Talk:Argo Navis

Pyxis

Wasn't Pyxis also originally part of Argo Navis? Rwflammang (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

When it was Malus. Last paragraph. Rothorpe (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry for my superficial skimming of the article. Rwflammang (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Omicrons and ohs, or not

The article states that ο (omicron) Puppis is a mis-reading of Lacaille's use of o (latin lowercase oh). I have seen this in one or two places, but it is contradicted by many other sources, starting with Simbad. I have looked in the original Lacaille catalogue and it includes both ο (omicron) Puppis (as "Argus in Puppi") and ο (omicron) Argus (now ο Velorum). Some people in the past have refused to accept that Lacaille would use the same Greek letter twice within the constellations previously Argo Navis, although it happened with χ (chi) and possibly others. Lacaille also seems to have studiously avoided using lowercase Latin letters where these would be confusing, for example not using lowercase latin oh at all anywhere in the catalogue. I suggest this dubious claim be removed, or at least relegated to an unproven conjecture (since there are references that will support it). Lithopsian (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe Wagman is correct. Simbad is a poor reference for historical designations; they are reporting current usage and generally ignore the Latin letter designations. -- Elphion (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

My latin is rusty, but I think I've sorted out what Lacaille intended. Unfortunately, my own research isn't going to fly as a source for writing Wikipedia articles so I can only continue to quote the sources that are out there. In this particular case, my research says Wagman is correct, but unfortunately the rest of the world has passed this by and continues to regard Omicron Puppis as the preferred designation. I'm going to see if I can come up with a form of words to describe what Lacaille did that can be supported by reliable sources. Lithopsian (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Well that's something. The article probably needs more on additional changes after Lacaille; more designations; the final breakup; etc. Lithopsian (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Elphion

@Elphion: Thanks for the message - I've been an editor on Wikipedia for more than 13 years and know its guidelines well enough to know that WP:BRD is not policy. Nonetheless, if you disagree with me on something, I am happy to hear your reasons.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The point is that "is held to represent" and "represents" is a meaningless distinction in this case. E.g., Botticelli's Birth of Venus represents the birth of Venus; "held to represent" is excessive verbiage that contributes nothing. Similarly, the Greeks invented Argo Navis to represent Jason's ship. "Held to represent" would be useful only if there were some doubt in the matter. -- Elphion (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Elphion: Well, that is the point. There is no doubt that the Birth of Venus represents the birth of Venus because the author said that it does, so it is a fact. Who authored the relative positions of the stars? No one - and consequently interpreting what they represent is nothing more than a personal choice. For instance, to the ancient Egyptians, the stars in Orion represented the god of the sun, to the Hindus it represented an arrowed stag, and to the Chinese it represented a White Tiger. Selecting any one representation and presenting it as fact is contrary to WP:NPOV.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The constellation Argo Navis is not the position of the stars, it is the figure imposed upon them. It was invented by the Greeks to represent the ship Argo. Argo is not an Egyptian or Chinese constellation, it's a Greek constellation. Similarly, Orion is a Greek constellation (based likely on earlier Middle Eastern versions). Its stars are interpreted differently by different cultures, but Orion itself represents a hunter. There's no POV there. -- Elphion (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Per the constellation article, a constellation is a region in the sky - not a figure. Do you have any reliable sources that show otherwise?--Anders Feder (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

"Constellation" as a formally defined region of the Celestial sphere is a relatively recent invention, formalized by the IAU. "Constellation" as a picture assigned to a selection of stars is what the word means etymologically. Different areas were carved up into different constellations in different ways by various cultures in traditional astronomy. Ref: any dictionary and any history of astronomy. Historically, constellations could even overlap, sharing pieces of the sphere with one another (e.g., Lynx and Ursa Major in Flamsteed's catalog). Argo Navis was never a formally defined region of the sky. And even for modern constellations that are, it is still reasonable to say something like: "Orion as defined by the IAU is a formally defined area that accommodates the Greek constellation representing the mythological hunter. This area was divided into different constellations by other astronomical traditions." -- Elphion (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Instead of ignoring the request for a source, please name a single "dictionary or history of astronomy" that defines constellation as a figure. Must be very easy for you if it is in "any dictionary and any history of astronomy"...--Anders Feder (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Since you aren't likely to find any reliable sources for your claim that a constellation is a figure, we can perhaps discuss changing the wording instead? For instance, we could write "It was identified with the Argo" if you think that is better than what I first suggested. Anything that marks the connection to mythology as a figment of human culture and not something physically true is fine by me.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I meant "any dictionary and any history of astronomy" as a good faith answer to your question. Picking at random: The OED: "a number of fixed stars grouped together within the outline of an imaginary figure traced on the face of the sky". American Heritage Dictionary: "a. Any of 88 groups considered to resemble and named after various mythological characters, inanimate objects, and animals. b. An area of the sky occupied by such a group." Chapter One of Ian Ridpath's book "Star Tales" (pp. 1-12) speaks generally of the constellations as "figures", speaking, e.g., of the constellations listed by Ptolemy, which were figures, not areas. The formal meaning of "constellation" among astronomers now refers to the areas defined by the IAU, but historically (and even informally today, as reflected by the sources above) it was the figures that defined them.

I'm happy to discuss the wording; that's why I left you a note in the first place. I think the word "represents" already satisfies your condition ("Anything that marks the connection to mythology as a figment of human culture and not something physically true") since one thing representing another is already a human-based abstraction. "Identified with" is fine too. My only objection to your original was that "is held to represent" is unnecessary periphrasis for the much simpler and equivalent "represents". -- Elphion (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

So OED and American Heritage Dictionary both defines constellations as groups of actual stars—groups which invariably will have different interpretations and significance in different cultures—not as figures. I've changed the article per the above.--Anders Feder (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course they're "groups of stars" -- but defined by being "grouped together within the outline of an imaginary figure", so that the definition obviously involves interpretation. I appreciate your new revision of the article. -- Elphion (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

past tense

why does the lede use past tense? The constellation still exists regardless of inclusion on some modern list. At least make it clear in the lede why we are using past tense. Gjxj (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The lede uses past tense, and then explains that the constellation has since been divided into three smaller constellations. Does that not explain why past tense is used? -- Elphion (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

You've answered yourself: "regardless of inclusion on some modern list". It is no longer considered a constellation by the IAU, hence past tense. The same syntax is followed for other obsolete constellations; they can be said to "still exist" since the stars that made them up are still visible, but they are no longer considered to be constellations in anything except a historical sense. See Cancer Minor and Custos Messium. However, Cerberus uses a different form of words. Lithopsian (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

wikipedia is loaded with inconsistency in the usage of the word constellation. If all but 88 constellations ceased to exist in 1922 why does the main Constellation page not use past tense throughout? In any case my main point is the issue should be addressed here immediately in the lede, not half way down the page. Obviously Ive touched a nerve so I wont personnaly muck with it. Gjxj (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

What do you want addressed in the lead? The first sentence states that Argo Navis was broken up into three smaller constellations, hard to put it any earlier in the article. Lithopsian (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Argo Navis (compact)

Template:Argo Navis (compact) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- 65.92.244.237 (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Same as "Southern Ship"?

Southern Ship, capitalised, appears in the Jewish Encyclopedia (here, with commentary). Paul Derrick seems to equate it with Argo Navis, but that wasn't enough for me to create a redirect. Anyone? Thanks. Arminden (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Reordering the modern constellations in the Infobox?

I'm thinking about reordering the maps of the three modern constellations in the Infobox. Right now, they run alphabetically from top to bottom; I don't know if that was intentional or not. But I'm thinking that a different order would be helpful for someone looking to see how the three of them fit together.

At the least, I'd like to put Carina at the bottom. And then, possibly, I'd switch Vela and Puppis. So either I'd just move the one and have Puppis, Vela, Carina, or (my favorite) I'd move two and have Vela, Puppis, Carina.

I think I know how to do it. But I wonder how other people feel about the idea. Uporządnicki (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

If you are being guided by location, the order should be Puppis, Vela, Carina. Puppis extends much farther to the north than Vela. -- Elphion (talk) 03:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@User:Elphion Uh, that's a point, yes (although it IS sort of "north-chauvinistic"). But I was thinking more of making it visually more clear how they relate in the sky. Ideally, I'd put Vela and Puppis left and right, respectively, with Carina below. But that's not an option. Uporządnicki (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Nothing "north-chauvinistic" going on: you said you were considering putting Carina at the bottom, in which case Puppis should be on top if you're using "how they relate in the sky". Vela extends somewhat south of Puppis, while Puppis extends much farther north than Vela. It's not a "left-right" arrangement. -- Elphion (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Granted, Puppis extends farther north. But Vela does not extend very far south of Puppis; it is really to the east of Puppis--that's to the viewer's left, as we traditionally picture them (and as they'd be seen in the sky by most observers). They both are, side-by-side, north of Carina--on top of it as most people would see them.

I'm thinking not so much about how they are, geographically, but about their fitting together. I'm thinking that (perhaps because we read from left to right), if Vela is first, and then Puppis, it will be more easily seen how that corner on the right (west) of Vela fits into the corner on the lower left (southeast) of Puppis, and then how they fit on top (north) of Carina. I'm thinking visual clarity, not rigorous logic for the sake of rigorous logic.

I'm hoping someone else will chime in. I'm not so much in love with my way versus your way that I'm ready to fight rather than concede or have my mind changed; it's just that I got the impression that I hadn't made my thinking clear. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@User:Elphion You know, the more I think about it, the more I like your way better--even based on my own thinking. Putting Carina at the bottom (where I think we've been agreeing), then having Vela above it, the viewer might easily note that the zigzag at the southwest (lower right) corner of Vela fits into the zigzag along the north (top) edge of Carina. Then, further, I notice the the two large right angles at the at the southeast (lower left) corner of Puppis fit nicely onto the two right angles at the southwest (lower right) edge of Vela; I think I was thinking before that the Puppis right angle fit onto Carina--that's wrong. Uporządnicki (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that makes the most sense. Consider also that except for the dim stars nu, sigma, and tau, all of the figure stars of Puppis fall to the north of the figure stars of Vela. The double cluster M46/M47 lies well north even of those, and the northern boundary of Puppis comes within 12 degrees of the equator. Argo is sailing south, not east. -- Elphion (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)