Talk:Boötes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology .
This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to astronomy. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
|
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
||
 |
Constellations Task Force | |
|
|
||
| The article page to this talk page, is subject to revision by the WikiProject Astronomy's Constellations Task Force. Please discuss the layout of the article page on the Constellation Task Force's discussion page. | ||
|
|
||
| Status: structure: unchecked, correctness: unassessed, completeness: unchecked | ||
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)
- It's not according to Names of Constellations on IAU. If I remember correctly, it's a transcription from Greek, and transcriptions usually are ambiguous. The diaeresis is supposed to prevent people from eliding the second "o" when pronouncing the word. It has three syllables. However this is my mere theory. – Torsten Bronger 11:28, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I must remark, the star charts for the constellations are beautiful... Ed Sanville 15:38, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Deep sky objects
"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)
[edit] Arcturus
" 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)
- Corrected since long obviously. Said: Rursus 15:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Graphic visualization
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)
[edit] Reverted
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)
[edit] January bootids
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)
