Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Constellations Task Force

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Constellations Task Force

Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Hemispheres star maps?

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)

This is a good idea. The constellation maps are almost exclusively from the persective of the Northern Hemisphere, and a Southern Hemisphere perspective is needed. These maps may need to be "north on top" and "south on top" as needed.
An exception to this rule may apply to circumpolar constellations that are not generally visible from the opposite hemisphere. When constellations like Cassiopeia and Crux are at their highest in the sky, the celestial pole is below the constellation, so the best map to use is one with the opposite pole pointing up. In particular, the Cassiopeia map shows the constellation at lower culmination, or the lowest point in the sky. This is not consistent with most other constellation maps. Thus, two maps may be useful to show different orientations.
But do we only need two maps? A case can be made for having four to show the different orientations as seen from the Equator or during different seasons. If this is done, the maps would need to be placed in a different place on the page (such as in a standalone box near the top), as they would not fit well into the constellation infobox. --B.d.mills 01:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prio

Prio column and some reasonable values added. Said: Rursus 21:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First draft of possible replacement template

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:

  • Some of the terms with vague names (e.g. "bright stars") were removed. Also, "stars with extrasolar planets" was removed, as this is expected to be difficult to keep up-to-date.
  • The material was organized into sections with titles. However, I am not yet satisfied with the section names.
  • Some of the language regarding visibility was changed. I also recommend stating the visibility during a season rather than during a specific month and stating it for the whole evening rather than a specific time (9:00 pm).

Additional comments are welcome. (I'm not yet satisfied with it myself.)Dr. Submillimeter 16:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It's good, except I'm a little unsure that meteorshowers actually should remain there. As much as I've seen on other templates, lists are hard to implement and handle. The bordering constellations is such a list that may remain for a while but later on be replaced by a special image setup similar to the one in {{Template:Star nav}}. I'll soon make a demo here. Said: Rursus 14:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
DEMO:
I was a little uncertain about keeping the meteor shower list myself. I am willing to remove that. Let's see if anyone else comments.
I think simply using images for the constellations would be better than using navigation templates. Images can be updated more easily by other users, whereas navigation maps cannot. (You would also need to create 88 navigation templates.) Also, many users (like me) click on the image in the infobox to view the image itself, not to navigate. Maybe keeping a list of adjacent constellations in the infobox and a navigation map in the body of the text would be appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 14:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Well:
  • it's necessary that such templates are few (much less than 88), instead I'll have to invent some variant of the Template:Image_label_begin that adapts to constructing a clickable map easily - but it will take some time of raw cleaning of the constellations before I'll even consider it,
  • by the nature of Template:Image_label_begin clicking on most parts of the image still leads to the image page itself,
On the other hand:
  • redimensioning a constellation image, requires coordinate updates for the link texts on the image,
So I'll do something else before, and then we'll see. Said: Rursus 20:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
On second thoughts: you're right regarding what image is reached by clicking such a navigable map. Said: Rursus 18:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The demo has two problems:
  • If I click somewhere other than the links, I go to Image:Andromeda constellation map.png
  • The image contains two sets of labels (although presumably label-free versions of the images can be created.
I still suggest leaving this out of the infobox for now. Dr. Submillimeter 22:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Other matters are much more important. Said: Rursus 11:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
My thoughts on the changes:
  • Meteor Showers could be moved to the body of the text, as not all constellations have meteor showers.
  • I introduced the "9 pm" guideline for "best visibility" to provide a standard and made corrections as needed. Before I did this, best visibility had no precise definition and several of the constellations had best visibility that was out by a month or two. I don't mind seeing it replaced by something more comprehensive such as a table of times and dates. "Best visibility" would work best as a separate table with a list of times and dates. Best visibility would also need to be defined precisely as the upper culmination of the centre of the constellation. The best visibility coverage may need to provide dates for all 24 hours.
  • Visibility must not use seasonal references. That is in contravention of Wikipedia's goal of countering systemic bias.
  • "Bright stars" and "main stars" are both vague terms. We need something more precise, such as "stars with an average brightness that is brighter than magnitude 3.00" or some similar definition that would allow others to count the stars in other constellations using the same criterion. This could also work if a website with pancelestial coverage was used as a reference. (I suggest that we use magnitude 3 as the limit because that is the limiting manitude from many urban locations.)
--B.d.mills 01:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mythologies

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:

  • Arabic (they gave us many of our star names)
  • Chinese
  • Native American
  • Other Pre-Columbian cultures from the Americas
  • Polynesian
  • Indigenous Australian

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)


I take issue with the aggrieved tone of the previous writer, and point out certain factual errors.
The writer calls for alternate "mythologies if such information exists," implying that he doesn't actually know of any specifics, but assumes that (a) they exist, and (b) they are being suppressed. There is a hint of paranoia in this.
The mythology is not "Eurocentric," but "Mediterranean." In the list of cultures, he calls for Arabic mythologies, rightly pointing out that the majority of star names are Arabic in origin. But those very star names, Alpheratz, Deneb, Fomalhut, Hamal, Rigel, etc, etc, indicate that that the mythology on the south shore of the Mediterranean was essentially the same as that of the north shore. The names are, overwhelmingly, discriptions of the positions of the stars within the Ptolemaic figuration of the constellations.
The peeved complaint that "[s]uch 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,'" misses the point. Let us take Telescopium, for example. Whatever Southern Hemisphere mythologies might be connected with this constellation, they are certainly not as a Telescope.
Now having said all that, I would certainly urge anyone with knowledge of, say a Maori myth centered on, to use my example, Telescopium, to write it up and add it to the article. Further, there is already an article about Chinese constellations which could well be expanded.
B00P (talk) 08:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Constellation-like sky features

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)

[edit] "X" in fiction section

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)

Perhaps creating "X in fiction" articles, and transferring such items there, might be the solution. Such an article exists for α Lyr: "Vega in fiction." B00P (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protecting these pages

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)

Agree--Todd 17:28, 4 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)

[edit] Constellation maps obscuring category contents

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)

[edit] parent wikiproject

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)

[edit] Navboxes

Please see the discussion in the above link (I want to keep it in one place) -- Cat chi? 19:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Therion

Therion (constellation) should be created as a redirect to Lupus (constellation) 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Features

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)