Main | Talk |
Astronomical objects ( Talk) |
Eclipses ( Talk) | Article ratings | Image review | Popular pages | Members | Wikidata |
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Constellations Task Force
Astronomy: Constellations Project‑class | ||||||||||
|
Proposal: Two Hemispheres star maps for finding constellations? Preferrably SVG:s which are used using the tech used for the {{ star nav}} template. Said: Rursus 19:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Prio column and some reasonable values added. Said: Rursus 21:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I have created a first draft of a replacement template for Template:Infobox Constellation at User:Dr. Submillimeter/Sandbox. I'm currently not 100% satisfied with the infobox, but I would like to bring it forward for discussion.
Among the changes in the proposed infobox:
Additional comments are welcome. (I'm not yet satisfied with it myself.) Dr. Submillimeter 16:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
DEMO: |
---|
The mythology sections for the constellations is strongly Eurocentric. It implies that only Europeans had constellation mythology, which is certainly not the case.
It would be useful to have some discussion of the following mythologies if such information exists - this list is just a sample and is not complete by any means:
Such mythological discussion would be especially useful for fleshing out the Southern hemisphere constellations, which in some cases make the false assertion "no mythology exists for these because they were unknown from Europe".
A caveat: different peoples would have divided the sky up differently to the modern constellations. Thus, such mythology may be spread over several constellations. For example, the Magellanic Clouds are divided into three modern constellations but were considered as a part of a single myth by many Indigenous Australian groups. Often the Magellanic Clouds were seen as two people that shared some kin relationship - siblings, a couple, etc. -- B.D.Mills ( T, C) 00:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Should this project also cover the constellation-like features of the night sky that have comparable mythological associations? For example, the Milky Way (the band of light, not the galaxy), and the Man in the Moon and similar pareidolias.-- Pharos 22:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
for example, "Lyra in Fiction"--is starting to look like a trivia section in all but name. In the specific case of Lyra in Fiction, there are about 6 or so items, only two of which have anything to do with the constellation. Do we need a Lyra in Fiction section, and if so, should the items having nothing to do with the constellation be there? Todd 22:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, guys. We haven't spoken before but you may have noticed that I have been on vandalism-watch recently on the constellations pages. My question to you all is this: do you think we should consider protecting these pages, and similar ones about stars and other deep-sky objects, to prevent unregistered users from abusing them? The reason I ask is that GoogleSky now has links to these pages. GoogleSky is a brilliant piece of work and is (quite rightly) being promoted as an educational tool. The obvious place for it to link to is Wikpedia. However, I don't think that schools and similar establishments would be too impressed to discover that Sky is linking to pages with bad information or profanity. Wikimapia has a registration period within which you can't make immediate changes. I read that the German Wikipedia is introducing such a scheme too. For the future of the Wikipedia astronomy pages, I'd like to see something similar introduced here. What do you think? Skeptic2 23:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Todd. And I might have added that, as more people are directed to these pages by GoogleSky, the number of potential vandals increases. Question is: how do we do it? Skeptic2 19:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if it's just on my browser, but in Orion and Cygnus (the only two I checked), not the articles but the categories, the constellation map obscures part of the category listing. I also don't know how to fix that.-- Todd 23:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the parent wikiproject be Wikipedia: WikiProject Astronomical objects, since the old WikiProject Constellations was merged into Astronomical Objects? 132.205.99.122 ( talk) 23:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see the discussion in the above link (I want to keep it in one place) -- Cat chi? 19:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Therion (constellation) should be created as a redirect to Lupus (constellation) 132.205.44.5 ( talk) 23:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking of splittin the Notable Features subheading by brightnes. eg. Magnitude 4 and above, Magnitude 8 to 4, Magnitude 16 to 8, Faint objects.These would roughly translate to visible to the naked eye (in a moderately light polluted sky), visible with binoculars, visible with a portable telescope, proffesional observatory required. I think it would be useful for amateur astronomers wishing to view objects within specific constellations.
On a related note, should I go ahead and add extra-solar planets on the relevant constellation pages? It's not exactly useful to amateur astronomers, but is of academic interest. I could either list the stars under the appropriate magnitude, or give an entire subheading for extra-solar planets (bearing in mind that there won't be more than five for any given constellation).
Any thought / suggestions? Conrad Leviston ( talk) 05:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I tend to advocate for completeness, and certainly agree that non-solar planets be included, at least for now. Once the Kepler and Planet Finder missions start reporting in around four years from now it will probably be impossible to keep up, but until then, keep it. As for grouping magnitude categories, that seems like excessive hair splitting. But it can be useful to some people. Tham153 ( talk) 17:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
What is the "International Constellation Conference" mentioned in the entry? Is this a joke? Skeptic2 22:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Several years ago I worked out the etymologies of the stars that I could, including the original Arabic, Chinese, or Greek, but that info has been moved to the talk pages with the comment that it should be added to the individual star articles. I made a start at that, but only got through a few major constellations—I'd already put a lot of time into this, and was tired of it. If each member of this task force could follow up with one major or half a dozen minor constellations, we would clear this up fairly quickly. kwami ( talk) 21:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I requested a GAR for the Leo (constellation) article: Talk:Leo (constellation)/GA1. Please take a moment to comment. Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 20:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it's time to create an
With more and more stars and galaxies having articles and being placed into the IAU constellation categories, it may be a good idea at some point.
76.66.201.13 ( talk) 05:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I have been changing the nearest stars in some of the constellation articles.
I have edited the "nearest star" in a constellation's infobox if I found a nearer star in the List of nearest stars. Then I started going though the RECONS list of the 100 nearest star systems doing the same thing. I am finding the constellation for each star in the RECONS list by querying via this page. I got up to system 61 in the RECONS list and decided I should stop and explain what I was doing. -- Cam ( talk) 02:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
John Sandford claims the following in "Observing the Constellations" ( ISBN 0-85533-748-6) about Hydra:
Which would have been very practical, indeed, but I've found no support whatsoever for this statement. Is it true, or a garble up of Roman, vs. modern Latin age, having Felis and Turdus Solitarius in parts of Hydra? ... said: Rursus ( bork²) 14:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
See Category:List of the star names by constellation ; these list articles seem to be in need of help, since they're built like a name dictionary, and in current form would be more suitable to be transwikied to Wiktionary instead of being articles here...
76.66.197.30 ( talk) 11:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Template:ConstellationsByBartsch has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Please have your say! Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 09:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space/2010 Reorganisation regarding the future of WikiProject Space and its child projects. The discussion is aimed at defining the roles of projects, and improving the activity and coordination of the projects. The input of members of this project is requested as it is one which may be affected by the issue. -- G W … 22:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
See WT:AST for a discussion about division of constellations by right ascension... (and not by tradition or geographic/cultural origin) 70.24.244.198 ( talk) 04:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
file:XingXiu(2).png has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 07:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Thought this might be the best place to discuss...been scared off Cygnus (constellation) as it is just soooo big! Have been buffing Pegasus (constellation) as it is of similar size to Andromeda and would be good to do that whole portion of the sky...but got a bit bored and stuck into Canis Major instead (lots of fun supergiants to write about). The obscure constellations are taking a very long time to get through FAC, so umming and aahing about doing more, though will push through ones that are through GA or nominated there ( Musca and Grus (constellation). @ Keilana: worked on Bootes a while ago, and maybe we should try and shove that over a GA line at least. Keilana let us know if you wanna do anything starry. and I guess @ StringTheory11: you wanna buff Caelum for FAC...? So will give it a look over. Canis Major and Pegasus could do with some help in history/mythology mainly as well as other sections. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 01:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Right, @ Keilana: and @ StringTheory11:...am thinking Ursa Minor - something well-known but not much in it so should be a good buff for GA/FA..and in a pretty average state currently.... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 08:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
FYI, there's a discussion going on at Talk:List_of_brightest_stars#Proper_name that may impact on usage of proper names of stars. -- 70.50.151.11 ( talk) 05:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to help with collecting cultural asterisms and constellations as well as creating a heredity, if you will, that documents the works thats scholars documented the constellations and their evolution. While doing this, improve all the timelines and constellation endonym pages. Nebulösschwarzfahrer ( talk) 06:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I have proposed to merge WikiProject Astronomy/Constellations Task Force with WikiProject Eclipses. Please join the discussion on whether we should merge these two articles here. MartinZ02 ( talk) 00:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that Template:Infobox zodiac carries the banner of this project, so I want to notify the group that I'm making improvements to that infobox so it will issue correct dates of passage of the Sun from one zodiac sign (not constellation) to another. The current Template:zodiac date will be replaced with Module:zodiac date.
The old Template:zodiac date contained equations which tried to predict the crossing dates, and I identified a number of instances where these equations were giving incorrect dates. So I interpolated the apparent geocentric ecliptic longitude of the Sun using a computer almanac from the U.S. Naval Observatory to find the crossing dates, then encapsulated the results in a Lua table. The new version will provide results traceable to a reliable source through most of 2050. Since the only articles calling this infobox are mostly about astrology, I have started a discussion of the change at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astrology. Jc3s5h ( talk) 17:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
This task force is inactive, and therefore, I think we should broaden its scope to include everything related to stars, not just constellations, thoughts? — MartinZ ( talk) 00:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Like many people curious about many things in life, I looked up Messier 63 because I had seen its fascinating photo somewhere. I was dismayed to find the article to be written exclusively for people forearmed with a knowledge of astronomical terms. I was able to guess, for example, that 'kly' probably means 'thousand light years' which is a value I readily understand, but for the rest of it as an encyclopedic article of general knowledge, as a non-astronomer or astrophysicist, I found it very disappointing.
Moving on to its equivalent in the German Wikipedia (a language in which I am also a native speaker), I was able to find out far more of what I wanted to know in layman's terms.
There are probably thousands of articles in en.Wiki suffering from a similar scientific syndrome, could something be done about it? Perhaps my admin colleague Casliber could look into it for galaxies and perhaps come up with an idea where a general appeal for all scientific topics to be dumbed down could be made. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 02:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Main | Talk |
Astronomical objects ( Talk) |
Eclipses ( Talk) | Article ratings | Image review | Popular pages | Members | Wikidata |
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Constellations Task Force
Astronomy: Constellations Project‑class | ||||||||||
|
Proposal: Two Hemispheres star maps for finding constellations? Preferrably SVG:s which are used using the tech used for the {{ star nav}} template. Said: Rursus 19:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Prio column and some reasonable values added. Said: Rursus 21:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I have created a first draft of a replacement template for Template:Infobox Constellation at User:Dr. Submillimeter/Sandbox. I'm currently not 100% satisfied with the infobox, but I would like to bring it forward for discussion.
Among the changes in the proposed infobox:
Additional comments are welcome. (I'm not yet satisfied with it myself.) Dr. Submillimeter 16:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
DEMO: |
---|
The mythology sections for the constellations is strongly Eurocentric. It implies that only Europeans had constellation mythology, which is certainly not the case.
It would be useful to have some discussion of the following mythologies if such information exists - this list is just a sample and is not complete by any means:
Such mythological discussion would be especially useful for fleshing out the Southern hemisphere constellations, which in some cases make the false assertion "no mythology exists for these because they were unknown from Europe".
A caveat: different peoples would have divided the sky up differently to the modern constellations. Thus, such mythology may be spread over several constellations. For example, the Magellanic Clouds are divided into three modern constellations but were considered as a part of a single myth by many Indigenous Australian groups. Often the Magellanic Clouds were seen as two people that shared some kin relationship - siblings, a couple, etc. -- B.D.Mills ( T, C) 00:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Should this project also cover the constellation-like features of the night sky that have comparable mythological associations? For example, the Milky Way (the band of light, not the galaxy), and the Man in the Moon and similar pareidolias.-- Pharos 22:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
for example, "Lyra in Fiction"--is starting to look like a trivia section in all but name. In the specific case of Lyra in Fiction, there are about 6 or so items, only two of which have anything to do with the constellation. Do we need a Lyra in Fiction section, and if so, should the items having nothing to do with the constellation be there? Todd 22:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, guys. We haven't spoken before but you may have noticed that I have been on vandalism-watch recently on the constellations pages. My question to you all is this: do you think we should consider protecting these pages, and similar ones about stars and other deep-sky objects, to prevent unregistered users from abusing them? The reason I ask is that GoogleSky now has links to these pages. GoogleSky is a brilliant piece of work and is (quite rightly) being promoted as an educational tool. The obvious place for it to link to is Wikpedia. However, I don't think that schools and similar establishments would be too impressed to discover that Sky is linking to pages with bad information or profanity. Wikimapia has a registration period within which you can't make immediate changes. I read that the German Wikipedia is introducing such a scheme too. For the future of the Wikipedia astronomy pages, I'd like to see something similar introduced here. What do you think? Skeptic2 23:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Todd. And I might have added that, as more people are directed to these pages by GoogleSky, the number of potential vandals increases. Question is: how do we do it? Skeptic2 19:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if it's just on my browser, but in Orion and Cygnus (the only two I checked), not the articles but the categories, the constellation map obscures part of the category listing. I also don't know how to fix that.-- Todd 23:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the parent wikiproject be Wikipedia: WikiProject Astronomical objects, since the old WikiProject Constellations was merged into Astronomical Objects? 132.205.99.122 ( talk) 23:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see the discussion in the above link (I want to keep it in one place) -- Cat chi? 19:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Therion (constellation) should be created as a redirect to Lupus (constellation) 132.205.44.5 ( talk) 23:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking of splittin the Notable Features subheading by brightnes. eg. Magnitude 4 and above, Magnitude 8 to 4, Magnitude 16 to 8, Faint objects.These would roughly translate to visible to the naked eye (in a moderately light polluted sky), visible with binoculars, visible with a portable telescope, proffesional observatory required. I think it would be useful for amateur astronomers wishing to view objects within specific constellations.
On a related note, should I go ahead and add extra-solar planets on the relevant constellation pages? It's not exactly useful to amateur astronomers, but is of academic interest. I could either list the stars under the appropriate magnitude, or give an entire subheading for extra-solar planets (bearing in mind that there won't be more than five for any given constellation).
Any thought / suggestions? Conrad Leviston ( talk) 05:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I tend to advocate for completeness, and certainly agree that non-solar planets be included, at least for now. Once the Kepler and Planet Finder missions start reporting in around four years from now it will probably be impossible to keep up, but until then, keep it. As for grouping magnitude categories, that seems like excessive hair splitting. But it can be useful to some people. Tham153 ( talk) 17:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
What is the "International Constellation Conference" mentioned in the entry? Is this a joke? Skeptic2 22:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Several years ago I worked out the etymologies of the stars that I could, including the original Arabic, Chinese, or Greek, but that info has been moved to the talk pages with the comment that it should be added to the individual star articles. I made a start at that, but only got through a few major constellations—I'd already put a lot of time into this, and was tired of it. If each member of this task force could follow up with one major or half a dozen minor constellations, we would clear this up fairly quickly. kwami ( talk) 21:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I requested a GAR for the Leo (constellation) article: Talk:Leo (constellation)/GA1. Please take a moment to comment. Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 20:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it's time to create an
With more and more stars and galaxies having articles and being placed into the IAU constellation categories, it may be a good idea at some point.
76.66.201.13 ( talk) 05:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I have been changing the nearest stars in some of the constellation articles.
I have edited the "nearest star" in a constellation's infobox if I found a nearer star in the List of nearest stars. Then I started going though the RECONS list of the 100 nearest star systems doing the same thing. I am finding the constellation for each star in the RECONS list by querying via this page. I got up to system 61 in the RECONS list and decided I should stop and explain what I was doing. -- Cam ( talk) 02:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
John Sandford claims the following in "Observing the Constellations" ( ISBN 0-85533-748-6) about Hydra:
Which would have been very practical, indeed, but I've found no support whatsoever for this statement. Is it true, or a garble up of Roman, vs. modern Latin age, having Felis and Turdus Solitarius in parts of Hydra? ... said: Rursus ( bork²) 14:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
See Category:List of the star names by constellation ; these list articles seem to be in need of help, since they're built like a name dictionary, and in current form would be more suitable to be transwikied to Wiktionary instead of being articles here...
76.66.197.30 ( talk) 11:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Template:ConstellationsByBartsch has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Please have your say! Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 09:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space/2010 Reorganisation regarding the future of WikiProject Space and its child projects. The discussion is aimed at defining the roles of projects, and improving the activity and coordination of the projects. The input of members of this project is requested as it is one which may be affected by the issue. -- G W … 22:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
See WT:AST for a discussion about division of constellations by right ascension... (and not by tradition or geographic/cultural origin) 70.24.244.198 ( talk) 04:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
file:XingXiu(2).png has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 07:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Thought this might be the best place to discuss...been scared off Cygnus (constellation) as it is just soooo big! Have been buffing Pegasus (constellation) as it is of similar size to Andromeda and would be good to do that whole portion of the sky...but got a bit bored and stuck into Canis Major instead (lots of fun supergiants to write about). The obscure constellations are taking a very long time to get through FAC, so umming and aahing about doing more, though will push through ones that are through GA or nominated there ( Musca and Grus (constellation). @ Keilana: worked on Bootes a while ago, and maybe we should try and shove that over a GA line at least. Keilana let us know if you wanna do anything starry. and I guess @ StringTheory11: you wanna buff Caelum for FAC...? So will give it a look over. Canis Major and Pegasus could do with some help in history/mythology mainly as well as other sections. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 01:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Right, @ Keilana: and @ StringTheory11:...am thinking Ursa Minor - something well-known but not much in it so should be a good buff for GA/FA..and in a pretty average state currently.... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 08:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
FYI, there's a discussion going on at Talk:List_of_brightest_stars#Proper_name that may impact on usage of proper names of stars. -- 70.50.151.11 ( talk) 05:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to help with collecting cultural asterisms and constellations as well as creating a heredity, if you will, that documents the works thats scholars documented the constellations and their evolution. While doing this, improve all the timelines and constellation endonym pages. Nebulösschwarzfahrer ( talk) 06:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I have proposed to merge WikiProject Astronomy/Constellations Task Force with WikiProject Eclipses. Please join the discussion on whether we should merge these two articles here. MartinZ02 ( talk) 00:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that Template:Infobox zodiac carries the banner of this project, so I want to notify the group that I'm making improvements to that infobox so it will issue correct dates of passage of the Sun from one zodiac sign (not constellation) to another. The current Template:zodiac date will be replaced with Module:zodiac date.
The old Template:zodiac date contained equations which tried to predict the crossing dates, and I identified a number of instances where these equations were giving incorrect dates. So I interpolated the apparent geocentric ecliptic longitude of the Sun using a computer almanac from the U.S. Naval Observatory to find the crossing dates, then encapsulated the results in a Lua table. The new version will provide results traceable to a reliable source through most of 2050. Since the only articles calling this infobox are mostly about astrology, I have started a discussion of the change at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astrology. Jc3s5h ( talk) 17:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
This task force is inactive, and therefore, I think we should broaden its scope to include everything related to stars, not just constellations, thoughts? — MartinZ ( talk) 00:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Like many people curious about many things in life, I looked up Messier 63 because I had seen its fascinating photo somewhere. I was dismayed to find the article to be written exclusively for people forearmed with a knowledge of astronomical terms. I was able to guess, for example, that 'kly' probably means 'thousand light years' which is a value I readily understand, but for the rest of it as an encyclopedic article of general knowledge, as a non-astronomer or astrophysicist, I found it very disappointing.
Moving on to its equivalent in the German Wikipedia (a language in which I am also a native speaker), I was able to find out far more of what I wanted to know in layman's terms.
There are probably thousands of articles in en.Wiki suffering from a similar scientific syndrome, could something be done about it? Perhaps my admin colleague Casliber could look into it for galaxies and perhaps come up with an idea where a general appeal for all scientific topics to be dumbed down could be made. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 02:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)