Jump to content

Talk:Constellation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Elphion (talk | contribs) at 14:45, 22 October 2025 (→Star chart typos: agree, Vopel need not be a separate category). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ancient India

Indian astronomy and easily sourced/researched Indian astronomers' contributions over many centuries are too many to have been entirely omitted in this WIKIPEDIA article about the subject. [Comment by 2a00:23c8:220c:6f01:893e:e63:1167:ebb4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 17:26, 25 November 2023‎, originally on article page, moved here for reference.] -- Elphion (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You could add such material, backed by references to Reliable Sources. At minimum, if you want this to go anywhere, you could suggest accessible sources for other editors to look at for material to add. Information does not get added by magic, it requires effort. -- Elphion (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well put, Elphion. The IP user can draft an article about the constellations defined in Indian astronomy and see if it gains traction. If it does and there is concrete referenced data on their boundaries in right ascension and declination, I may help draw a similar chart of them. cmɢʟee τaʟκ (please add {{ping|cmglee}} to your reply) 22:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Star Chart

Is there any possibility of finding an English language star chart instead of a Spanish one? I'll do some research on my own, but if anybody already knows of one, it would be nice. 2600:100F:B1B4:6F93:0:12:89B4:7701 (talk) 05:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By "Spanish", do you mean Latin? Latin constellation names are the standard in astronomy. I suppose a chart with informal names like the "Plough" or "Great Bear" could be created, but good luck finding consensus on it! cmɢʟee τaʟκ (please add {{ping|cmglee}} to your reply) 22:03, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Equirectangular plot of declination vs right ascension of stars brighter than apparent magnitude 5

This recently revised star chart needs further editing to correct the following factual errors: 1) the non-zodiacal constellations are now all attributed to Claudius Ptolemy but actually include constellations introduced by Petrus Plancius (1612) and Johannes Hevelius (1690). 2) Johannes Bayer did not introduce any new constellations, all these constellations in the deep south were introduced in late 1597 (or early 1598) by Petrus Plancius. AstroLynx (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AstroLynx: The current version doesn't give attribution to either Ptolemy, Plancius or Hevelius. I've just outlined those in the zodiac. If it's in the description or caption, please update it accordingly. Cheers, cmɢʟee τaʟκ (please add {{ping|cmglee}} to your reply) 22:01, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Star chart typos

Note that in the new star chart the names Antlia and Chamaeleon are mis-spelled, and Corona Austral should be Corona Australis. Skeptic2 (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IAU designated constellations, equirectangular plot
At least it's in English! How about one with no stars? Lithopsian (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The colouring is awful, and this one has Corona Austrina instead of Corona Australis. I would prefer the first one if we could get the typos corrected. Skeptic2 (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a fan of the image currently in the article: it is too dark to read easily, and although it contains a lot of information, it is rather over-stuffed. Perhaps we could engage user:Cmglee (who is usually responsive about implementing suggested changes) to update the image at right -- to correct "Corona Australe" to "Corona Australis" and to choose a more pleasing color scheme. Suggestions as to colors? -- Elphion (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my own star charts I use four colours: one colour for the constellations described by Claudius Ptolemy (with the zodiacal constellations in a slightly darker hue), another colour for the constellations introduced by Petrus Plancius between 1589 and 1612, another colour for the constellations introduced by Johannes Hevelius in 1690 and finally a different colour for those introduced by Nicolas-Louis de Lacaille in 1756. AstroLynx (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from creator:

Thanks for the feedback. I've corrected Corona Australis, lightened the shade and reduced the colour saturation.

@Skeptic2: How are Antlia and Chamaeleon incorrect? Comments like "The colouring is awful" are discouraging to people who volunteer their time. Can you not put it more discreetly?

@AstroLynx: I'd be happy to categorise the constellations, but after this dispute, I'm hesistant to put in any categories that cause further controversy. If you can establish a consensus, I can recolour the families accordingly.

That dispute was about the Menzel "constellation families" which are historically flawed. There is little dispute about the constellations described by Ptolemy and those later introduced by Plancius, Hevelius and Lacaille. AstroLynx (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, cmɢʟee τaʟκ (please add {{ping|cmglee}} to your reply) 21:56, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmglee: Antlia and Chamaeleon are not misspelled on your image, but on the image we are seeking to replace (where they appear as Antila and Chamaleon). -- Elphion (talk) 01:35, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Just to confirm, it's File:Hipparcos_Catalogue_equirectangular_plot.svg that is contentious, right? Before I proceed, are we at least satisfied with the categorisation of the constellations in it? cmɢʟee τaʟκ (please add {{ping|cmglee}} to your reply) 23:05, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The contentious aspect of File:Hipparcos_Catalogue_equirectangular_plot.svg was the inclusion of Menzel's constellation families, which the current version has removed. However, there are still issues:

  1. The categories (Ptolemy / Bayer / La Caille) are still not quite correct: "Bayer" should be "Plancius"; new categories would be needed for Hevelius and Vopel; and some of the constellations are in the wrong category. The table in IAU designated constellations is not quite accurate either (which we need to fix).
  2. The image is way too cluttered. File:Constellations, equirectangular plot.svg (above) is much better in that regard. I prefer the latter also because the colors serve to highlight the individual constellations (rather than the categories), and especially for this article I think the constellations are more important. Your recent adjustment to lighten the colors in that image helps a lot, and the contrast between the colors is good. user:AstroLynx might prefer different hues (less atlas-like, more celestial?).

-- Elphion (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only four colours are needed for the constellations described (or first introduced) by Ptolemy, Plancius, Hevelius & Lacaille. There is little need for a fifth colour for Vopel as Coma Berenices was already described and accurately positioned in the heavens by Ptolemy. Similarly, no extra colour is needed for Crux as its earliest observers could not place it accurately on a star map. Plancius was the first to do so. AstroLynx (talk) 05:57, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree: no separate category is needed for Vopel, as Com was recognized as an asterism in Classical times. -- Elphion (talk) 14:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Constellation&oldid=1318205201"