Talk:Microscopium

message: As far as I can tell (Google, Starry Night, Bayer/Flamsteed) the Greek letters Kappa, Lambda, and Mu were skipped (possibly because they got "moved" to another constellation when the IAU redefined constellation boundries, when was it, 1930 or so).  Beta does exist, but it is fainter than all the rest, breaking the usual pattern of asigning Greek letters in magnitude order.--Todd 01:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no 'usual pattern' of assigning Bayer letters in magnitude order. In this case the letters are clearly assigned in order of RA, at least in the northern half of the constellation. Skeptic2 (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bayer-designated stars in Microscopium 

message: Note DD Mic ads at here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Bookmark

message: As per 's request, here's some suggestions:
* "Given that its brightest stars are of fifth magnitude, the constellation is invisible to the naked eye in areas with polluted skies" - could link to light pollution, and comment on what level of light pollution is needed before it can't be seen.
::linked and foot note with bortle scale added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The article highlights that since the death of Danie Overbeek, apparently many long period variables are not being observed regularly and hence there are gaps in the coverage of their curves. The article doesn't explain why this is important (though I can guess it is because some long period variables are changing and hence it is extremely valuable to catch them in action as they contribute to knowledge of stellar evolution....?) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I like trying to drop big fat hints in articles that everyone can do science - alot of astronomy is helped greatly by amateur astronomers, especially monitoring of variables...these pesky Miras...every constellation has 'em..but are there enough eyes watching them? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

text: I've linked to Metallicity and reworded to "The system has a low metallicity" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

text: nice find! added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: This goes on the Main Page on October 31, with the sentence in question in the blurb.
So what does it mean? "Its stars are faint and hardly visible from most of the non-tropical Northern Hemisphere." Magnitude +4.68 can be called "faint and hardly visible", but that would also be true in the Southern Hemisphere. If you're far enough north, southern stars don't rise above the horizon, and stars near the horizon are harder to see. But the article allows for that when saying "The whole constellation is visible to observers south of latitude 45°N" (meaning visible at the right time on a summer night). And it doesn't say "Some stars are faint", it says "Its stars ...". So part of the constellation would be visible in that sense, to 55-60°N. So it's faint everywhere, and none of the stars are visible at all in the Arctic. But in the continental U.S., England and the populated part of Canada, at least some of the stars are about as visible as they are further south. So why "most of the non-tropical Northern Hemisphere"? Art LaPella (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I just read the page, and had the same reaction -- then I saw your comment.  Southern stars aren't visible from very far north.  But why should that be in the lede? The Big Dipper article does not state in the lede -- or anywhere -- that it's not visible from far south latitudes.  And the Mount Everest article doesn't mention in the lede that the mountain is not visible from Australia.  Too bad nobody fixed this. — Lawrence King (talk) 09:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  The comparison with Mt Everest makes no sense. Fact is, most of our readers are in the Northern Hemisphere, so pointing out a far southern constellation is not visible makes sense. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Except that most of our readers aren't in the Arctic. Art LaPella (talk) 14:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northern Hemisphere 

message: Ever constellation article includes a graphic at the very top showing that constellation's stars.  Most of them connect the stars with green lines to show the asterism -- like the lion in Leo or the dipper in the Big Dipper or the fish in Piscis Austrinus.
But Microscopium's graphic just shows the stars.  It doesn't connect them with green lines in the shape of a microscope (or any other shape).  Why not? — Lawrence King (talk) 09:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good question. Since before my time the constellation articles have all used the standard IAU charts. But I see there are some others that do use the lines. Feel free to edit and replace the IAU chart if you like. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no green lines in graphic?