This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Infobox constellation template. |
|
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Example from Andromeda (constellation)
{{Infobox Constellation | name = Andromeda | abbreviation = And | genitive = Andromedae | symbology = the princess [[Andromeda (mythology)|Andromeda]] | RA = 1 | dec= +40 | areatotal = 722 | arearank = 19th | numberstars = 3 | starname = [[Alpheratz]] (α And) | starmagnitude = 2.1 | meteorshowers = * [[Andromedids]] <br> (Bielids) | bordering = * [[Perseus (constellation)|Perseus]] * [[Cassiopeia (constellation)|Cassiopeia]] * [[Lacerta]] * [[Pegasus (constellation)|Pegasus]] * [[Pisces]] * [[Triangulum]] | latmax = 90 | latmin = 40 | month = November | notes= }}
For an example of the 'notes' field, see Cetus.
What is this parameter supposed to represent? Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 23:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone wishing to be so exact and tryly technical in language as to by necessity have "known" in the slot List of known planets. It makes the template too wide, and the articles bug out by a fat righthand box. We don't actually need the "known" in the slot head, everybody knows that in science, everything is "as much as we know". Said: Rursus ☻ 08:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
There's a thing at the end of the template that says "Best visible at 9.00pm in the month of ***", and encourages you to fill in the appropriate month. Best visible from where? Doesn't the visibility depend on your location? Or am I missing something? Arsia Mons ( talk) 00:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I would like to propose adding a "Pronunciation" field to the Constellation Infobox, then move the pronunciation out of the lead where it tends to clutter up the flow. This has been implemented for the starbox template and it seems to work fine. (See Sirius and Vega for example.) I think it makes sense to insert the pronunciation just after the abbreviation row. Does anybody object to this?— RJH ( talk) 22:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
The number of nearby stars (d < 50 ly) in almost all of the constellation articles are not accurate because there are a lot of nearby stars that are not important and are not in list of stars by constellation. I couldn't find a good source that list all stars up to 50 ly away. Can somebody find a good source and correct the number of nearby stars in almost all of the constellation articles. Also the nearest star that User:Cam corrected in some constellation articles, he only corrected when the nearby stars are less than 20 ly away and are found in list of nearest stars and RECONS 100 nearest star systems. BlueEarth ( talk | contribs) 22:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I will start working on changing the number of nearby stars to within 10 pc and the nearest star in all constellation articles. BlueEarth ( talk | contribs) 18:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
My understanding is that a magnitude such as 3rd corresponds to stars that are fainter than magnitude 2.5 and brighter than 3.5. The {{ Infobox Constellation}} has a field "Stars brighter than 3m" that includes stars in the range between 2.5 and 3.0. Wouldn't it make sense to change the field to say "Stars brighter than 3.0m"? Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 23:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
With regard to this field, it appears that the number may have been inflated by including stars with candidate planets and counting multiple planet systems as multiple stars. As an example, the Taurus (constellation) previously listed four stars. But there are only three stars with candidate planets, and one of the star has two candidates. Because they are only candidates at this point, it is not clear that they can fairly be called "known planets". Also I think it would be a good practice to tag those values with a note listing the actual stars. (I changed the Taurus article to say three and listed the stars in a note.)— RJH ( talk) 23:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The slot family
points to the fringy article
Constellation Family referring to one source only. There's nothing official in this arbitrary "classification", there's nothing astronomical in this emotional classification. I empathically propose that the fringy family
slot is removed. It is prob added by the article creator of that encyclopedically weak article.
Rursus dixit. (
mbork3!)
07:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
The use of IAU SVG images in the template seems pretty much premature. They don't look good when sized down to a width of 250px, se f.ex. Ophiuchus! The text is nearly invisible, the stars are too tiny, and the white squary constellation areas takes over from the constellation, giving a perfectly irrelevant impression for identifying the constellation in the sky. What was the wrong with those image of old that were generated from PP3? Some guy hacked forth nice SVG versions of them, so why were they replaced? Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 09:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Discussion here Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
While we're at it, is it better to have a "point" RA and declination or the ranges, which I would have thought was more logical given constellations are fields and not points on a map? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I vote yes (for accuracy). Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 08:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd say this has only benefits; the current system is akin to describing Canada's position on a globe as a single point. Courcelles 03:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Discussion about possibly deprecating this field: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#Nearest_star_in_constellation_infoboxes. Lithopsian ( talk) 21:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Sizing images in pixels is deprecated because it overrides user defaults, causing problems for readers with poor vision that need larger images, and readers who have hi-res monitors that make our chosen size too small. I changed 250px to 'frameless', which uses the reader's default. If that's too small for the box, we can append, say, 'upright=1.25' after 'frameless', which will make the image 25% larger than reader default and so accommodate all readers. — kwami ( talk) 21:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
The coding for inserting the star maps into the template makes special provisions in two cases for inserting more than one star map into an Infobox.
I've pored over the coding. I've copied it and pasted it into my sandbox, where I separated it out onto successive lines, then shifted the lines to match corresponding bits directly over and under each other. And I cannot make out why it's doing this funny thing. It works for Argo Navis, and it's set up just the same way for Serpens. It must be some "deeper" coding that I'm not prepared to get into. Uporządnicki ( talk) 01:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Argo Navis IAU.svgis a redirect to
Field Book of the Stars-129-Argo Navis.svg. The code should probably be modified to use a case statement, rather than two if statements. That would be clearer and eliminate the fall-through. — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 08:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC).
{{{extra_images}}}
parameter and outsource the choice of extra images to the articles?extra_imagesand adjusting the articles) but I am using a iPad on a train. Tomorrow maybe; let me know what you think — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 09:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I propose removing the parameter "Stars with planets". Reason? It is often outdated, hardly updated. Some articles like Cygnus list 89 stars with planets, even though the Kepler's field of view is within Cygnus, with over 2,000 planets discovered by Kepler, this number must be much larger. I think that it should be removed, new exoplanets are being discovered very quickly, and there aren't sufficient editors to update this parameter. 21 Andromedae ( talk) 23:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
The field "nearest star" has been removed seven years ago, one of the reasons because there was no source about it (See discussion). However, this recent paper does include a table with the nearest star for all constellations at the last pages (i forgot the exact page number). Maybe we could re-add it? 21 Andromedae ( talk) 19:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Infobox constellation template. |
|
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Example from Andromeda (constellation)
{{Infobox Constellation | name = Andromeda | abbreviation = And | genitive = Andromedae | symbology = the princess [[Andromeda (mythology)|Andromeda]] | RA = 1 | dec= +40 | areatotal = 722 | arearank = 19th | numberstars = 3 | starname = [[Alpheratz]] (α And) | starmagnitude = 2.1 | meteorshowers = * [[Andromedids]] <br> (Bielids) | bordering = * [[Perseus (constellation)|Perseus]] * [[Cassiopeia (constellation)|Cassiopeia]] * [[Lacerta]] * [[Pegasus (constellation)|Pegasus]] * [[Pisces]] * [[Triangulum]] | latmax = 90 | latmin = 40 | month = November | notes= }}
For an example of the 'notes' field, see Cetus.
What is this parameter supposed to represent? Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 23:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone wishing to be so exact and tryly technical in language as to by necessity have "known" in the slot List of known planets. It makes the template too wide, and the articles bug out by a fat righthand box. We don't actually need the "known" in the slot head, everybody knows that in science, everything is "as much as we know". Said: Rursus ☻ 08:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
There's a thing at the end of the template that says "Best visible at 9.00pm in the month of ***", and encourages you to fill in the appropriate month. Best visible from where? Doesn't the visibility depend on your location? Or am I missing something? Arsia Mons ( talk) 00:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I would like to propose adding a "Pronunciation" field to the Constellation Infobox, then move the pronunciation out of the lead where it tends to clutter up the flow. This has been implemented for the starbox template and it seems to work fine. (See Sirius and Vega for example.) I think it makes sense to insert the pronunciation just after the abbreviation row. Does anybody object to this?— RJH ( talk) 22:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
The number of nearby stars (d < 50 ly) in almost all of the constellation articles are not accurate because there are a lot of nearby stars that are not important and are not in list of stars by constellation. I couldn't find a good source that list all stars up to 50 ly away. Can somebody find a good source and correct the number of nearby stars in almost all of the constellation articles. Also the nearest star that User:Cam corrected in some constellation articles, he only corrected when the nearby stars are less than 20 ly away and are found in list of nearest stars and RECONS 100 nearest star systems. BlueEarth ( talk | contribs) 22:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I will start working on changing the number of nearby stars to within 10 pc and the nearest star in all constellation articles. BlueEarth ( talk | contribs) 18:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
My understanding is that a magnitude such as 3rd corresponds to stars that are fainter than magnitude 2.5 and brighter than 3.5. The {{ Infobox Constellation}} has a field "Stars brighter than 3m" that includes stars in the range between 2.5 and 3.0. Wouldn't it make sense to change the field to say "Stars brighter than 3.0m"? Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 23:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
With regard to this field, it appears that the number may have been inflated by including stars with candidate planets and counting multiple planet systems as multiple stars. As an example, the Taurus (constellation) previously listed four stars. But there are only three stars with candidate planets, and one of the star has two candidates. Because they are only candidates at this point, it is not clear that they can fairly be called "known planets". Also I think it would be a good practice to tag those values with a note listing the actual stars. (I changed the Taurus article to say three and listed the stars in a note.)— RJH ( talk) 23:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The slot family
points to the fringy article
Constellation Family referring to one source only. There's nothing official in this arbitrary "classification", there's nothing astronomical in this emotional classification. I empathically propose that the fringy family
slot is removed. It is prob added by the article creator of that encyclopedically weak article.
Rursus dixit. (
mbork3!)
07:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
The use of IAU SVG images in the template seems pretty much premature. They don't look good when sized down to a width of 250px, se f.ex. Ophiuchus! The text is nearly invisible, the stars are too tiny, and the white squary constellation areas takes over from the constellation, giving a perfectly irrelevant impression for identifying the constellation in the sky. What was the wrong with those image of old that were generated from PP3? Some guy hacked forth nice SVG versions of them, so why were they replaced? Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 09:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Discussion here Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
While we're at it, is it better to have a "point" RA and declination or the ranges, which I would have thought was more logical given constellations are fields and not points on a map? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I vote yes (for accuracy). Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 08:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd say this has only benefits; the current system is akin to describing Canada's position on a globe as a single point. Courcelles 03:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Discussion about possibly deprecating this field: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#Nearest_star_in_constellation_infoboxes. Lithopsian ( talk) 21:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Sizing images in pixels is deprecated because it overrides user defaults, causing problems for readers with poor vision that need larger images, and readers who have hi-res monitors that make our chosen size too small. I changed 250px to 'frameless', which uses the reader's default. If that's too small for the box, we can append, say, 'upright=1.25' after 'frameless', which will make the image 25% larger than reader default and so accommodate all readers. — kwami ( talk) 21:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
The coding for inserting the star maps into the template makes special provisions in two cases for inserting more than one star map into an Infobox.
I've pored over the coding. I've copied it and pasted it into my sandbox, where I separated it out onto successive lines, then shifted the lines to match corresponding bits directly over and under each other. And I cannot make out why it's doing this funny thing. It works for Argo Navis, and it's set up just the same way for Serpens. It must be some "deeper" coding that I'm not prepared to get into. Uporządnicki ( talk) 01:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Argo Navis IAU.svgis a redirect to
Field Book of the Stars-129-Argo Navis.svg. The code should probably be modified to use a case statement, rather than two if statements. That would be clearer and eliminate the fall-through. — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 08:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC).
{{{extra_images}}}
parameter and outsource the choice of extra images to the articles?extra_imagesand adjusting the articles) but I am using a iPad on a train. Tomorrow maybe; let me know what you think — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 09:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I propose removing the parameter "Stars with planets". Reason? It is often outdated, hardly updated. Some articles like Cygnus list 89 stars with planets, even though the Kepler's field of view is within Cygnus, with over 2,000 planets discovered by Kepler, this number must be much larger. I think that it should be removed, new exoplanets are being discovered very quickly, and there aren't sufficient editors to update this parameter. 21 Andromedae ( talk) 23:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
The field "nearest star" has been removed seven years ago, one of the reasons because there was no source about it (See discussion). However, this recent paper does include a table with the nearest star for all constellations at the last pages (i forgot the exact page number). Maybe we could re-add it? 21 Andromedae ( talk) 19:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)