User talk:Rursus

Untalk

User:Rursus

Talk archive

Hello! If you're missing some past dialogue, it is in the archive (I don't really remove former talks, they're all in the archive):

All talk archives of User talk:Rursus, last archived at 2024-09-13

Interesting nicknames!

Hello, I discovered your interesting nicknames for the NGC 2403 galaxy and its surrounding stars in the talk page of the constellation Chamaeleon. I am a dedicated collectioneur of this sort of astronomical nomenclature (it is my hobby). These days I am exploring and investigating the rather curious and very unusual names of stars and deepsky objects in the online WIKISKY star atlas (especially the non-IAU names). It is a great pastime. I noticed a group of very curious names for the stars of the constellation Chamaeleon, and want to know if these are perhaps (in some way) of valuable importance (if they are REAL names or just fantasy). DannyJ.Caes (talk) 06:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All names are fantasy invented by humans, including 'Sirius'. Why do they (the humans) invent names? Usually it is in order to make a fast reference to a commonly spoken-about object. Old pre-Arabic names, such as 'Sirius' (the searing one) may have served a calendar purpose, such as for introducing a certain season when first visible in the year. The Arabic names are almost always structural such as 'Sirrah/Alpheratz' being al-Surraẗ al-Faras (the navel of the horse), so if you can identify the (winged) horse, you'll know which one is al-Surraẗ al-Faras. Structural names aren't used (very much) by professional astronomers anymore, since they need a "designation" (or as a computer programmer would have said: a "key" for table lookup) and then get the telescope to turn to the proper astronomical object. Amateur astronomers still use structural names to an extent – that is: within their cultures – and then the names are valid for that purpose. The reason is that they don't always have digital telescope with which to automatically find a certain object and memorizing the surroundings of the object is then a good strategy. My self-invented (thus lacking a supporting culture) name Sartago (the frying pan) for the surroundings of the NGC 2403 is formed in such a way. So in conclusion: I don't know whether those curious names of stars in Chamaeleon are valid or not, they need a culture and some structural value. I know that the vast majority of "names" that IAU has created are invalid, both lacking a cultural context and being structurally meaningless. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Typical valid invented names are: Asterism Observing List. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rursus! The starry heavens would look rather dull without names! (catalog numbers are too "cold": the "THX 1138 syndrome"). DannyJ.Caes (talk) 10:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Be welcome. And it would be harder to orient on it, if we hadn't invented star names, constellation names, recognizable forms etc.. Names serve a purpose. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This list of telescopic and binocular asterisms is really what I was looking for! I must say, I am the main contributor of the list of telescopic asterisms in the Dutch Wikipedia article Asterisme. Most of these curious star groupings and chains are already in the list. It is a huge overview arranged from +90° (North) to -90° (South), with an "extra" item at -7°30': the belt of the geostationary satellites as seen from the BENELUX (Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg). DannyJ.Caes (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]