Talk:Crux

Pointers

What about\the yytytgh"? (i.e. the two stars that point towards Crux that you use to estimate which direction is south) -- SJK

The pointers are Alpha and Beta Centauri, and thus a part of the constellation of Centaurus. --  B.d.mills  (T, C) 28 June 2005 12:23 (UTC)

This article needs a diagram that show how the pointers are used with crux to find the pole. Roger (talk) 08:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

flags

There are several countries which have the Southern Cross on their flags, such as New Zealand and Australia. Prehaps a reference to that could be made? --Gregstephens 08:12, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe I'll add something about that this weekend or so. JYolkowski 23:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Krux

Move to "Southern Cross"

I think we should move Southern Cross to Southern Cross (disambiguation) and move Crux to Southern Cross. If there are no objections in a week I will do it myself.

My rationale is that it is in keeping with English Wikipedia policy to use the common English name as the name of the article. Southern Cross is already a disambiguation page, so there is no need to change any content (except put a link to the disambiguation page at the top of the new Southern Cross page). Are there any objections?

Ben Arnold 01:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just one: all other constellations are in Latin, so it's not really in keeping with Wikipedia usage. kwami 06:57, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

I object as well. ~~~~ 08:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also object for the reasons stated above. --  B.d.mills  (T, C) 09:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well then how about making Southern Cross redirect here, and move the existing Southern Cross page to Southern Cross (disambiguation)? At least that way if we do decide later on to change Crux to Southern Cross we don't have to merge two pages. Ben Arnold 11:39, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because then this page would say "for other uses of Southern cross, see Southern cross (disambiguation)", but the page title would be "crux", so the phrase would be obscure. ~~~~ 12:22, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is done elsewhere in Wikipedia, the phrasing is usually along the lines of Southern Cross redirects here, for other uses of Southern Cross, see Southern Cross (disambiguation). There's probably a template for this. Ben Arnold 2 July 2005 02:14 (UTC)

I've found it: {{Redirect|Southern Cross}}

"Southern Cross" redirects here. For other uses, see Southern Cross (disambiguation).

Ben Arnold 2 July 2005 03:29 (UTC)

Using Britain's sky?

"Although these stars were known to the ancient Greeks, gradual precession of the equinoxes had lowered them below the European skyline so that they were forgotten. For example at the latitude of Britain in 5000 BC the constellation still was completely visible at springtime midnight. [1]"

Since the article was talking about the ancient Greeks, wouldn't it be better if we use the latitude of Athens rather than the latitude of Britain to generate the sky chart? Also, 5000 B.C. seems a bit too early. Maybe we could use 1000 B.C., the start of the ancient Greek civilization? --Bowlhover 03:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Brazil?

What's so special about Brazil vis-a-vis Crux that qualifies this linkage? Might as well then link it to all southern hemisphere countries. Roger 17:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The only difference between their Southern Cross is the 5th star placement, it's opposite the other versions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.38.231 (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Upload an image?

I got a good photo of crux last night, would it be ok if i uploaded it, it is of better quality than the current image of crux that is hosted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphamone (talk • contribs) 02:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Just do it.. the current one is TERRIBLE.. I have a few as well but I'd have to scan them in first. schroding79 (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, picture replaced, feel free to rewrite the caption if you wish, as I am not that good at writing descriptions. --Alphamone (talk) 11:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it similar?

Isn't this cross too similar to the cross where Jesus was supposedly crucified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.126.1.209 (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No. --24.57.151.98 (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The text in the "History" section associating the constellation with the crucifiction of Jesus is totally spurious. Unless someone can come up with a citation written by a contemporary commentator who made the association. None of the gospels or later biblical texts mention it at all. Roger (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Visible only from southern hemisphere?

The introduction states that Crux is "today visible only from the southern hemisphere." Surely this is incorrect? At declination -60 it should be partially or wholly visible in the northern hemisphere in springtime at latitudes south of 30N. Perhaps this sentence is a leftover from some edit about visibility in Athens, referred to in the previous sentence?KiwiDave (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"Upside down"

Perhaps it should be mentioned that the cross as it is popularly known, ie. with Alpha-Crucis at the "bottom" and Gamma-Crucis at the "top" (ie. as it appears on the Australia/New Zealand flags, etc) is in fact NOT the way it appears in the southern sky, where Acrux is actually at the top and Gacrux bottom, appearing more like an anchor (hence the Maori name) than a cross.

Perhaps the popular image of the "upright" cross comes a) from the point of view of European explorers who first saw it the "correct" way up as they came over the equator before eventually reaching the southern lands and seeing it from their perspective; and b) due to the fact that it might be considered sacriligious/un-christian if its true nature of an upside-down cross is popularized and used in the flags and popular culture in general? BigSteve (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Fellows, this is not correct. The main axis (the "longer" axis) of the southern cross points approximately in the direction of the south pole. Therefore, between the Equator and the tropics, the southern cross appears either laying "horizontal" or in the "correct" upright form over the horizon (depending the time of the night and the time of the year). This is what the first Europeans saw. In fact, on latitudes just north of the Equator you can see it over the horizon only in the "normal" cross shape. Further south, for most of Australia, New Zealand, Argentina and Chile, the southern cross is nearly circumpolar. As you find it every night on the sky, it can appear to you on all possible orientations. (The same happens in the Northern hemisphere with the Big Dipper and Cassiopeia if you are in Canada, Scandinavia or Northern Russia.) Seeing the Southern Cross "upside down" is the harder as you go north, because it would be below your horizon. Check this link for further comments: [[1]] On the other hand, if you were at the south pole, every time you face the Southern Cross it will appear as an upside down cross (of course, only in the six-month winter night). Note that the apparent latitude of the Southern Cross is approximately 60-South, therefore it will be over your head near Tierra del Fuego at some time of the year or the day. That is, it will appear to you in all possible orientations you want by just turning on your spot!.Nordisk varg (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice explanation - especially on the many different angles it can assume. i simply meant that perhaps the article should note that, as you also say, the vertical position of Crux with GaCrux at the top is very uncommon from places as far south as Southern Australia, NZ etc, and that perhaps the popular gamma-top vertical representation is largely religion-based, considering its rarity in southern skies? it is such an iconic constellation that it comes as a surprise to many people to see how differently it is positioned as seen from the places that use it as their symbol. BigSteve (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I would leave it as it is. I don't think it represents much of a bias, religious or otherwise. As I said, the "upright" shape becomes uncommon only to the south of Tierra del Fuego (an area where basically nobody lives, as it is much more southern than New Zealand's south island). Whereas all configurations are visible south of the tropic of Capricorn, the mainly "upright-like" ones (say, a 60-degree rotation to the left and right of the upright) are the ones that you are more likely going to see any night north of 40-South, say, north of Sidney, Buenos Aires, or Cape Town. In northern Australia, the "upside-down" configuration is usually too close to the horizon for sharp visibility, and thus is, so-to-speak, "the least common configuration." The Flag of Santa Cruz (southern Patagonia, Argentina)[[2]] makes this point very well as they display a 120-degree-rotation of the "upright" cross over the horizon (or 60-degree from the "upside-down" shape), which is a configuration that you can see that clearly (on most nights) only if you are quite south (in this case, about 50-south which is farther south of all of Australia!). So, unless we want to include all these long explanations in the main text, any other revision would be a bit misleading. Let's leave it as it is? Nordisk varg (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

ok! :-) BigSteve (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)