From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mythology    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This article was within the scope of WikiProject Mythology, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
WikiProject Astronomy / Constellations  (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Boötes is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Constellations taskforce, which collaborates on articles related to the constellations.


Can someone insert the International Phonetic Alphabet pronunciation down please? Thanks, Matt (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Is the diaeresis in Boötes part of the official IAU nomenclature? If so, shouldn't this article be at that spelling? Psmith 10:36, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It's not according to Names of Constellations on IAU. If I remember correctly, it's a transcription from Greek, and transcriptions usually are ambiguous. The diaeresis is supposed to prevent people from eliding the second "o" when pronouncing the word. It has three syllables. However this is my mere theory. – Torsten Bronger 11:28, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Star Charts[edit]

I must remark, the star charts for the constellations are beautiful... Ed Sanville 15:38, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Deep sky objects[edit]

"The one deep sky object in Boötes is NGC 5466" This is misleading. It implies that (a) Boötes has exactly one deep sky object, and (2) that there is an authority somewhere who points at objects and says "yes, that is a deep sky object", and "no, that one is not". I have revised the wording to make this phrase less misleading. --B.d.mills 09:18, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


" It is a zero magnitude red giant and is the third brightest star as seen from Earth in the night sky"

Is it worth pointing out that Arcturus appears to the naked eye as only the 4th brightest star in the night sky, rather than the 3rd?

Alpha Centauri A and B are too close to each other for the naked eye to resolve them as separate stars, even when they are furthest from each other in their orbits, and the human eye percieves them as a single star, with an apparent magnitude of around -0.27, 0.23 magnitudes brighter than Arcturus (nearly 25% brighter). Richard B 14:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Corrected since long obviously. Said: Rursus 15:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Graphic visualization[edit]

What is the purpose of this section? As far as I can tell, this is just someone's idea of another way to see the constellation Bootes and Canes Venatici. I can't find and historical account or mythology or any other source that views Bootes as a "herdsman with a pipe" specifically. I believe this section should either be deleted or explain why the alternate "connet-the-dots" view described here as such. Tahlana 19:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


Reverted edit by,,,, identified as vandalism to last revision by SieBot.--Bay Flam 06:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

January bootids[edit]

The template mentions both the January bootids (non-existing article) and the Quadrantids. I suspect these meteor showers are identical. Is that correct? / (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

HD 132406 Star[edit]

I can see that there is a section in the article for the named stars in the constellation, but I think we should include names of all the stars, including HD 132406. (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2008

The 'named stars' section can only include stars that has proper names like Arcturus, Sirius, Vega, etc. HD 132406 is only a designation, and should not include stars without proper names. However, we could make a section 'planetary systems' and can include this star, since this star has a planet. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 00:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Organization of stars[edit]

Right - I guess the next question is leaving the stars organised by spectral type or rejigging to doubles and variables.....or what? I have the Wagman book which can place star depictions on the constellation which breaks up the listy aspect of it. I haven't added it yet till we get the layout fixed. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I initially organized it by spectral type...but I'm not sure why. I did single bright/doubles/variables/single faint with Auriga and really liked it. I'm still finishing the meteor showers, once I've done that I can shift the stars section around. I don't have access to Wagman as far as I can tell, at least, not without a trek across the city/waiting for an interlibrary loan, so I'd appreciate it if you could add that stuff. :) I have a bunch of sources that will hopefully help with the deep-sky objects - take a gander at User:Keilana/Boo checklist and see if there's anything else we need? I also made User:Keilana/Constellation resources to collate everything in one place. Feel free to add more if that helps! Yay, Keilana|Parlez ici 03:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Never mind - I will read it again to get familiar with the stars and get wagman in - will tweak and alert when done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good, thanks! Keilana|Parlez ici 13:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


Right - a bit of distance in space and time and some dabbling in other constellation articles.....{u|Keilana}} I think I'm gonna have a play with this - then it can be co-nommed for GA if you want. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)