From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Triangulum is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 12, 2014.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
September 23, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
December 14, 2013 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article
WikiProject Astronomy / Constellations  (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Triangulum is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-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.


Why is beta brighter than alpha? Nik42 06:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Bayer designations often don't follow the alphabetical/decreasing brightness rule. The brightness measurements were made by eye which explains some of the discrepancies. In addition, they often follow some asterism (like is the case in Ursa Major and Sagittarius) and therefore the alpha star may be far from being the brightest star.--JyriL talk 00:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
"Beta" was not brighter than "Alpha" in Bayer's Uranometria (1603). Bayer wrote that three stars ― Alpha, Beta, and Gamma Trianguli were same class (not magnitude) "Quartae Diff[erentiae]" in the star list of the constellation "TRIANGVRVM"[1]. Alpha Trianguli is prior to Beta Trianguli on their position within the constellation Triangulum. It is same case of the Plough in Ursa Major and "Castor and Pollux" in Gemini, not Sagittarius.--Bay Flam 08:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Changing the Name[edit]

This name should be changed to Triangulum Borale, the Northern Triangle because there is the constellation Triangulum Australe, the Southern Triangle like Corona (Corona Borealis and Corona Australis). Cosmium 22:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

(1) Give a source for the claim. (2) If it is changed, it will be in future. For now, the name of the constellation is Triangulum.--JyriL talk 00:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Nope, the "official" name is Triangulum, not Triangulum Borale. I've never ever heard of "Triangulum Borale". Said: Rursus 20:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Surely Triangulum is official name of this constellation. "Triangulus Septentrionalis" (sic), the Northern Triangle with TRIANGVRVM found in the star list of Bayer's Uranometria. Please see above.--Bay Flam 08:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Mayan name[edit]

Does anyone know the Mayan name for the constellation? Would it have EK (star) in the name? cecilia (talk) 07:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)cseewiki


  • "nearly isosceles" is in the lede, but its shape is not mentioned in the body text. Given that the lede is a summary, my own view is that "nearly" could be dropped in the lede, but i decline to take responsibility for someone more pedantic than myself seeking to have this reversed during an FAC :-)
removed - I just left as plain old "long and narrow" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I would change "the first quasar observed" to "the first quasar ever observed", I just think that scans more clearly.
ok/done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • " their incipit." As Manuel would say: "¿que?"
seems like a quaint old term...question is, is a link enough or some parenthetical explanation.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Or just get rid of it and use a modern term? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think there is a modern term as such, but have rephrased to get the same meaning Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "called Triangulum Δελτωτόν,..." As Manuel would say... can we have an English transliteration, or something?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "...can be split by medium-sized telescopes" Technical use of the term "split" - is there a wikilink available?
reworded to clarify what it means Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "Recent measurements of its motion indicate that it is moving at 190 kilometres (120 mi) per second in the direction of the Andromeda Galaxy, which has led astronomers to surmise that it may actually be orbiting the larger galaxy". Since when did something move towards another thing, when it is orbiting around it? What is meant here?
Took a while, couldn't track down the book, but got the paper which first mentioned it - it is about escape velocities of the larger object (Andromeda) but also warns of uncertainty in distances/margins of error to these galaxies and stops short of proposing it is a satellite. However a 2013 study does so I have added it here instead. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • "dark matter filament". LInk/s?
links added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

hamiltonstone (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

This helps - anything to kickstart some tidying up before FAC is less I have to do once there.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but what is "heliacal rising"?? hamiltonstone (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC

Obvious Error[edit]

Sorry, but february isn't 45 days before the summer solstice!

Aha, the sun is in it at a different time - the two are not related per se. Given the confusion I have removed that as not germane to the article (as it refers to the Way of Enlil and not the Plough. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC) used "which" instead of a participle to hopefully delineate it better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Low power is required[edit]

There are at least three people confused by this statement,[2][3][4] presumably because it is counter-intuitive. I'm not clear how low magnification[5] helps a viewer to see a faint object. DrKay (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Faint is not the relevant factor. Low power is an aid for objects with a low surface brightness. This is because the human eye cannot detect objects with very low contrast, such as a galaxy magnified too much against a dark sky. The same amount of light from the same object, concentrated in a smaller area, can be detected by the eye more easily. There can also be additional instrumental effects with the complex optics required for high magnification causing additional light loss - or not depending on the equipment. Low power observation may not be helpful in areas with light pollution because the surface brightness of the sky is also increased. Detection of some (small, bright) objects against a bright sky can even be improved by high power, and this is used in cases such as daytime observation of astronomical objects.
Just on a more general rant, I find it poor form for editors to take out widely-known concepts from an article simply because they don't understand the concept. A citation would be good if you think one is needed, but this isn't hard to find (first Google book link that came up). There you go, rant over, I won't hold a grudge. Lithopsian (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm merely trying to address the cleanup tag. Is it clearer to say "low magnification" rather than "low power"? DrKay (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
It might be. Or perhaps pipe "power" to the magnification article. It may be best to closely paraphrase whatever a reference says, to avoid any confusion. Some jargon like "power" is valuable, but sometimes it is distracting to a lay reader. I may be too familiar with the subject to judge that. Lithopsian (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)