Talk:Orion (constellation)

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

Islamic astronomy[edit]

I think the phrase 'Muslim astronomy' should be replaced by 'Islamic astronomy' or 'Arab astronomy', that is, the text should refer to a civilisation or to a culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baba Arouj (talk • contribs) 02:08, 2016 March 27 (UTC)

Arabic names of stars in Orion[edit]

In the short section on the Middle East it is mentioned that Orion's 6th largest star bears a name derived from Arabic astronomy. It is for some reason or other not mentioned that the name of the constellation's largest star (Rigel) derives from the same source (as is made clear in the beginning of the article). I find this confusing and think it should be corrected: Either mention all major stars in Orion with Arabic names or mention only the largest (Rigel). (I just checked the individual stars in WP, and it appears that all the 7 major stars in Orion have Arabic names, except for Bellatrix, and even that may be a loose Latin translation of an Arabic word with similar meaning.) Filursiax (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In table of example stars, Anlitak should be 1260 ly - the number listed is parsecs[edit]

In table of example stars, Anlitak should be 1260 ly - the number listed is parsecs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.156.16 (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Orion (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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons upload[edit]

Uploaded to wikipedia commons:

An imaginary trip to the constellation Orion

If any editors think it is useful, feel free to use it. By flying on an imaginary trip to Orion, it illustrates that there are many faint stars between us and the familiar asterism. The stars that make up the asterism are very far and very bright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony873004 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Tony873004: ! Your animation is really very good and very educational. I placed it (as a link) in the article https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation. What would be better, however, would be to give the start image 2 seconds (to give time to read the constellation) and the end image 1 second. In fact, the ideal would be to connect the stars of Orion by straight segments in the first image (since WP often aimed at beginners). Sincerely, 15:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello Tony73004 ! I understand that you are in a Wikilow period. I make the delay modifications on your animation! Thank you for everything ! Sincerely, Bernard de Go Mars (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DSO locators[edit]

Orion is extremely useful in pathfinding to various amounts of DSOs. Most notably: the Rosette nebula, which can path to the Cone nebula. Should DSO locators originating from Orion be added? Whineinstein (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong distances?[edit]

The distances given for Alnilam are wildly different from those on the star's page, for example, and very few seem to match those of today's APOD

APOD is just using Hipparcos parallaxes. There are often better distances for these well-studied stars, which Wikipedia may be quoting. Point out if you really think any of the star articles have an inappropriate distance, but I suspect they are all pretty sensible. In many cases, there will be a discussion in the body of the article about different published distances, but the starbox will usually just give one. Lithopsian (talk)
The problem is that the info about Alnilam being 'nearly twice the distance as the other two belt stars' is contradicted by the table. Either the table is wrong or that sentence is wrong 51.52.43.171 (talk) 12:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2022[edit]

Alnilam is approximately xxxx 1340 xxxxx <<<< 2000 >>> light years away from Earth 109.42.176.77 (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adorant of Geißenklösterle[edit]

This article repeats the claim by Michael Rappenglück that the adorant from the Geißenklösterle cave is a depiction of Orion. The sources cited for this are:

  • Rappenglück's own article publishing the claim
  • A UNESCO world heritage web page (current url) for which the credited author is … Rappenglück
  • A BBC report in which Rappenglück is interviewed by David Whitehouse (not the accomplished archaeologist, but the pop astronomy writer) and taken thoroughly at his word

I remember reading that BBC report in 2003 and rolling my eyes. Yes, the plate is a human artifact. Yes, it depicts a human form, but … the constellation Orion, really? If Wikipedia is to state it as fact that an interpretation of a star-form has persisted over 25,000+ years, it should base that on more than Rappenglück's triple say-so. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 06:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Following on the remarks above, please remove the first sentence under "History and Mythology" according to WP:PROFRINGE and WP:NFRINGE. As ResearchGate shows, Rappenglück is not a credible or recognized researcher. The only school that he is affiliated with, vhs Gilching, is a community adult education center where he is the staff astronomer (or as he says it, "head of the astronomy department"). He almost never has collaborators, except when he is writing on the similarly troubled Chiemgau impact hypothesis, so his assertions about astronomy may have authority but not those about anthropology. His method is standard cargo cult science, in which he reaches his desired conclusions by supplementing the evidence with as many convenient assumptions as necessary. I can't very well illustrate that with the Orion thesis because it received no attention other than uncritical repetition, but in the case of Chiemgau this page discusses the methodological flaws and the critiques that have been published in response. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 03:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In progress: An editor is implementing the requested edit. Xan747 (talk) 23:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I decided to not wholesale delete the first sentence as requested, but rather take the assertion out of wikivoice and characterize it as a claim rebutted by scholars:

There are claims in popular media that the Adorant from the Geißenklösterle cave, an ivory carving estimated to be 35,000 to 40,000 years old, is the first known depiction of the constellation. Scholars dismiss such interpretations, saying that perceived details such as a belt and sword derive from preexisting features in the grain structure of the ivory.[1][2][3][4]

  1. ^ The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Figurines, ed. Timothy Insoll, 2017, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0199675619, 9780199675616, google books
  2. ^ Rappenglück, Michael (2001). "The Anthropoid in the Sky: Does a 32,000 Years Old Ivory Plate Show the Constellation Orion Combined with a Pregnancy Calendar". Symbols, Calendars and Orientations: Legacies of Astronomy in Culture. IXth Annual meeting of the European Society for Astronomy in Culture (SEAC). Uppsala Astronomical Observatory. pp. 51–55.
  3. ^ "The Decorated Plate of the Geißenklösterle, Germany". UNESCO: Portal to the Heritage of Astronomy. Retrieved 26 February 2014.
  4. ^ Whitehouse, David (January 21, 2003). "'Oldest star chart' found". BBC. Retrieved 26 February 2014.

My reasoning is that some readers may have heard the popular claim, but not its rebuttal. Let me know if you find this objectionable and we can work on it. Xan747 (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is sort of increasing the weight in the article of an outlier view, and digressing further from the purpose of introducing the whole section. If the subject had to be covered somewhere in the section, the "European folklore" subsection seems the most relevant. At the end, perhaps. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it to the end of the section you suggested. Xan747 (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HH212[edit]

I can't find this Orion object on WP: https://ts2.space/en/hh212-the-enigmatic-star-unleashing-incredible-jets-of-gas/

Does it need a new page, or under Protostar maybe? John a s (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Orion_(constellation)&oldid=1213351740"