|Vital articles: Level 5 / Science|
i think that monocreos is kind of confussing but seems interesting. Monoceros will help you learn a little bit more about the stars.
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)
- 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)
This subsection in the article begins: 'Monoceros is an almost invisible constellation, with only a few fourth magnitude stars.'
Hi there. I deleted the following lines from the infobox:
| neareststarname = Luyten's Star | stardistance = 12.37
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 (mbork³) 10:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- The text under History is pretty literally copied from Star Names: Their Lore and Meaning. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 10:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- 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 (mbork³) 11:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- "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)
- "[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."
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)
- 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)