Some thoughts regarding "standards" astronomical articles for
General recommendations
Which names of objects should be used (Bayer, Flamsteed, HD, BD etc.) inside articles? My recommendation:
Stars: if available use the Bayer-designation (e. g. alpha Delphini), otherwise use a designation in this order: Flamsteed (e. g. 15 Del), HD (e. g. HD196867). If none of these is available, use any other designation at your discretion.
Nebulae: Messier-number if available otherwise an NGC-number. If none of these is available, use any other designation at your discretion.
Accuracy of values (how many decimal places?) for brightness. Should the value be rounded or simply truncated? My recommendation: no rounding and only 1 decimal place as the values in the different catalogues vary too much, e. g. 3.8, 12.3, -0.3
Double/Multiple star systems: mag?
Distances: light-years or parsec or both or depending on context?
Which catalogues/sources should be used to get values for brightness, distance, size etc.?
HR (Harvard Revised HR, Bright Star Catalogue BSC): for stars brighter 6.5m (includes spectral type)
HIP (Hipparcos Catalogue) and TYC (Tycho Catalogue): precise positions
PPM (for stars not included in the HR/BSC): includes spectral type
Other catalogues as is deemed necessary
Example: alpha Delphini is listed by various as catalogues as follows:
Simbad: m=3.771
as HR7906 (= Bright Star Catalogue): m=3.77 mit Sp=B9IV
as HD196867: m=3.86 (photovisual magnitude)
as HIP101958: m=3.77 (Johnson V System)
as BD+15 4222: m=3.5 (estimated visual magnitude)
as PPM138790: m=3.8
both HD and PPM claim that this star is B8 instead of B9 (the latter from XEphem)
http://www.alcyone.de/SIT/ is a good starting point as it contains data for the bright stars (6.5m and brighter) from various catalogs (BSC/HR, a Variable Star Catalogue, SAO).
Recommendations concerning constellation
Minimum information for stars mentioned in the "Notable Features"-section of the Constellation-articles. Should there be any minimum information? If yes which?
Spectral class: only e. g. O3 or O3-Ia?
Proper name if available: e. g. Betelgeuse, Rigel
Bayer-designation if available: e. g. alpha Delphini
Distance in light-years if near? If yes, what is "near"?
Should there be a minimum-magnitude for an object to be listed (in order to prevent listmania)?
Values for RA and Dec.: giving here ONE specific value is rather ambiguous as long as it isn't clearly stated which "point in space" is meant. Solutions:
State RA/Dec for the principal star of the constellation, i. e. the Alpha-star (not necessarily the brightest star).
"On meridian": giving the "exact" hour seems to me to be overdoing things. Giving a date would be more than enough for anybody to gauge if a constellation is "up" or not, wouldn't it?
Order of "Bordering Constellations": start at the north and then continue clockwise
Some thoughts regarding "standards" astronomical articles for
General recommendations
Which names of objects should be used (Bayer, Flamsteed, HD, BD etc.) inside articles? My recommendation:
Stars: if available use the Bayer-designation (e. g. alpha Delphini), otherwise use a designation in this order: Flamsteed (e. g. 15 Del), HD (e. g. HD196867). If none of these is available, use any other designation at your discretion.
Nebulae: Messier-number if available otherwise an NGC-number. If none of these is available, use any other designation at your discretion.
Accuracy of values (how many decimal places?) for brightness. Should the value be rounded or simply truncated? My recommendation: no rounding and only 1 decimal place as the values in the different catalogues vary too much, e. g. 3.8, 12.3, -0.3
Double/Multiple star systems: mag?
Distances: light-years or parsec or both or depending on context?
Which catalogues/sources should be used to get values for brightness, distance, size etc.?
HR (Harvard Revised HR, Bright Star Catalogue BSC): for stars brighter 6.5m (includes spectral type)
HIP (Hipparcos Catalogue) and TYC (Tycho Catalogue): precise positions
PPM (for stars not included in the HR/BSC): includes spectral type
Other catalogues as is deemed necessary
Example: alpha Delphini is listed by various as catalogues as follows:
Simbad: m=3.771
as HR7906 (= Bright Star Catalogue): m=3.77 mit Sp=B9IV
as HD196867: m=3.86 (photovisual magnitude)
as HIP101958: m=3.77 (Johnson V System)
as BD+15 4222: m=3.5 (estimated visual magnitude)
as PPM138790: m=3.8
both HD and PPM claim that this star is B8 instead of B9 (the latter from XEphem)
http://www.alcyone.de/SIT/ is a good starting point as it contains data for the bright stars (6.5m and brighter) from various catalogs (BSC/HR, a Variable Star Catalogue, SAO).
Recommendations concerning constellation
Minimum information for stars mentioned in the "Notable Features"-section of the Constellation-articles. Should there be any minimum information? If yes which?
Spectral class: only e. g. O3 or O3-Ia?
Proper name if available: e. g. Betelgeuse, Rigel
Bayer-designation if available: e. g. alpha Delphini
Distance in light-years if near? If yes, what is "near"?
Should there be a minimum-magnitude for an object to be listed (in order to prevent listmania)?
Values for RA and Dec.: giving here ONE specific value is rather ambiguous as long as it isn't clearly stated which "point in space" is meant. Solutions:
State RA/Dec for the principal star of the constellation, i. e. the Alpha-star (not necessarily the brightest star).
"On meridian": giving the "exact" hour seems to me to be overdoing things. Giving a date would be more than enough for anybody to gauge if a constellation is "up" or not, wouldn't it?
Order of "Bordering Constellations": start at the north and then continue clockwise