Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constellation Family


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep.   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  11:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Constellation Family

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Deprodded with an WP:ITSNOTABLE rationale. I find no authoritative sources that use "Constellation family", so this is inherently WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Google and Google Books show only false positives (e.g. "What is Constellation: Family Constellations Therapy" or any sentence with "constellation, family, etc." in it). The single source in the article looks to be non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep There is the webpage about the constellation families. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 23:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your astronomical input into Wikipedia BlueEarth. Thank you for this article and the other ones that you have worked on. Citing from websites is perfectly fine. What has been caused now by TenPoundHammer is his non-informed attempt to get other sources not connected to SEDS. In other words, what was their source? Thor Dockweiler (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Aside from the website linked above, the only usages of "constellation family" I have been able to find are mirrors of this article, and I agree with TenPoundHammer's characterization of this link as non-notable. James McBride (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Trying to get the precise phrase is idiotic in this situation. One can use "family of constellations" and come up with many, including especially "group of constellations". I think it would be awkward to rename the article with variations, including those now near the beginning of the first paragraph. If Menzel, who was a seriously significant authoritative person in the field of astronomy (which the Wikipedia article on him is insufficient), then I would concur with him in the particular usage in this case. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, Chinese constellations have families, not western ones. 184.144.169.126 (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Many cultures have had collectively groups of constellations, including the Orient, the Occident (West), and others, both historically and in the present time. If you are trying to make a racist inuendo instead I oppose your vulgarity.Thor Dockweiler (talk) 07:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep A first deletion notation was made by TenPoundHammer on 2011 January 22. I objected then, I do so again on his second nomination for deletion on 2011 January 27. See reasons below in Part 2 noting my points then from the article discussion page. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Struck second !vote; don't vote more than once.
 * I noticed that ALL of Thor Dockweiler's Keep !votes had been struck by other people, which is out of order. He's allowed one, so I've put this one back for him. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * A further point: (10) Not being in Google should not be used as an only excuse to delete articles. Google in any of its forms itself is relatively a recent creation. It seriously does not yet contain great quantities of information. While great in recent time it does not cover the bulk of the history of the human record. Legions of scientific data, archaeological, and other fields that would be helpful for this particular article under discussion are just not there. Especially in astronomy. You have to dig in libraries or be knowledgeable about it.Thor Dockweiler (talk) 07:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Another point: (11) I can not recommend merging this topic back into the "Constellation" article. This topic area should be noted in "Constellation" but with a link to this existing page of "Constellation Family". Groups of constellations collectively are a notable separate subject of sufficient worth as a separate matter in astronomy. What would you put it under if you did otherwise?Thor Dockweiler (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Another point: (12) Groups of constellations were organized earlier both vertically (meridianally) and horizontally. Roman numerals were used. The system would eventually evolve and become Right Ascension and Declination. See Charles Augustus Young, "A Text-Book of General Astronomy for Colleges and Scientific Schools"(1888).Thor Dockweiler (talk) 07:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Another point: (13) I believe this is generally used in the public as well and has been for a long time. I have used the term myself in discussions with people since I was a little boy, but most of the time using "group of constellations" depending on the type of context I was speaking about. I took a little survey earlier today and in the evening my time of a few people (non-astronomers and non-sophisticated on purpose) and made sure I made no reference to any favored term or gave any hint. It is interesting to note that 1 out of the 10 said "group", and the rest said "family". They clearly understood that I was talking about multiple constellations in the sky.Thor Dockweiler (talk) 08:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Another point: (14) Part of Google's problem (and other search engines) is that copyright restrictions eliminate many modern sources. I do not think that is justification to delete.Thor Dockweiler (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Another point: (15) Now I seem to have found something. Menzel uses the term "families" on p. 98 of "The Friendly Stars" by Martha Evans Martin and Donald Howard Menzel, Dover (1966) [Martin is a descendent of Elizabeth J. Evans who wrote the original edition in 1907; the Martin/Menzel version being a revision of the 1907 work.]. The context though is wrong in that it is noting a situation in which a star in the past was sometimes placed or listed in two constellations. This may not be the correct Menzel reference. I somehow remember seeing "families" in something written by Menzel but still can not precisely recall. The mere fact that Menzel may have used "families" at all may be helpful as this may have planted a subconscious seed in many young readers and spread it further, but I doubt it for I know it has been used publicly in my lifetime experience.Thor Dockweiler (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Another point: (16) The term "group" and also "constellation-group" is used in "Star Myths" by Theony Condes (1997).Thor Dockweiler (talk) 08:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Another point: (17) The term "group of constellations" is used in both Burnham (p.50) and on p. 252 of "The New York Times Guide to Essential Knowledge" (2nd Edition, 2007). Burnham further mentions "south circumpolar" on p. 50 of his work. It is true that groups of constellations are not just organized in the zodiac, but by each celestial pole. Further, groups of constellations are organized seasonally both in the Northern Hemisphere and in the Southern Hemisphere. This is a valid point that needs to be put in the existing article. For example "The Autumnal Constellations", or variations thereof.Thor Dockweiler (talk)
 * Another point: (18) The term "group of constellations" is used in "Astronomy with an Opera Glass", a classic popular work, by Garrett Putnam Serviss on p. 75.Thor Dockweiler (talk) 08:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Another point: (19) The term "collection of constellations" is used by the authoritative astronomer a century ago Simon Newcomb. If he had been in England I guarantee he would have been knighted a "Sir". Interesting.Thor Dockweiler (talk) 08:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Another point: (20) The term "Wet Region" is used by H. A. Rey to encompass the water related constellations. Interesting.Thor Dockweiler (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Another point: (21) Yes, now I have found something. A different source that uses the term "Family of Constellations" ["Hydra Family of Constellations"]. From the book "Binocular Astronomy" by Craig Crossen and Wil Tirion (1992). I note they also have in the book "the winter constellations". One will recognize Tirion as being the astrocartographer used in most maps in the current generation. [My own interest in constellations and astrocartography as a boy predates his interest.]. On this particular reference, I think I can say that it is within the common realm of knowledge.
 *  KEEP -  On the prior points and all of the above, I state that the article is notable and worthy of retention. Like I stated in Point 9 below, I will put in some time during 2011 on this one. The research alone will be at least 100 difficult hours. One could spend a nice 1,000-2,000 hours and generate a thesis on this. Perhaps several since different authors would have different viewpoint perspectives and research focuses. No one has ever done so that I know of. What are a few more hours? I already have over 85,000 hours in astronomy during my lifetime. Point 21 sustains the article. BlueEarth's initiated article should be saved and improved with time.Thor Dockweiler (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I care nowhere near enough about this to respond to all of your comments. I will just say that I do not see any of these variations on constellation family as having extra meaning beyond what the words mean separately. There does not need to be an article on autumnal constellations, because it simply means constellations that are up during autumn. Further, I still see no evidence that the constellation families listed in the article are used elsewhere. James McBride (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

From Article Discussion page, Part 1, for the record of this AfD

 * The Bayer Family should be renamed the Plancius Family

The current text identifies the eleven southern constellations introduced in the late 16th century as the Bayer Family. This is incorrect and based on outdated information. Johann Bayer was not their inventor, nor did he claim this and nor was he the first to depict them.

They were first introduced on a 35-cm celestial globe published by Petrus Plancius and Jodocus Hondius in Amsterdam in 1597 (or early 1598).

I propose to change Bayer Family into Plancius Family in this page and on all other linked pages. AstroLynx (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Örrk! That illuminates one deep trouble with this article (or possibly but not likely the Wikipedia policies): changing it to "Plancius Family" in order to make it factually correct would violate WP:OR (the original research prohibition), on the other hand keeping it as it is would be factually misleading, bordering to WP:HOAX. Contacting the one sole source to make them rename the group would create an information loop where Wikipedia verifies itself by creating external sources supporting it.


 * The article should be heavily remade to accomodate various group ings subdivision systems. I'm not sure the topic deserves an article: if there are no independent sources discussing the family subdivisions from an independent secondary perspective, the topic is too incoherent to be encyclopedic. Then the article should be deleted. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 07:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Link collection to perhaps use to make the article nearly encyclopedic:
 * http://www.idlefolly.com/school/Science/06-07/orion.htm
 * http://www.maa.mhn.de/Maps/Const/const_family.html
 * http://www.al-azim.com/~smkayermolek/buruj.html
 * http://edu-observatory.org/eo/constellations.html
 * http://www.matessa.org/~mike/con-fam.html
 * http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/stars/constellations.shtml
 * http://www.unexplainable.net/artman/publish/article_8361.shtml
 * Most of them are prob either copying SEDS subdivision, or this Wikipedia article, the original source being a book by a Menzel, "A Field Guide to the Stars and Planets". I estimate the article cannot be made encyclopedic: however we twist and turn the topic, there's only one arbitrary source without any analysis. The article will hopelessly remain WP:IINFO. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 08:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If rewriting this article to make it factually more correct is not an option, then a possible solution would be to make explicit mention of the published source (Menzel's book) it is based on and also to point out that not Bayer but Plancius was the originator of the so-called "Bayer family" (the relevant sources are listed in the Talk page of Petrus Plancius). As soon as this talk page is archived, no-one will be be aware of the historical problem created by this article. AstroLynx (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely! Being a reserved inclusionist I think the article could survive, and then that that is the proper way to fix it. After Menzel is mentioned, we could give room for other groupings, if such exist. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 10:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent! Unfortunately, I do not have easy access to Menzel's book, so perhaps it is best if you make the necessary corrections to the article if this is not too much trouble. AstroLynx (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thor Dockweiler (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

From Article Discussion page, Part 2, for the record of this AfD
 KEEP . Objection is raised to the proposed deletion. (1) It is interconnected with other articles related to constellations. (2) I do not think the deletion proposer is sufficiently knowledgeable about astronomy and may have made the deletion proposal from that lack of knowledge and bias. If those who are deeply involved and knowledgeable about astronomy as Wikipedia contributors chose to then I would consider it further. (3) "BlueEarth" created the article over 1 year ago, why now? (4) The sky has historically been divided since ancient times into asterisms, constellations, and groups of constellations - - sometimes with a separate identity for that collection. Teaching and mythological stories were taught in the past on constellations in groups or families, either by the lighted stars in the heavens or by the patches of darkness. It is only recently since the IAU in 1922 Eurocentrically redefined the constellations with Delporte specifying the boundaries with them in 1930. This has had benefits but also subdued other cultural depictions. I need not mention the Pluto fiasco. (5) It is true that Menzel mentions it, but so does Sir James Jeans note groupings before him. I will have to find my copy of Menzel. (6) Of particular note the Ancient Egyptians (several thousand years B.C.) had a particular area of sky with multiple constellations collectively known as the Duat (celestially speaking, not just the underworld) despite having those constellations separately named. This needs to be put in this article as well. (7) Other historic cultural groups need to be noted with their collective groupings as well, in addition to the Ancient Egyptians' stellar-based religion. (8) Just because it is less used now does not mean it is of value to researchers, current day users, and Wikipedia. Should we eliminate the knowledge of quadrant astronomy of the sky too? The astrolabe? I think not. Quadrant astronomy may still be important to a naval navigation course. (9) I readily admit this particular article could use more work, and also with references. I will work on it from time to time during the entire year of 2011. This will not be easy as this particular astronomical topic should be substantially more difficult as material on the subject of constellations as a whole is sparse and obscure. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 07:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Proposed Deletion Objection


 * I have no objection against keeping the article (I never suggested to delete it) but I would like it to be factually correct. Now it claims that Johann Bayer 'invented' the southernmost constellations which simply is not true — he copied them from a celestial globe made in 1597/98 by Petrus Plancius and Jodocus Hondius the Elder (see the discussion above). I have always believed that the mission of Wikipedia was to provide correct facts, not false and outdated information. AstroLynx (talk) 09:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * AstroLynx, you are not the one who proposed the deletion. TenPoundHammmer was the one who did so on 2011 January 22. I objected immediately when I discovered the proposal and made some modification ending the problem before the 7 day deadline was up. In apparent spite from my perspective, and most likely improper procedure, TenPoundHammer came back again and proposed it for deletion a second time 2011 January 27 in a more formal manner noting a synthesis problem. Basically, references. I am going to object again. He is clearly unfamiliar with the subject of astronomy or science and after a slight cursory review, he is in my opinion a vitriolic deletionist at the present time that has gone beyond the bounds of reasonableness. While he correctly nominates some articles for deletion he is clearly causing the destruction of many that are perfectly valid. If I had my choice I would remove him from Wikipedia. He does more damage than help. How many editors have we lost to people like him. I would rather lose 1 than a thousand any day. Respectfully, Thor Dockweiler - astronomer. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 06:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * AstroLynx, I further wish to note that you are quite correct re Plancius/Hondius. Yes, accurate information is what Wikipedia wants, but verifiability is more important to them in the rules than truth. Again, a question of citing proper sources, and worth noting within a Wikipedia article in situations such as in this case. I have noticed over the years that Bayer is credited in many sources. For example, "Bayer's constellations" is even cited in a respected authoritative tome by Academic Press entitled "Dictionary of Science and Technology" [1992, p. 232]. If memory serves me correct even the Encyclopedia Brittanica had problems with this, at least the New Encyclopedia Brittanica. By the way, let me congratulate you on your input in Wikipedia. I actually appreciate what you have done. People like you are what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. Kindest regards. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 06:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thor Dockweiler (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thor — first of all, don't !vote more than once. Second of all, your "objection" is the biggest tl;dr I've ever seen on AFD. Say more with fewer words. Third of all, there's no need to copy the automated deletion nomination onto this AFD as some sort of "record". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 13:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not vote more than once. You are obviously not reading. Just glancing and taking things out of context is the same thing as making an assumption. You have also changed my wording with strikeout text. That is plainly despicable dishonest behavior. You created two deletion incidents on two different dates. I objected to incident number 1. I also objected to incident number 2 which is the subject currently under review. I entered the text from the Article Discussion Page to make sure that it is noted within the AfD Discussion Page. Responses are being made by individuals on both, and both need to be looked at by any that are following this. Do note that indentations are important.Thor Dockweiler (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On your "second" sentence - - frankly, coming from you I just do not believe you. Too long, do not read or did not read seems to be your response. I like generally being succint. You seem to say plenty of words when you need to. I thought each Point made was rather brief. It would be tough on the audience if I used abbreviations. Your actions, and your actions alone, created this. You could have caused a discussion, caused a discussion to merge, suggested some changes, made some constructive changes yourself [that is right -- putting a little time in], or some other option. But no - - you chose to take the ultimate option of kill the article. The easy way out without any effort. I certainly did not expect to see your terminal option exercised when I went to look up this specific article to see how I would consider working on it in 2011. I do not constantly work on Wikipedia - just occassionally when I have the spirit, time, energy, and desire to do so. Well, I am glad you are annoyed by your actions.Thor Dockweiler (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If this is what you consider "succinct" I'd hate to see your idea of "verbose". Also, striking out multiple !votes from the same user is within the acceptable boundaries of refactoring others' posts. I didn't cause a discussion to merge because I thought the article was unsalvageable, and couldn't find a single authoritative source that used the term "constellation family". If the sources don't exist, then neither should the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thirdly, and with no further comment after this, just so we are relatively even on thirds, I think when undesirable activity (my opinion) occurs it ought to be exposed. Air out the baggage so all can see what is going on. Yes, to me truth prevails, not trickery or otherwise. It would appear to me you did not read any of the 21 Points above. You see, both you and I are very different people. In your case, why bother reading. Glancing is easier. My own style would be to review every point and learn/think about it. In my case I want to become more knowledgeable. I am never knowledgeable enough; I want to learn. I desire to learn. I read adult college level encyclopedias when I was in elementary school. I have been this way my entire life since I was very little. And I want to share some of that knowledge learned with others, many thousands over the years with groups large and small. The great science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke once said you should read a new book every day of your life. Probably a bit difficult to do in practicality but the advise is sound. Cheers! Thor Dockweiler (talk) 05:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Lone source in the article is not reliable, as defined by WP:RS, and I cannot find anything to indicate that this particular schema for organizing the constellations is widespread. Sure, there are sources I can find through Google, reliable and otherwise, that group the contesllations, but none seems to represent a widespread consensus among the astronomical community, and this particular grouping of constellations seems to be singularly referenced to the website that serves as the article's sole reference.  I don't see this as passing the minimum standards of WP:GNG.  -- Jayron  32  04:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to  weak keep. Due to newly provided sources, it appears that the article could clearly cover the concept of "groups" or "families" of constellations.  However, the article needs a massive overhaul in that it focuses almost exclusively on a single, probably non-notable schema of organizing the constellations.  The actual organization described in the article is still only attested to in a single, non-reliable source, and it looks like the other sources are being used synthetically to support the schema, where the other sources do not directly attest to THIS schema.  However, enough other sources have been shown to prove that the general concept of grouping constellations in some way is an actual practice.  What needs to be done is to rewrite this article to remove the current non-notable organization and replace it with other, better attested organizations.  But the basic concept is still roughly notable.  -- Jayron  32  13:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is this a non-reliable source? Silver  seren C 15:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, you're good. The director of the Harvard University Observatory is quite obviously a well recognized person in this field.  Good catch.  All of my objections have been ameliorated.  Good work on this, and I commend you on a job well done.  -- Jayron  32  17:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Instead of throwing mud around, including cries of "racism" (wtf?), Thor could make himself useful and actually provide references for this thus far completely unsourced thing. !vote: Delete until whoever wants to keep this finds some evidence. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC) Keep &mdash; evidence found. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Thor is experiencing a standard stressful situation that inexperienced editors sometimes find themselves in, and deserves sympathy. The article is interesting and potentially sourcable, so trying to defend it at AfD and/or find enough sourcing to establish notability before the AfD closes presents a seemingly inescapable crisis requiring frantic efforts.  The way out is to realize that wp:there is no deadline.  Thor, the best way to deal with this is download a copy of the article to your hard drive, then relax.  If the AfD results in deletion, just keep working on your downloaded copy at your leisure.  Once you have enough sourcing for GNG, it is perfectly fine to recreate the article.  It's no big deal if the article is off the site for a while, especially since the current version is really rather skimpy.  Once you've got a better version with more sourcing, you can put it back.  Filibustering the AfD as you're doing doesn't come across well, because the urgency that you're perceiving really doesn't exist.  71.141.88.54 (talk) 07:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I also can't find any sources to suggest that this arrangement of constellations is notable and in any kind of general use - other than that one link, which does not satisfy WP:RS. (I agree with the suggestion that if Thor Dockweiler believes there are reliable sources out there, he should make a copy of the article to keep while searching for those sources. I would, however, caution against doing work that would consist of synthesis from original sources - we'd need secondary sources to show that this arrangement of constellations is already acknowledged) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I see that Silver seren is adding references to this article. I think that adding reliable references would help save this article. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 21:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, and *facepalms*. The International Astronomical Union, during their meeting in 1928, established the 8 constellation families from the acknowledged 88 constellations. They certainly exist and are notable. I am quite surprised that Wikipedia doesn't have a better article on them. Silver  seren C 21:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as an International Astrological Union. There is, however, an International Astronomical Union. These are two very very different things. The IAU did establish the boundaries of the 88 constellations. I can find no evidence that they further established constellation groups, and the IAU makes no mention of constellation groups on their page devoted to constellations . James McBride (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I meant Astronomical. Fixed. And the sources I added to the article say that they did, it doesn't necessarily have to be on their website. Most likely because it is a given that the families exist, since they are so very obvious. Anyone with at least a cursory knowledge of astronomy would know about them. Silver  seren C 22:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I consider the IAU website a more authoritative source on the IAU conventions on constellations than a book on astrology. And there are many people with much more than a cursory knowledge of astronomy who have never heard a thing about the constellation families described in this article. James McBride (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So, your argument is that, because you can't find it on the IAU website, it doesn't exist? That's a pretty weak argument. And you're seriously telling me that people have not heard of the Ursa Major family or the Orion family? Silver  seren C 22:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The astrology book you used as a reference is not a reliable source. Skim through the book a bit, and tell me if you disagree. I looked around online for other reference of this IAU decision mentioned in the book, and cannot find it. I have not looked exhaustively through the other sources you have added, but the only other one that mentions these constellation families or groups is the Menzel field guide. That Menzel guide is the only even argument for keeping this article that I find even remotely compelling. If this was at all standardized though, I would expect that any one of the other night sky viewing guides I own would mention it. They all say 88 constellations, but none of them seem to mention 8 constellation families. This AfD was the first time I had ever encountered mention of constellation families. James McBride (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have more than a cursory knowledge of astronomy, and I've never heard of these constellation families before. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Humans have long associated constellations together in various combinations. An article on such associations is therefore warranted.  This article is currently named CONSTELLATION FAMILY.  It could be CONSTELLATION GROUP or some other word combination.  The users of Wikipedia have already determined their preference. When the word “constellation” is entered into the Wikipedia search box, the result is: Constellation, Constellation program, Constellation Energy, Constellation Records, Constellation Family, ConStellation, Constellation Brands, Constellation (disambiguation), Constellation Wines Australia, and Constellation Andromeda. The only word combination in this list that concerns the association of one constellation with another is CONSTELLATION FAMILY. This list is composed automatically by Wikipedia’s computer based on the number of search requests ranked in order from most requested to least requested.  The public clearly prefers CONSTELLATION FAMILY. Both “family” and “group” are synonyms in division 786, titled “association,” of Roget’s International Thesaurus, Third Edition, copyright 1962. English is a living language with the preferences of the public eventually prevailing on choices of expression. Arguing that everyone is wrong but me is not very persuasive. 71.105.104.245 (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What we need is reliable sources showing that the concept as covered by the article is notable, not personal analysis and deduction. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Have added several pre-Menzel cites which should solve the situation. We could change the article to a version of "group" as suggested, but I do not think that is needed in light of the new cites. Synonym semantics are a point. Yes, one could put up the article later. I am well aware of that. But who wants to deprive other people from adding their input. It would be a lonely situation. The "experience" line gave me a good laugh and put me in a good mood. I am reminded of the Reagan/Dole episode of relative "inexperience". As to McBride not knowing, you are now aware; not everything is covered in astronomy college courses [It must be overwhelming for the professors to cover what they do (especially since the HST and more emphasis on astrophysics) in the insufficient time provided!]. As to astrology, at one time I took the view of Krupp. Though, without its modern context, astrology is the earlier version of astronomy and does utilize aspects of positional astronomy, both stellarly and (multi-)constellationally. This must not be forgotten. Yes, some of its references can have some value. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 08:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Many of these groups have important historical connections - for example, the Lacaille constellations were all named after scientific instruments and devices (Telescope, Microscope, Octant, Reticule, etc) and that is a notable example of the culture of the age. I am currently managing the citations (combining all the Menzel citations, stuff like that) and adding more information about the individual groups. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Added further cites, including pre-Menzel. Pi did a ref. clean-up. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.