Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Constellations task force

constellations
task force

Constellations Task Force is an effort to fix the constellations articles, so that they look navigable, intriguing and fit for amateur astronomy – the one community that actually uses the constellations. You're welcome to edit here, or discuss on the talk page.

Purpose

I started this project because the constellations looked so sprawling. There's no uniform philosophy behind the constellation articles, there certainly were many philosophies overlaid by new philosophies on philosophies, making an unpleasant mess, rather than order. My intention is to streamline the constellations, so that they are delectable for self-learning. Imagine a boy or girl in the lower teenages, using binoculars and owning a telescope or so, but needing some observation guides. That's my proposal for primary public, whereas the grownup and professional counterparts (which includes advanced amateurs) also can "profit" from reading the constellation pages, but more as link sets to listings of interest. Rursus 15:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Task Force Logos

{{Template:WPTFConstel}}:

{{Template:User WikiProject Astronomy Constellations Task Force}}:


WikiProject Task Force for Constellations assessments

This task force assesses the constellations according to three measures:structure, correctness and completeness. Since this is less about the contents, than the structure completeness and the map and facts correctness, the requirements for making good points for this task force is much less than a proper quality assessment.

Structure

STUBBY! Feel free to define criteria here!

In the long run all constellations should contain the same thing in a similar order as applicable to that constellation (mythologies of deLacaille constellations are by nature short and not very mythical – although not nonexistent). The general structure is yet to be determined. Said: Rursus 14:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correctness

Correctness criteria:

A. Per table below: star map/star box OK (2.a.), primary myth text conventional (4.), correct inventor and invention time (5.).
B. Otherwise no obvious factual error.

The assessment levels for this correctness are:

1. checked but not fulfilling A.
2. fulfilling A. but not B.
3. fulfilling A. and B. and therefore "correct".

Completeness

STUBBY! Feel free to define criteria here!

Constellations Fix – 2007 Raid

In order to do this, they must be revised according to the following criteria:

numpriodostatus

1--drop logos
   1.a.1drop a task force logo {{WPTFConstel}} on each constellation talk page;88 of 88
   1.b.3drop a task force logo {{WPTFConstel}} on each obsolete constellation talk page;35 of 35
   1.c.3drop elsewhere??
21star map/star box OK, the star maps from PP3 have discrete star magnitudes, which makes the star maps virtually unusable for recognition of fainter stars;[1] the constellation maps should be improved in more than one step:
   2.a.1fix the PP3 map cosmetically: ensure that the borders are not truncated, and that the constellation is not oddly oriented like some below...
   2.b.3(optional:) fix magnitude-of-stars radii on the PP3 map, for more usable maps,
   2.c.3make a script/program that generates SVG constellations instead of pixmap ones,
   2.d.3trim this to look almost like a PP3 map,
   2.e.3replace.
3.1correct inventor and year:
   3.a.1navigation box for constellations OK[2]
   3.b.1correct inventor and invention time[2]
4.??the primary myth text is conventional according to sources;[3][4]
5.??containing asterisms are listed (Brocchi's Cluster, some obsolete constellations that actually are asterisms);[5]
6.??move obsolete constellation texts (who are almost always infinitesimally small), into the constellations where their stars now reside;[6]
7.??some historical map paintings;[7]
8.??listings of most prominent stars and objects;
9.??texts about stellar associations;
10.??listings of most unique objects (f.ex. Cygnus Loop, Barnard's Star, Osiris);
11.??curiosa, f.ex. here Neptune was first observed, here Ceres was discovered;
12.??replace alternate viewings, with similar interpretative depicions.[8]
13.1Constellation infobox templates need review.[9]
14.??Add more inline references.
15.1Every line in the infobox should have an inline reference.[10]

Templates

All Task Force Templates documented here.

Members

Add yourself here, if you want to participate! For now only:

Active

Inactive

Constellations

Constellation Review

It seems more and more unsecure whether some of the "former constellations" ever were regarded as autonomous. Such cases are Asterion and Chara in Canes Venatici, Linum Piscium, Piscis Borealis and Piscis Australis in Pisces. One shouldn't confuse independent constellations with asterisms within constellations that were referred to when describing stars and comet positions within a constellation.

/Constellations template

To be inserted

  • Caput Medusae
  • Gladii Electorales Saxonici
  • Pluteum (Brustwehr)
  • Pomum Imperiale
  • Quadratum
  • Rosa (constellation)
  • Sudarium Veronicae
  • Telescopium Herschelii Minor[11]

Audited content

A

B-Ce

Ce-D

E-L

M-P

R-V

Footnotes

Other dependent articles

Inventor articles

New Modern Addition Template

This is no template, until we wish to replace Template:Navconstel-modern-closed with the following content. Until then - feel free to improve!!

The 41 modern constellations added from 16th century and forth
▶ Vespucci: ~1500: CruxTriangulum Australe  ▶ Keyser/deHoutman/Plancius: ~1600: Apus • Chamaeleon • Coma Berenices • Dorado • Grus • Hydrus • Indus • Musca • Pavo • Phoenix • Tucana • Volans ▶ Plancius/Bartsch 1624: Camelopardalis • Monoceros ▶ Royer 1679: Columba  ▶ Hevelius 1683: Canes Venatici • Lacerta • Leo Minor • Lynx • Scutum • Sextans • Vulpecula ▶ de Lacaille 1763: Antlia • Caelum • Canes Venatici • Carina • Circinus • Fornax • Horologium • Mensa • Microscopium • Norma • Octans • Pictor • Puppis • Pyxis • Reticulum • Sculptor • Telescopium • Vela