Talk:List of stars in Andromeda

message: We should make the star table wider by adding more data into it in every opened articles in the list of stars by constellations and make it like the other web sites, such as star catalogues, right ascension, declination, absolute magnitude and spectral type. Currently, the table only contain Bayer designations, Flamsteed designations for some constellations, star name icons and proper names, apparent magnitudes, distance, comments, and sometimes right ascension and declination before  aparent magnitude, distance, but after the names/designations. The figure of table from left to right is shown here:
Name	Designation	Designation	Designation	Designation	Location	Location	Magnitude	Magnitude	Distance	Distance	Sp. class	Notes
Name	B          	F          	HD         	HIP        	RA      	Dec     	vis.     	abs.     	Ly      	Pc      	Sp. class	Notes
Thank you alot for making the new table style in the list of star by constellation articles, from Fornax to Lyra as of 23:45 UTC, December 26, 2006, but you should add one more thing, "distance in parsec". For more information about the distance, look in Talk:List of stars in Lyra and Talk:List of stars in Vulpecula. Cosmium 00:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the thanks. I was pondering if I should add also distance in parsecs. But since parsecs are not much used in popular texts (incl. Wikipedia), and since the parsecs column doesn't add much new information (just the same values of light year distance divided by 3.26), I didn't see any compelling reason why parsec distances should be included. Keeping the tables as light as possible is in my opinion more important. I included the absolute magnitude since it tells how bright the star actually is and computing it is more complex operation (although some Hipparcos distances are quite meaningless because of small parallaxes). Anyway, after I've incorporated the star notes into my database, updating the tables should be considerably easier.--JyriL talk 13:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wider Table

message: Etymologies listed in this table don't fit into the new table, so please add them in respective star articles with sources.--JyriL talk 16:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they're all in. Might want to delete some of the rarer alternates in e.g. Mirach. kwami 18:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymologies

message: List of stars in Andromeda → List of stars in the constellation Andromeda — "Andromeda" is highly ambiguous, since it's the name of a constellation and of a widely known galaxy, so a less ambiguous name should be used. — 76.66.195.63 (talk) 02:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support. Definite improvement. I also notice that Andromeda is a long standing disambiguation page, supporting the claim that the current title is ambiguous. Andrewa (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Any additional comments:
I think that there is no possibility to make any ambiguity: if sometime a list of stars known in the Andromeda Galaxy, hits title will be List of stars of the Andromeda Galaxy. Furthermore, all other 87 lists of stars by constellations are "List of stars in...", why this list has to be different? --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 11:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move 2008

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support. Definite improvement. I also notice that Andromeda is a long standing disambiguation page, supporting the claim that the current title is ambiguous. Andrewa (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments:
I think that there is no possibility to make any ambiguity: if sometime a list of stars known in the Andromeda Galaxy, hits title will be List of stars of the Andromeda Galaxy. Furthermore, all other 87 lists of stars by constellations are "List of stars in...", why this list has to be different? --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 11:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: The long harangues star name variants don't serve any good purpose in star lists. Most of those name variants are not used any more. As far as I can tell from the source, Quinta Struthionum is Knobel's unmotivated translation to Latin of Khamis al Namet. This is wrong, and no indication that "names" such as Quinta Struthionum were ever used. The main flood of Arabic star names occurred in the immediate aftermath of Reconquista especially around 1250 (see the Alfonsine tables) when Almagest was translated into Latin. They kept the Arabic star names without translation, but generally with a certain transcription obfuscation, such as Zuban aš-Šamaliyy (?) becoming Zubeneschemali. Original star and constellation names of Antiquity from before the Islamic Golden Age were generally Greek, Canopus/Kanobos, Arcturus/Arktouros, while the Latinization mostly regarded the constellations. Knobels translation Quinta Struthionum is from 1895. It should not be regarded as a genuine star name. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Long list of star names

message: All other such lists of stars in the respective constellations are named "List of stars in [constellation]"; this seems to be the one exception. It is unclear why. Any thoughts? Regards, RJH (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It was moved in 2008, following a requested move. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 08:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: List of stars in Andromeda

message: What is the source of the position data for the stars in the table?  The legend says that it is Epoch 2000.0, but it isn't.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlj18 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Position Data 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Support, the shorter form is still unambiguous. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey