This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Boötes article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Can someone insert the International Phonetic Alphabet pronunciation down please? Thanks, Matt 24.132.30.91 ( talk) 15:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Is the diaeresis in Boötes part of the official IAU nomenclature? If so, shouldn't this article be at that spelling? Psmith 10:36, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I must remark, the star charts for the constellations are beautiful... Ed Sanville 15:38, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"The one deep sky object in Boötes is NGC 5466" This is misleading. It implies that (a) Boötes has exactly one deep sky object, and (2) that there is an authority somewhere who points at objects and says "yes, that is a deep sky object", and "no, that one is not". I have revised the wording to make this phrase less misleading. -- B.d.mills 09:18, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
" It is a zero magnitude red giant and is the third brightest star as seen from Earth in the night sky"
Is it worth pointing out that Arcturus appears to the naked eye as only the 4th brightest star in the night sky, rather than the 3rd?
Alpha Centauri A and B are too close to each other for the naked eye to resolve them as separate stars, even when they are furthest from each other in their orbits, and the human eye percieves them as a single star, with an apparent magnitude of around -0.27, 0.23 magnitudes brighter than Arcturus (nearly 25% brighter). Richard B 14:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
What is the purpose of this section? As far as I can tell, this is just someone's idea of another way to see the constellation Bootes and Canes Venatici. I can't find and historical account or mythology or any other source that views Bootes as a "herdsman with a pipe" specifically. I believe this section should either be deleted or explain why the alternate "connet-the-dots" view described here as such. Tahlana 19:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Reverted edit by 72.235.157.252, 66.166.186.57, 24.205.54.224, 68.164.68.244, identified as vandalism to last revision by SieBot.--Bay Flam 06:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The template mentions both the January bootids (non-existing article) and the Quadrantids. I suspect these meteor showers are identical. Is that correct? / 129.142.71.166 ( talk) 14:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I can see that there is a section in the article for the named stars in the constellation, but I think we should include names of all the stars, including HD 132406. 71.58.29.180 ( talk) 00:11, 4 December 2008
Right - I guess the next question is leaving the stars organised by spectral type or rejigging to doubles and variables.....or what? I have the Wagman book which can place star depictions on the constellation which breaks up the listy aspect of it. I haven't added it yet till we get the layout fixed. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Right - a bit of distance in space and time and some dabbling in other constellation articles.....{u|Keilana}} I think I'm gonna have a play with this - then it can be co-nommed for GA if you want. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 08:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Sidney Hall - Urania's Mirror - Bootes, Canes Venatici, Coma Berenices, and Quadrans Muralis.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 28, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-06-28. 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) 02:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The wiki entry for ULAS J1342+0928 says it is a quasar located in the Boötes constellation. Should this quasar be mentioned here on the Boötes page? J Mark Morris ( talk) 19:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Boötes article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Can someone insert the International Phonetic Alphabet pronunciation down please? Thanks, Matt 24.132.30.91 ( talk) 15:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Is the diaeresis in Boötes part of the official IAU nomenclature? If so, shouldn't this article be at that spelling? Psmith 10:36, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I must remark, the star charts for the constellations are beautiful... Ed Sanville 15:38, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"The one deep sky object in Boötes is NGC 5466" This is misleading. It implies that (a) Boötes has exactly one deep sky object, and (2) that there is an authority somewhere who points at objects and says "yes, that is a deep sky object", and "no, that one is not". I have revised the wording to make this phrase less misleading. -- B.d.mills 09:18, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
" It is a zero magnitude red giant and is the third brightest star as seen from Earth in the night sky"
Is it worth pointing out that Arcturus appears to the naked eye as only the 4th brightest star in the night sky, rather than the 3rd?
Alpha Centauri A and B are too close to each other for the naked eye to resolve them as separate stars, even when they are furthest from each other in their orbits, and the human eye percieves them as a single star, with an apparent magnitude of around -0.27, 0.23 magnitudes brighter than Arcturus (nearly 25% brighter). Richard B 14:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
What is the purpose of this section? As far as I can tell, this is just someone's idea of another way to see the constellation Bootes and Canes Venatici. I can't find and historical account or mythology or any other source that views Bootes as a "herdsman with a pipe" specifically. I believe this section should either be deleted or explain why the alternate "connet-the-dots" view described here as such. Tahlana 19:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Reverted edit by 72.235.157.252, 66.166.186.57, 24.205.54.224, 68.164.68.244, identified as vandalism to last revision by SieBot.--Bay Flam 06:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The template mentions both the January bootids (non-existing article) and the Quadrantids. I suspect these meteor showers are identical. Is that correct? / 129.142.71.166 ( talk) 14:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I can see that there is a section in the article for the named stars in the constellation, but I think we should include names of all the stars, including HD 132406. 71.58.29.180 ( talk) 00:11, 4 December 2008
Right - I guess the next question is leaving the stars organised by spectral type or rejigging to doubles and variables.....or what? I have the Wagman book which can place star depictions on the constellation which breaks up the listy aspect of it. I haven't added it yet till we get the layout fixed. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Right - a bit of distance in space and time and some dabbling in other constellation articles.....{u|Keilana}} I think I'm gonna have a play with this - then it can be co-nommed for GA if you want. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 08:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Sidney Hall - Urania's Mirror - Bootes, Canes Venatici, Coma Berenices, and Quadrans Muralis.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 28, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-06-28. 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) 02:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The wiki entry for ULAS J1342+0928 says it is a quasar located in the Boötes constellation. Should this quasar be mentioned here on the Boötes page? J Mark Morris ( talk) 19:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)