Talk:Celestial cartography

Star atlases
Truly, not a single Akkadian source? You disappoint me, Internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.18.83 (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Untited
This page will consume the following stubs or rippers: The discussion is ongoing on Talk:Uranography. Said: Rursus 20:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Uranography - ripper,
 * 2) Celestial atlas - stub,
 * 3) Star atlas - a useful list, but stubby,
 * 4) Stellar cartography - stubby the stub...

Intro needs rewriting
I wrote it. I'm not the best of writers. Said: Rursus 22:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Stubs
Said: Rursus 22:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Measurement technologies:
 * originally: quadrant like observatories for star positioning,
 * then optics: lenses, mirrors, sextants and the like,
 * then photography
 * thereafter: computers, adaptive and active optics, CCD.
 * Celestial catalogues:
 * Almagest - stars,
 * Tabulae Rudolphinae - stars,
 * Prodromus astronomiae - stars,
 * Messier - "nebulae",
 * Herschel data - stars, "nebulae",
 * Argelander BD and follow ups, Dreyer NGC,
 * HD, SAO,
 * Hipparcos / Tycho,
 * USNO / Nomad
 * Star atlases:
 * a resumé over how star-globes/star atlases developed from 1500 to today. 1. Petrus Plancius'es globes, 2. Bayer to Hevelius, 3. Golden age of heavenly illustrations, 4. telescopic technical star atlases, 5. computer age atlases and computer programs.

Other articles to refer to
Said: Rursus 13:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Spherical astronomy
 * Astrometry

Future content
Notes moved from Talk:Uranography. Said: Rursus 13:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Time: Rursus 12:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Antiquity
 * Arabic astronomy
 * Modern Europe:
 * Renaissance revival - Tycho/Kepler, sea farers, Plancius, Bayer
 * 1500: Mercator (tech, math)
 * 1500: Vespucci (nav)
 * 1600: Tycho/Kepler (cat)
 * 1600: Keyser/deHoutman (nav, cat)
 * 1603: Bayer (map)
 * 1690: Hevelius (cat, map)
 * New mechanics (telescopes) - Newton, Halley, Lalande, deLacaille etc.
 * Newton (tech, math)
 * Halley (cat)
 * Lalande (cat)
 * deLacaille (cat)
 * Flamsteed (cat, map)
 * Bode (map)
 * Neomodern - ...
 * Computer age - ...

Star increment
Said: Rursus 05:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hipparchus: ~850 / 866?
 * Ptolemy: number missing in article, at least 1028
 * ~1600: Tycho Brahe: number missing in article, about 1004
 * ~1625: Rudolphine Tables, Bartsch edition, (Tycho/Kepler/Bartsch): ?? D*RN - I have to read the tables myself!
 * ~1690: Prodromus astronomiae, Johannes Hevelius: 1564
 * ~1760: Fundamenta astronomiae, James Bradley/Friedrich Bessel: 3222
 * thereafter an exponential explosion

"Star cartography" versus "astrometry"
Given that the introductory section of this article is so similar to the introduction for astrometry, should this article be moved to "astrometry"? I would hate to see astrometry made a redirect to this article. Dr. Submillimeter 12:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Su song
As I commented in Talk:Mercator projection -- how can you tell that the Su Song map is mercator projection? It looks somewhat like a cylindrical projection, though the unevent spacing of the meridians (if that's what they are) suggests that it is only very approximately that. But there are many cylindrical projections that are not Mercator. In fact, the claim that it shows "the correct position of the pole star" means that it cannot be Mercator, because a Mercator projection has the poles at infinity. Paul Koning 00:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Celestial cartography versus star cartography
Should the proper title for this webpage not be "Celestial cartography"? A simple Google search results in only 367 hits for "star cartography" and 2580 hits for "celestial cartography". "Star cartography" also suggests that it only involves the mapping of star positions, thus excluding lunar cartography and the cartography of other solar system members. AstroLynx (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I completely agree. I've always seen this subject named "celestial cartography"; "star cartography" may even be confusing and is rarely used. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not a great article
I think the proposed merger is a good idea. The two other articles mentioned seem of better quality, and I would suggest extracting whatever is of value from this article, and not already present in the better of the other two articles, and inserting it there. Sorry to be brutal. --Greenmaven (talk) 06:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

In fiction
Do we need the "In fiction" section? To me it looks inappropriate, and the latest addition seems like blatant advertising. Skeptic2 (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I completely agree: the latest addition is clearly spamming, nor does the Star Trek reference add anything useful. I would vote for deleting the whole section. AstroLynx (talk) 07:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the support. Skeptic2 (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)