This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Celestial cartography article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Truly, not a single Akkadian source? You disappoint me, Internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.18.83 ( talk) 02:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
This page will consume the following stubs or rippers:
The discussion is ongoing on Talk:Uranography. Said: Rursus 20:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I wrote it. I'm not the best of writers. Said: Rursus 22:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Said: Rursus 22:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Said: Rursus 13:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Notes moved from Talk:Uranography. Said: Rursus 13:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Time:
Said: Rursus 05:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Given that the introductory section of this article is so similar to the introduction for astrometry, should this article be moved to "astrometry"? I would hate to see astrometry made a redirect to this article. Dr. Submillimeter 12:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
As I commented in Talk:Mercator projection -- how can you tell that the Su Song map is mercator projection? It looks somewhat like a cylindrical projection, though the unevent spacing of the meridians (if that's what they are) suggests that it is only very approximately that. But there are many cylindrical projections that are not Mercator. In fact, the claim that it shows "the correct position of the pole star" means that it cannot be Mercator, because a Mercator projection has the poles at infinity. Paul Koning 00:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Should the proper title for this webpage not be "Celestial cartography"? A simple Google search results in only 367 hits for "star cartography" and 2580 hits for "celestial cartography". "Star cartography" also suggests that it only involves the mapping of star positions, thus excluding lunar cartography and the cartography of other solar system members. AstroLynx ( talk) 07:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the proposed merger is a good idea. The two other articles mentioned seem of better quality, and I would suggest extracting whatever is of value from this article, and not already present in the better of the other two articles, and inserting it there. Sorry to be brutal. -- Greenmaven ( talk) 06:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Do we need the "In fiction" section? To me it looks inappropriate, and the latest addition seems like blatant advertising. Skeptic2 ( talk) 22:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)