Talk:Orion's Sword

Untitled

Appeared on xkcd maybe there should be a reference, possibly not for not being encyclopedic. Jimbobl (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Malthorp.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second Figure/Legend Confusing

This crucial introductory figure is rather confusing, and its legend more so. The figure is too complicated and it's not immediately obvious that the right hand panels are blow-ups of regions of the main photo, in part because the lines indicating the ROIs are too faint to be seen easily, but mainly because the legend doesn't describe this. It would be simpler just to show one photo, since the reader can expand regions of the main photo himself. Somewhere the article should say that the 3 obvious naked-eye "stars" are in fact each a complicated combinations of individual stars and nebulosity, with suitable explanations and illustrations.Paulhummerman (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The ancient-looking image appears to be the reverse of actual sky orientation

The constellations are the mirror image of what we see in the sky. It's as if someone added labels to the wrong side of a transparency, and the error propagated without anyone noticing that the stars are backwards. Maybe this image should be taken down since it's the opposite of helpful. Alternatively, maybe it should be labeled as a historic mistake.

I'm talking about this image: Johannes Hevelius, Prodromus Astronomia, volume III: Firmamentum Sobiescianum, sive Uranographia, table QQ: Orion, 1690. 2601:681:5B00:45E0:B58C:FFC2:70DD:FC3D (talk) 03:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]