This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to
Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Bayer designations often don't follow the alphabetical/decreasing brightness rule. The brightness measurements were made by eye which explains some of the discrepancies. In addition, they often follow some asterism (like is the case in
Ursa Major and
Sagittarius) and therefore the alpha star may be far from being the brightest star.--
JyriLtalk00:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)reply
"Beta" was not brighter than "Alpha" in
Bayer's Uranometria (1603). Bayer wrote that three stars ―
Alpha,
Beta, and
Gamma Trianguli were same class (not magnitude) "Quartae Diff[erentiae]" in the star list of the constellation "
TRIANGVRVM"
[1]. Alpha Trianguli is prior to Beta Trianguli on their position within the constellation Triangulum. It is same case of the
Plough in Ursa Major and "
Castor and
Pollux" in
Gemini, not Sagittarius.--
Bay Flam08:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
(1) Give a source for the claim. (2) If it is changed, it will be in future. For now, the name of the constellation is Triangulum.--
JyriLtalk00:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Nope, the "official" name is Triangulum, not Triangulum Borale. I've never ever heard of "Triangulum Borale". Said: Rursus20:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Surely Triangulum is official name of this constellation. "Triangulus Septentrionalis" (sic), the Northern Triangle with TRIANGVRVM found in the star list of Bayer's Uranometria. Please see above.--
Bay Flam08:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
"nearly isosceles" is in the lede, but its shape is not mentioned in the body text. Given that the lede is a summary, my own view is that "nearly" could be dropped in the lede, but i decline to take responsibility for someone more pedantic than myself seeking to have this reversed during an FAC :-)
"Recent measurements of its motion indicate that it is moving at 190 kilometres (120 mi) per second in the direction of the Andromeda Galaxy, which has led astronomers to surmise that it may actually be orbiting the larger galaxy". Since when did something move towards another thing, when it is orbiting around it? What is meant here?
Took a while, couldn't track down the book, but got the paper which first mentioned it - it is about escape velocities of the larger object (Andromeda) but also warns of uncertainty in distances/margins of error to these galaxies and stops short of proposing it is a satellite. However a 2013 study does so I have added it here instead.Cas Liber (
talk·contribs)
12:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Aha, the sun is in it at a different time - the two are not related per se. Given the confusion I have removed that as not germane to the article (as it refers to the Way of Enlil and not the Plough.
Cas Liber (
talk·contribs) 02:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC) used "which" instead of a participle to hopefully delineate it better.
Cas Liber (
talk·contribs)
02:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Low power is required
There are at least three people confused by this statement,
[2][3][4] presumably because it is counter-intuitive. I'm not clear how low magnification
[5] helps a viewer to see a faint object.
DrKay (
talk)
16:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Faint is not the relevant factor. Low power is an aid for objects with a low surface brightness. This is because the human eye cannot detect objects with very low contrast, such as a galaxy magnified too much against a dark sky. The same amount of light from the same object, concentrated in a smaller area, can be detected by the eye more easily. There can also be additional instrumental effects with the complex optics required for high magnification causing additional light loss - or not depending on the equipment. Low power observation may not be helpful in areas with light pollution because the surface brightness of the sky is also increased. Detection of some (small, bright) objects against a bright sky can even be improved by high power, and this is used in cases such as daytime observation of astronomical objects.
Just on a more general rant, I find it poor form for editors to take out widely-known concepts from an article simply because they don't understand the concept. A citation would be good if you think one is needed, but this isn't hard to find (
first Google book link that came up). There you go, rant over, I won't hold a grudge.
Lithopsian (
talk)
18:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)reply
It might be. Or perhaps pipe "power" to the magnification article. It may be best to closely paraphrase whatever a reference says, to avoid any confusion. Some jargon like "power" is valuable, but sometimes it is distracting to a lay reader. I may be too familiar with the subject to judge that.
Lithopsian (
talk)
18:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
Triangulum. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.