Talk:Capricorn

Comments
One of the constellations of the zodiac, the sea-goat.

But the English name for the constellation is "Capricorn"...

All the constellation names are Latin. ;) Capricorn is a variant of Capricornus, and I think that in such cases we should follow the International Astronomical Union, even though every now and then its form is less common (the other being Scorpius).

Look it up in a dictionary. The IAU, as I understand it, gives the names of the constellations in Latin, which is perfectly understandable. But we're using English here, not Latin. See, for example, these pages:
 * http://www.cosmobrain.com/cosmobrain/res/constellations.html
 * http://www.frostydrew.org/observatory/courses/myths/booklet.htm#Capr

As said, all the constellation names - both versions - are Latin or some slight alteration thereof. In some cases the IAU form is in fact not the original Latin (Scorpius vs Scorpio). Nonetheless they are supposed to be the official versions, for any language, and if you pick up most astronomy texts or star atlases Capricornus is what you will find marked. The dictionary has never been particularly interested in naming all the constellations (you won't find Lacerta) and is giving a form more common thanks to its use in astrology, which has never been that interested in accuracy anyways. Your choice, but I would again suggest that we follow the literature.

Ok, if wikipedia is going to spell Aluminum as Aluminium because that's what the IUPAC standard is, then we should definitely follow the IAU on this one.

- I think these pages belong under some higher level page, as subpages, like Constellations of the Zodiac. Already the "Cancer" page is being filled in with medical info and the zodiac part is on the bottom. RoseParks

It would be a shame to segregate the zodiac from the rest of the constellations. Other than Cancer, I think the only constellations that will collide are those with heroes for namesakes, and that isn't too bad. And don't we think something like Ursa Major deserves a top level page?


 * I think Crater will also collide, but I don't think these collisions matter too much. One thing I think is important is that we distinguish between constellations and signs of the Zodiac. One is a region of the celestial sphere, the other is a twelfth part of the ecliptic. One is used for serious purposes, the other is just for astrological nonsense. Obviously they are related to some extent, but separate parts of the article should be devoted to them. And in the case of Capricornus/Capricorn and Scorpius/Scorpio they can even go in separate articles. --Zundark, 2001 Sep 15

I disagree, the constellations of the sky and the constellations of the zodiac are not just related, they are the same thing. Even though the may have slightly different borders - ancient and modern Poland still belong together. None of the constellations are real, and they all have their origins in myths that noone would take seriously today, that I would still hate to separate out, and that pertain as much to the astrology as they do to the astronomy. I do think some separation within a single article would be entirely appropriate, though. --Josh Grosse

Oh, well. In that case the whole Capricorn article has to be moved to Capricornus, as we can't have the constellation under Capricorn. So I'll do that. --Zundark, 2001 Sep 15

Primarly, capricorn is an animal, belonging to the goats. There are links to the page Capricorn from other languages describing this animal, and now they end up on a link, which is redirected to something describing a star constellation. Looks strange. Whenever this is corrected, the language link in Swedish should be Stenbock Dan Koehl 20:43 26 May 2003 (UTC)


 * I've checked several dictionaries, and the only meanings I find for the word in English are (a) the constellation Capricornus, (b) the tenth sign of the zodiac, and (c) a person born under that sign. So the current redirect to Capricornus is correct, because (rightly or wrongly) we always deal with signs of the zodiac on the same page as the corresponding constellation. Any links to Capricorn which expect it to be about an animal are incorrect and should be changed. According to the Stenbock article in the Swedish Wikipedia, Stenbock is the Swedish name for Capra ibex, which is called an ibex in English. --Zundark 08:29 27 May 2003 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

– Either the zodiac sign or the constellation is the WP:primary topic. Since the article about the constellation is at Capricornus, the plain title should be about the zodiac sign, with a hat note linking to the constellation and the disambiguation page. 202.28.181.200 (talk) 08:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Capricorn → Capricorn (disambiguation)
 * Capricorn (astrology) → Capricorn
 * Support per nom. Clearly the primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose the constellation is also called "Capricorn", the Tropic of Capricorn is also called just Capricorn. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The signs of the zodiac, consisting of 30 degree sectors of the ecliptic, are only used in western astrology today, but were used as a way of expressing ecliptic longitude in astronomy. The practice seems to have died out in astronomy by about 1850; I can't pin down exactly when it faded away. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose – on the basis that neither topic is "more likely than all the other topics combined ... to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term". I'm fine with this being a disambiguation page in much the same manner as I am with Scorpio. Regards, RJH (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per arguments given by RJH and 76.xx. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 03:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose It think it's better left as a dab per RJH.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 03:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * neutral - I can see rationales for both really....Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Best left as a dab becuse there is no one usage that is "clearly the primary usage". The constellation is also known as Capricorn. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Not a good idea. Since "Capricorn" is a significant alternative name for Capricornus, the constellation (astronomy), we should not send readers who look up that term to the astrology article. Science gets the primary topic, and the astrology zodiac sign gets "Capricorn (astrology)" just like is done with all the zodiac signs, and also with the astrological planets, e.g Venus (astrology). We better keep the astronomy and the astrology articles clearly separate. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I think most people would be searching for the constellation. StringTheory11 05:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case the disambiguation page should still be moved, and Capricorn redirected to Capricornus. --202.28.181.200 (talk) 05:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, better left as a disambiguation page. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.