This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to
Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
a Southern Triangle distinct from Triangulum Australe is elsewhere unknown,
a "Quadrans Euclidis" seems like a mega-confusion, Norma was earlier named "Quadra Euclides", Euclides is the correct singular genitive form, a "Quadra" is a quadrate, a "Quadrans" is a quadrant, i.e. an astronomical instrument,
what has that hypothetical "Southern Triangle" to do with this article?
If someone invented that hypothetical "Southern Triangle", it wasn't Plancius, but possibly instead Andreas Corsalius, or possibly Amerigo Vespucci; the early globes of Hondius and Plancius circa 1593 proves nothing, since they filled the southern sky with incorrect and too vague star descriptions,
Abbé De Lacaille invented Quadra Euclides in the middle of the 1750:ies,
I've likewise have had troubles finding the alleged source of
Monoceros being a Persian invention, according to
Allen refering to
Ideler, but I haven't yet found the clause where Ideler claims that the Einhorn is the second horse. Instead I believe that Allen have misread Ideler, and that
Monoceros was invented by
Petrus Plancius or some c:a 1550 cartographer, such as
Kurt Vopel. ... said:
Rursus (
mbork³)
19:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Stars section has an apparent error ″approximately 2000 years old and 10,000 light-years away from Earth″.
I'm sorry but the laws must be obeyed. A light source only 2000 years old is not yet "visible" from 10000 ly distant. A light source about 12000 years old would have been detectable for the past 2000 years from an object 10000 ly distant.
Celtic hackr (
talk)
02:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Sorry, Cas, I had this right there on my to-do list. Someone that I'd know since I was 4 died Sunday night, and I've just been not up for really anything the last couple days. Today or tomorrow, I promise.
Courcelles (
talk)
11:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Spent a few hours running down what refs I could, and all look solid.
All three images are good.
Lede:
"one of twelve created in the 18th century" This might be an AmEng thing, but created feels like the wrong word here -- defined or something is what I would have said. Might be crazy here.
Abell 3627 is described as "one of the largest galaxy clusters known" in the lede, but later on it is described as "one of the most massive clusters known". Are size and mass equivalent in this case?
VirtualDave (
talk)
10:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)reply
No problem. Happy to help. Two minor things: "spectroscopic binary" isn't wikilinked, but there is a section here (
/info/en/?search=Binary_star#Spectroscopic_binaries) that may not have enough citations but does have a bit of info on spectroscopic binaries, so it might be worth linking to. The part on NGC 6067 says it is the most notable open cluster in Norma, but it doesn't say why it's notable - in fact, it says it is "indistinct as it lies in a star field". The fact that the cluster has a rich star field behind it and is therefore diminished in some way makes sense to me, but comments from people who have observed the cluster it sounds like it's still pretty impressive, so I wonder if it would be better to mention how impressive people find the cluster, or the fact that it has two Cepheids in it (Stephen James O'Meara says on page 294 of Deep Sky Companions: Southern Gems that the Cepheids are "What's important about NGC 6067".
VirtualDave (
talk)
08:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)reply
What did we decide last time about infobox references for things not mentioned in the article?
rejigged the declination and Right Ascension - should have remembered from
last time. Most other material is cited in text and annoyingly sets of formatting errors if cites are plonked in infobox...Cas Liber (
talk·contribs)
05:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Not something to fix, but I have no idea why
List of stars in Norma doesn't just exist as a table in this article. Neither is that long, and the table can be worked to include all the info in the Stars section in sortable format. I get it for large constellations, but this one is so small...
Courcelles (
talk)
04:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)reply
size is subjective...some folks would think this page is plenty big enough. The stars list could get alot longer too as there are a bunch of open clusters. There is a navigation template at the bottom that covers stars, clusters, galaxies etc. too, don't forgetCas Liber (
talk·contribs)
04:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Actually, this one doesn't cover anything besides stars yet, as I haven't gotten around to updating it yet to include them. I'll put all FA and GA constellation navboxes on my high-priority list for the updates, though, and since I should have plenty of free time tomorrow, I'll try to remember to fix it then. I think currently they're only finished through Cygnus, if I'm remembering right.
StringTheory11 (
t •
c)
05:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)reply
After another read,I'm happy, this is a great article. My life has been a absolute mess lately, and these's been ArbCom messes that suck up literally all my free time. Sorry for that.
Courcelles (
talk)
16:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Seriously guys how is this a featured article? It's not even locked and the info box code is just sitting there at the top of the page, probably an unclosed bracket or something.
81.131.1.38 (
talk)
08:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Don't they unlock FAs while they get the front page treatment? As for the infobox, you may have been viewing it following a vandalism.
Praemonitus (
talk)
14:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)reply