Talk:Aries (constellation)

Aries (constellation) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 30, 2012.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 14, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
July 4, 2012	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

Hindquarters of Taurus

I have read that Aries was not initially recognized as an independent constellation but, rather, was initially the hindquarters of Taurus. I wonder if anyone else has seen a source that might confirm or deny this? The only references I have are, I believe, a couple of Egyptian sky maps I've seen and Guy Ottewell's Astronomical Companion. If this is true, it would certainly merit mention in the article, no? --QuantumDriverX 05:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aries an independent constellation

I have read in many astrology books that aries is an indepedent constellation and that in fact Pisces was the hindquarters of Tauras.

Well, then instead read some astronomy books. There's nothing about Pisces being bum'o'Taur. Besides, I thought astrologers was more preoccupied with Signs, not constellations. Rursus 19:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

aries

aries is a smaller constellation do you think it should be a constellation? ~~THE EDITOR~~

It is a constellation, standardized and everything. Rursus 07:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aries alternate

If we look closely – the line of α and β is forming the back bone of the ram (although the stars upper α and β, actually). α is the shoulder and β shall be the pelvis. The γ star after β is the tail. The small cluster near northwest of α is forming the head and horn of the ram. The legs are formed by the 5 stars located near southwest α and β.

Star 41 and others are not included.

Combination of them will resemble a ram walking northwest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.186.88.89 (talk) 09:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Those alternate constellation lines does not seem historically correct at all to me: in all old star maps the stars 35, 39 and 41 constitutes the asterism (or in some cases, the separate constellation) Musca Borealis/Vespa. In those maps the back of Aries goes from η, via ν, ε to ζ, and the tail includes ζ, τ, 63 and δ Arietis. I'm in heavy doubt whether we shall use those ahistorical alternate constellation linings. It smells original research too much. Rursus 19:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That "alternate" outline for Aries isn't "original research" from a Wikipedia author; it's actually the one created by H. A. Rey in "The Stars," published in 1976, in which he intentionally changed many arise ... is awesome and always will be..... I love aries traditional constellation outlines. I'm not sure it belongs here (though personally I like Rey's versions), but if it's going to be kept, it should be credited to its originator and explained to be a relatively new and not widely accepted variant, not just vaguely labeled "alternate." 149.159.144.122 21:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Constellations#Alternate graphic visualization. -- Jeandré, 2007-03-11t11:46z

But as much as i've heard, that WikiProject is deleted. Is it or not? Rursus 20:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has someone hacked the mythology section? (April 30, 2007)Cwmagee 01:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're certainly missing Aries as mythology.....

Astrology and religion section

In my view we should keep astrology out of all the constellation entries, other than a cross-ref for those who are looking for that sort of thing. The Astrology and Religion section of this entry is particularly out of place. I vote to delete. Skeptic2 17:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than just move to delete, would you care to offer another place to put it? What is the point of an article if not all facets of the subject can be explored? Bdag 14:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So there's no discussion about it, the 'Hebrew mythology' just gets deleted without revisions? No offer of a better place to put it? Lame. I would have thought that this site was concerned with thought-provoking and encyclopedic material. Apparently anything to do with religion, esp. Christianity gets snuffed. Get over it. Bdag 19:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing and Validity

Could someone please help me with how to cite my references? The addition of the religion section was taken directly from the book Mazzaroth which I found online. And why was the reference marked as unreliable? I didn't realize that books were unreliable sources. Is it because it is out of print, or because a copy has been made available online? Is it because someone is just trying to keep religion off of Wikipedia? If you take the time to follow the link and read the book, you would see that the text is gleaned from the book, not a personal view or 'story' as it were. If you're going to denegrate a source, at least check its validity first. I'm just trying to help by adding what I've found on the subject. I thought others might be interested. Bdag 15:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mazzaroth is not a scientific source, alas. Skeptic2 16:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Thank you for the explanation. I didn't see that this page was specifically limited to the scientific realm of the constellations. Perhaps all the constellation pages should have a header along the lines of: "This article is strictly concerned with the scientific aspect of the constellation. For other aspects, click here". We should probably remove the mythology sections from all articles as well. Bdag 16:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that the entries should be restricted to the scientific aspects. I'm sure there are plenty of Wikipedia entries which deal with the astrological significance etc. However, the mythology – the Greek and Roman mythology, at least – is strongly connected with the origins of these constellations and should, in my view, be kept. Skeptic2 18:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you in the least. There is a very blurred line between religion and mythology though, especially as it pertains to the Greeks and Romans. If it suits the jury, I would be happy to revise the Religion section to read more like a Hebrew mythology section. I had never heard of the Hebrew slant on constellations until I ran across the aforementioned book Mazzaroth. I think it offers another interesting insight into the history of the constellations. Of course the Chaldeans and Egyptians had their own mythology, as did the Norse and the ancient American tribes. What Rolleston notes is the history of the zodiacal tradition:

By Plato we are informed that Solon made an investigation, apparently on scientific and theological subjects, into the power of names, and found that the Egyptians, from whom the Greeks derived them, had transferred them from "barbarian" dialects into their own language. According to ancient authorities, the Egyptians had learnt their astronomy from the Chaldeans. The meaning of the names of astronomy transmitted by the Greeks should therefore be sought in the dialect of those from whom the Egyptians received the science. In the Chaldee contained in the Hebrew Scriptures it may be seen that every Chaldee word is explicable by the cognate Hebrew root, to which, therefore, those names are here referred. The early Arabic is thus equally intelligible. The refinements of modern Arabic have scarcely at all affected the names of ancient astronomy. Its descriptive epithets used as synonyms, and its melodious profusion of inserted vowels, ornament and may a little obscure the original idea, but do not alter the sense.

That is, the Greeks received their constellations from the Egyptians, the Egyptians from the Chaldees, and the Chaldees from the early Semites. Names may have changed, but the basic figure or object remained the same. I'm not trying to push religion into the article, I'm trying to show further connections. If you can tolerate the religion sections, I would read the book, it is absolutely fascinating.Bdag 19:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unicode number

In the first paragraph, two versions of the Aries sign are shown. With the Unicode sign, I think it would be useful to give also the Unicode code, which is probably Hex 9800 - and likewise on other pages. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unicode number

In the first paragraph, two versions of the Aries sign are shown. With the Unicode sign, I think it would be useful to give also the Unicode code, which is probably Hex 2648 - and likewise on other pages. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aries (constellation)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll begin copyediting as I go, and jot notes below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~It would be nice if both lead paras didn't start with "Aries....", but nothing is jumping out at me as an alternative right now.~~

Reworded the second to "Though it specifically came to represent the ram whose fleece became the Golden Fleece in Ancient Greece, it had represented a ram since late Babylonian times."

~~I'd link the bright stars and meteor showers in the lead.~~

Done, in conjunction with the below.

~~Actually, I'd list things out in the lead a bit - something like, "not a bright constellation with only one second (alpha) and one third magnitude (beta) star...."~~

I added to it a bit, how does it look now?

Aries was originally defined in ancient texts as a specific pattern of stars... - where this is, I think this sentence is possibly reiterating the preceding state of affairs a bit too much....?

Hrm, well, Andromeda got some comments from confused people who thought it was just a pattern of stars and didn't understand the borders thing; they requested specific glossing there and I supposed the same confusion might apply here. Would a move of that clause to the very beginning of the section help, plus a rewrite of the sentence to something like "Aries is now recognized as an official constellation by the IAU, albeit as a specific..."?

Yeah that might work....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does it look now? I think it works... Keilana|</nowiki[[Utalk:Keilana|Parlez ici]]</ ::<s>I'd move the short sentence on beta being A5 to past its mention of being a spectroscopic binary and mention the spectrum of the second star.</s> :::I can't find the spectral class on the second star unless I'm being a complete knucklehead with SIMBAD. I did move the sentence though. ::::I think sometimes figuring out the second spectrum is tricky, but I'm a neophyte in these things....[[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 14:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC) ::'' <s>The Daytime Arietid meteor shower is the strongest meteor showers that occurs during the day and lasts from May 22 to June 2.'' - singular/plural issue here.</s> :::Wow, grammar fail. Fixed! ::<s>I'd move the oneliner on hebrew and syrian depictions in ''In non-Western astronomy'' up into the first section as it looks odd where it is.</s> :::I'm a little iffy on that, because I feel that ''History and mythology'' should follow the main stream of the constellation's history. And it was already identified as a ram in Babylon and Greece contemporaneously to its Hebrew and Syrian identification, so I'd be a little hesitant to move an identification that didn't take hold internationally into the main history section. If you feel it's necessary, I'll of course defer to your judgment, just wanted to clarify my original reasoning. :) ::::No no, that's cool. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 14:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Otherwise looking not too bad. More later. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 21:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC) :Thanks for the review so far! I appreciate it - you're a good reviewer. [[User:Keilana|Keilana]]<nowiki>|^{Parlez ici} 02:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More - I'd mention Teegarden's star somewhere definitely, and am curious about Category:Aries_(constellation) - Arp 276 and Segue 2 (dwarf galaxy) looked interesting too....maybe prioritise some other really unusual things?Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't get to this sooner, I really should remember to check my watchlist. I wrote a little paragraph on Teegarden's star and added Segue 2 and Arp 276; I also stuck in a paragraph about all the stars with planetary systems that were notable enough for an article. How does that look? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Better....I take it this will go to FAC so am giving it as hefty a shove as possible....Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, this will be at FAC in a week or so. Need to write more on meteor showers, but I think it's closeish. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 13:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Idea - the Stars might work better as follows: How do you think this looks? Feel free to revert if you think it is not an improvement. Tried to make it less listy and group stars into bright stars, doubles, variables and miscelllaneous. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like it a lot! Aries may be my new constellation article prototype. :) Is there anything else you think could do with fixing? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 13:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it passes GA criteria now - I am musing on the Deep-sky objects section, but that is over and above. Will play with it later tonight Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

- great, well done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Post GAN - Pre FAC

Okay, what I'd do is rejig the deep sky objects section. I would lose the second sentence and add a bit on NGC 697, NGC 972 and NGC 1156. What I would do is arrange in paragraphs - maybe spirals, ellipticals, the galaxy pairs then the remoter ones, or something like that - or brighter and fainter/farther. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I rearranged it in paragraphs - spirals, then "unusual" galaxies, then interacting galaxies. The only elliptical worthy of inclusion is an unusual elliptical, so I grouped it with Segue 2. I also moved Arp 276 to the paragraph on interacting galaxies. You mentioned the need to have more information on NGC 697, NGC 972, and NGC 1156, but I didn't find much information on them and I think the galaxies actually mentioned in the body are more important. :) How does it look now? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aries and Musca Borealis by Jehoshaphat Aspin

Done The lithograph is also available in much better resolution at the Library of Congress website. I might be able to clean this up when I get home from work, but maybe someone else can take care of it while it is still posted on the Wikipedia home page. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inscrutable?

Could someone possibly explain the relevance, or even the provenance, of "twin inspectors in China"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that Ashvins, the Hindu mythology divine twin horsemen in the Rigveda, is the intended reference? What the hell, it's only on Main Page. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martin! I assume you're referring to bit about the marsh and pond inspectors? All I can find is that they were part of the celestial entourage represented through various constellations. A lot of the Chinese constellations had something to do with government officials or people who were in the service of the Emperor. Unfortunately, there's not a lot of detail, Staal and Ridpath are both pretty vague about what exactly they represented. Also, there's no substantiated link that I can find between the Ashvins and the twin Chinese inspectors, sorry! I wish there were. Thanks for your comments - sorry it's vague! :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I had looked at Bond (Chinese constellation) but saw only "the Train of a garment" and "the Left Watch", but no mention of any inspectors, and certainly no twins. I now see "a marsh and pond inspector" and "an official in charge of pasture distribution" in the article, but still no twins. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's still vague which constellations were actually which; the "twins" are sometimes cited as the inspectors (as in Staal, I believe). I'm even a little confused by it all! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At least we now know they were not this type of Chinese twin inspectors. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even realize you could interpret it like that! That's too funny. :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sidney Hall - Urania's Mirror - Aries and Musca Borealis.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Sidney Hall - Urania's Mirror - Aries and Musca Borealis.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 23, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-02-23. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

Aries and Musca Borealis as depicted in Urania's Mirror, a set of constellation cards published in London c. 1825. Aries, one of the constellations of the zodiac, is located in the northern celestial hemisphere between Pisces and Taurus. Its name is Latin for ram, an animal it has represented since late Babylonian times. Aries is one of the 48 constellations described by the 2nd century astronomer Ptolemy; it remains one of the 88 modern constellations, while Musca Borealis does not.Illustration: Sidney Hall; restoration: Adam Cuerden

Archive – More featured pictures...

The few deep-sky objects.... hmmm....

I take issue with the above cosy phrase. Hubble and other space telescopes show there are lots of deep sky objects (beyond the voids of lower resolution) in all directions. Indeed the universe appears to be basically the same but more spaced out splurge of galaxies the further one looks within all 88 constellations.- Adam37 Talk 16:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I was tempted to rephrase to "few bright/prominent deep sky objects" but the 'are very dim" then makes no sense. So I removed the offending sentence...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Discrepencies / Structural Problems.

Just for example, numbers like absolute and apparent magnitudes and luminosity are either different or inconsistently present across related websites. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Hamal https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Beta_Arietis https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_stars_in_Aries https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Aries_(constellation)

Moore is referenced a lot in this page but nowhere else and the numbers are slightly different, like the difference of one light-year between here and list of... Is there a way to reconcile this or is it simply how the system works?

Based on Anecdotal experience, when readers want info, they look for numbers/keywords and avoid paragraphs. That said, Under the Stars subheading, what information is this page trying to convey? Is it: 1. An overview of Aries with internal links to more specific pages such as the specific stars themselves? Or, 2. An in depth look into the different parts of Aries? If it's the former, All of the star stats should be streamlined. Unless someone is looking for specific information, none of it matters to an audience because that audience isn't given the context as to why the spectral classification is important to their understanding of Aries. If it is the later, it currently reads as a lot of facts with no apparent structure and that's hard to read because the inconsistency throws off the rhythm.

eg.

       α Arietis, called Hamal, is the brightest star in Aries. Its traditional name is derived from the Arabic word for "lamb" or "head of the ram" (ras al-hamal), which references Aries's mythological background.[18] With a spectral class of K2[13] and a luminosity class of III, it is an orange giant with an apparent visual magnitude of 2.00, which lies 66 light-years from Earth.[12][29]

       β Arietis, also known as Sheratan, is a blue-white star with an apparent visual magnitude of 2.64. Its traditional name is derived from "sharatayn", the Arabic word for "the two signs", referring to both Beta and Gamma Arietis in their position as heralds of the vernal equinox. The two stars were known to the Bedouin as "qarna al-hamal", "horns of the ram".[31] It is 59 light-years from Earth.[32] It has a luminosity of 11 L☉ and its absolute magnitude is 2.1.[30] It is a spectroscopic binary star, one in which the companion star is only known through analysis of the spectra.[33] The spectral class of the primary is A5.[13] Hermann Carl Vogel determined that Sheratan was a spectroscopic binary in 1903; its orbit was determined by Hans Ludendorff in 1907. It has since been studied for its eccentric orbit.[33]

      γ Arietis, with a common name of Mesarthim, is a binary star with two white-hued components, located in a rich field of magnitude 8–12 stars. Its traditional name has conflicting derivations. It may be derived from a corruption of "al-sharatan", the Arabic word meaning "pair" or a word for "fat ram".[14][18][34] However, it may also come from the Sanskrit for "first star of Aries" or the Hebrew for "ministerial servants", both of which are unusual languages of origin for star names.[18] Along with Beta Arietis, it was known to the Bedouin as "qarna al-hamal".[31] The primary is of magnitude 4.59 and the secondary is of magnitude 4.68.[30] The system is 164 light-years from Earth.[35] The two components are separated by 7.8 arcseconds,[3] and the system as a whole has an apparent magnitude of 3.9.[13] The primary has a luminosity of 60 L☉ and the secondary has a luminosity of 56 L☉; the primary is an A-type star with an absolute magnitude of 0.2 and the secondary is a B9-type star with an absolute magnitude of 0.4.[30] The angle between the two components is 1°.[3] Mesarthim was discovered to be a double star by Robert Hooke in 1664, one of the earliest such telescopic discoveries. The primary, γ1 Arietis, is an Alpha² Canum Venaticorum variable star that has a range of 0.02 magnitudes and a period of 2.607 days. It is unusual because of its strong silicon emission lines.[33]

I think a lot of this can be moved into individual pages about the stars while keeping the most distinguishing aspects in this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.13.45.165 (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]