Talk:Leo (constellation)

Zodiacal Symbol

Although the claim that the symbol for Leo derived from a corruption of the Greek letter lambda had a source, Egyptian Planetary Texts by O. Neugebauer, in the Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Ser., Vol. 32, No. 2. (Jan., 1942), pp. 245-6 argues against this identification. The details are messy and well beyond the scope of the article. Micah.t.ross (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Arabic star names

An anonymous editor has made some changes by adding the definite article "al-" to many of the transliterations of stars with Arabic proper names ("Al-Rās al-Āsad al-Šamālii", e.g.), but he didn't add it to the Arabic:

رأس الأسد الشمالي

Shouldn't that instead be changed to:

الرأس الأسدالشمالي

If anyone here knows? (My understanding of Arabic is very rudimentary.) --Kbh3^rdtalk 21:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the image of leo, done in 1690 is mirror image of reality.

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 01:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Changing the Name

This constellation should be changed to Leo Major (Great Lion) because there is the constellation of Leo Minor (Little Lion) and the name of two constellations is Leo (Lion) like Ursa Major (Great Bear) and Ursa Minor (Little Bear) is Ursa (Bear) and Canis Major (Great Dog) and Canis Minor (Little Dog) is Canis (Dog). Cosmium 22:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. The name of this constellation is Leo, not Leo Major no matter how the other constellations are named. This is because Leo Minor is a modern constellation and very inconspicuous one. The other "Minor" constellations were created in antiquity and are much more prominent.--JyriL ^talk 00:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The Official name of this constellation by IAU is Leo, not Leo Major. But "Leo major" found on the plate VI (chiefly Ursa Major) in Bode's great star atlas Uranographia (1801).--Bay Flam 07:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Those amateur astronomers inclined to can rename it to Leo Major in private talk, if they wish too, but the official IAU name is Leo. However, using Leo Major consistently at star parties requires for example that Denebola is called Beta Leonis Majoris. It will be a fine party trick the first time, but next times the party partakers will probably start to jawn. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 12:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Leo (constellation) Etymology

The section on Etymology says that Dionysus/Bacchus is always portrayed with a lion. In my experience the god is usually accompanied by a leopard, may wear the skin of a panther, and is also associated with the bull, the serpent, and even the tiger. As the article points out under Mythology it is Heracles/Hercules who slew the Nemean lion, later put into the heavens as the constellation. Jim Lacey 19:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've no personal experience meeting this guy, but the link Theoi: Dionysus ... etc. tells that you're perfectly right. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 12:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Astrology or Astonomy?

This presents itself as a natural sciences article. There is a separate article for the astrological sign Leo. IMHO it is inappropriate to include mythology in this article. It ought to deal with facts and historical references, not myths and cosmologies. If others feel it is appropriate to present both astrology and astronomy in the same article, then the two articles should be combined. Lmonteros (talk) 04:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've cut the astrology section back to the bare minimum, as in other zodiacal constellations.Skeptic2 (talk) 09:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Astronomical myths are part of astronomers' culture, and has very little to do with astrology. Astronomical myths is folklore for astronomers, and the fact that astrology and their separate symbolic system doesn't belong to here, makes no good reason for shrinkwrapping astronomers' folklore. However: it is a good thing that the article is balanced, so that the astronomy of Leo is prominent before the folklore. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 12:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

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

Perhaps there was more content at one point, but it now appears to be a pretty weak article. I grade it at a Start class. The article appears to fail 2b and 3a. There is no mention of importance of constellation to Chaldeans or Egyptians. [1] Compare also to 1911 encyclopedia entry, for example.—RJH (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

From a quick look through the history of the article (and looking at e.g. the School's version), there was a lot more content here. Does anyone know what happened to it? (will go digging through the history later if need be...) Mike Peel (talk) 10:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I've dug through the article history, and reverted a couple of bits of removal vandalism from last February and May. The article still isn't up to GA standard, though, and I don't have the time to improve it. Mike Peel (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

As progress has not been made, I have delisted the article. Continue to improve the article, and once it meets the GA criteria, consider renominating at WP:GAN. If you have any questions let me know on my talk page. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Overreferenced?

What does a reader interested in the constellation Leo really gain from all of the general references now residing at the bottom of this article? The list is great for those interested in researching constellations in general, but not so much for checking up on this article's content, nor for reading further about this specific constellation. Perhaps the list would be more use if located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Constellations Task Force? Mike Peel (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

In response to question 1, a lot! - - the ability to look up most aspects of the constellation Leo Major and the objects noted within the article, infoboxes, and adjacent fields noted. In response to question 2, I disagree - - it is these references that allow you to look up the article's content and look in detail as to this constellation. In response to question 3, again I disagree - - making it only available to the Constellations Task Force would deprive the general Wikipedian of that material which would be indispensable to them. It is this material that allows them to explore. I should expect that those wishing to improve this constellation article, in addition to the Constellations Task Force, would find this useful in encouraging them.

It is very true that this constellation and others need inline citation work done, as well as expansion of other aspects such as celestial objects. If inline citation work is done properly to this article all (or very close to it) noted references would be used.

I note that the size is large, but not overwhelming, but not inadequate. So far until now it has been insufficient.

Several people and astronomers, including a high world-level science journalist with astronomical background, that I have heard from all express the view so far (except yourself) that the reference section added is outstanding.

Right now there are very few registered Constellation Task Force members. Please feel free to join and put in the time to expand the articles.

Several astronomers and myself will actually be meeting and discussing the subject of constellation reference sections and other issues pertaining to Wikipedia's astronomy and constellation articles this New Year's Eve night. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I do find it overwhelming. It's too much information. I don't find these additions to be helpful at all. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 05:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I am absolutely in agreement. This is actually fairly ridiculous to have a mostly boiler plate reference section at the end of each article. I believe the clarity and the helpfulness of the articles would be far better served if you put this energy into using the refs to expand the actual articles themselves. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, filled with articles, not guides for further reading. -Seidenstud (talk) 07:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The reference section may be outstanding, but it interferes with legibility. I left the 'constellation' article alone; I'm not sure it's appropriate there either though. Where would be a good place for such info? Wikisource? We could link it from the 'constellation' article, or maybe from the constellation template, so that it's available but out of the way. kwami (talk) 07:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I see that Kwami and a couple of others have now sliced these superfluous references from the entries on the individual constellations. Thor has produced (and is continuing to add to) a tremendous list of references under the main Constellations entry, and we should applaud his efforts. I would accept they are appropriate there, but not repeated in each individual entry. Skeptic2 (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Best Visible?

It says "best visible on the month of April". That is for the northern hemisphere or for the Ecuador line, or what? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.90.224.232 (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

History and mythology

The section History and mythology are cut-n-pastes from Star Names: Their Lore and Meaning by Richard Hinckley Allen, which is public domain. While copyright is then not a problem, Allen have been heavily by f.ex. Gary D. Thompson criticised for using bad sources, and not being able to check them. We should shrinkwrap the two first paras of the section, and try to find other sources and rewrite. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 12:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Iota Leonis

Here it says Iota Leonis is divisible in a telescope, the Iota Leonis stub says they are not. Which is correct? 184.60.225.4 (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)