Talk:Puppis

Vandalism, apparently.

This article apparently contains/is vandalism.

Hey, I'm just the messenger. Tom Morris 22:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be real constellation. WP covers it [1] and has citations. Google turns up many other links, apparently legitimate.

I think it needs expansion & improvement rather than deletion. "What links here" shows many links; deleting this would turn them all red, unless we also go change the links.

Is there an astronomy editor in the house? Sandy Harris 01:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The Editorial Council made it clear in one its resolutions a while ago that short, non-expanded articles such as this could, and should, be deleted. No one has worked on this one in three years. Why should we keep it? Because WP has an article about it? The article itself isn't vandalism, it's the fact of the article being here that I object to. Hayford Peirce 01:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I agree with Sandy. This is a valid entry that contains valid information. Moreover, the EC resolution does not authorize "speedydeletes". It requests a period of four weeks during that it can be contested. I improved its format. Because of its topic it is likely to stay short. --Peter Schmitt 01:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe Thorsten Alteholz produced a complete set of constellation stubs. Ro Thorpe 02:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

What does "313 stars" mean? The number depends on the magnitude threshold. Peter Jackson 10:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I took the number from the infobox in the original version. Perhaps (probably)"visible stars"? The original page also contains a template list of all official constellations (Very WP style, all this!) that has to be transferred to a Catalog of Constellation, I would say, and referred to in Related changes. (And "constellation" will need disambiguation?)

All this information and its history would be destroyed by deleting these pages -- a radical step that would not be justified. --Peter Schmitt 11:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed on the last point. Maybe "visible stars" would be correct. There are about 6000 visible to the naked eye, and 88 constellations, so 313 would be a good deal above average. Peter Jackson 09:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Above average, because it's in the Milky Way. 'Naked-eye stars' would be better. Ro Thorpe 12:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hayford, is the resolution to which you refer PR-2010-008? If so, I see the "could be deleted" in its language but not the "should be deleted." Also, the resolution seems to require the decision of an Editor (though it can be any Editor, not necessarily one in the relevant workgroup) for the speedydelete. So if no Editor actually wants the thing to be deleted, it may remain, no?

I am not an Editor, but I would agree with some previous comments here that these constellation stubs should remain. They do at least contain some information, and they are slowly being expanded; during the recent Alphabet Week, for example, I inserted a couple of paragraphs and links relating to the myths surrounding the constellation Corvus. Bruce M. Tindall 14:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Bruce, I am happy to yield to you and the others in this matter. As you say, this article *does* include some information. There is, of course, an enormous difference between "could" and "should", but sometimes it's not always clear. I am, in fact, pretty much an "inclusionist" when it comes to CZ articles, but we do have to respect our standards -- which are always in a state of flux, of course.... Hayford Peirce 16:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you try googling 'obsolete constellations', Hayford, me ole myte? Ro Thorpe 21:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope, it never occurred to me. Like googling, oh, "Obsolete king's mistresses" or some such. I'm now astonished to see that it is an actual phrase in use. But I wonder if anyone outside the field of astronomy would know what it meant. Did *you*, when you first encountered it? I *suppose* the damned word could be reinstated here, but with a further definition. ? Geez, decisions, decisions.... Hayford Peirce 21:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I became obsessed with seeing other planets & demanded astronomy books when I was about seven, so preceding 'Argo Navis' could even have been my introduction to the word. But, yes, I can see how 'obsolete constellation' might be a strange concept. There are a lot of them, though, as you can see from the top link. I wonder what others thought of it. Ro Thorpe 22:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Ha, I too was a youthful whiz about planets, but only planets -- aside from the Dippers, I could never find any of the constellations. Maybe a foretaste of my eventual inability to generate new ideas in the field of S.F.... But I loved going to the Hayden Planetarium in NYC as a kid. Hayford Peirce 23:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There were allotments at the back of our house in Beckenham, and the garden faced south, perfect for following the constellations all round the year. And I loved the London Planetarium, of course. Ro Thorpe 23:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think "allotments" are *ever* used in the Brit sense in 'Merkin talk. My Unabridged, says, for meaning 2 or 3, that it is Eng. Land Law -- and mentions a couple of Acts. Doesn't give a 'Merkin equivalent. Hayford Peirce 23:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I wondered about that as I typed it. WP has an article called "Allotments (gardening)". More vegetables than flowers, I'd reckon. A small number in the US, it says. Ro Thorpe 00:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, some cities *do* use the word. If you go to Google and type in +manhattan +allotments +garden you'll find a lot of references. Probably for Berkeley, also. But not, I think, for Tucson.... Hayford Peirce 01:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)