Talk:Andromeda (constellation)

Andromeda

• You should go to read about Talk:List of stars in Andromeda!

The map overlaps most of the lefthand part of the table with 800x600 resolution (occurs with Opera 7.10 and Internet Explorer 6). Perhaps a thumbnail could be uploaded? -- Notheruser 21:08 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

Work in progress. -- looxix 21:28 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

Added external link to www.nightskyinfo.com/constellations/andromeda. This is my page about the constellation. I'm planing to add more links in the future from other constellation pages in Wikipedia, as I develop new constellation articles on my site. Do you find the information useful?Thanks!

Nice article, but since the three "stars" of Andromeda constellation are three galaxies, isn't the information in the table, untruthful?

Now,

1. Adding this external link to Andromeda is IMHO a good idea, as long as copyrights are mutually respected,
2. Dear friends astronomers (amateurs and professionals), please don't forget to add ~~~~ (four tildes), so I can see who's talking! Said: Rursus 13:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issues

This whole thing was copied and pasted off of http://www.answers.com/topic/andromeda-constellation. The copyright issues are issued to the Columbia University Press. Did they agree on this? Everything is a litterally word from word copy and paste. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FrazierLocke (talk • contribs).

Actually Answers.com took it from Wikipedia. – Torsten Bronger 06:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Earth perspective vs actual dimensions

There doesn't seem to be any reason why it states that the constellation Andromeda contains the galaxy Andromeda. Common sense dictates that a group of about a dozen stars 10 light-years apart cannot contain an entire galaxy that is 2.5 million ly away. I'm rewriting it to state more clearly the relation between the galaxy and constellation of the same name.72.187.185.153 (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a constellation is an area of sky and as such it can contain anything from a meteor radiant to a quasar. Some people say "in the direction of" a given constellation, which is actually worse if you think about it. Skeptic2 (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Distance of Beta Andromedae

Umm, β And is said to be 88 ly from Earth in constellation article, but in article about the star itselft it is said to be 200 ly's away. Which one is correct? --84.248.57.66 14:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hindu variant

This is only a personal conclusion and as such unsuitable for inclusion in the article, but the Antarmada myth is most probably a late borrowing from Greek, seeing as both cultures were in contact in the Hellenistic period (see Indo-Greeks). No mystery here. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that would make sense, but I can't find a source for the life of me. :/ Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 22:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• The lede is a bit on the short side. Given that the article isn't terribly long, the lede doesn't have to be two paragraphs, but it should be longer than four lines.
  • Expanded it a bit. Is it better now?
    • Better length, yea. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• "Andromeda is a constellation in the northern sky." - there could probably be a better opening sentence. It doesn't really say anything. Is it truly northern from wherever you look at it on Earth? Is it only visible from the northern hemisphere? Is there anything you could say to draw the reader in a bit more?
  • Andromeda is mostly only visible from the northern hemisphere, yes, and it is in the northern half of the sky (see celestial coordinate system). But that's a crappy sentence, I agree. As someone not "specializing" in astronomy, what would interest you more?
    • Well, I found the third sentence (bit about one of 48 Ptolemy constellations). That is much more interesting, and it gives it more definition than what is currently there. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I shuffled things around, could you give it another look-see? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Cool! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• Given that the constellation's name is identical to its namesake, perhaps the second sentence could be something simpler like:
  • "Andromeda is named after the princess in the Greek legend of Perseus, who was chained to a rock to be eaten by the sea monster Cetus."
    • Changed.
      • Yay! :) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• "Andromeda is prominent in the northern sky during the fall" - if you keep the current opening sentence, then this clause is redundant (sans the fall part). Given there is ambiguity about "fall" referring to verb or an action or a season, perhaps you should use Autumn?
  • Changed to Autumn and removed the bit about the northern sky.
    • Lovely. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• I didn't learn until the fifth sentence that Andromeda is not in our galaxy. I think that should be mentioned sooner, as that's more important than what it's named after.
  • I'm not sure what you mean by this, could you explain?
    • Well, I think where the constellation is is more important than its namesake. Unless, you disagree. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Hm, well, I kind of assumed that it was, but if you as a reader disagree, I'll change that. I figure clarity for non-astronomy people is paramount, especially in the lead. Is there a general wording that would help? I'm not quite sure how to change it. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Oh, I completely agree it's worth having in the lede. I wasn't a fan of how it was the first important sentence of the lede, but it's much better given the new opening sentence. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• What exactly is a constellation as opposed to a galaxy?
  • A constellation is a collection of stars at varying distances that forms a shape as seen from Earth, which has been defined by the International Astronomical Union as a specific region of the sky. A galaxy is a gravitationally-bound collection of stars, gas, and other random objects that is all at the same general distance from the Earth. Does that help?
    • I understand it much more now, thanks. The new sentence: Several binary stars along with the Andromeda Galaxy (M31), the closest galaxy to the Milky Way and one of the brightest Messier objects, lie in Andromeda's borders. - makes this much clearer. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Yay! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• The end of the first sentence in "History and mythology" has a ")". Not sure what the ) was meant for.
  • Leftovers from the previous version. I got rid of it.
    • Mmm, leftovers. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
      • OM NOM NOM Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• "In the myth, Cassiopeia, the queen of Ethiopia, bragged that her daughter was more beautiful than the Nereids, sea nymphs blessed with incredible beauty." - the last clause could use clarification, such as "...Nereids, which are sea nymphs", or something.
  • Changed to "Nereids, who were sea nymphs blessed with incredible beauty"
    • Much better! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• You have to redlinks in the "History and mythology" section. Are you sure you can't link them anywhere?
  • I can't find anything for the Persideae and I feel like there should be an article for the Oracle of Ammon. There are a bunch of sources I could find with just a Google search. However, I don't really have the time to take that on. I could definitely link it to the Cult section in Amun if you'd like, or the Oracle at Siwa section in Zeus, or Siwa Oasis. What do you think?
    • Nah, it's no problem leaving them there. I just wanted to make sure there could be an article made on them at some point. --♫ **Hurricanehink (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Yup. Pretty sure someone just made up the Persideae. :P Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• In the second paragraph in "History and mythology", can you find a way to avoid saying "constellation" three times in two sentences?
  • Got rid of 2/4.
    • "is currently officially recognized by the International Astronomical Union" - this could be better (the currently officially). Would you be opposed to switching "currently" to "now officially", or something? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Changed it, thanks :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• "Part of Andromeda and most of Lacerta were taken in 1787" - how could it be taken? It sounds like territorial, but they're stars.... Again, this is why some explanation of what a constellation is (instead of just wikilinking it), could be helpful.
  • Rewritten to say "Several stars from Andromeda and most of the stars in Lacerta were combined in 1787". Would some writing earlier about how constellations are now also defined as specific regions of the sky, not just figures, help?
    • Yea, that'd better if you add something earlier. And not to nitpick, but I don't see that new sentence in the article... lose something in the edit window? ;) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
      • What the -- IT ATE MY EDIT! BAD EDIT WINDOW! BAD!!! Yeah, I changed the beginning of the Ptolemy para to "Andromeda was one of the original 48 constellations formulated by Ptolemy in his Almagest, where it was defined as a specific pattern of stars. Since then, it has remained a constellation and is now officially recognized by the International Astronomical Union, though it is now defined as a specific region of the sky including both Ptolemy's pattern and the surrounding stars." And I put the eaten sentence back.Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
        • OM NOM NOM! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• Is there any more history of Andromeda?
  • Yes, I added some text about how Edwin Hubble used the Andromeda Galaxy to figure out that a bunch of things we thought were random clouds of gas were actually galaxies like our own, and that the universe was way bigger than we thought. Does it still need expanding?
    • Nah, that puts a good touch on that section, thanks. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I adore Hubble :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• What does the m represent in 2.06m in the description of α And (Alpheratz, Sirrah)?
  • It's a symbol representing the visual magnitude; I don't think it's always necessary as I've not seen it in any of my sources. I removed it from β And's description too.
    • K. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• β, δ, ξ, and n descriptions appear to be unsourced.
  • I cited and expanded them except for n And; I couldn't dig up a source. I'll try to hunt something down; if I do, I'll add it back in. L_☉
    • Sweet. And given that you have the sub-article already on "stars in Andromeda constellation", it's fine you removed n And. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Yep, are the ones that are there ok, or is it astrocruft-y? (Is astrocruft even a thing?) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
        • The astrocruft seems appropriate given the history of the constellation :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• What is an arcsecond?
  • It's 1/3600 of a degree, so it's a measure of how big astronomical objects are or how far apart they are. Where do you think this should be explained?
    • You could probably just wikilink it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Done. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• "δ And is a 3rd magnitude star." - that's a different format than the other ones. How come?
  • No idea, maybe I got bored while writing it. :) Anyhow, I changed it in the process of citing and expanding it.
    • Nice! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• What does " F-type dwarf" mean?
  • Wikilinked to the article (F-type dwarf). I also got M-type dwarf while I was at it.
    • Thanks. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Watch for overlinking of binary star
  • Delinked a bunch.

I'll take care of more comments later once you address some of these. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! I look forward to more comments. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Part Two: The Return of the Editing (rated PG for pretty good... so far)

• "The Great Galaxy" - I notice this a few times. Is that the official nickname? You mention it in "Deep-sky objects" as if you had established what it was, but it's left there with some ambiguity. Could you explain it in the article?
  • Yeah, that's what it's called besides "the Andromeda Galaxy". I put a clause in the lead, so now it reads "Several binary stars along with the Andromeda Galaxy (M31, also called the Great Galaxy of Andromeda), the closest galaxy to the Milky Way and one of the brightest Messier objects, lie in Andromeda's borders." Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Little nitpick, but it being called the Great Galaxy is sourced, right? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, it's called that in several of my sources. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• " It is an enormous barred spiral galaxy - 192.4 by 62.2 arcminutes[4] - much like the Milky Way" - I'm confused what part is like the Milky Way. The previous sentence said that the galaxy is twice the size of the Milky Way.
  • Oops, should have clarified that the Milky Way is also a barred spiral. Fixed it to read "It is an enormous - 192.4 by 62.2 arcminutes - barred spiral galaxy similar in form to the Milky Way, and at an approximate magnitude of 3.5, is one of the brightest deep-sky objects in the northern sky." I think it's still a bit awkward, any suggestions? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Gotcha! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• "The Andromeda and Milky Way galaxies also have a shared destiny: in about five billion years, the two will begin a massive gravitational interaction - also called a "collision" - that will spark extensive new star formation" - this part is cool, but the way it reads sounds like it will definitely happen. You should add "predicted" somewhere in there. ("the two are predicted to begin", something like that). The shared destiny part sounds a bit dramatic, IMO.
  • Oh, but I want it to happen! That'd be SO COOL! Nevertheless, I changed it. Is "may have a shared destiny as a gigantic elliptical galaxy" any better with regards to drama? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Ehh, it's cool, but "shared destiny" doesn't seem terribly appropriate for Wiki. It's a bit too much astrofangirlism. What about "The futures of the Milky Way and Andromeda are expected to be interlinked." Or something? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm a total fangirl, what can I say? Rewritten to say "The futures of the Andromeda and Milky Way galaxies may be interlinked" Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• "M110 is classified as either a dwarf spheroidal galaxy or simply a generic elliptical galaxy." - why either/or?
  • Astronomers disagree, it can't be both but my sources say one or both. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
    • K. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• "Andromeda's most celebrated open cluster" - ehh, celebrated?
  • Is "most noted" better? It's usually the only one mentioned in less comprehensive sources. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Much better. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• I notice you don't explain why the constellation is only visible from the northern hemisphere of Earth (unless I'm mistaken). It might be obvious, but how come?
  • Well, it lies sorta close to the north celestial pole, which is what's directly overhead when you're standing at the North Pole. So the farther you get away from the pole, the more stuff to the south you see. But the flip side of that is that the pole dips closer and closer to the horizon, until when you're on the equator, both celestial poles are on the horizon and you can technically see anything except for the pole stars. Andromeda is actually visible up to 40 degrees of latitude south, but it's to the north of the celestial equator, so it's considered a northern constellation. Does that help? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Very much so. Is that in the article? :P ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I stuck a clause about how it is north of the celestial equator in the lead. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that's it! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

K, just a few small things and I'll be happy to pass it! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks for your thorough review...I'm a little nervous about FAC though. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Gamma And is at southern tip?

Is Gamma And (AKA Almach) really "found at the southern tip of the constellation"? Its declination is +42° 19′ 47.009″, wile the declination of Eta And, for example, is +23° 25′ 03.533″ which is over 19° further south, no? User:Mpuron ([er talk:Mpulier|talk]]) 21:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure what happened there. It has the highest right ascension, maybe I mistyped. Do you think mentioning Almach's position or mentioning the most southerly main star is more important? I'm not attached to either. Thanks for catching that! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Square degrees

Having never heard of a square degree before I looked at Square degree (I guess this should be linked in the article, I'll do it shortly) Now my definition of a degree is 1/360 of a circle, i.e. 360 degrees in a circle. So I would expect a square degree to be some fraction of a sphere, top of my head 1/1296000, (1296000 is 360 squared) i.e. 1296000 square degrees in a sphere. Is this right ? Suspect this discussion should take place in the Square degree article but I guess it will have more visibility here and I'm sure I'm not the only person confused, Thanks...GrahamHardy (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You're on the right track. You just have to divide 1296000 by pi to get the number of square degrees in a sphere, about 41,253 degrees. There's a decent explanation at List of constellations by area. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 13:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Not the closest galaxy

The "featured article" summary leaves out the word "spiral", making the sentence incorrect: see Local Group.--Lieven Smits (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Andromeda headed for collision with Milky Way

Should there be a link to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda%E2%80%93Milky_Way_collision somewhere in this one? Philip Argy 00:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe there is one, in the paragraph on the Andromeda galaxy. Maybe the wiki ate it at some point? If it's not there, I agree, it definitely should be. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Why would something about the galaxy be in the article about the constellation? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, part of what's important about the constellation is what lies within its borders. So it made sense to include a little bit about all the major/bright objects in Andromeda. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The technical point about constellation vs. galaxy is well made, but in that case I suggest there needs to be some better disambiguation text including a cross reference to the 'galaxy' article at the beginning of this constellation article. That would satisfy me as I see the refeerence to the 'impending' collision is in the galaxy article. Philip Argy 06:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

"also called the Great Galaxy of Andromeda"

Says who? Can someone add a weasel tag? Or how do you do it? May also be needed under the picture of M31. 78.156.109.166 (talk) 09:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

@78.156.109.166: Hi, calling the Andromeda Galaxy the "Great Galaxy" or some variant is pretty common - "Great Nebula of Andromeda" was basically the official name before astronomers realized it was a galaxy, for example. I don't think it's using weasel words to give that common name. Though I do think it's pretty fantastic! ;) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Andromeda Galaxy and Walter Baade observations

This article is in contradiction with facts current in the WP articles on both the galaxy and W. Baade's 1944 ( reported in public in 1952 )

For those of us who do sidewalk astronomy, preparing notes from wikipedia should be less rife with error-checking to perform.

Please find an editor to resolve these inconsistances in facts and dates in the name of science popularization.

Science is, in part, about trying to get it right.

thanks

99.251.239.140 (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)