Talk:Ursa Minor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Ursa Minor 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 January 10, 2016.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 27, 2015 Good article nominee Listed
August 8, 2015 Featured article candidate Promoted
Did You Know
Current status: Featured article

WikiProject Astronomy / Constellations  (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Ursa Minor 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.
 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.

Find sources: "Ursa Minor" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference


What is being disputed is the etymological derivation of the Latin word "septentrion."

The question depends on what would be considered the celestial marker of North during the Roman period.

By, say, 44 BC, there hadn't been a pole star for a millenium, nor would there be another worthy of the name for yet another millenium to come. Due to Precession, Thuban (α Dra) had ceased to be the pole star circa 1900 BC and Polaris was still 10 degrees from the pole. Clearly, this situation is being reflected in the notion that it is seven stars that mark North.

While the naked-eye stars of Ursa Minor are both circumpolar and seven in number, it should be pointed out that there is another group of seven stars, bigger, brighter, and equally distant from the pole in Roman times. It is my contention that it was the stars of the Big Dipper or Plough that were being referred to.

Examples from the centuries when the was no significant "North Star" -

  • When, in the Odyssey, Homer has his sailors steer by "the Bear that never bathes in Ocean's stream," it is Ursa Major of which he speaks, not Ursa Minor.
  • Again, the Biblical references to "the Bear" (Job) and "the seven stars" (Amos) also point to the larger figure.

The American Heritage Dictionary isn't sure which Dipper is being referred to. (I don't have the OED available to me.)

I believe that this paragraph should be transferred to "Ursa Major."

B00P 11:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The OED gives the etymology as
[ad. L. septentrio, sing. of septentriōnēs, orig. septem triōnēs, the seven stars of the constellation of the Great Bear, f. septem seven + triōnes, pl. of trio plough-ox. Cf. F. septentrion.]
The first definition in the OED is
1. pl. (chiefly as Latin.) The constellation of the Great Bear, occas. the Little Bear.
Bkell 20:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Aha! Thank you very much. I shall transfer the paragraph to "Big Dipper/Plough" in five days if there are no objections. B00P 06:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Done as threatened promised. B00P 10:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The unusual explanation that septemtrio comes from "septem (seven) and trio (three), from three oxen driving a plow, which the seven stars also resemble" persists on the page. The Latin word for three is tres, not trio -- see the entry triones in Lewis and Short's Latin Dictionary at Perseus. Imerologul Valah (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The previous commentator is absolutely correct. The Latin word for three is NOT trio. The only forms of 3 that exist in the Latin language are tres, tria, trium, and tribus. In other words, "trio" isn't one of those forms. Triones (it seems to be always used in the plural, not the singular) means "oxen." Imerologul cited Lewis and Short's Latin Dictionary, which is a substantial Latin-English dictionary from a century ago. You can also check it out in the Oxford Latin Dictionary (OLD), which is a more recent work and considered the standard in the field of Latin literature, although some of my fellow classicists prefer Lewis and Short. See OLD sub "triones" and "septentriones." Moreover, lest anyone think that triones is derived from tres etymologically, the OLD suggests that triones comes from the verb tero, one of whose meanings is to trod upon the earth, something oxen are wont to do. I have thus changed the text in the body of the article to reflect real Latin vocabulary.Jkellrmn (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
One additional point: according to the OLD the singular "septentrio" is acceptable, but is derived from the older plural "septentriones." Thus, I have kept the statement that the Latin for north is "septentrio," just in case anyone is wondering. Jkellrmn (talk) 04:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


There was a short section entitled "History" just before the "Mythology" section. It contained three short items.

  1. The first declared that the pyramids were aligned with Ursa Minor. This had a "citation needed" note appended, as well it might, as they were actually aligned to Thuban (Alpha Draconis), the previous Pole Star.
  2. Item two was about the Dragon's Wing asterism.
  3. The final item was a short version of the Dog's Tail entry in the Mythology section.

Dropping the first and third points left the section woefully thin, so it seemed best to combine the History and Mythology sections, moving the Dragon's Wing to the appropriate location.

I also tightened some of the section's verbiage slightly.

B00P (talk) 07:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Kochab and Pherkad[edit]

Not trying to say much, just that these were once the "Guardians of the North," as celestial north was about the midpoint between them. I feel this should be integrated both into this and the Pole Star page. I think there have also been a few other star pairs like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No, the celestial pole was never between these two stars. Skeptic2 (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Anwar al Farkadain[edit]

there is an error in the article and the map. i have book wrote by Abd al-Rahman al-Sufi its name is: "Suar Al-Kawakeb Al-thamaniah wa Al-Arbaen" (صور الكواكب الثمانية والأربعين) and that`s almost means: "the pictures of the 48 consetllations". so the book say that Anwar al Farkadain locate in the place which its the place of Kochab star at the map of the constellation. and the book says too that "Anwar al Farkadain" is the second brightest star in the constellation of Ursa Malasia Freeman Minor --عباد مجاهد ديرانية (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC).

Hunagarian material[edit]

Have removed this for hte time being as I can find no sources: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

In Hungarian mythology the constellation is called 'Little Goncol cart' (Göncöl szekér) after a legendary shaman. (Ursa Major is 'Big Goncol cart.') The shaman's knowledge knew no limit. He invented the cart: His nation was wandering, so the cart was the biggest gift of the Gods to the country. Legends claim he knew everything about the world. Nobody saw his death; his body simply disappeared among the stars.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ursa Minor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: StudiesWorld (talk · contribs) 00:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose (Symbol support vote.svg) 1b. MoS (Symbol support vote.svg) 2a. ref layout (Symbol support vote.svg) 2b. cites WP:RS (Symbol support vote.svg) 2c. no WP:OR (Symbol support vote.svg) 3a. broadness (Symbol support vote.svg)
3b. focus (Symbol support vote.svg) 4. neutral (Symbol support vote.svg) 5. stable (Symbol support vote.svg) 6a. free or tagged images (Symbol support vote.svg) 6b. pics relevant (Symbol support vote.svg)
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked Symbol comment 2.png are unassessed



  1. Well written:
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) This article follows copyright laws and generally is correct in terms of spelling and grammar. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) This article follows all required sections of the Manual of Style. Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) The article is well referenced with the exception of the lead. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) All citations are of reliable sources. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) The article does not appear to have original research. Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) This article covers all major aspects of the subject. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) This article remains focused on the core topic throughout the article.. Neutral Undetermined
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    Notes Result
    This article covers the topic from a neutral point of view. Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    Notes Result
    The article is currently stable and not undergoing any edit wars.. Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) All images are used legally. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) All images fit the article and when used the captions are suitable. Pass Pass


Result Notes
Pass Pass Overall this article is a very good example of a constellation article.See 2a


Please add any related discussion here.

  • @StudiesWorld: I consider the pages of the book reference (Wagman) as Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Short_citations. I am unhappy with parenthetical referencing as a whole as it adds to page clutter. I prefer as is but I can combine both book refs into one ref with the two pages listed. Do you feel I need to do that. It's not a real bother. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
@Casliber: I agree with you that it does add to the clutter. While it is not necessarily required for passage that would definitely be a helpful change. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
ok @StudiesWorld: - I have done it now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Additional notes[edit]

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.


The Little Dipper is 7 stars with 4 in its bowl like its partner the Big Dipper[edit]

I tweaked the following... Like the Great Bear, the tail of the Little Bear may also be seen as the handle of a ladle, hence the name Little Dipper: seven stars with four in its bowl like its partner the Big Dipper. (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Why are there two "Stars" subsections under "Features"?[edit]

Looks like an accidental consequence of the edit from March, but it looks very odd. I'd try resolving it, but I'd probably make a mess of it. — Saskoiler (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Saskoiler, I've renamed it to "Chinese constellation" as that seems to be a bit more specific. Feel free to change it to something else if you can think of something more suitable.  DiscantX 00:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I can't think of anything better. — Saskoiler (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Note to anyone interested: I've added a template with:

"This section may be confusing or unclear to readers. In particular, the name and specifics of the Chinese constellation are not made clear or explained; further explanation of its relevance to Ursa Minor should be included, including historical naming and identification, as well as, for instance, the difference between it and the Western version called Ursa Minor. A lead should be written in prose for this section. Please help usclarify the section ; suggestions may be found on the talk page."

As someone reviewing this page who has had little previous involvement in this article, this section is out of place as it stands. It seems the information it contains is probably accurate and relevant, and as such should stay, but there is little context provided and your average reader is liable to be left asking more questions than are answered.  DiscantX 11:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)