Talk:Constellation/Archive 1

Constellations: "named after" _____?
It seems wrong to describe constellations as being "named after" mythological figures. Weren't the ancients more like believing they were somehow "up there" when they designated the names? Sure, you name a car after some engineer or long-lost hero, but shouldn't constellations be said to "represent" someone or something instead? Dr. Pedant Sfahey 03:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

"Improper" usage?
The article states: "The term is also often used, incorrectly, to denote a group of stars visibly related to each other in a particular configuration or pattern." While the term can refer to the IAU bounded regions, I think that the other usage is a valid one as well. The Oxford Dictionary defines a constellation as "a group of stars forming a recognizable pattern that is traditionally named after its apparent form or identified with a mythological figure." Perhaps the article should be altered to recognize these as two different, but equally valid, usages. --Piquan 03:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the opening paragraph is trying to say that asterisms are not constellations. My Pocket Oxford doesn't have your def, how old, and what version is your Ox? The modern def is area, while the old ones were the patterns certain stars made. -- Jeandré, 2006-02-10t19:25z


 * New Oxford American Dictionary, 2/e, May 2005. I only quoted the relevant passage; the full definition includes the definition as area in the next sentence: "Modern astronomers divide the sky into eighty-eight constellations with defined boundaries."  The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language/4e (2000) also recognizes the dual definition.  Let me be clear about the terminology, as I understand it.  As I'm using the terms, "constellation" can refer to either the 88 recognized star patterns, or the areas bounded that enclose them. "Asterism" refers to a star pattern that is not one of those 88, such as the Big Dipper.  The opening paragraph of the entry on asterism (as well as the definition in the dictionaries I quoted) also seem to support my interpretations.  The sentence which I quoted originally, from the current Constellation article, would seem to imply (at least how I read it) that the only valid definition is the bounded areas, and (presumably) that all star patterns are asterisms. -- Piquan 02:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "The modern def is area, while the old ones were the patterns certain stars made." Then perhaps that's (more or less) what it should say?  The current phrasing is better than what Piquan seems to be quoting, but I think a bit more mention of the historical use of the term belongs in the intro, although it should certainly be made clear what the modern definition is.  I'm going to think about possible ways to phrase this that will (hopefully) satisfy everyone.  Including historians as well as astronomers.  Xtifr tälk 18:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to make the introduction explain this, softening blow of telling people that what they always called constellations should properly be called asterisms.CharlesHBennett (talk)

Communist Constellations?
What exactly does the communist manifesto have to do with constellations?


 * As far as I know: nothing at all. But on the other hand, Karl Marx created the communist manifesto, and Groucho Marx was a movie star, so ... Twirling his moustaches, does: Rursus 13:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

what is a constellation?


 * Linguistically an ordered collection of stars. By convention an officially recognized area on heaven containing stars and such a conventional ordering. Twirling his moustaches, does: Rursus 13:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Messy navigation boxes
I hereby declare the constellation navigation boxes being messy (alt. foobared depending on general degree of geekiness). This I do in order to warn for my own future havocing them to look more alike. Twirling his moustaches, does: Rursus 13:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In (the very rare and unthinkable) case anyone would care, the havoc-transmogrification is ongoing. Rursus declamavi;  19:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Astrology sign people lists.
I noticed a growing list at Sagittarius of "Some famous Sagittariuses". Is there agreement on reverting these edits, since they're as arbitrary as lists of "Buddhists born in the month of Nisan of any year"? &mdash; Jeandré, 2005-04-11t16:23z


 * For the matter of peaceful coexistence with those astrologers, such items should be moved to the astrology pages. Since astrology is a hot potato for most scientifically minded people, it would be recommedable to make a  link in the Myth section of each Zodiacal-Constellation. This would be a polite protection for those astrology minded people searching their myth, from a few "science" fundamentalist fringe hunters. Rursus declamavi;  11:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Traditional names

 * Other stars have traditional names: for example, Barnard's star is named after its discoverer; Algol has an Arabic name meaning 'the ghoul' and an IAU name &beta;-Persei; and the Pole Star has a common English name, a Latin name, Polaris and an IAU name &alpha;-Ursae Minoris. There are companies that purport to name obscure stars after paying customers, but these names are recognized by nobody except the registering company and the customer, and there is nothing to stop two companies from claiming the same star, or even one company from registering the same star to two customers.

I've moved the above from the article because it doesn't have anything to do with constellations. We have an article on star names, currently called Star designation (although I'm not sure that's the best name for it). Some of the above could probably be moved there. --Zundark 15:37 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

names and designations
I changed the title of the section Star names to Constellation names and star designations. Is this petit-maitre-ic pedantry? Well, maybe, but I was confused, since by reading "Star names" I interpreted "Zuben-el-Genubi, Sirius, Rotanev, Adhafera and the like...". That's what's called Traditional names above. I propose the distinctions: Am I right, or wrong?? Rursus declamavi;  12:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Star designations : a noun construction according to one of the patterns:
 * greek letter + constellation genitive, ex.: Alpha Centauri,
 * number + constellation genitive, ex.: 61 Cygni,
 * roman small letter + constellation genitive, ex.: b Leonis (= 60 Leonis) – rarely used,
 * roman capital letter before R + constellation genitive, ex.: A Leonis (= 31 Leonis) – rarely used,
 * roman capital letter from R to Z + constellation genitive, ex.: R Coronae Borealis – for variable stars,
 * two roman capital letters + constellation genitive, ex.: TX Piscium – for variable stars,
 * V immediatelly followed by a number larger than 334 + constellation genitive, ex.: V389 Cygni – for variable stars,
 * Star names :
 * traditional unique names which have traditions from before 1600: ex.: Sirius, Denebola, Betelgeuse,
 * celestial cartographers inventions: ex.: Cor Caroli, Rotanev,
 * modern astronomer research namings: ''ex.: Garnet Star (Mu Cephei), La Superba (Y Canum Venaticorum), Bessel's Star (61 Cygni), Pistol Star, Barnard's Star, etc.."
 * Catalogue numbers: ex.: HD 206774, HIP 96459, etc..

Not real?
I strongly object to the first sentence: "First, a constellation is NOT real." Constellations are, in fact real. They do exist. I believe the point the author of this is trying to make is that stars are not, in fact, set in some sort of pattern that looks like picture to us. The definition of constellation is about the stars' relations to each other in the mind of the viewer. Saying they're not real is like saying dreams are not real. While a dream is not reality, dreams do exist: the dreamer does actually have a dream, which I'm sure most of us can attest to. Someone needs to rewrite this line to better explain. I have reverted the recent change, which I just noticed it was very recent, but if this problem persists, or Wasangtse wants to know why, here it is. Garnet Avi 04:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Moving new text for discussion
The following text was added recently, under the heading of "Notes": I've moved it here so that it can be assessed, cited, and better incorporated into the article. Thoughts? --Ckatz chat spy  09:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In three-dimensional space, most of the stars we see have little or no relation to one another, but can appear to be grouped on the celestial sphere of the night sky.
 * A star pattern may be widely known but may not be recognized by the International Astronomical Union; such a pattern of stars is called an asterism. An example is the grouping called the Big Dipper (North America) or the Plough (UK).
 * The stars in a constellation or asterism rarely have any astrophysical relationship to each other; they just happen to appear close together in the sky as viewed from Earth and typically lie many light-years apart in space. However, one exception to this is the Ursa Major moving group.

Changing usage
I note that the arrangement of satellites (and/or their orbits) particularly for GPS is now being referred to as a "GPS constellation". Perhaps the lead sentence of the article could be modified to reflect this by referring to "heavenly bodies" then "typically stars" and another sentence somewhere making note of GPS (and perhaps other (navigational) satellite) usage of the term. Regards, 122.148.173.37 (talk) 07:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I made the slightest change to the first lead in intro line to suit. Regards, 122.148.173.37 (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Added man-made satellite sentence. Done. Intro section still too long though and should go into a new section on history or something... 122.148.173.37 (talk) 08:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The first para needs to be radically changed. A constellation is a fixed area of sky, defined by the IAU. Star patterns don't come into it these days. The usage of the term "constellation" for clusters of satellites is surely just generic and doesn't require definition here. Skeptic2 (talk) 11:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Reference section
The reference section, though well designed, is massive compared to the article. Much of this should really be in separate articles rather than serving as a reference to constellations. - Parsa (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. It is somewhat bizarre to find a references section that forms so much of an article.&mdash;RJH (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The reference section is probably more useful if it is moved to the article amateur astronomy AstroLynx (talk) 07:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the reference section would be more useful if it was for the most part deleted. Wikipedia is not a directory nor is it a "how-to" to help people observe Constellations. This is just one giant Further reading section. It should contain "a reasonable number of recommended publications that do not appear elsewhere in the article and were not used to verify article content" WP:FURTHERREADING. This is way over the top. Lets use them in-line or dump them. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Did a quick cleanup for obvious WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTHOWTO. Could use more.Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have taken common sense WP:BRD at the article since there were obvious non-encyclopedic reference sections such as the directory of magazines, list of mechanical Planispheres, and "how-to" references (Wikipedia would never contain how-to material). What remains was converted into "Further reading". If there were any obvious overall references, other editors can create that section and move the relevant listing into it. It looks to me like what the article needs now is expansion with inline cites since it is missing allot of descriptive information such as a comprehensive history of how these names came about. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Planets in the constellations
I would like to start Headline text called "Planets". It will be a list of all the planets found in that said constellation. I'll start with Capricornus, Horologium, & Lyra to show you what it would look like, & to see if you like it. &mdash; Hurricane Devon  ( Talk ) 18:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think "Extrasolar planet(s)" would be a better section title. &mdash; Jeandré, 2005-10-22t14:01z


 * I've added an exoplanets section to the Lyra page as an experiment. I think this makes sense as a standard addition to constellation pages, but I want to wait to see how the experiment works here before adding similar sections for other constellations. — Aldaron • T/C 01:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Also added for Cygnus. — Aldaron • T/C 17:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Adverts for astrological societies
I removed a biased and unreferenced paragraph that appeared to be an advert for an astrological society, who claimed to have discovered an, as yet, unidentified phenomenon in the region of the Andromeda galaxy. The relevant section has been reverted to a state prior to the inclusion of the advert c. early December 2009. I would suggest watching this page for future vandalism of a similar sort.

Spectral Diagram (talk) 05:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

differences between North and South hemispheres
would the southern hemisphere have completely different constellations than the northern? If so, is there any data or starmaps on them? Murakumo-Elite (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not quite. There's some overlap between the constellations of both hemispheres, and how much continuity entirely depends on the location of the observer. I would suggest downloading Stellarium, http://www.stellarium.org - it's a free star map, and if you modify/enable certain settings you'll be able to see whichever constellations are visible from your location. Spectral Diagram (talk) 03:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Star Maps -- could do better?
I think that the star maps shown on the individual constellation pages could be drawn better. The use of black on white is totally confusing and the asterisms (patterns drawn here in green) are completely arbitrary. Might I suggest maps similar to (if not taken from) the book Collins Gem Stars (2004/5 edition).** They use better coloration: white on blue with brightest stars in true colour e.g. Betelgeux red, Capella yellow etc. Also they use the official asterisms recommended by the IAU which are based on what the constellations actually look like.

** I do not know the ISBN as I can't find the book.

Gee Eight, 19:51 UTC, 13 Dec 2005


 * Probably ISBN 0007178581. I have the 2000 edition (ISBN 0-00-472474-7) illustrated by Wil Tirion: which is white on blue (darkest blue inside const. borders, lightest blue for Milky way), with yellow dashed const. borders, yellow connecting lines of main BD stars.
 * My Cambridge guide to the constellations 1995 (ISBN 0-521-44921-9) is black on white like WP's, and if we replace the WP images with white on blue we should keep the black on whites for printing. — Jeandré, 2005-12-17t11:55z

Could someone add a complete sky map for the Greek constellation system to this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysong263 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

non-western constellations
Native Americans have a belief about the interaction between generations of families that encompasses the width and breadth of the present and the depth of time. They refer to it as Constellation. Here's hoping someone who knows more about it will treat this additional definition.

Any discussions of Arabic constellations, and others? -GOD


 * Hmm, maybe such a section is needed, but Arabic constellations pretty much equals antiquity constellations, and our constellations are Arabic constellations – the Arab high culture preserved most of our information from the antiquity, while it was lost in the West. Most traditional star names are garbled Arabic noun phrases that was originally translated from greek. Rursus declamavi;  11:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the pre-Islamic nomadic Arabian constellations were not the same as the Mesopotamian, Greek, and Ptolemaic constellations. For instance there was a gigantic lion, Al-Asad, covering much of the sky. There were also a number of smaller asterisms. The head of Cetus was a Hand, the tail was a Necklace, and the part in the middle were Ostriches. So, if there are sources on these, it would be nice to have a section in the article. - Parsa (talk) 04:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * the Arabic constellations of the middle ages is the same Greece constellations, but i don`t know about the pre-Islamic. however, there is a many asterisms in the Arabic culture, for example, there is in Orion a 3 asterisms (the belt, the sword, and the bow), also there is a 4 in Ursa Major. Al-Sufi book, "the fixed stars", is a good source for the asterisms, but for a general section about the asterisms in the Arabic culture i don`t know if it will be useful --Abbad Dira (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC).

Galaxy vs Constellation
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

This excellent article has no mentioning of the term "galaxy". I suggest clarifying the differences between the galaxy and the constellation in this article. I would explore discussion of several specific constellations that include known and familiar stars from various galaxies in the celestial sphere.

Kind Regards,

David George, USA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.209.43 (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Should Indian astrology appear here?
Should Indian astrology appear on this page about astronomical constellations? Moriori (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, no. Removed. — kwami (talk) 06:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Predominance
I have performed some corrections in the article, but I noticed an error that I couldn´t correct. In the section IAU constellations, the text says "Out of the 88 modern constellations, 31 lie predominantly in the northern sky, and the other 58 predominantly in the southern." I hence request the experts in the area to correct this inconsistency in the numbers. Claudio M Souza (talk) 01:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Nobody made any comment on my request above, but I could find in List of constellations by area that the numbers in the article were really wrong - or, at least, different from another article in WP. So I made the correction in order to keep both articles coherent: 52 southern and 36 northern constellations. Claudio M Souza (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't Australian Aboriginal astronomy appear here?
Since we are listing different cultures' systems of constellations? Kortoso (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Merge
History of the constellations has less info than the history section here, so we can hardly call it the 'main article'. Should either be moved here or the bulk of the info here should be moved there. — kwami (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. History of the constellations should go into Constellation and become a redirect. I moved the merge-template there.  R fassbind  – talk   03:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

21st century constellations
I'm awaiting more information on the MIRA Public Observatory. It's not just "media hype," but rather a very modern usage. Discuss. kencf0618 (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Astronomers will never use this 'constellation'; they only recognize the 88 constellations defined by the IAU in 1930. AstroLynx (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This isn't an IAU matter, but rather a MIRA matter. And technically it's not a constellation but an asterism. kencf0618 (talk) 13:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Then it should be described as such, not a new constellation but a non-notable 'asterism' which a month from now will be forgotten by everyone (Mars will also have moved on). AstroLynx (talk) 13:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * kencf0618. This is not relevant to the listing of the modern constellations. It is also not recognised as any accepted asterism. Revert again, and you'll almost certainly be sanctioned for your actions. Personal opinions, even said on some website as highlighted, are not encyclopedic enough to be left here. Revert again, and you could be legitimately sanctioned for vandalism. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd like to have that crystal ball you're both gazing into. Constellation and asterism are commonly conflated, and this article isn't only about IAU constellations. The stars comprising the Alladin Sane lightning bolt were, according to press reports, photographed at the time of David Bowie's death, fittingly enough in the vicinity of Mars. And the IAU manifestly isn't the only agency which registers constellations, given that the MIRA Public Observatory has done just that. (If anyone else has information about this program, put it up on Wikipedia! Constellations are cultural artifacts, even pop culture artifacts.) And finally, threats of sanctions are moot -you might like to calibrate your crystal ball. kencf0618 (talk) 01:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Non-notable and ephemeral trivia like this belongs on the David Bowie page, not here. There is already a section on this 'asterism' on the Bowie page. AstroLynx (talk) 09:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * kencf0618. Garbage. The constellations are the scientific demarcation of the stars in the sky, used specifically to place all objects into agreed areas of the sky. It is internationally agreed. Like most, individuals are unable to grasp the role the IAU plays, and are too willing to dis them when ideas don't meet someones expectations or delusions of social importance via hype via the media.


 * As to my warnings, your repeated edits were bordering on 3RRR, which are subject to direct sanctions. If you are requiring to change this, you must have some consensus, which you appear not to have. Without proposing any convincing arguments to support you contentions, crystal balls are simply irrelevant. Moot they might be in your eyes, but factually under the rules governing Wikipedian edits, they certainly crystal clear relevant. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Close, but no cigar re Wikipedia sanctions. I do admit, however, to a mistake in that the MIRA Public Observatory created the Bowie asterism in conjunction with Radio Brussels; there was no registration involved. Indeed, AFAIK asterisms vis-à-vis constellation are not codified under the aegis of any office or organ whatsoever. Now, if the IAU is petitioned for a Bowie toponym (which is currently being done, mind you) and such winds up on its agenda, then Houston, we have notability. I am, in the meantime, letting Diamond Dogs lie. kencf0618 (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

alpha, beta designations in constellations
Will someone knowledgeable please include in the article the meaning of the designations of some stars in a constellation as "alpha", "beta", etc? I'm guessing it has to do with the observed brightness of the star ("alpha" being brightest). Articles about specific constellations mention these designations without defining them.
 * That's exactly it, right down the greek alphabet.Sfahey 03:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia, as is often the case, contains the answer to your question. The traditional Greek-letter star names, or Bayer designations, generally go in order of decreasing brightness, but not exactly, partly because when the scheme was invented it was not possible to measure brightness accurately.CharlesHBennett (talk) 01:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion to create a table denoting the historic origins of each of the 88 'modern' constellations
Cf. the WYSIWYG subject. I think this would give a well-understandable overview. (Verheyen Vincent (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC))
 * You mean like this? http://www.ianridpath.com/constellations1.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.19.111 (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that interesting link. Indeed, like so; but perhaps grouped per source (that is, to sort the items per the last column "Origin")? Unless it would be an interactive-sortable table of course. (Verheyen Vincent (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC))

Changes to recent edits on southern constellations
Changing the statements made as follows that have been reverted, are justified as follows...


 * 1 "The earliest of the 88 IAU-recognized constellations in this region were introduced in the late 16th century by Petrus Plancius and were mainly based on the observations of the Dutch navigators Pieter Dirkszoon Keyser...."


 * "Many of the 88 IAU-recognized constellations in this region were to be adopted from in the late 16th century by Petrus Plancius and were mainly based on the observations of the Dutch navigators Pieter Dirkszoon Keyser..."


 * The second is true, as Crux or Phoenix, for example, predate all of these. Also the IAU constellations were adopted as they assigned different stars and boundaries.


 * 2 "Frederick de Houtman who had added fifteen by the end of the sixteenth century."


 * Addition of this statement is factual, based on the Table 88 IAU-recognized constellations


 * These are the southern constellations introduced by Plancius in 1589, 1592 and 1597/98. AstroLynx (talk) 08:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * So darn what. You are missing the point. Whilst Plancius stated these constellations in those years, the areas were ill-defined and ambiguous. Some like Phoenix, were also known as the Eagle and were already established in the 8th Century during Islam period. You here are wrongly ascribing the evolution in how they became to be accepted. (These issues were still occurring in the 1840s. I.e. John Herschel's "On the Advantages of a Revision and Re-arrangement of the Constellations, with especial reference to those of the Southern Hemisphere.", MmRAS., 12, 201 (1842)
 * I changed the text here because the earlier version was misleading, whose nationalistic context was wrong - especially implying the southern area was unknown and that earlier or preexisting constellations didn't exist. (Actually, the whole region was also possibly assigned as part of Argo Navis.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 3 Similarly is: "...Another ten were added by Petrus Plancius..."


 * Changing it would require changing Table 88 IAU-recognized constellations


 * These mainly northern constellations were introduced by Plancius in 1613. AstroLynx (talk) 08:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Here we are only talking about southern constellations, whereas the northern ones already existed even back to Eudoxus. Again, Plancius adopted parts of the sky to his divisions, where they competed with other preexisting constellations. I.e. The defined constellation were in constant flux. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 4 "A few years after their first appearance on Dutch celestial globes they were also adopted by Johann Bayer in his star atlas Uranometria of 1603."


 * "However, most of these early constellations did not formally appear until a century after their creation ref name="Allen1899" /, when they were later depicted by Johann Bayer "


 * The cite says this, and the delay is with Bayer as well. "A few years" is not a century, and the changes gives no reference to change it. Claiming "historically more correct" is just false.


 * Plancius introduced his constellations in 1589, 1592 and 1597/98 – Bayer copied them in 1603. How does this add up to an interval of a century? Allen (1899) is not a reliable source for the history of the southern constellations. AstroLynx (talk) 08:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * When were Bayer's constellations actually accepted as gospel?? Again, they were competed with other preexisting constellations, where different countries used different sets of constellations. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * "Allen (1899) is not a reliable source for the history of the southern constellations." Citation please. (Worst, my cite here is better than none at all!) Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 5 Adding "However, most of the knowledge of these ancient origins were irrecoverably and likely became forever lost with the Destruction of the Library of Alexandria." is justified.


 * The origin of comment "strange skies" in the south is based on ancient sources on these expeditions in 600 and 500BC. These predate Ptolemy (200AD), especially as the Library's destruction occurred possibly several times before he saw them. The source of many of the early constellations are Aratos who in turn is predated by Hipparchus: and both before Ptolemy. Origin of the information of the earlier observers was lost, whose manuscripts were known to be in Alexandra. AstroLynx saying "If this information was in the Library of Alexandria, why did Ptolemy not use it?" is thus explained. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * This is speculative and unsourced. How can Hipparchus (2nd cent. BC) predate Aratus (3rd cent. BC)? AstroLynx (talk) 08:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It might be speculative, but as much of Hipparchus' and Eudoxus' works were certainly held in Alexandria, which second or tertiary sources hint he created several constellations. This isn't straight forward, which I've qualified I.e. "A true history of southern constellation names remains neither definitive nor straight forward...."
 * As it says [Aratus] article; "The purpose of the Phenomena is to give an introduction to the constellations,... These errors are partly to be attributed to Eudoxus himself, and partly to the way in which Aratus has used the materials supplied by him. Hipparchus (about a century later), who was a scientific astronomer and observer, has left a commentary upon the Phenomenas of Eudoxus and Aratus, accompanied by the discrepancies which he had noticed between his own observations and their descriptions."
 * "How can Hipparchus (2nd cent. BC) predate Aratus (3rd cent. BC)?" Hipparchus discusses Aratus works, though the original writing of the Phenomenas is missing, but we have is after "...as is proved by the large number of commentaries and Latin translations, some of which survive." These are all after Hipparchus work, and have been severely modified. I.e They were written in prose but now appear as hexameters. Notably, much of Ptolemy's work is based on Hipparchus, with Hipparchus being the source of the constellations in the skies seen from Rhodes. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Reverting my edits has now resulted in a chronologically confused section in which it appears that Keyser/de Houtman/Plancius introduced 15 + 10 = 25 southern constellations of which only 15 are identified. AstroLynx (talk) 08:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Eh? Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Constellation. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050410212059/http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/Cat?VI%2F49 to http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/Cat?VI%2F49
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130830160349/http://members.westnet.com.au/Gary-David-Thompson/ to http://members.westnet.com.au/Gary-David-Thompson/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Common vs technical usage of word constellation
I have attempted a better explanation of the difference between the lay and technical senses of the word constellation, reducing the shock many non-astronomers may experience in being told that what they have always called a constellation should be called an asterism, a word they may never have heard of. Indeed a search on Google's Google Ngram Viewer shows that the word "constellation" is used about 50 times more often than "asterism".CharlesHBennett (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC) Of course this difference is well explained in the body of the article, but I think it helps to mention it in the introduction, because the word "constellation" is so much more familiar.CharlesHBennett (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Although the difference between an asterism and constellation needs to be made, and possibly in the lead, I'm uncomfortable with the current definition. The statement that a grouping of stars must be called an asterism is not quite correct.  A grouping of stars that isn't a constellation (and possibly also isn't an actual star cluster - Praesepe doesn't have to be called an asterism) is called an asterism.  The entire grouping of star within a constellation boundary is called a constellation (perhaps some latin in the lead?) and the IAU itself is entirely comfortable with this usage.  Nobody is claiming that the grouping of stars commonly known as Orion must be referred to as an asterism.  Of course there can be all sorts of philosophical discussions about how many, how bright, and which stars have to be referred to before an asterism becomes a constellation, and I haven't quite been able to come up with a form of words that succinctly captures the distinction.  Lithopsian (talk) 10:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The Pleiades are called an asterism in this article, though both those articles claim that's incorrect.
 * I'm not sure what to do, because Asterism makes it clear that the applicability of the term is contingent on scientific knowledge which can change.
 * The IAU concept of a constellation is *useful* because it explicates other astronomical terminology while also having a precisely defined set of referents; the concept of an asterism offers neither benefit.
 * The lay meaning of "constellation" is not only ubiquitous but *also* useful in a way "asterism" is not, because its applicability is independent of scientific discoveries that may not yet have been made; in fact, it's a hypernym of "asterism" and "star cluster".
 * I suppose the terms "IAU constellation" and "lay constellation" could be used for disambiguation where context did not suffice, but first of all, bletch, and second of all, "foo constellation" is really an abbreviation for "the foo meaning of 'constellation'", which would probably need to be spelled out at least once.
 * This terminology is a mess; it's no wonder the editor who here called the Pleiades an asterism was confused. But the best encyclopedists can hope for is to accurately describe the sorry state of affairs, not to rectify it; and the  challenge is to do so tersely enough to avoid losing the reader's interest, but clearly enough to avoid compounding confusion. Will Mengarini (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I would suggest not using Asterism (astronomy) as a source. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and that article in particular is poorly-referenced and a bit of a cross between an essay and an opinion-piece. In that vein, I wouldn't get too hung up on the idea that an asterism depends on the state of scientific knowledge; I would contend that asterisms are entirely anthropomorphic constructs - patterns of visible dots in the sky regardless of their true nature.  So, sticking to this article: the claim that the Pleiades is an asterism is made more than once, but not backed up by any proof.  Pleiades (not a reliable reference!) makes no such claim, although I'm pretty sure you could find sources that do use that terminology.  So I think that claim, without references, is probably a poor one to be in the lead of this article; sticking to something unambiguously an asterism would be better.  The terminology is confusing, but that's why Wikipedia is here.  I don't think making up your own terminology (eg. "lay constellation") is the way to improve things, although some reference here to popular usages of the word that don't match the IAU constellations (including, or not, obsolete constellations) would be useful.  You might start by making a few small changes here, seeing if that floats with other editors, and then tackling Asterism (astronomy) which looks like a much bigger job.  Lithopsian (talk) 14:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * "Nobody is claiming that the grouping of stars commonly known as Orion must be referred to as an asterism." Orion is a constellation. Orion the Hunter is an asterism. The Pleiades is an asterism (star cluster) in the constellation of Taurus. Simply a constellation is a set of designated stars within a recognised boundary. Constellations can be ones like Orion or Cassiopeia, as recognised by the IAU, or others like Argo or Vespa, etc. are defunct constellations. Asterism are defined as just a group or pattern of stars within a constellation but is not bound within any defined area. e.g. Venus' Mirror is the central asterism within the constellation of Orion. It is the line joining star in a square with a line making a handle. In the southern hemisphere, this is commonly known as the asterism called 'The Saucepan.'
 * Note: I've just rewritten the first paragraph to improve the introduction of asterism. Also someone also changed the last paragraph of Constellation in the introduction, and totally changed the meaning. (I'll fix this as well.) Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I've tried to belay your concerns, and have now severely modified the article on asterism. Could you comment on the modifications? Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The conceptual structure is now vastly improved, and seems essentially satisfactory. There's work to be done on grammar and usage; I'll try to get to that in a day or two.

Second paragraph of the lead
Waffle, waffle, waffle. Well that's my opinion anyway. It doesn't seem to be clearly summarising anything presented in the rest of the article, isn't itself cited, and just looks like someone's opinion. It isn't "wrong" in any blatant way but just isn't encyclopaedic. I'm tempted to just dump the whole paragraph. That seems a little brutal for the 2nd paragraph of the lead, but it really doesn't strike me as a very solid sub-title for the subject. The 1st paragraph is a simple overall definition, and the other lead paragraphs add a little more detail, although perhaps a little light on non-western aspects. Lithopsian (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Contradiction 1
If the Introduction text says: "The 48 traditional western constellations are Greek.", then how can the body of the text say:

"The Greeks adopted the Babylonian system in the 4th century BC. A total of twenty Ptolemaic constellations are directly continued from the Ancient Near East. Another ten have the same stars but different names. (from "Greek Constellations 2006")

and under "Constellations in Classical antiquity" is says : "There is only limited information on ancient Greek constellations, with some fragmentary evidence being found in the Works and Days of Greek poet Hesiod,.."

The introduction statement above, recently edited by Attic Salt, must be incorrect. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn’t add that information about 48 constellations being Greek to the lede. Attic Salt (talk) 05:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * No you didn't, but you did modified it. You changed this "The traditional Western constellations are the 48 Greek classical patterns, as stated in both Aratus' work Phenomena or Ptolemy's Almagest, though their existence probably predates these constellation names by several centuries." to this "The 48 traditional western constellations are Greek. They are given in Aratus' work Phenomena and Ptolemy's Almagest, though their origin probably predates these works by several centuries." A completely different context. Direct evidence is "[You] did add that information about 48 constellations being Greek to the lede." Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What are we arguing about here: who wrote something or what it should say? Blame is unhelpful.  Going back to July, I see this form of words:

The Western-traditional constellations are the forty-eight Greek classical patterns, as stated in both Aratus' work Phenomena or Ptolemy's Almagest — though their existence probably predates these constellation names by several centuries. Today it is: The 48 traditional western constellations are Greek. They are given in Aratus' work Phenomena and Ptolemy's Almagest, though their origin probably predates these works by several centuries.

The older form is a little clumsy, but is the newer form inaccurate? Neither form seems to be an obvious summary of information later in the article. Ptolomy's 48 constellation are mentioned only in passing the the rest of the article, although reading between the lines the western-traditional constellations are attributed to Ptolomy. Did a bunch of information get split into another article? Lithopsian (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Statement : ""The Greeks adopted the Babylonian system in the 4th century BC. A total of twenty Ptolemaic constellations are directly continued from the Ancient Near East." not not infer or necessarily say "The 48 traditional western constellations are Greek." User:Attic Salt change is clearly inaccurate, and has changed the context. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand what Arianwiki1 is concerned about. Is this edit the problem? , where I changed


 * "The traditional Western constellations are the 48 Greek classical patterns, as given in Aratus work Phenomena and Ptolemy's Almagest, though their origin probably predates these works by several centuries."

to


 * "The 48 traditional Western constellations are Greek. They are given in Aratus work Phenomena and Ptolemy's Almagest, though their origin probably predates these works by several centuries."

Why is this such a problem? Attic Salt (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * No that is not the problem. You change the context. The body of the text says otherwise. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I changed the context? Attic Salt (talk) 02:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Date for IAU recognition of 88 constellations?
The lede of this article says that the IAU recognized the 88 modern constellations in 1928. But the body of this article, in the section on 88 modern constellations, says that a list of constellations was produced for the IAU in 1922. No mention is made of 1928. The article then goes on to say that the boundaries weren't defined until 1930, and when this was done, it was done with outdated data. When I look at the book by John C. Barentine (p. 27), it says that in 1928 the IAU only recognised constellations (and boundaries) north on -12.5 degrees declination. The boundaries for other constellations was not completed until 1930 (Barentine, p. 29] and that these were not reviewed until the "Fourth Assembly" (of the IAU?) in 1932. Anyway, at one point in the past, I tried to make the lede consistent with the body of the article, only to be reverted . I note that the issue of when the 88 constellations (and boundaries) were all formally recognised by IAU seems to have percolated over to the article 88 modern constellations says that the IAU adopted a list of 88 constellations in 1922, but no mention is made of 1928. I would be happy to see some consistency and correctness brought to this and related articles. Thanks, Attic Salt (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I wondered when someone would pick up on this. The date for adoption of the 88 constellations and their 3-letter abbreviations was 1922. The boundaries were adopted in 1928 and published 1930.
 * http://www.ianridpath.com/startales/startales1d.htm#delporte
 * http://www.ianridpath.com/iaulist1.htm
 * http://www.ianridpath.com/boundaries.htm
 * 92.9.125.212 (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * All this explained in this external link "SCIENTIFIC DEMARCATION of the CONSTELLATIONS (TABLES and CHARTS)" : . The constellations names appeared in H.N. Russell's Popular Astronomy article in 1922, but lists Argo, making 89 names. The Commission 3 was still considering what do include even after 1922, being Antonius and Noctra. If you read the IAU Commission minutes Vol. II, p.19-25 (1925) & III, p.223 (1928), which I've read. (They are written in French)
 * In Vol. III, p.299 it says: "The Commission adopts the proposal to fix the limits of the constellations while basing itself in time arcs and circles and celestial parallels and expresses the wish to see the work published, under the auspices of the U.A.I. [Early French name for the IAU] including an atlas extending from +90 to -12° and containing stars down to 6.5 magnitude. The adopted equinox is that of 1875.
 * The limits of the constellations are selected so as to avoid the renaming of stars and variables, this condition will be also be examined by the Commission of variable stars of the A.G."
 * This set the true boundaries, which defines each constellation.
 * Finally, after this was checked by the variable stars group, coming back in mid-1928. Final approval was in February or March 1930. IAU General Secretary produced the final report ad it was formally accepted at the IAU Commission 3 meeting in 1932 (In Vol. IV, pg.19 (1932).
 * Two further changes were made in 1964 (in Vol. XII B p. 269), where Hydrus abbreivation was changed from Hys to Hyi, and te LMC and SMC were recommended for constellation.
 * The 1922 list was just a general published suggestion. These particular names and boundaries were still not universal, and continue to vary from country to country, and remained confusing across the nations. Decision that solved this was in 1928. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

How can it be said that the decision that the 1928 decision "set the true boundaries, which defines each constellation: when it only extended down to 12 degrees declination? Attic Salt (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Because the southern constellations were based on Gould 'Uranometria Argentina' set in 1875, which had already been accepted. If you look at "SCIENTIFIC DEMARCATION of the CONSTELLATIONS (TABLES and CHARTS)" :, it says so in in Para. 3 "B.A. Gould’s work (Uranometria Argentina, maps, 1877) presented amendments for the southern hemisphere, the boundaries of the constellations being formed by meridians of right ascension and parallels of declination for the equinox (2) (Epoch) of 1875.0 and, in particular cases, by curves which are as close as possible to great circles of the spheres (3) and whose position is given by intersections with meridians and parallels."
 * Note: Trying to creating doubt where this is none is against WP:GF. If actual minutes and original documents aren't good enough (and stating in an edit summary "Doesn't sound right to me.") simply diminishes you own credibility. Facts trump opinions every time. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: I was asking a question. Attic Salt (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: "Doesn't sound right to me." is not a question. Just saying. Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Origin of word 'Constellation'
User:Attic Salt has reverted this :


 * From: "The word "constellation" likely comes from the Late Latin term cōnstellātiō, which can be translated as "set of stars", and came into use in English during the 14th century."'


 * To : "The word "constellation" comes from the Late Latin term cōnstellātiō, which can be translated as "set of stars", and came into use in English during the 14th century."

The true origin is uncertain, as said in Richard Alan's "Star Names : Their Lore and Meaning" (1899)

"ORIGIN Middle English (as an astrological term denoting the relative positions of the “stars” (planets), supposed to influence events): via Old French from late Latin constellatio(n-), based on Latin stella ‘star.’"

The usage of the term is likely French in origin, as astera (and other word forms) was used in Latin texts.

The word "likely" avoids the ambiguity.

As for the revert of "The 48 traditional adopted Western constellations are Greek." to "The 48 traditional western constellations are Greek" is wrong

"western" is a cardinal direction, while Western (actually Western Civilisation) is capitalised. Does the sentence mean constellation in the west? Better still, just drop the word western altogether. Also it is 'Ancient Greek' not 'Greek', which was removed by User:Attic Salt.

Also, some of the ancient Greek constellations were adopted from the Mesopotamian culture, predating this. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that "Western" in this context should be capitalized. I, too, did a double-take at "western" -- there are no western constellations, just northern and southern ones.  We can't omit a modifier of some sort, as "traditional constellations" is much broader.  How about "The 48 traditional European constellations go back to Ptolemy and Hipparchus, who collected them from earlier traditions around the Mediterranean and the Near East."


 * I would suggest "probably" rather than "likely". Something like: The word "constellation" came into use in English during the 14th century.  It probably derives from medieval French, and ultimately from the Late Latin term cōnstellātiō, which can be translated as "set of stars".   Added: All the dictionaries I checked give the derivation as Med. French from Latin. This does not seem controversial.


 * -- Elphion (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * According to the Oxford dictionary.


 * "2 (usu. Western) living in or originating from the west, in particular Europe or the US: Western society.
 * - of, relating to, or characteristic of the West or its inhabitants: the history of Western art.
 * - historical of or originating in the noncommunist states of Europe and North America in contrast to the Eastern bloc."
 * Manual of Style/Capital letters under MOS:COMPASS says so too. Please reverse your edit. In future, if you make edits like this will me then please follow WP:BRD. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * My original version said: "In the northern hemisphere, the Western-traditional constellations were the forty-eight Greek classical patterns, as stated in both Aratus work known as the Phenomena or Ptolemy's Almagest — though their existence probably predates these constellation names by several centuries. Newer constellations in the far southern sky were added much later during 15th and mid-18th century, when European explorers began travelling to the southern hemisphere."


 * The current replaced text is: "The 48 traditional western constellations are Greek. They are given in Aratus' work Phenomena and Ptolemy's Almagest, though their origin probably predates these works by several centuries. Constellations in the far southern sky were added from the 15th century until the mid-18th century when European explorers began travelling to the Southern Hemisphere."


 * Yet Attic Salt changed text from this to this, where 'southern hemisphere' was modified to 'Southern Hemisphere', yet now argues 'western' is wrongly capitalised as 'Western'. So which is it then? Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * . Attic Salt (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So what has this link have to do with this? Clearly "Western" here, meaning "Western civilisation", is not a direction. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you didn't see this sentence in the {[WP:MOS]]: "Do not capitalize descriptive names for regions that have not attained the status of proper names, such as southern Poland." That's the advice I've been trying to work with. Regarding "Northern Hemisphere" or "Southern Hemisphere", personally, I'd prefer not to capitalise those as well, but, before I made the changes for those words in this article, I first checked the articles on Northern/Southern Hemisphere, where I found that the convention they are using is to capitalise them. I'm just trying to tow the Wikipedia convention. Note that if we decide to capitalise "western"in this article, there will be several places in the article, not just the one you are focussed on, where a change would need to be made. Thanks for you interest on this issue. Attic Salt (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Insofar as "Western", as appearing in the article, is about "Western civilisation", and not about a generic a geographic region (like "southern" in the above example), and insofar as this is pretty much conventional, I have reverted my changes on this, and put in "Western" throughout the relevant places in the article. I thank Arianewiki1 and Elphion for prompting this reconciliation. Attic Salt (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

IAU designated constellations
The old entry '88 modern constellations', which is linked to in several places in this article, has now been moved to 'IAU designated constellations' so some re-editing may be needed here. Skeptic2 (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Asterisms in more than one constellation
The lede contains the following sentences: "Asterisms often refer to several stars within a constellation or may share stars with several constellations. Examples include the Pleiades and Hyades within the constellation Taurus ..." And, yet, when I look at the articles on Pleiades and Hyades, no mention is made of these asterisms being in more than one constellation (both are simply said to be in Taurus. The map for the Pleiades found here appears to show the Pleiades entirely within the boundaries of Taurus. Further more, the assertion that some asterisms share stars with "several" constellations seems likely to be an exaggeration. Perhaps "more than one" is a better description? Anyway, it looks like the sentences in the lede need to be fixed or tuned up. Thanks, Attic Salt (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hyades is a dab page ;) The examples are incomplete.  Suggest Summer Triangle would help to illustrate this.  Winter hexagon might be one that covers the most constellations.  Lithopsian (talk)
 * Part of the problem is related to this edit: . I will re-insert "of asterisms" to partially repair the text so that it reads: "Asterisms often refer to several stars within a constellation or may share stars with several constellations. Examples of asterisms include the Pleiades and Hyades within the constellation Taurus ...". This way, confusion is reduced, as these asterisms are not examples of those with stars in several constellations. Attic Salt (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * As usual, someone removes some text, making other statements false, then complain the text makes no sense. The example is the asterism of the 'False Cross', which occupies stars of Vela and Carina. I originally wrote this text to be explicit, and made it consistent with the articles on asterisms and constellation, but meddling between them since has caused more problems. Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Lead. Again.
There is another desire to change the lead, quite dramatically in this case. I reverted the second attempt, partly on the technicality that contentious changes should be discussed rather than starting an edit war, partly because the opening sentence doesn't mention the word constellation and I think that in itself needs correcting. There were other edits that also got caught up in the revert, some of which should probably be re-implemented - apologies for that.

It is worth noting that the lead has been discussed and modified extensively, including major changes quite recently. It would be helpful to review these changes before getting too deep into this new discussion. The definition is complex because there are multiple uses of the word, scientific, lay, and historical. The means the lead has tended to seem quite vague in an attempt to cover all the bases. I'm sure it can be improved. Lithopsian (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said on your Talk page, I was trying to get the entry back closer to where it was in June 2017 before it was messed about with by ArianeWiki, among others
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constellation&oldid=787775346
 * Surely there is no need to repeat the headword in the definition. Skeptic2 (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I generally prefer the lead before your edits. "Constellation" means many things; the IAU-defined areas are a technical revision of a long-standing popular idea, and not necessarily the primary meaning.  (That said, I think the IAU boundaries should be mentioned early in the lead.)  And yes, we typically do repeat the headword in the first sentence -- and typically do use complete sentences. (added) Observe also that IAU designated constellations already has a dedicated article.  -- Elphion (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

1922 and 1928 (and 1930)
I think we're overstepping the truth, and the sources, by stating that the 88 constellations were formally or officially adopted by the IAU in 1922. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1922Obs....45..176. The IAU Inaugural meeting] in 1922 adopted three-letter constellation abbreviations, as proposed by Russell. It didn't make any great pronouncements about these being the official 88 constellations (one quote refers to them as "the 88 principal constellations"), indeed it listed 89 of them. Those 88/89 constellations were largely (although not universally) accepted before then, and all the IAU said was that the Latin forms of the names (or the abbreviations) should be used in publications. We could perhaps be equally vague, but certainly shouldn't state anything that the IAU didn't say at the time. Original (primary) references are better in this respect than secondary or tertiary ones, since we're trying to establish fact, not notability.

We should also be clear about what happened in 1928 and 1930. In 1928, the IAU adopted the proposals for the boundaries of 88 constellations covering the entire sky (now minus Argo). These were published as an atlas in 1930. These "new" boundaries were described as being only for the northern (and equatorial) constellations, although it appears that some of Gould's southern boundaries were also adjusted.

Lastly, a suggestion for some more history. The IAU went on to adopt alternative four-letter abbreviations in 1932, just 88 this time. There were a number of problems with this list and it was repealed in 1955. Lithopsian (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, Gould's boundaries for the southern constellations were largely taken over by the IAU, with the exception that a few curved boundaries (e.g., in Antlia) were turned into rectilinear boundaries. -- Elphion (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)