Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Navigational stars/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:49, 30 May 2008 [1].

[edit] Navigational stars

User:Haus suggested on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Maritime_Trades that we should submit this as a candidate for featured list. This list of 57 Navigational stars is used in Celestial navigation and has been originally published by Nathaniel Bowditch in 1802 in the American Practical Navigator. It is, therefore, stable and uncontroversial. I'd appreciate any feedback you can provide that will make this list better. Alexander Falk (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)
Gary King (talk) 03:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Quickie review
    • The chart should be in its own section.
    • Are there any images that could be included? (ie. If there enough, you could add small images of every star in the table).
    • Citations should go after a period, ie. .[1]
    • You should add a key explaining what each column title means (like S.H.A.)
    • There are only two citations on the page, you need a general reference to cover the table.
  • That's all for now. -- Scorpion0422 18:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Reply from afalk42 (talk · contribs)

Thank you for the feedback. I've made all suggested changes to the lead prose and also made the list into its own section and added general references. I do have two questions/comments, though:

  • Re Adding a key to explain column titles: I've made SHA into a link to the corresponding article hour angle. Is that sufficient, or would you still like to see a key on the page? If so, can you point me to examples of I would find a good key and how it should be formatted?
    • There are several different things you could try. You could try bullet points like here or a table like this (although not all on the same row like that one). -- Scorpion0422 21:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I looked at those examples, but the keys in those examples are all explanations of values used within the table, rather than explanations of the column titles. The only one that does need an explanation, in my opinion, is SHA, and I've explained that in the lead prose as well as made it a link to the definition. Alexander Falk (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Y Done Added key to explain column titles. Alexander Falk (talk) 03:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Re Images: no, there are unfortunatley no good images of the stars that would make sense to include here. However, I did add all the links to SIMBAD so that people can find out more data about the stars, including links to images.

Alexander Falk (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

    • What about this? And isn't Polaris a navigational star? -- Scorpion0422 21:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Re Alpheratz image (this): I have included links to all the individual star articles (including the once you cited) so that people can find out more details. But I am not sure that adding 57 images of stars to this list would make it a better list, because the purpose of the list is to serve as a reference for celestial navigation much more than astronomy. Furthermore, all other Lists of stars are merely references and don't include pictures, and I tried to be consistent. Last, but not least, we would need to find images taken with the same magnification of all these stars, and I am not aware of a source that has all of them available without copyright issues. Alexander Falk (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Re Polaris: it is true that Polaris was used in Celestial navigation in the past, such as for directly determining Latitude, but it is not included in the list of 57 navigation stars in either Bowditch or the Nautical Almanac, because it requires a special calculation and cannot be used to determine Longitude, so for all practical purposes the navigator today - when using a sextant rather than GPS - takes 3 sights of either planets or the 57 navigational stars and uses them to determine Latitude and Longitude. Alexander Falk (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Perhaps that should be mentioned then, because I'd assume that most people that kinda know astronomy but aren't experts will wonder where it is. -- Scorpion0422 13:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Actually, I need to take that back. I just realized that Bowditch lists Polaris in his list, which has 58 stars after all. But the Nautical Almanac only lists 57 and exculdes Polaris, because it is no longer used for practical purposes. I will definitely make sure that I add Polaris to the list and add lead prose to point out that this difference between 57 vs. 58 navigational stars exists. Thanks for pointing me in that direction. Alexander Falk (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Y Done Added Polaris to the table, clarified lead prose, and added footnote. Alexander Falk (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Haus (talk · contribs)
  • Should "Proper Name" be "Common Name" as per s.1531 of Bowditch 2002?
    • Y Done I originally used "Proper Name" because that is the label given in the other Lists of stars, but you are right: Bowditch calls it the "Common Name" Alexander Falk (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the "Meaning of Name" column in fig 1530a of Bowditch 2002 would be useful to add.
  • I think the star charts in ch. 15 of Bowditch 2002 could add significantly to the list. While individual pictures of the stars don't add much, seeing where they are relative to each other is extremely useful. Some experimentation is probably in order.
    • I finished creating 1 of the 3 star charts necessary to contextualize these stars at Image:Bowditch-equatorial-stars.svg.
      • Very cool. I tried scanning the charts on page 253-256, but the quality wasn't good enough to warrant uploading. Converting them to SVG is, of course, a fantastic approach. I will integrate them into the page once we have all 3 uploaded. Alexander Falk (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Y Done I have added the first star chart in a new section, because it already adds context to the list. Please let me know once you have the other 2 images ready and I will incorporate them, too. Thank you. Alexander Falk (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • More later. HausTalk 12:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The list is coming along nicely. Please understand, Alexander, that getting a piece to featured status is supposed to be fairly demanding...
  • Column ordering: it seems to me that the columns should start as number/common name then some combination of magnitude/sha/declination.
    • Y Done I've moved the common name to the second column. Regarding the other columns: I'd like to keep the Magnitude and Bayer name columns next to each other, becuase that is also the format used in List of brightest stars Alexander Falk (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I haven't been able to put my finger on it, but there's got to be a way to make the SIMBAD column less redundant.
    • I saw your last edit and that certainly helped, but I am not sure how we can further improve this. I used the format that was on List of brightest stars as a starting point, but we need some text in this column as the basis for the link to SIMBAD. Also, please note that this is not always the same name as the Common name column, because SIMBAD has them under different names. Even though this column seems to be very redundant, it really isn't. Alexander Falk (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia has at least 2 nice facilities for imagemaps.
    • I'll tackle that once we have all images added. Alexander Falk (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This is not a "to-do" item, but I want to make sure to point this out: there is another list in the back of the Nautical Almanac of 200-ish other stars that can be used. There is probably a description in the frontmatter of the book of what the difference is between the 57 and the other 200-odd stars. My understanding is that you'll usually be able to find 3 or 4 out of the 57, they're easy to find, and they're spread out nicely in terms of SHA and declination. I wouldn't be at all shocked to find out that the number 57 was picked because that's how many lines fit on the daily pages in the Almanac.
    • I am certain that the 57 stars are not picked by how many lines fit on the page. Bowditch already listed 58 stars in 1802. The only star omitted from that list in the Nautical Almanac is Polaris (because it requires special calculations and is, therefore, used less frequently). The 57 stars (or 58 in Bowditch) are picked, because they are some of the brightest stars and, therefore, much easier to get a fix on with the Sextant. Normally you always try to use one of the 57 stars, if you have an unobstructed view of the sky. The other 150+ stars in the back of the nautical Almanac are for reference if you have a cloudy sky and cannot do your sights on the 57 brightest stars. You can use them, but navigators try to avoid it, unless those are the only available options due to visibility/clouds. Alexander Falk (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • For declination, use 2 digits so that sort works. For example, Menkar's coming after Alkaid right now.
    • Y Done However, the sort should ideally start from N 90 descending to the equator and then increase from the euator to the Southpole. I have not idea, if one can specify a custom sort-order, though. Alexander Falk (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • For SHA, use 3 digits, i.e. Enif would be 034. Again, for sorting.
  • Variable magnitudes should probably be explained. This could be accomplished by, for example, a footnote or a legend.
  • As of tomorrow I'll be incommunicado for a while. If these items can be addressed, the authority who closes this candidacy can consider this a support.

Cheers. HausTalk 18:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • ", because" in the first sentence of the lead doesn't need a comma
  • "and/or because they are nearby" two "because"es in one sentence. Nearby to what?
  • "These stars are practically a subset" what does this mean? And is "practically" necessary? Either they are or they aren't. Consider "Most of these stars are a subset.."
  • should nautical almanac be alphabetized?
    • I am not clear what you are suggesting? The list of navigational stars is using the numbering that is used in the nautical almanac. The user can view the list in alphabetical order by clicking on the column header. Alexander Falk (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "typically on a tear-sheet that then serves as a bookmark throughout the year and is placed on the almanac page for the current 3-day period" Again, I don't know what this means
    • The list of navigational stars is printed on a page of the nautical almanac that is using a heavier paper, and the page has a perforation. The idea is that a navigator will buy a new nautical alamanc every year, and will then tear this page out of the book and use it as a bookmark throughout the year. The nautical alamanc lists important data for each 3-day period on two opposing pages, so the tear-sheet will serve as a bookmark for a 3-day period and will then be advanced by one page to the next 3-day period. Alexander Falk (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "SHA" means nothing to the reader because it hasn't been used previously. Write out the acronym in full on its first use, then put the acronym in brackets, if it is used again elsewhere in the article
  • "V Magnitude" and "Bayer Designation" should follow WP:HEAD and not be over-capitalised

A few English grammar, MOS and prose issues to address before it meets the criteria, so oppose for now. -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 04:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment from afalk42 (talk · contribs)

I will be traveling for the next 3 weeks, so I won't be able to make any further edits for a while. If this gets the necessary support before the end of the 10-day period, then I'd appreciate it being promoted. But if it doesn't look like this will begetting the needed support, then there is no need to extend the FLC period, as I will not have time to do further edits anytime soon. In that case, I would make future edits when I get back and would then potentially resubmit once further outstanding issues have been addressed. Alexander Falk (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • A lead picture would be nice
  • Reference 1 in the lead is placed after a space
  • References 3, 4 and 5 are actually footnotes. Can you use {{ref label}} and {{note label}} for them instead?
  • "shortened form of "north star" (named when it was that,..." Have you got another way of phrasing the parentheses-ed part (specifically, the "that")?

That's all I've got. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.