Talk:Orion (constellation)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mythology Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology .

This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-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.)
WikiProject Astronomy This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to astronomy.
B This article has been rated as B-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

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Orion (constellation) article.
Article policies

can someone explain how Orion moves across the sky? Does he stay in the south all night, all winter? Or does he move each day or as the season changes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.183.14 (talk) 00:29, December 16, 2004

I was going to give a really basic explanation, but that doesn't seem necessary; instead, let's try this way: Each night, you get to see nearly half of the sky; so if you could see Orion rising at sunset, by sunrise it would be setting across the sky. As the year progresses, you happen to see it for just a few hour, or sometimes you just don't; it may be lying all the way behind the Sun. So if you look to the night sky everyday at the same time, you would see it slowly moving, in a year-long cycle.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanketai (talk • contribs) 18 October 2005

Does the paragraph with directions for finding other stars (southeastward/northwestward) work at all times of the year from both northern and southern hemispheres? --Scott Davis Talk 12:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It most certainly do. The relative position of the stars do not change with the seasons, neither by you moving in the surface of the Earth (moving to the northern or southern hemisphere). You may see a different part of the sky at different times of the year, but the parts themselves do not change. If you can't find a star, it may be below the horizon, or you're standing in a place with too much light-pollution to see it. Tanketai 16:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

when and by whom was the Orion Constellation named? Was it an actual person, or it its name simply taken from Greek Mythology?

Contents

[edit] That nice poem in Romanian

Can somebody put a translation, or at least a comment, of that nice poem in Romanian about Orion? Most of the readers don't even know it is in Romanian.

[edit] extra Mythology

ok, did you know that when Orion sets, Scropio rises (Artemitis and Apollo put both of them in the sky). His ankle was pinched by the scropion, which is why the ankle sets last.Dogmanice 04:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong information in orion guide picture

The star names in the guide to orion are wrong. The image clearly shows the stars of the constellation, yet indicates stars from other constellations as the names. For instance, procyon in the image is in fact betelgeuse. You can check the real position of the stars named in the picture on this page: [1]. I'm not good enough with drawing programs to correct the problem myself though.

The star names are lables for the arrows rather than the stars. Hence the colours. I improved the caption, maybe it helps. – Torsten Bronger 08:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orion trivia

This is something I picked up in astronomy class in the 1960's. If you look at the bottom half of Orion, and tilt the picture to where the belt stars are titled slightly to the right, you will see the outline of a Scottie dog.

[edit] Any bow references?

I seem to recall hearing that there is an asterism off of Orion's left shoulder depicting a bow, aimed more or less at Taurus the Bull. Visually, this description seems stunningly accurate and indeed almost obvious. But can anyone verify legends or references to this effect? Baccyak4H 18:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this asterism, a long curved line of faint stars, does look somewhat like a bow. However it is conventionally interpreted as the skin of a lion which he is holding up as a shield [or matador's cape?] against the charge of Taurus the Bull. Its interpretation as a bow is precluded by another asterism to Orion's right [i.e. left or east of him as we see him half-facing us in the Northern Hemisphere], which is conventionally taken to be his upraised arm and club - skilful hunter though he was, even he could not wield a bow & arrow and a club simultaneously!40.0.96.1 (talk) 12:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In Regards To Mayan Mythology

I read somewhere that the constellation Orion plays a big part in the Mayan's predictions about the end of the world in 2012. Would this be the appropriate place to mention that? If not, where do I say something about that? - Katami 01:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


Mayan culture predits the end of the world/humanity in 2036, coinsiding with a potential meteor strike that has only recently been calculated. 2012 in mayan culture is the end of one of the cycles in the Mayan calander. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.65.8 (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Degenerate star?

Arm of Orion? --NEMT 05:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Armeniaca

The illustration of an Armenian bas-relief is from User:Vonones; I have moved it from Orion, which deals only with the figure named Orion. It is unsourced; but so is the rest of the section. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Three Kings?

I have not been able to find a source of the three stars of Orion's belt being called the Three Kings, let alone the Three Magi. It is repeated in Arthur Drew's book "The Christ Myth", but he doesn't seem to sight a source, let alone a modern one.

Can anyone give a source and also say in what parts of the world this piece of nomenclature is used? Gilgamesh 42 02:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't find a single reference that isn't regurgitating the same mish-mash of distorted facts featured in Zeitgeist (Isis virgin birth etc.) Encyclopaedia Britannica doesn't mention it. Perhaps add that citation needed mark? Oh wait, Google indicates it may be called that in South Africa. http://www.psychohistorian.org/astronomy/3konings.html I've modified the text accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.100.104 (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

In Allen's Star-Names, published in 1899 (p.316):

In Upper Germany it has been the Three Mowers; and it is often the Magi, the Three Kings, the Three Mayrs, or simply the Three Stars...

(Bold-faced by the auhtor.)--Bay Flam 05:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Visibility Dates

The article currently states in the opening paragraph that "Orion is visible in the evening from November to April." This is only for the Northern Hemisphere, correct? Is Orion visible in the Southern Hemisphere in all the other months? --pie4all88 05:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. That goes for both Northern and Southern Hemisphere. The reason you can't see it during the other months is because the Sun is in front of it, or very close to it, glaring it out. --Bark 20:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection?

It seems that this page gets vandalized heavily and persistently by anonymous users. Per Wikipedia's policy, I nominate that this page be semi-protected indefinitely (edits disabled for anonymous users and registered users less than four days old). Is this agreeable? --Bark (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a lot of activity on this article over the last couple of days. 72.161.166.232 (talk · contribs) seems to be the only editor to vandalize the article persistently and he stopped after he was blocked. However, going back through the article history, the last edit which was neither vandalism nor a revert of vandalism was on December 30 by Skeptic2 (talk · contribs) and before then December 18 by 195.137.94.41 (talk · contribs). This article might indeed benefit from some temoporary sem-protection. SWik78 (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I have filed a request for semi-protection on Bark's behalf after his message on my talk page. You don't need consensus on talk to request protection from IP vandalism. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't sure if he was saying that a consensus was necessary for a request to be submitted or if he was asking for an informal consensus from the community to help him decide whether or not to file a request. It's true that there's no requirement for a consensus but I just thought I'd offer my opinion anyways. SWik78 (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I was just asking for an informal consensus. Having more than one person asking for this carries more weight. --Bark (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, having a look at that history, I think it's okay to semi-protect the article indefinitely. —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I have reviewed and declined the semi-protection request. The level of vandalism doesn't really rise to the point at which we normally will semi-protect - and particularly not indefinitely. I see that there have been a couple of warnings and blocks issued, which is good - I'll watchlist this page and keep an eye on it as well, but I don't think semi-protection is necessary here. - Philippe | Talk 17:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
You might be surprised. I've had this page watchlisted for half a year or so, and it's the most vandalized page I watch by far. I have no idea why, but that's been my observation. --Bark (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I did in fact review the edit history and came to the same conclusion as the reviewing admin. There is not enough vandalism to semi-protect because we can easily keep this under control. You should have seen the Pablo Picasso article if you think this is bad ;) EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Really? What did Picasso ever do to them?  :-) Control is one thing, but if the vandalism is systemic and constant from anonymous users over a wide range of IPs, that seems to me to be a problem. Just so I have an idea of what you guys are talking about, what's the standard? I realize it's subjective, but I'm just curious what your opinion is concerning that. --Bark (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Compare the edit histories of Saturn and Pablo Picasso. You need something like twice the vandalism that this or the Saturn article gets. In case of extreme vandalism over a shorter period you can get semi-protection based on a shorter history of vandalism but then we are talking about something far worse than this or even the Picasso article. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
EconGuy is appropriately conveying my feelings as well. My general standard is that I have to see several acts of vandalism by several different editors, every day before I'll consider protecting the article. I know it's a pain in the rear end, but I take the "encyclopedia that everyone can edit" thing fairly literally (as do most admins right now, I think - at least, I don't get the feeling that I'm radically out of calibration at the page protection noticeboard). Even with multiple acts of vandalism by several editors, we generally work our way up - starting with small protections before going to longer ones. We're just trying to make the vandals get out of the habit of hitting this article. - Philippe | Talk 18:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Well, I have noticed a lot of vandalism recently on this article, but I also have for many other articles as well. We might have to wait if the requests keep getting denied. We need children to edit constructively, that's all. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 18:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I know it's not a great deal of comfort, but I've added this page to my watchlist, and I'll keep a fairly close eye on it during my free time for the next few weeks. Hopefully if an admin is visible on the page, the little snerts will choose to spend their time other ways. :-) - Philippe | Talk 18:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Well guys, I appreciate the feedback and the watchful eyes. It's a shame. I can only recognize three constellations in the night sky, this is one of them, and this one gets targeted by the hooligans! What are the odds? LOL. --Bark (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your suggestion and have previously proposed something similar, without success. Last September, after the kids went back to school, I noticed that all the constellation articles were regularly being vandalized and the frequency has increased since then. I proposed that all edits from non-registered editors be subject to a 2-day quarantine period before they appeared, during which time they could be verified. This would retain the "anyone can edit" principle but would dissuade vandals. This proposal was not accepted. I decided that I have better things to do with my time than try to sweep water uphill so I gave up bothering. How much garbage and profanity gets into kids' essays as a result is anyone's guess. Skeptic2 (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Eight intermediate revisions in 56 minutes! I think we're contending against Picasso at that rate, LOL. --Bark (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Puzzling assertion in lede

The last para of the lede starts "The constellation is also known as an "Amber" in other Commonwealth countries such as the United Kingdom."

I've had an active interest in Astronomy for over 40 years (read it as a [UK] undergraduate, helped to run an Astronomy club, etc), but I've never heard of such a thing and, indeed, don't understand what 'a constellation being known as an amber' is supposed to mean. Has a meaningful sentence been vandalised? (Sorry, my Wiki-fu is not up to studying page histories.) 87.81.230.195 (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It was added in this edit on December 5, 2006. I looked pretty hard, and I can't find any documentation supporting this, so I'm removing it for now.--Pharos (talk) 07:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lion

does it have anything to do with lion? Zink5 (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)