Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconAstronomy: Constellations Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Constellations task force.
WikiProject iconVital articles: Level 5 / Science Start‑class
WikiProject iconMonoceros has been listed as a level-5 vital article in Science (Astronomy). If you can improve it, please do.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.


i think that monocreos is kind of confussing but seems interesting. Monoceros will help you learn a little bit more about the stars.

Should the photograph be reversed, left for right?Kinzele (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Can someone please fill in missing information in the chart? I don't have a clue where to look. Thanks! --Bowlhover 03:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the left side of Orion (or right, if your in far South). Your finding troubles will be fixed by the Astronomy/Constellations Task Force in future. Said: Rursus 18:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notable features[edit]

This subsection in the article begins: 'Monoceros is an almost invisible constellation, with only a few fourth magnitude stars.'

I do not believe that is the right way to start a Notable Features column on this constellation and would like to see a revision. Pomona17 (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nearest Star[edit]

Hi there. I deleted the following lines from the infobox:

| neareststarname = Luyten's Star
| stardistance = 12.37

According to Talk:Luyten's Star, it doesn't belong here. Unfortunately I can't provide a replacement... --BjKa (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Expert attention?[edit]

Expert attention, why? The history seems extraordinarily conventional, up to including all insecurities, such as the "older Persian globe" being an allegation. If we need citations, then we need citations. Ideler have been criticised, but the normal story is that Monoceros was reproduced first by Plancius, but that there is an origin from an alleged Persian globe. ... said: Rursus (mbor) 10:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The text under History is pretty literally copied from Star Names: Their Lore and Meaning. ... said: Rursus (mbor) 10:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ideler can be read here, for those who understand German. However: since it is composed of image scans, the text is not searchable, so I cannot see if Allen is indeed correct when he allegates that Ideler allegates about an earlier astrological work... ... said: Rursus (mbor) 11:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Expert attention"? You're asking for "Original Research".Ideler allegates about an earlier astrological work, indeed. You can verify it yourself, translating pp. 354..355 on Ideler's work - just follow your link. This is a fact, is under Wikipedia policy to publish it, and leads us to "Himmels Lauffs Wirkung und natürliche Influenz der Planeten Gestirne und Zeichen aufs Grund der Astronomie", dated 1564 - a book that still exists. And it ends here, because I can't access this one.

Besides that, Ideler have been criticised and Allen repeatidly discredited, but both published. In my opinion, even if we find this "other horse" described in 1564, it has no relation with Plancius Monoceros. This is "Point of View" and Wikipedia couldn't care less about it, but if some guy wrote about "the other horse in the sky" in 1300, this is mentioned in 1564, Ideler identifies it with Monoceros in 1809 and Allen cites him in his book in 1899, Ideler and Allen's books are verifyable sources, then this should be published.--Tegmen (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"[Camille Flammarion] believed that a former constellation, Neper (the 'Auger'), occupied the area of the sky now home to Monoceros and Microscopium, but this is disputed.[12]"

Let's see what Allen actually says about this alleged "Neper" constellation...

Microscopium, formed by [...] south of β Aquarii.
In its vicinity, perhaps including it, was an early figure referred to, in a German astronomical work of 1564 from Frankfurt, as Neper, the Auger, Ideler's Bohrer, which he thus described
It is situated at the tail of Sagittarius and Capricornus, and has many stars. At the head of the Neper two, and on the iron three.
Brown alludes to it as an unknown object, and illustrates it in the 47th volume of Archaeologia as from a German astronomical manuscript of the 15th century; but Flammarion, in les Étoiles, probably :referring to this same manuscript, thus mentions Neper, as the predecessor of Monoceros:
Il est question de la constellation du Neper or Foret, qui n'est autre que la Licorne.

"Neper" means "Auger". I think somebody in this telephone game may be making a joke about unicorn horns and microscopes... then again, given that Monoceros and Microscopium are alphabetically adjacent, it's quite plausible that somebody simply made a mistake.

Regardless, even Allen isn't alleging that Flammarion believed Neper was replaced by BOTH constellations. They're on practically opposite sides of the sky. Sisterly harmer (talk) 04:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia editors should make more effort to verify their sources. Just quoting something because it's published doesn't make it correct. When it comes to history of the constellations, there are quite a few sources that have to be treated with caution, Staal being a prime example. Skeptic2 (talk) 09:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 17 November 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus does not support any change to the current setup at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 08:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zxcvbnm thought that the article should be disambiguated, but Lithopsian had objected to this, so now a move discussion is needed. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support Not sure why this is an issue. Both articles get similar pageviews. The creature gets around 40, and the constellation gets around 80, but if you include people potentially clicking through to the disambiguation page, it could be less. There is WP:NOPRIMARY here.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Not least because the constellation is named after the mythological creature. No WP:PTOPIC. Narky Blert (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:TWODABS. The constellation gets more than double the pageviews of the two other articles, incoming wikilinks are correct, and a Google search favors the stars. Just put the other 2 in the hatnote. Station1 (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The constellation is in the primary namespace. Obviously it would get more pageviews - that's a given.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes, but only about 3% more. If we subtract all the views of the dab page from the constellation's, it's still more than double everything else. Station1 (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose in part because I agree with Station1's argument, but I would also say that Monoceros (legendary creature) should be merged into Unicorn, per WP:NOTDIC. "Things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by". AFAICT, Monoceros is just a synonym for Unicorn, and indeed, the sources currently mentioned in the article (Pliny the Elder, Christian Topography) are also cited in Unicorn. Colin M (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sure, I don't mind if it gets merged. That still doesn't make the constellation named *after* the unicorn the primary topic for a term about the unicorn. If anything, you've just strengthened my argument by saying that monoceros is synonymous for unicorn, a very well known mythical creature.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose: the constellation is the primary topic and arguments about what it is named after are irrelevant (and uncertain). Either by crude search or more careful book search, the astronomical usage is by far the most prevalent. In terms of WP pageviews, the constellation receives a majority of views even taking into account the most pessimistic (optimistic?) interpretations of people ending up in the wrong place (ie. over half even if all dab page views are subtracted). Note that primary topics are determined mainly by popular usage and longterm significance, not by any semantics about which came first or which was derived from the other. The evidence for whether the constellation was named after what the Monoceros (legendary creature) article is discussing is very muddy: neither article gives this explanation. Lithopsian (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that... “Semantics about which came first or which was derived from the other” goes directly to “long term significance”. Derivative uses of a term do not easily win PrimaryTopic topic status over the original term. Also, “popular usage” is a very poor choice of word, “usage in reliable sources” are better words. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose: on pure reasoning that Monoceros receives much more attention than the "legendary creature", and MUCH more than the album listed by the disambiguation as well. This comes even before the meteor shower boosted page views over the last few days: wmflabs it seems to consistently get roughly twice as much attention as the others, which seems like a pretty good monopoly to me. Furthermore, the number of people accessing the disambiguation page (To presumably find another Monoceros) is almost negligible by comparison to visitors of the constellation's page. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 07:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support as proposed. The constellation is obscure, ceros is highly misrecognisable, and the legendary creature is not simply the unicorn. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.