This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Looks to be in pretty good shape, I don't anticipate any major problems here. You could have asked me to name constellations all day, and this Northern Hemisphere brain would have never gotten this one! Courcelles 22:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is this "BSJ" that refs are being attributed to?
The author of the indicated pages on the AAVSO website - been unable to find out who the acronym actually refers to...will have another lookCas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)I guess it is one of the people listed at the bottom of this page, but I don't know which...Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC) figured out who and added Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 31, the all caps looks out of place.
Whoops - cut and pasted the authors without rejigging the case. Fixed now. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Star Tales an RS?
The author is the astronomer Ian Ridpath who has written many astronomy guidebooks - this site also exists as a published book but he has put it all online for some reason Cas Liber (talk
almost all is sourced in text. Someone added "main stars" early in the piece (which is pretty obvious). I am a bit torn - If I think of the infobox as a graphic lead then we should be content with sourcing thru the body of the article Cas Liber (talk·contribs)
Perhaps, but I don't see the declination or right ascension or quadrant sourced anywhere else. Am I missing them? Courcelles
The constellation infobox was added in 2005, and some other parameters added later (before my time). The point-declination seems a bit pointless to me as we have sources with the correct ranges and they are areas not points anyway, however this is a template with a parameter on all 88 constellations os not sure what discussion has taken place concerning this. Will try and source what unsourced info I can into body of article. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As an update, have asked at WP astronomy about the quadrant and RA/declinations, which almost all places I see as a range rather than a point entry. I can't find a single source which says three star systems have planets, only references for the individual three systems that are mentioned. Keen folks are updating all star systems with planets found pretty regularly.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can the single sentence paragraph at the end of the History section be integrated?
That is tricky. Agree it should be but location is a problem. I think would slot in better somewhere in first para (maybe at end) but is disruptive chronologically. Might mook for more southern hemisphere references in which case can make a separate para.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 06:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC) Found another depiction - hard going! Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Musca is bordered by Crux to the north, Carina to the west, Chamaeleon to the south, Apus and Circinus to the East and Centaurus to the northeast." Either all the directions should be capitalised, or East shouldn't.
IS Ref 13 meant to source this entire text, "Lacaille charted and designated ten stars with the Bayer designations Alpha through to Kappa in 1756. He catalogued stars that became Lambda and Mu but did not designate them as he considered them informes as they lay outside the asterism proper. Baily considered them part of Musca, and Gould gave them their Bayer designations. Francis Baily also dropped Kappa, which he felt was too faint to warrant a name, and designated two adjacent stars as Zeta1 and Zeta2. These last two stars are 1° apart, quite far to be sharing a Bayer designation. Lacaille had originally labelled the fainter one as Zeta, while Baily presupposed he'd meant to label the brighter one. Reluctant to remove Lacaille's designation, he gave them both the Zeta designation."?
yes - I rejigged comment to highlight it cites seven sentences Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
apparent magnitude should be linked or explained. (Found this wikilink much later)
"Lambda Muscae is the third brightest star in the constellation, and is a white main sequence star of spectral type A7V around 128 light-years distant from Earth." another one-sentence paragraph; also where is Lambda in the constellation?
I am in a bit of a quandary here - Lambda is 3rd brightest but has a greek letter way down the list as it was way away from the asterism. Apart from being 3rd brightest it is not a binary or variable nor one of the Moving Group and there is nothing else unusual about it - so it doesn't tack on anywhere easily for flow. Thus I can (a) leave it out, (b) Bring some material on how it wasn't named initially out of the first para in the stars section, (c) write about Mu, which it is next to. Mu is apparently variable and an orange giant so this can segue into the para with delta, epsilon and the variables (d) .....or am open to any other suggestions.....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it would hurt to write about Mu here...definitely notable, and would make it flow better. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, have added Mu and so stuck on Lambda there. Will look to see if anything else to add about Mu Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found the information on Epsilon's motion interesting, worth including (ref 27)
What is sourcing "one of the hottest and brightest companions of a Cepheid known."?
It's in the 2nd last para on page 553 of the ref at the end of the following sentence - I put a commented out note "cites previous 1.5 sentences" after the ref Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"All three are highly luminous: combined, they are likely to be over a million times as luminous as the Sun." Luminosity should be linked earlier than this.
Does ref 45 source the end of "HD 100546 is a young blue-white Herbig Ae/Be star of spectral type B9V that has yet to settle on the main sequence—one of the closest of these stars to Earth at around 320 light-years distant."? I might have missed the bit in the paper about it being one of the closest known of this type.
damn - wrong paper - one of them mentioned this and why it is intensively studied. Will double check which one it was and add.Aha! got it and added. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence needs a rewrite; "Its complex structure due to a likely binary companion and multiple episodes of material ejected from the ageing central star."
"Located 2.4° east of Eta Muscae is the magnitude-12.9" is that a hyphen or a negative?
a hyphen. useda hyphen as it is a conjoined adjective like "poorly-known" or "well-trodden" or whatever. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's what caught my eye, nice article, most of this is fairly nitpicky. Courcelles 23:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also can't seem to figure out the order in which narrative information about the stars is presented? Is there a logical system here? If not, should there be? Courcelles 23:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a system (sort of...).These articles are tricky to make engaging, so a bit of jigging of content is sometimes required. I start off with brightest stars and then groups of multiple or variable stars in separate paras each (many stars are these so this is often quite easy). Making it better for flow, sometimes will put things that are close together in the sky next to each other in the text. Finally some unusual stars and then the stars with planets. Each constellation has required a bit of flexibility to make the prose engaging but not a huge deal. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting the only thing this is waiting on is the discussion on sourcing quadrants, ascension, etc in the infobox to run its course. Though, Template talk:Infobox constellation seems to have died, with no one defending the idea of using points for the RA. Courcelles 02:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was thinking that - so I might reiterate there about using ranges and then tweaking the other 87 constellation articles. Regarding the quadrants, the obscurity of the referencing suggests it really isn't an essential part of the infobox and should be cut. Will post over there shortly Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The inclinations and RA having been sorted out, I am passing this article. Courcelles 18:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
" Bayer termed it Apis—the Bee, a name by which it was known for the next two centuries."[edit]
Technically, Bayer called Apus "Apis Indica"; Musca he instead called "Apes". Have a look at File:BayerUran1661apuschamtri.jpg. Bayer has lots of unique spelling. This is almost right, but not quite. Perhaps a footnote explaining Bayer's spelling? Adam Cuerden(talk) 15:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Will check sources later when can sit down and digest. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 05:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, looking up close at the image it says Apis for Musca...where are you seeing Apes?.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...You're right. I think there was a speck on the monitor. Adam Cuerden(talk) 09:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit late to the party, but if it's any help, Apes is an older name for Musca Borealis, the other Fly. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Musca. 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: 18 January 2022).
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.
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale..jpg){kind=small}
