Talk:Aries (constellation)

message: I have read that Aries was not initially recognized as an independent constellation but, rather, was initially the hindquarters of Taurus. I wonder if anyone else has seen a source that might confirm or deny this? The only references I have are, I believe, a couple of Egyptian sky maps I've seen and Guy Ottewell's Astronomical Companion. If this is true, it would certainly merit mention in the article, no? --QuantumDriverX 05:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hindquarters of Taurus

message: I have read in many astrology books that aries is an indepedent constellation and that in fact Pisces was the hindquarters of Tauras.
:Well, then instead read some astronomy books. There's nothing about Pisces being bum'o'Taur. Besides, I thought astrologers was more preoccupied with Signs, not constellations. Rursus 19:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aries an independent constellation

message: aries is a smaller constellation do you think it should be a constellation?
~~THE EDITOR~~
:It is a constellation, standardized and everything. Rursus 07:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  aries 

message: In my view we should keep astrology out of all the constellation entries, other than a cross-ref for those who are looking for that sort of thing. The Astrology and Religion section of this entry is particularly out of place. I vote to delete. Skeptic2 17:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astrology and religion section 

message: Could someone please help me with how to cite my references?  The addition of the religion section was taken directly from the book Mazzaroth which I found online.  And why was the reference marked as unreliable?  I didn't realize that books were unreliable sources.  Is it because it is out of print, or because a copy has been made available online?  Is it because someone is just trying to keep religion off of Wikipedia?  If you take the time to follow the link and read the book, you would see that the text is gleaned from the book, not a personal view or 'story' as it were.  If you're going to denegrate a source, at least check its validity first.  I'm just trying to help by adding what I've found on the subject.  I thought others might be interested. Bdag 15:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing and Validity 

message: In the first paragraph, two versions of the Aries sign are shown.  With the Unicode sign, I think it would be useful to give also the Unicode code, which is probably Hex 9800 - and likewise on other pages. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unicode number 

message: In the first paragraph, two versions of the Aries sign are shown.  With the Unicode sign, I think it would be useful to give also the Unicode code, which is probably Hex 2648 - and likewise on other pages. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unicode number 

message: Okay, what I'd do is rejig the deep sky objects section. I would lose the second sentence and add a bit on NGC 697,  NGC 972  and NGC 1156. What I would do is arrange in paragraphs - maybe spirals, ellipticals, the galaxy pairs then the remoter ones, or something like that - or brighter and fainter/farther. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I rearranged it in paragraphs - spirals, then "unusual" galaxies, then interacting galaxies. The only elliptical worthy of inclusion is an unusual elliptical, so I grouped it with Segue 2. I also moved Arp 276 to the paragraph on interacting galaxies. You mentioned the need to have more information on NGC 697, NGC 972, and NGC 1156, but I didn't find much information on them and I think the galaxies actually mentioned in the body are more important. :) How does it look now? Keilana|Parlez ici 17:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post GAN - Pre FAC 

message: The lithograph is also available in much better resolution at the Library of Congress website. I might be able to clean this up when I get home from work, but maybe someone else can take care of it while it is still posted on the Wikipedia home page. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aries and Musca Borealis by Jehoshaphat Aspin 

message: Could someone possibly explain the relevance, or even the provenance, of "twin inspectors in China"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it possible that Ashvins, the Hindu mythology divine twin horsemen in the Rigveda, is the intended reference? What the hell, it's only on Main Page. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Martin! I assume you're referring to bit about the marsh and pond inspectors? All I can find is that they were part of the celestial entourage represented through various constellations. A lot of the Chinese constellations had something to do with government officials or people who were in the service of the Emperor. Unfortunately, there's not a lot of detail, Staal and Ridpath are both pretty vague about what exactly they represented. Also, there's no substantiated link that I can find between the Ashvins and the twin Chinese inspectors, sorry! I wish there were. Thanks for your comments - sorry it's vague! :) Keilana|Parlez ici 21:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

text: I see. I had looked at Bond (Chinese constellation) but saw only "the Train of a garment" and "the Left Watch", but no mention of any inspectors, and certainly no twins. I now see "a marsh and pond inspector" and "an official in charge of pasture distribution" in the article, but still no twins. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's still vague which constellations were actually which; the "twins" are sometimes cited as the inspectors (as in Staal, I believe). I'm even a little confused by it all! Keilana|Parlez ici 22:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  At least we now know they were not this type of Chinese twin inspectors. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't even realize you could interpret it like that! That's too funny. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 23:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inscrutable? 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Sidney Hall - Urania's Mirror - Aries and Musca Borealis.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 23, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-02-23. 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) 01:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Sidney Hall - Urania's Mirror - Aries and Musca Borealis.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: I take issue with the above cosy phrase.  Hubble and other space telescopes show there are lots of deep sky objects (beyond the voids of lower resolution) in all directions.  Indeed the universe appears to be basically the same but more spaced out splurge of galaxies the further one looks within all 88 constellations.- Adam37 Talk 16:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I was tempted to rephrase to "few bright/prominent deep sky objects" but the 'are very dim" then makes no sense. So I removed the offending sentence...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The few deep-sky objects.... hmmm.... 

message: Just for example, numbers like absolute and apparent magnitudes and luminosity are either different or inconsistently present across related websites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Arietis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stars_in_Aries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aries_(constellation)
Moore is referenced a lot in this page but nowhere else and the numbers are slightly different, like the difference of one light-year between here and list of... Is there a way to reconcile this or is it simply how the system works?
Based on Anecdotal experience, when readers want info, they look for numbers/keywords and avoid paragraphs. That said, Under the Stars subheading, what information is this page trying to convey? Is it: 1. An overview of Aries with internal links to more specific pages such as the specific stars themselves? Or, 2. An in depth look into the different parts of Aries? If it's the former, All of the star stats should be streamlined. Unless someone is looking for specific information, none of it matters to an audience because that audience isn't given the context as to why the spectral classification is important to their understanding of Aries. If it is the later, it currently reads as a lot of facts with no apparent structure and that's hard to read because the inconsistency throws off the rhythm.
eg.
        α Arietis, called Hamal, is the brightest star in Aries. Its traditional name is derived from the Arabic word for "lamb" or "head of the ram" (ras al-hamal), which references Aries's mythological background.[18] With a spectral class of K2[13] and a luminosity class of III, it is an orange giant with an apparent visual magnitude of 2.00, which lies 66 light-years from Earth.[12][29]
        β Arietis, also known as Sheratan, is a blue-white star with an apparent visual magnitude of 2.64. Its traditional name is derived from "sharatayn", the Arabic word for "the two signs", referring to both Beta and Gamma Arietis in their position as heralds of the vernal equinox. The two stars were known to the Bedouin as "qarna al-hamal", "horns of the ram".[31] It is 59 light-years from Earth.[32] It has a luminosity of 11 L☉ and its absolute magnitude is 2.1.[30] It is a spectroscopic binary star, one in which the companion star is only known through analysis of the spectra.[33] The spectral class of the primary is A5.[13] Hermann Carl Vogel determined that Sheratan was a spectroscopic binary in 1903; its orbit was determined by Hans Ludendorff in 1907. It has since been studied for its eccentric orbit.[33]
       γ Arietis, with a common name of Mesarthim, is a binary star with two white-hued components, located in a rich field of magnitude 8–12 stars. Its traditional name has conflicting derivations. It may be derived from a corruption of "al-sharatan", the Arabic word meaning "pair" or a word for "fat ram".[14][18][34] However, it may also come from the Sanskrit for "first star of Aries" or the Hebrew for "ministerial servants", both of which are unusual languages of origin for star names.[18] Along with Beta Arietis, it was known to the Bedouin as "qarna al-hamal".[31] The primary is of magnitude 4.59 and the secondary is of magnitude 4.68.[30] The system is 164 light-years from Earth.[35] The two components are separated by 7.8 arcseconds,[3] and the system as a whole has an apparent magnitude of 3.9.[13] The primary has a luminosity of 60 L☉ and the secondary has a luminosity of 56 L☉; the primary is an A-type star with an absolute magnitude of 0.2 and the secondary is a B9-type star with an absolute magnitude of 0.4.[30] The angle between the two components is 1°.[3] Mesarthim was discovered to be a double star by Robert Hooke in 1664, one of the earliest such telescopic discoveries. The primary, γ1 Arietis, is an Alpha² Canum Venaticorum variable star that has a range of 0.02 magnitudes and a period of 2.607 days. It is unusual because of its strong silicon emission lines.[33]
I think a lot of this can be moved into individual pages about the stars while keeping the most distinguishing aspects in this page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.13.45.165 (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Discrepencies / Structural Problems.