Jump to content

Talk:List of stars in Orion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Etymologies

[edit]
  • (58/α Ori) 0m.45 – variable Betelgeuse [Betelgueze, Betelguex, Betelgeuze, Beteigeuze in German] or Menkab [Al Mankib]
< mistransliterated of Arabic يد الجوزاء yad al-jauzā' hand of jauzā' [For a history of the error, see the article.]
< منكب mankib shoulder
  • (19/β Ori) 0m.18 Rigel or Algebar [Elgebar]
< Arabic رِجل الجبار rijl al-jabbār leg of the giant
< Latin bellātrix female warrior, the Amazon star
< Arabic منطقة minţaqah belt (west end)
< Arabic النظام an-niz̧ām the arrangement [of pearls]
  • (50/ζ Ori) – double 1m.74, 4m.21 Alnitak [Alnitah]
< Arabic النطاق an-niţāq the belt (east end)
< Latin trapezium < Greek τραπέζιον
< Arabic سيف الجبار saif al-jabbār the sword of the giant
< arabic < نير السيف nayyir as-saif the bright (one) of the sword
<Arabic سيف saif sword
  • (39/λ Ori) – double 3m.39, 5m.61 Meissa or Heka
< Arabic المايسن al-maisān the shining one
< Arabic الحاقة al-haq'ah the white spot
< Arabic الثابت aθ-θābit The endurer (fixed/constant one)
< arabic الثابت aθ-θābit the endurer (fixed/constant one)
  • (φ Ori) Khad < خد الجوزاء derived from khad al-jauzā´ Cheek of the Central One[citation needed]
  • (Phi1 Orionis -- 37/φ1 Ori) 4m.39 Khad Prior
    < خد khad "cheek" + Latin prior for preceding; "Preceding One of the Cheek"[citation needed]
  • (Phi2 Orionis -- 40/φ2 Ori) 4m.09 Khad Posterior
    < خد khad "cheek" + Latin posterior for succeeding; "Succeeding One of the Cheek"[citation needed]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of stars in Orion. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether listing ζ Ori BC is best or should we do as the Italian does and separate them

[edit]

it:Stelle_principali_della_costellazione_di_Orione lists these separately. Readers will be interested to know ζ Ori B then ranks below 32 Ori by having magnitudes 4.21 and -2.80. Does the scientific community prefer to group these or not, I doubt very much Italy and UK/US differ on this.- Adam37 Talk 10:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is nothing to do with whether the C component is included or not. It is a 10th magnitude star and whether it is included doesn't affect the apparent magnitude of the brighter components. The magnitudes of the components vary in different sources, for example Simbad shows 3.70 while the citation in Alnitak gives 4.01. Listing A and B, which are separated by 2", individually and then combining B and C which are separated by an arc-minute, doesn't seem to make any sense. I'm just dropping the C designation completely from the list. The magnitudes reported in the list and the article should probably be made consistent since the list doesn't include its own refs. Lithopsian (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Per WP:WTAF, it isn't productive to have lists of redlinks for articles which won't be (and shouldn't be) written. If the information simply doesn't exist, the redlink serves no purpose. I intend to de-link all the redlinks in this list under the presumption that any notable stars already have articles written about them, and if any become notable, it's easy enough to link them in. Any objection? Tarl N. (discuss) 15:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Object, as Sir Christopher said to ... well, everyone. Every entry in the list is implicitly (originally, by definition) notable enough for an article, or was considered so at one time. That was just one person's opinion, but most of them were fairly obvious at the time. More have been added since but usually only after an article exists. I would certainly agree to delete anything that really isn't notable, isn't going to get an article, and fails WP:NASTCRIT. See also {{Stars of Orion}} and of course every other constellation - hence probably best to discuss this at the project page unless there is something specific to Orion that I've missed. Lithopsian (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, this list is quite red and Template:Stars_of_Orion is mostly red. I am sure some poor fools will come along and you will delete their articles, after they didn't know what they were doing, like me, copying from an Italian shortlist which stopped at magnitude 7.2 which I now understand is quite borderline for notability, sadly.- Adam37 Talk 18:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the question is whether it's worth preserving the information present in the list - Certainly the data in question (alternate catalog numbers, RA/DEC, magnitude, distance, spectral classification, ...) is available elsewhere (Simbad, Hipparcos, etc.), do we want to keep it inside the Wiki? If it's meant to be comprehensive (even down to some magnitude), it's incomplete, and if it's meant to be a list of articles, pretty much all those redlinks will never be filled in so should be deleted. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there is at least minimal agreement on deleting the redlink entries, I'll take the discussion to WT:ASTRO and see what reaction I get there before proceeding. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_stars_in_Orion&oldid=1198493167"