Talk:Asterism (astronomy)

message: While "Toothpick" does seem to be an appropriately descriptive nickname for Kemble's Cascade, I wonder if it is a name that is much used or recognized in the astronomical community. For example, while the "Sickle" and the "Teapot" are known to virtually all amateur astronomers and a Google search for the two terms "Brocchi's Cluster" and coathanger returns nearly 500 results, a similar search for the two terms "Kemble's Cascade" and toothpick returns no results at all. Can anyone find some usage examples of the name Toothpick referring to Kemble's Cascade?
: Done B00P (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Done" what? It's still there without citations!? ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 07:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All I found by googling was: 1. questioning "toothpick" for "Kemble's Cascade" or 2. copies of the WP article. I'll address Anons issue. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 08:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I misread! Sorry B00P! The article doesn't allege that it is called toothpick, it describes it as such, which is quite legitimate. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 08:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toothpick? 

message: To me, this is merely the northern half of the Diamond of Virgo. However, another user wanted a more explicit mention of it and added a sentence which virtually repeated what I had written. But while doing so, he removed the link to the article "Spring Triangle" that I had cleverly inserted. Too "cleverly," I guess, because he never saw it.
I have removed his sentence, but made both the mention  and the link quite obvious. This way
# the writing is tighter,
# the mention is clear, and
# the link is restored. 
We aim to please, and I hope this satisfies everyone.
B00P 01:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done B00P (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spring Triangle 

message: "Winter triangle" redirects to this article, but there is no mention to the winter triangle in this article... :S
*It's the top half of the Egyptian X, but I'll try to make it more explicit.B00P 21:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done B00P (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  and the winter asterism? 

message: Not sure if something this minor really needs a comment, but I changed the bit about magnitudes in the Background section. It had said that "Thus 1st magnitude stars are the very brightest", which of course isn't true, as can be seen on the magnitude link itself. The text may have been referring to the stars in the listed asterisms in particular, but it made it sound like no star could have a magnitude less than 1.
Garet-Jax 22:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, of course. However, I was trying to keep it as simple as possible, and even stars with negative magnitudes are referred to as "1st Magnitude." I wasn't happy with the previous wording, but never got around to fixing it. To be honest, I'm not entirely satisfied with yours, either, and I expect that I'll reword it, but, in doing so, shall include your point. Thanks for the help and the "push." B00P 06:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Done B00P (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magnitude note 

message: The Milky Way galaxy is named after the blurry white band that can be seen across the sky. (Note that the MW band is different from the MW galaxy: The Sun and all other discernible stars are members of the MW galaxy, but not members of the band.) Does this band count as an asterism? SpectrumDT 13:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and no. As the Galaxy is a gravitationally-bound star group, it fails that test, which is why I've left it out. However, the point you make has some validity, so I'll write it up and give it its own section. B00P 07:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a d*rned big one indeed! Thousands and thousand of stars! Rursus 21:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Done B00P (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the Milky Way band an asterism? 

message: This seems like de-facto POV, we can't help it but it should probably be made clear.  Who's seasons (N or S hemisphere) and at what latitude?
:And this seems like Attention Deficit Disorder by the unregistered poster who somehow missed the very first "point to be remembered." B00P 09:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done B00P (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Large seasonal asterisms" 

message: The entry for Libra was already the longest of those for Former Asterisms when three additional sentences regarding its etymology were posted. As the meaning of the α and β stars' names had been included from the beginning, this new information overbalanced the text. It is also inappropriate for this article, belonging, instead, to the one on the constellation itself.
I have, therefore, moved the lines from "Asterism" to "Libra."
B00P (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done B00P (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libra 

message: Whether visually pleasing or not, there are now 16 references, but there should be circa 16 more. There seems to be a few errors in the text:
* Lozenge is generally regarded to be βγξν Dra, not βγξ Dra + ι Her,
* Circlet of Psc seems to be missing TX Psc, that is generally mentioned in the lists because it is a C-N carbon star,
* The article is not consistent on the star naming, sometimes using "α, β, γ" where acc2 WP standard there should be "Alpha, Beta, Gamma", foremost because that makes it easier to click on the link leading to the star in question — one may be stunned by the number of single star articles that exist on Wikipedia,
* By some kind of common agreement, constellations and open star clusters are asterisms, so the sections Former asterisms and Non-asterisms needs fact check.
Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 08:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Definition of asterism: I'm not sure, but I get the impression that the common view on asterism is that they're star patterns. Possibly obvious star patterns, but not star patterns that aren't constellations. Besides constellations aren't star patterns after 1930, but they're areas of the sky. So in modern view it might be that constellations can be regarded as asterisms or set of asterisms with their individual/official sky territory. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 09:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Update: just 16 references

message: Wikipedia's coverage of this topic frustrates and disappoints me.  The POV is astonishingly limited.  My purpose in searching for constellations on Wikipedia was to learn about the patterns in the stars that cultures around the world have identified.  Now, I don't expect to find exactly what I'm looking for on the first page I try; however, if the page at "Constellation" has to be about what the IAU defines to be "Constellations," I expect it to be open about that POV from the beginning and give me (as a laywoman) some reason to respect that.  I also expect to see at the top, the line "This article is about the areas of the sky defined by the International Astronomical Union.  For visual groupings of stars as seen from Earth, see "Asterism (astronomy.)"  Because in common usage, 'constellation' can mean 'asterism.'  Claiming that's officially or technically wrong is not NPOV.
Now, asterisms don't come from the sky; they come from people and cultures.  Why, then, do the articles discuss asterisms as matter-of-fact?  There are almost no references to the people and cultures that created them!  Yet the article is all about Western asterisms of Greek origin.  It's like saying these are the normal asterisms, and asterisms from other cultures are inherently different.  What crap!
And the introduction to the article "Chinese Constellations" finds it necessary to explain why the Chinese set differs from the IAU set.  Do you think so many folks believe the Chinese constellations should be identical to the Western constellations that your overall description of the Chinese constellations should come from the point of view that the IAU constellations are the 'right' ones?  It's just as bad a POV violation as it would be to explain, on the IAU constellation page, that the IAU constellations are different than the constellations developed by the Chinese, because the West made up constellations independently of China!  
After some more digging, I think I *may* be able to find what I'm looking for at the astrology pages, or the pages for astronomy of different cultures, but those pages are rightfully focused on their respective topics, and not what I am looking for.
By the way, your claim that what you call 'asterisms' are not constellations is pretty hard to swallow - my computer doesn't think that 'asterism' is even a word.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.156.150 (talk) 04:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Emergency 

message: Hey guys, just dropping in to say that I fixed someone's spelling of "triangle" in the article. The word "triangle" is now properly spelled. No need to thank me.
~The Speller  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.116.15.5 (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelled Triangle Wrong 

message: I have changed the years of birth and death of Ptolemy, in order to make them match with the article about the astronomer. I'm actually not sure of the correct figures (I guess nobody is, for the article mentions "circa"), but I found literature with more than one set of dates. If someone has a more trustworthy reference with different years, please make the correction in both articles. Claudio M Souza (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ptolemy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Asterism (astronomy). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100214151026/http://seds.org:80/Maps/Const/asterism.html to http://seds.org/maps/const/asterism.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090523044633/https://www.space.com/spacewatch/night_sky_040716.html to http://www.space.com/spacewatch/night_sky_040716.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110512172031/http://hsci.cas.ou.edu/exhibits/exhibit.php?exbgrp=3&exbid=20&exbpg=13 to http://hsci.cas.ou.edu/exhibits/exhibit.php?exbgrp=3&exbid=20&exbpg=13
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121127062119/http://www.nightskyatlas.com:80/asterisms.jsp to http://www.nightskyatlas.com/asterisms.jsp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified