisms in terms of page length. Iggy (Swan) 19:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently not even notable enough to be mentioned in this article, shock horror.  At the very least, it probably should be.  Things are complicated by the use of the name Terebellum for the star ω Sagittarii, previously rather obscure but now formalised by the IAU.  Lithopsian (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Terebellum ("The Drill"), with Vexillium ("The Banner"), was one of two new constellations introduced around 1230 by Michael Scot in his Liber introductorius and his Liber de signis et ymaginibus celi. More on Michael Scot's constellations can be found here (cf. Sequence D: Michael Scot). AstroLynx (talk) 07:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If the article could be expanded to discuss the obsolete constellation, there might be enough information to make it worthwhile.  Would still slip very nicely into Sagittarius (constellation), though.  Lithopsian (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

text: I've gone ahead and implemented the merger. --Trialpears (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Terebellum (astronomy)]] merge