Talk:Asterism (astronomy)

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Untitled

The Big Dipper is also part of an existing constellation, Ursa Major. Why can't Orion's Belt be considered a separate asterism? Bryan Derksen

The Orion's belt is just part of Orion -he has a belt, a sword, a bow, couple of arms. The Big Dipper is a reinterpretation of the star pattern in Ursa Major - a dipper is not part of a bear. --rmhermen

In the constellations, Orion is pictured has having a belt around his waist, but the Bear is not pictured as having a dipper in its rump. Similarly, Aquarius does have an urn, but Sagittarius doesn't have a teapot.

B00P 05:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ptolemy

I have changed the years of birth and death of Ptolemy, in order to make them match with the article about the astronomer. I'm actually not sure of the correct figures (I guess nobody is, for the article mentions "circa"), but I found literature with more than one set of dates. If someone has a more trustworthy reference with different years, please make the correction in both articles. Claudio M Souza (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bowie Asterism

An asterism need not be visible to the naked eye to be notable. Furthermore, the MIRA Public Observatory prefers that usage vis-à-vis constellation. kencf0618 (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, the "Coathanger" is an example of a faint asterism. But what all notable asterisms have in common is that their stars are of comparable brightness and that is where the "Bowie asterism" fails. The brightest star (Spica) is nearly a hundred times brighter as the faintest star (SAO 204132). AstroLynx (talk) 09:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As per the Coathanger, we'll just have to leave this hanging awaiting further developments, if any. kencf0618 (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Asterism (astronomy). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

lede makes no sense

in the lede, this makes no sense: "Constellations are based on asterisms, but unlike asterisms, constellations outline and completely divide the sky and all its celestial objects into regions around their central asterisms. For example, the asterism known as the Big Dipper or the Plough comprises the seven brightest stars in the constellation Ursa Major. Another asterism is the triangle, within the constellation of Capricornus." for example of what? 98.7.197.219 (talk) 05:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, that was pretty awful... especially since the "triangle" of Capricornus isn't even mentioned below in the lists of asterisms. I reworded and got rid of the "for example". Assambrew (talk) 03:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]