Jump to content

Talk:Ophiuchus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

pronunciation

[edit]
♠My $0.02 (based on 2yrs of Latin...), it's "oh FEE i koose". A sound file is a good idea, if we can agree on which pronounciation to use. (My impression is, most Latin pronounciation today is very Italianate...) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • ^Ophiuchus is Greek so transliteration to Latin and not direct to English is very much an open, involved, question (academia in many cases not knowing for certain period pronunciations where classical languages are concerned in relation to themselves let alone each other) I suppose it would be rendered "ophiuchos?" otherwise translit. to Mod. Eng. (or am I mistaken?) I suppose the precedent for not using the translation of Serpentarius as the other name in line with the other Latin descriptive names such as Aquarius, Sagittarius, etc. (Reminds me of Uranus being the odd named planet out.). I recall pedantic theorizing that the Greek form Odysseus was incorrectly rendered to Latin as Ulysses, and would have if it hadn't found widespread currence in that form early have properly been transliterated “Ulixes”, or something of the like. (As for my input, a friend of mine who isn't as philologically compulsive as myself pronounced it "oh-fee-ew-cuss", 'ew' rhyming with "two") Nagelfar (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ophiuchus symbol from Japanese sidereal astrology

[edit]

Apparently sidereal astrology is sufficiently popular in Japan that they have their own symbol for Ophiuchus, which is included in Emoji. (The symbol can be seen at this emoji->unicode proposal - it is e-037 and is proposed to be U+26CE.) Is this worth adding to the article? Does its existence in emoji make it sufficiently notable/verifiable for inclusion? DenisMoskowitz (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'll just be bold. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's where that symbol comes from? I saw it in Final Fantasy Tactics, I thought SquareSoft made it up. Thanks for the info! - MK (t/c) 08:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Knowledge_Incarnate, I don't see anything in the Unicode table you linked that says the Staff of Aesculapius is connected to Ophiuchus. The text is:
  • 2695 STAFF OF AESCULAPIUS
  • =medical term
  • both inclined or upright renderings of this symbol are common
  • -> 2624 caduceus
DenisMoskowitz (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen both the caduceus (☤) and the rod of Asclepius (⚕) used to represent Serpentarius before, but it's very uncommon. One of the Real Solar Zodiac websites uses the caduceus here. Some other variant is used on the NASA website here. Even some guy on IMVU has his own varient of the emoji sign, heh. - MK (t/c) 14:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The thicker symbol looks good, DanPMK. As far as I'm concerned you could have just updated the original file with your new version, but whatever. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry... - MK (t/c) 01:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this emoji->unicode proposal does not open. It's an error page. Thank you, please try to fix this issue. 108.235.91.69 (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One can see more versions on Commons: Ophiuchus symbols.--Auric talk 16:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some recollection

[edit]
As another editor pointed out already. The discussion is beyond silly.
Last week Zac was putting Ophiuchus (astrology) up for deletion, arguing that there shouldn't be an article about it.
Now that the article was kept, it is not enough to have an article about it, Zac insists that two other articles need sections about it. A hatnote link to Ophiuchus (astrology) is not sufficient. Does this editor know what he wants?
The difference between the "astronomical zodiac" and "astrological zodiac" is clearly explained in Zodiac, and is equal to the definition that Jc3s5h just brought from another source.
Ophiuchus is one of the 88 modern constellations, and that's all. And astronomers are not confused about it.
Whatever mumbo-jumbo some astrologers have dreamt up about Ophiuchus has its own space in Ophiuchus (astrology). The astrology of Ophiuchus is not that notable, it is only a rather recent fringe theory within astrology. So it is more than enough to link it from the hatnote here. It is not that important that it needs sections in several other articles.
Note to Zac: The way you are cutting up people's responses with line by line replies, is completely unreadable. Maybe that's the purpose? MakeSense64 (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry if my replies were not clear enough - let me restate the situation here, so my points are perfectly lucid.
There is no difference between the "astronomical zodiac" and "astrological zodiac" - these are one and the same. As soon as you use the word 'zodiac' you are talking about the division of celestial longitude into twelve equal divisions of 30° each. You can talk about constellations that cross the zodiac, but you cannot talk about constellations that make the zodiac because the zodiac is only made of mathematical divisions, which begin with the first point of Aries. It is therefore not an astrological discussion to explain how many signs of the zodiac there are, and why Ophiuchus is not one of these. This matter does not need reference to an astrological section or an astrological page, because it is a matter of astronomical definition, and has been so for over 2500 years. Whether astronomers are confused or not, the general public are, and so will expect this page to give some kind of reliable explanation. The content that covers this issue is brief, reliable and factual and - although this has escaped your notice - does not make any astrological reference. (As a reminder, it reads as follows:) Zac Δ talk 18:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Because of the partial overlap of the constellation Ophiuchus and the Sun's path upon which zodiacal longitude is based, Ophiuchus is sometimes mistakenly referred to as the '13th sign of the zodiac'. This is an innapropriate reference since the zodiac is a division of the ecliptic into twelve equal parts, initially originated for calendrical purposes. This makes the notion of a '13th sign' a mathematical impossibility. It is only correct to refer to Ophiuchus as one of the constellations which cross the zodiac; which does not constitute a zodiacal sign, of which all historical records acknowledge only twelve.[16]" Zac Δ talk 18:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lede on Zodiac disagrees with you. Quoting:
In astronomy , the zodiac (Greek: ζῳδιακός, zōdiakos) is the ring of constellations that lines the ecliptic, which is the apparent path of the Sun across the celestial sphere over the course of the year. The paths of the Moon and planets also lie roughly within the ecliptic, and so are also within the constellations of the zodiac.
In astrology, the zodiac denotes those signs that divide the ecliptic into twelve equal zones of celestial longitude.
So in astronomy it is the ring of constellations, the 13 of them, including Ophiuchus.
While in astrology it is the signs dividing the ecliptic in 12 equal zones.
Like it or not, a clear distinction is being made. And the same distinction is made in the source that Jc3s5h cited.
Also note that Zodiac is one of the few articles that belongs both to astronomy and astrology category.
The section you want to bring in is completely astrological, because it clearly refers to zodiac in the astrological sense of 12 equal divisions.
Astrological considerations about the "sign" are irrelevant here because the article starts by saying "This article is about the constellation".
What is it you don't understand about that? MakeSense64 (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lede of the zodiac article is completely wrong in its opening definition. Unreferenced I note. I will add a citation request and request that the lede is corrected. Zac Δ talk 20:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(It's not essential to add citations to a lede, as what is there will be covered, explained and, most importantly, verified by reference further down. The lede sets out the article's salient points, per WP:MOS. If something in the lede is not mentioned and explained in the article it should be removed until it is, and the lede accordingly recast. The pertinence of additions is a different matter of course. A good place for you to add citations needed in the Zodiac article would be the 22 paragraphs that are in severe need of them) Acabashi (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can see that the page is another in need of attention. I've made a proposal on the talk page and want to give contributing editors an oportunity to open discussion on the problems. Next week I'll propose a suggestion if no one else does that first. Zac Δ talk 08:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me point out that the word "zodiac" was not used in this article, until you brought in the astrology section. In the last sentence before your new section Ophiuchus is said to be a "zodiacal constellation" which gives an internal link to the section that explains the difference between "constellation" and "zodiacal sign" more than sufficiently. That makes your section redundant information here. MakeSense64 (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(outside opinion, I spotted this at the COI noticeboard) Ophiuchus (astrology) is a WP:SPINOUT from this article, but the section should be much smaller, and it needs to put more weight in astronomic terms. Detailed debunking belongs to the astrology article. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have restated JHunterJ's version to use well-defined astronomical terms. JHunterJ's version was unclear because
  1. There is no official definition of "zodiacal longitude".
  2. If we take "zodiacal longitude" to mean celestial longitude, then every celestial object and constellation has a (range of) celestial longitude, so the statement becomes meaningless.
  3. As far as I can tell, modern astronomers no longer offer precise definitions of "sign of the zodiac", and various media use the term in many different ways. Thus, the term is not well enough defined to decide of it is a mistake to describe Ophiuchus as the 13th sign of the zodiac. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jc3s5h, I have undone your edit because it presents the information falsely. The previous definition was too brief in my opinion but at least it wasn't inaccurate. The zodiac is an ecliptic-based frame of astronomical refrence that is used to define celestial latitude and longitude. What you have written above shows misunderstanding and lack of knowledge so if you want to propose an amendment based on sources, it would be a good idea to discuss here first with details of the sources for verification. Please present a page number and not just a book so we can see why you are making the assumptions you are making. It is my intention to correct the information on the zodiac page, BTW, before worrying too much about what this page says, but what is presented here should not be deliberately false or misleading. Zac Δ talk 17:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is time for dispute resolution. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of zodiacal longitude and sign of the zodiac

[edit]

Does this sentence have meaning: "Because of the overlap of Ophiuchus and the zodiacal longitude, Ophiuchus is sometimes mistakenly referred to as the 13th sign of the zodiac"? If so, what do "zodiacal longitude" and "sign of the zodiac" mean? Jc3s5h (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose something like the following for a clearer meaning and to emphasise the astronomy more as suggested by JHunter. This can perhaps be shortened a little, but I think it is better to have a few more words and clarify the issue, than less and leave it confusing:
"Because of the partial overlap of the constellation Ophiuchus and the Sun's apparanent path ( ecliptic) which is used to determine the Zodiac, Ophiuchus is sometimes mistakenly referred to as the '13th sign of the zodiac'. This is an innapropriate reference since the zodiac is a twelve-fold division of the ecliptic's 360° of celestial longitude, so that each sign of the zodiac measures 30° of celestial longitude, approximately the distance that the Sun will travel in a month. Whilst it is correct to refer to Ophiuchus as one of the constellations which overlap the belt of the zodiac; this does not constitute a zodiacal sign. Constellations are irregular in size and based on observable star clusters; zodiac signs are mathematically determined to create precise alignment with the the seasonal equinoxes and solstices."
I can provide references for these points, but let's see if other editors are happy with the size and wording, or what might need to be jiggled around a little. Zac Δ talk 21:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Ophiuchus is one of thirteen constellations which occupy the zodiac cross the ecliptic. It has therefore been called the '13th sign of the zodiac'. However, this confuses sign with constellation. The signs of the zodiac are a twelve-fold division of the ecliptic, so that each sign spans 30° of celestial longitude, approximately the distance the Sun travels in a month, and is mathematically determined to create alignment with the the seasonal equinoxes and solstices. [not sure of that clause] Constellations, on the other hand, are unequal in size and are based on the positions of stars. The constellations of the zodiac have only a loose association with the signs of the zodiac, and do not in general coincide with them. The constellation of Aquarius, for example, largely corresponds to the sign of Pisces. Similarly, the constellation of Ophiuchus occupies most of the sign of Sagittarius."
— kwami (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, "Ophiuchus is one of thirteen constellations which occupy the zodiac" won't do. In astronomy, the zodiac is the region in which the sun can appear; it is about 8 degrees above and below the ecliptic. Even if we confine ourselves to traditional constellations (before the 1930 adoption by the IAU of formal boundaries and the invention of new constellations to cover some gaps) there are still a number of constellations through which the ecliptic does not pass, but which are still in the zodiac. Examples are Cetus and Auriga. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How's that? I'm trying to get away from value judgements AMAP.
BTW, we should mention Cetus and Auriga at constellations of the zodiac. — kwami (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would change "confuses sign" with "confuses Western sign" because there are other systems that rely on constellations. I would also change "mathematically determined to create alignment with the the seasonal equinoxes and solstices" to "aligned so the March equinox is on the boundary between the signs Aries and Pisces", which is more precise. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that the sentence could not be understood without extensive prior knowledge of the subject. However, because I don't have said extensive prior knowledge, while I do believe it needs to be changed, I don't think I know what to change it to.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinxorin (talk • contribs) 23:37, 2011 July 30 (UTC)
(edit conflict) How's this:
"Ophiuchus is one of thirteen constellations which cross the ecliptic. It has therefore been called the '13th sign of the zodiac'. However, this confuses sign with constellation. The signs of the Western zodiac are a twelve-fold division of the ecliptic, so that each sign spans 30° of celestial longitude, approximately the distance the Sun travels in a month, and [in the Western tradition] are aligned with the seasons so that the March equinox falls on the boundary between Aries and Pisces. Constellations, on the other hand, are unequal in size and are based on the positions of stars. The constellations of the zodiac have only a loose association with the signs of the zodiac, and do not in general coincide with them. The constellation of Aquarius, for example, largely corresponds to the sign of Pisces. Similarly, the constellation of Ophiuchus occupies most of the sign of Sagittarius."
— kwami (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Kwamikagami's suggestion is very good. It only needs a slight adjustment to the first sentence - perhaps cutting it into mine. You are getting your facts wrong Jc3s5h. The zodiac is centred on the eclipic and extends 8-9° either side of it because this is the area of celestial latitude in which the Moon and visible also remain as viewed from Earth (that is the case most of the time; on rare occasions Venus can go a little beyond this). So the zodiac covers the belt of space that was of most interest to astronomers historically, because this is where all the visible planetary motion occured. The Sun never moves away from the ecliptic - the ecliptic is the Sun's 'apparent' path. And no constellation which does not cut the ecliptic can properly be called a 'zodiac' constellation - but that is getting too technical and raising points that belong on the zodiac page, not this one. Zac Δ talk 23:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, Zachariel is correct that the zodiac is the area where the major solar system bodies will usually be found. Of course it could become complicated because different people might have different ideas about which objects are "major". Jc3s5h (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had written "Moon and visible planets" but see the word planets went missing there ! Anyway, not to worry - just saw the latest suggestion by Kwamikagami based on your steering and see no problem with that. I would give that a thumbs up. (We don't need the word 'western' where it is placed - all zodiac-sign systems use 12 equal divisions of 30°, but it does no damage to include it) Zac Δ talk 23:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We need 'Western' because of the seasonal alignment, though maybe it should be moved. — kwami (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"We need 'Western' because of the seasonal alignment" IMO, if it's left where it now is, as quoted above (parenthetical and all), you're good to go. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, adding it in. — kwami (talk) 05:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a spinout article that covers the details of the problems with Ophiuchus as a zodiac constellation. All we need here is a brief sentence pointing to it.
Jc3s5h pointed out some problems with: "Because of the overlap of Ophiuchus and the zodiacal longitude, Ophiuchus is sometimes mistakenly referred to as the 13th sign of the zodiac"
Changing it like this removes the problems: "Because Ophiuchus is one of 13 constellations which cross the ecliptic, there is a controversy around using Ophiuchus in astrology as the '13th sign of the zodiac'".
This is a neutral worded statement that doesn't take sides in the argument whether its use in astrology is mistaken or not. People can find further details and arguments on that matter in Ophiuchus (astrology), the spinout article that was created for that purpose.
By just putting that there is a controversy we may avoid that editors keep coming back here to add in their side of the argument on that question, just like happened in January. But this is an astronomy article, so it is not the place for that kind of discussion. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I removed 'mistaken'. But it's also a matter of weight. Ophiuchus as a sign is fringey even by astrological standards. — kwami (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ophiuchus as a sign is fringey "only" by astrological standards. As far as the astronomy of the constellation goes there is no controversy at all (it was settled in 1930). So it deserves no more than a passing mention here.
You say there is no real controversy about it. Well, then why does it have an article explaining the controversy, with sources about this controversy? Then why this reverting back and forth here, just like in January, if there is no controversy?
If there was no controversy then we wouldn't even have an astrology section here, just like there is none in Triangulum. Do you agree? MakeSense64 (talk) 07:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't. You said "there is a controversy around using Ophiuchus in astrology". AFAIK there is not. There are a few astrologers who have promoted this idea, but AFAIK they have mostly been ignored. Most of the "controversy" comes from astronomers. The news orgs that pick up on this every decade or so get it from the astronomical community, and the astronomers I've seen write about this don't seem to know the difference between a constellation and a sign.
And yes, I do think that astrology is considered fringey in astronomical circles. — kwami (talk) 08:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good point.
Astrology is considered a fringe theory (pseudoscience) from the scientific pov. Most astronomers do not care about astrology.
And as you point out, the astrology of Ophiuchus is a fringe theory within astrology. There are only a few books about it (Walter Berg), and few astrologers use it. If it wasn't for a few mainstream articles, there wouldn't be enough independent sources to warrant a WP article about it. OK?
So what we have is a fringe theory within a fringe theory.
Well, that doesn't warrant a long paragraph in an astronomy article.
It is that simple.
In all the other astronomy articles about constellations from Aries (constellation) to Pisces (constellation) we find about one line about astrology and a link to the astrology page. In Ophiuchus you insist we somehow need a long paragraph to mention a fringe astrology theory? How is that not undue weight? MakeSense64 (talk) 09:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue it's due here because it's a product of the astronomical rather than astrological community. It's due because of the press coverage it gets, which we're not going to bother covering under astrology because it really isn't astrology. I have a newsletter from the local observatory from I think 1971 saying the same thing: that astrologers have their dates wrong, that there are more than 12 signs, etc., clearly not understanding that a 'sign' isn't a constellation. Sure, if people are looking for Scorpio under Scorpius, or the sign Aries under the constellation Aries, all we need to say is 'wrong field, go here'. But this is due here because the periodic flareup of interest concerns the constellation of Ophiuchus, and this is the article on Ophiuchus. It's not a dab for an astrological topic. — kwami (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for using the word "Western", a New York Times article saw fit to refer to an astrologer who used that word:

Mr. Brezsny and other astrologers say they have long known that the pairings of constellations and astrological signs don’t match, but that Western astrologers don’t deal with stars — as some other branches of astrology do — but rather the planets and solar system. [Emphasis added]]

As for "controversy", why not just say "confusion"; we can document the confusion. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning JHunterJ's latest revision, astronomy articles should use precise wording. Sometimes this makes it impossible to say anything at all about a topic in one short sentence, due to the need to define terms or avoid poorly defined terms. I suggest that "astrological sign" is poorly defined. In Western astrology, the sign as a unit of measure designating a sector of the ecliptic and the sign as an angular space that is significant in making astrological predictions are one and the same. In non-Western astronomy, which might be conducted in non-English language, the measure of the location of the sun is different from the angular space that is considered significant in making predictions. I really don't know how the concepts would translate, but it certainly seems to confuse newspaper reporters. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from uninvolved editor - I concur that the more scientific wording, which focuses on the fact that there are 13 constellations that cross the elliptic, is best. However, I see a bigger issue: the entire section "Ophiuchus and the zodiac" has no citations in it at all. I suggest that some involved editors add footnotes. It may be fairly easy: the article Ophiuchus (astrology) looks like it might have some citations that could be used. --Noleander (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If astrological sign is poorly defined, astrological sign would be the place to better-define it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, this article should use well-defined terms, and should not rely upon definitions in other Wikipedia articles, which are unreliable sources. Furthermore, if a term is poorly defined due to differing use in various reliable sources, no amount of text in some other Wikipedia article can fix it. However, the issue is stale since the article has changed since my comment about "astrological sign" being poorly defined. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that sentiment on citations Jc3s5h, and in all honesty don't understand why the content has been changed - as far as I can see there was no logical reason to cut down the sensible explanation that you and Kwami put together, which was much better than what we have now because it actually explained, and gave relevant (and accurate) information. Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? Is there some kind of word limit on WP pages which means that well considered and well constructed content has to be edited down to a mere strapline that barely raises the point before it concludes it without due explanation?
We have a situation here where three editors, coming at this from different angles, worked together on this talk page to collaboratively create critically analysed content that found agreement, only to have that removed by other editors who didn't bother to read the discussions or at least didn't present arguments here to gain consensus before deleting the content. That's not the way that WP is supposed to work, unless I’ve misunderstood something significant. The proposed content was robust enough to not be considered controversial or in need of citation IMO, but regardless, I had offered to provide citations if it was felt that there was a need for them.
I recommend that the text is reverted back to how it was before JHunterJ's edit of 19:15, July 31, 2011, but I'll place a post on his talk-page and ask if he will explain his reasoning and consider reverting back to where edits were being made on the back of consensus. Cheers, Zac Δ talk 20:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you separate my edit as non-collaborative from the other collaborative edits. All the work on the article is being done collaboratively. Sometimes the collaboration results in fewer bytes instead of more. The shorter text still clearly conveyed the differentiation between the astronomical view and the controversial view. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JhunterJ, thanks for coming to the page and responding to my request for further comment. Just so you understand, I’m not inclined to clash heads with anyone over this and my concern is only that it felt like a very productive step was being taken when editors were raising their views here, and bouncing productively off each other’s criticisms and suggestions to arrive at an explanation that, as far as I can see, was pretty good. It was accurate, it was relatively brief, and yet it gave a reliable and informative account of the confusion that periodically arises, why it arises, and what the well established facts of the matter actually are. This is the sort of content that I believe puts an end to attempts to regurgitate ongoing problems, because it deals with the matter clearly and factually. In addition, the reader is left able to understand, rather than just being told something that isn’t self-explanatory, which leaves the point of confusion lingering.

Sorry to sound critical – I certainly realise you were not the only one doing this – but you seem to have dismissed the process that was being taken to gain consensus when you made such a dramatic cut to content that had been thoughtfully processed, deleting three-quarters of the paragraph whilst making only a one-line statement here after the event.

On reflection, I don’t see any reason to include a link to the Ophiuchus (astrology) page at this point. I think that begs for future trouble and leaves the impression that this is an essentially astrological matter, capable of being decided by the whim of any modern astrologer who wants to redefine the astronomical basis of what the zodiac actually is. I consider this to be a simple and straight-forward clarification of information that pertains to the status of this constellation. And since this constellation-sign status confusion is significant in this way only to this one constellation, it is surely appropriate that on this page it is given as much coverage and background information as necessary to clarify it fully, and so firmly establish what the mainstream view is, as opposed to fringe theories that are based on confusions and misunderstandings.

For that reason I considered the content was perfect in length and details as it was before your edit. It very efficiently covered all the salient points whilst retaining the intelligent tone of the page, and leaving the reader informed enough to understand the point, or able to choose to read more about the zodiac on the zodiac page if they wish.

I would like to propose that we go back to that earlier version, which four editors had stated approval of, and return to the process of asking if anyone considers it inaccurate in any way, so that we ensure that the content is as reliable and informative as it can be, for readers who come here specifically to gain a better understanding of this point. Are you OK with that? Below is how the passage read, with the addition of one or two obviously sensible alterations that you and Jc3s5h subsequently made. If there is anything that you don't feel is reliable or rleevant here, could you please explain? Thanks, Zac Δ talk 23:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ophiuchus is one of thirteen constellations that cross the ecliptic.[1] It has therefore been called the '13th sign of the zodiac'. However, this confuses sign with constellation. The signs of the zodiac are a twelve-fold division of the ecliptic, so that each sign spans 30° of celestial longitude, approximately the distance the Sun travels in a month, and (in the Western tradition) are aligned with the seasons so that the March equinox falls on the boundary between Aries and Pisces. Constellations, on the other hand, are unequal in size and are based on the positions of the stars. The constellations of the zodiac have only a loose association with the signs of the zodiac, and do not in general coincide with them. In Western astrology the constellation of Aquarius, for example, largely corresponds to the sign of Pisces. Similarly, the constellation of Ophiuchus occupies most of the sign of Sagittarius.


(outdent) This part of your proposed edit is not about Ophiuchus, so not needed here:

The signs of the zodiac are a twelve-fold division of the ecliptic, so that each sign spans 30° of celestial longitude, approximately the distance the Sun travels in a month, and (in the Western tradition) are aligned with the seasons so that the March equinox falls on the boundary between Aries and Pisces. Constellations, on the other hand, are unequal in size and are based on the positions of the stars. The constellations of the zodiac have only a loose association with the signs of the zodiac, and do not in general coincide with them.


The distinction between signs and constellations is explained perfectly well here: Zodiacal_constellation#Zodiacal_constellations
There is no need to repeat the same definitions over and over in every article where it applies, that would defeat the purpose of an encyclopeadia.
Those who don't know what a zodiacal constellation is will click on the hyperlink, which is already given at the end of the previous section. That's what hyperlinks are for. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Zodiacal constellations section of the Zodiac article is not linked within the Ophiuchus and the zodiac section of this article (although it is linked earlier in the article). Thus, a reader is unlikely to click it. Furthermore, that article may be in error, when it states "It is important to distinguish the zodiacal signs from the constellations associated with them, not only because of their drifting apart due to the precession of equinoxes....". Only Western astrological signs are affected by precession; if the description of rāśi in Hindu astrology#Rāśi – the zodiac signs is correct and if it is fair to translate "rāśi as "sign" then this variety of zodiac sign is not affected by precession. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MakeSense64 I realise that is your view and that you have restated your view several times. But the fact is that, even after consideration of your view, four editors expressed agreement with the content proposed, before you (without any acknowledgement of this talk-page discussion) made the most dramatic edit of all. You cut the content down to a mere 27 words which totally failed to differentiate mainstream from fringe opinion by saying:
Because Ophiuchus is one of 13 constellations which cross the ecliptic, there is a controversy around using Ophiuchus in astrology as the 13th sign of the zodiac.
When you did this you claimed that you were making the change “per talk” which is not the case at all. “Per talk” usually implies some kind of talk-page agreement, not that the change is being made by the authority of "your talk" alone.
I am more than happy to submit to the consensus of opinion here, if it is collaboratively decided that the content is in need of correction. But that doesn’t seem to be the case, so I will place what has been proposed back into mainspace, with the expectation that if there is a need for amendment, the case will be made here and the content adjusted - according to the usual WP procedure.
I would also like to propose for discussion, that we change the hatline above this section:
from
Main article: Ophiuchus (astrology)
to
Further information: Zodiac
My reasoning is that this is an issue which concerns the definition of the zodiac, rather than being an essentially astrological matter. Does anyone have any thoughts or objections to that? Zac Δ talk 15:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Zac Δ talk 16:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from uninvolved editor - Before anyone takes MakeSense64's comments here at face value, they may wish to read this thread at AN created yesterday (two days after this discussion began). MakeSense64 is being proposed for a topic ban on astrology articles for reasons such as his edits here. I have no opinion on the content of the article, this is just an information addition for involved editors here. CycloneGU (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from uninvolved editor - I'd like to re-open this subject. Wiki articles are meant to be neutral in tone. However, the current wording of this section displays a strong bias in something that is, ultimately, a purely subjective issue. Using words like "confusion" and "mistaken" implies a correct and incorrect viewpoint, while the wording of the segment in general ignores the existence of forms of astrology other than the traditional Western zodiac. Given that astrology is a non-scientific system, a superstition, the existence of "mainstream" and "fringe" forms is irrelevant. The so-called "fringe" belief cannot be considered a mistake. Rather it must be considered a separate system, a completely different Zodiac from the traditional twelve-constellation Western system. I propose the following revised text.

Ophiuchus is one of thirteen constellations that cross the ecliptic.[2] It is thus used by some modern astrologers as a '13th sign of the zodiac'. However, it is not included in conventional (Western tradition) astrology, under which the signs of the zodiac are a twelve-fold division of the ecliptic, such that each sign spans 30° of celestial longitude (approximately the distance the Sun travels in a month), and aligned with the seasons so that the March equinox falls on the boundary between Aries and Pisces. Under the traditional system, constellations have only a loose association with their respective signs, and do not in general coincide with them. Interpretations which include Ophiuchus favour a more strict adherence to the positions of the constellations each sign represents.

This should sufficiently avoid taking a side in the issue, while still representing enough relevant information to provide proper clarification. I believe it has an added benefit of being more concise than the current text, which, quite frankly, meanders for the sake of upholding a single viewpoint. Kefke Wren (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Lee T. Shapiro, "Constellations in the zodiac", in The Space Place (NASA, last updated 22 July 2011).
  2. ^ Lee T. Shapiro, "Constellations in the zodiac", in The Space Place (NASA, last updated 22 July 2011).

Yes, it is a zodiac

[edit]

Thought I should share this to proove that it is indeed a zodiac. http://ophiuchus.tribe.net/thread/1697fb3a-34e6-4a24-ba14-1eda9f1a5042 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.32.49 (talk) 06:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

symbol

[edit]

Zodiacal status aside, should we not list its symbol (a U with a tilde in it) as we do with other celestial bodies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.165.65 (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would list the symbol if and only if a reliable source can be found for the symbol, and the reliable source shows the symbol is, or was, in widespread use. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was Berg's 1995 proposal for astrology, and so would only be relevant to the extent that Berg is. — kwami (talk) 01:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Ophiuchus

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Ophiuchus's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "objects":

  • From Lyra: Wilkins, Jamie; Dunn, Robert (2006). 300 Astronomical Objects: A Visual Reference to the Universe. Buffalo, New York: Firefly Books. ISBN 978-1-55407-175-3.
  • From Capricornus: Wilkins, Jamie; Dunn, Robert (2006). 300 Astronomical Objects: A Visual Reference to the Universe (1st ed.). Buffalo, New York: Firefly Books. ISBN 978-1-55407-175-3. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Looks like someone forgot the "name=" attribute [1]. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laocoon, etc.

[edit]

Do any of you see a connection with this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laoco%C3%B6n_and_His_Sons

Seems reasonable to me! Regards, 96.19.147.40 (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes[reply]

Style

[edit]

I have noticed the following style aspects of this article:

  • It uses American English (notice the spelling of the word "honor").
  • The first edit to include a date was on October 10, 2004, and used the format Month, dd, yyyy.
  • There is no consistent style for citations, and as far as I can tell, there never was a consistent style.

I hope to clean up the style at some point in the not to distant future. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the naked-eye star ζ Ophiuchi

[edit]

the naked-eye star ζ Ophiuchi

This should be edited to also be link to the WP article on this high-speed star and its "bow wave "

Zeta Ophiuchi

99.251.239.140 (talk) 12:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ophiuchus and the zodiac section

[edit]

The sentences in this section are incredibly weak. I've read it twice and it's wordy to the point of being unintelligible. I could rewrite that section but it would look like this: Ophiuchus and the zodiac See: Ophiuchus (astrology). Much prettier. -rudyard (talk) 04:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voyager 1 Location

[edit]

I'm hesitant to edit the article myself for fear of upsetting editors, but I just realized in reading the article for this constellation that a significant insight is missing. The trajectory of the Voyager 1 space craft is such that it appears from the perspective of the earth to be converging on Rasalhague in this constellation, Ophiuchus. It of course isn't really headed there. Over next few billions of years it's trajectory will be complex.

But for now, for us on earth, I think it's interesting and important that star gazers know that our first interstellar object can be found approximately here. The Voyager 1 Wikipedia article has a "timeline" graphic that shows its rough position over the last years of its mission: Voyager 1 With distance increasing, its apparent motion in the heavens will slow to a near stand still, at least as gauged from our short life times.

If this inspires someone qualified, then please add the reference. I think it makes this constellation even more interesting than the astronomical goodies who already call it home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.34.228.123 (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sidney Hall - Urania's Mirror - Taurus Poniatowski, Serpentarius, Scutum Sobiesky, and Serpens.jpg to appear as POTD soon

[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Sidney Hall - Urania's Mirror - Taurus Poniatowski, Serpentarius, Scutum Sobiesky, and Serpens.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 31, 2020. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2020-01-31. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ophiuchus
Ophiuchus is a constellation commonly represented in the form of a man grasping a large snake, and was formerly referred to as Serpentarius. It is a large constellation straddling the celestial equator and near the centre of the Milky Way as viewed from Earth, being surrounded by Aquila, Serpens, Scorpius, Sagittarius and Hercules. To the north of the serpent's tail is the now-obsolete constellation Taurus Poniatovii, while to its south Scutum. Ophiuchus's brightest star, Alpha Ophiuchi, represented here by the right eye of the snake charmer, was traditionally known as Rasalhague, from the Arabic meaning 'head of the serpent charmer'.

This illustration is plate 12 of Urania's Mirror, a set of 32 astronomical star chart cards illustrated by Sidney Hall and first published in 1824, featuring artistic depictions of Ophiuchus, as well as Taurus Poniatovii, Scutum (here referred to as "Scutum Sobiesky") and Serpens.Illustration credit: Sidney Hall; restored by Adam Cuerden

Archive – More featured pictures...

The birthday

[edit]

What kind of birthday do they have and why are they so rare? 45.47.127.87 (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SARAH STAR

[edit]

I bought this special star and named her with this name.i spend a lot of money, so why is she not added?? 223.25.123.11 (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to say that such names bought from a commercial company have no validity whatsoever, and will not be recognized by astronomers, Wikipedia, or anyone else. Fine as a souvenir certificate to hang on the wall but don't expect anyone else to take any notice of it. For the official line on this, see here
https://www.iau.org/public/themes/buying_star_names/ Skeptic2 (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ophiuchus&oldid=1251696338"