| 
Posted Oct 17, 2007 by Deke
Entry: Star Constellations: Gemini, the Twins - A975567
Author: Deke - U27380
Another one of the h2g2 Astronomy Soc Constellation Project entries.
|
 
|  | |
| |
Posted Oct 18, 2007 by  Galaxy Babe - eclectic editor
Hi Deke, good to see this here
 <<Zodiac: Yes, 21 June–to 20 July >> that's incorrect, those are the dates for the star sign Cancer.
Buzz Aldrine = Buzz Aldrin
Your "notes" column is empty, are you going to add some?
Any chance of a section on famous Gemini people? I'll happily search the EG for links for you
Thanks for this Deke, I've mentioned Castor and Pollux in my Cygnus Entry (Zeus was in the guise of a swan when he seduced Queen Leda) so it'll be good to have this to link to when it's edited 
 GB
 
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 18, 2007 by Gnomon does it all by himself
I like this entry.
I particularly like the fact that you haven't included any reference to "Gemini people" in it, as that has nothing to do with the constellation or science. (I would even like the so-called dates for the zodiacal constellation to be removed, since they also have no relation to reality, but I suppose that would be too much to ask).
I wonder would it be better to spell out the Greek letters (Gamma Geminorum rather than y Geminorum)?
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 18, 2007 by Icy North
Principle = Principal (occurs more than once)
I disagree with Gnomon about the zodiacal dates - the folklore attached to the stars is fascinating, and was the science of the ancients. Just make sure that it's clearly differentiated from modern methods.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 18, 2007 by Gnomon does it all by himself
Well, if you're going to put the astrological dates in, then can you put the actual dates as well? It might highlight just how crazy the whole star-sign thing is.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 18, 2007 by Gnomon does it all by himself
It is my general principle that if a magazine or newspaper has a horoscope section in it, then nothing in the publication is worth reading.
I wouldn't want h2g2 to go down the same road.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 18, 2007 by Wilma Neanderthal
I can see how that would be, G, but don't you think that where something is a reality (in terms of existing in the big bad world) then it is almost a duty to include a reference to it? It can be done with a firm  or a wry twist, however Deke chooses to address it, but I do think it is appropriate to include astrological data. People do associate zodiac folklore with the stars, after all....
<cup>
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 18, 2007 by Gnomon does it all by himself
Can we have Ophiuchus next, Deke? 
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 18, 2007 by Wilma Neanderthal
Hmm, been away too long. Make that a
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 18, 2007 by Galaxy Babe - eclectic editor
Yes, that would be a good 'un or Draco!
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 18, 2007 by Deke
The dates stated are correct as they are the Sidereal(?) time that the Sun is in that constellation. They are not the dates favoured by astrologers. I did go through this with Cefpret when I was originally putting this together. The conversation is here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/F89348?thread=250781
It is relevant to the constellation although I must admit that it did seem an obscure bit of information to include. But I agree it can be confusing. I'll leave it in for the moment and see if I can make it clearer but I'll have to check the facts first. (i.e. Sidereal)
Sorry GB, but I don't intend to include birthdates and Gemini people as I tend to agree with Gnomon on that one.
'Notes' is a left over from the original project requirement which I'd forgotten about. I'll see if there is anything relevant but otherwise I'll edit it out.
I cannot believe I've spelled Aldrin wrong 
DK
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 18, 2007 by Gnomon does it all by himself
I've checked the dates against my star chart program, and I make it 22 June to 21 July. (The borders of Gemini are the 6h and 8h right ascension lines).
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 18, 2007 by Deke
I can't do Ophiuchus because I can't spell it!
DK
I'll check out the other notes and get back.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 18, 2007 by Deke
OK, I've made corrections from the above comments:
Spelled out the Greek letters, except in the table. Looks better.
Principle>>>Principal tick
Zodiac dates: I've used Gnomons dates. Although I've found a variety of possibilities quoted by various sources.
'Notes' column in second table deleted.
DK
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 19, 2007 by Deke
Added a few links.
DK
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 27, 2007 by Mina
I haven't read the other entries in the project, because I know nothing about constellations (other than I can recognise Orion) but being a Gemini I thought I'd read this one.
I'm not sure if the entries all follow the same format, but zodiac to me means birth star signs, which makes the dates wrong (as GB says). I don't know whether you could address this somewhere? Or find a link that explains the difference? I have no idea whether people like me are in the minority, but I'm sure more people will know their birth star sign than will have this sort of knowledge of the stars, but it seems a shame if people reading think 'that's wrong' right at the start (as two people have already done - GB and myself).
Other comments:
"and at its most prominent during the late winter months of January and February" - do you mean 'and is at it's most... '?
"that is unable any longer to outgas from solar heating" What does 'outgas' mean?
"discovered the planet Pluto" I may be wrong, but I thought Pluto wasn't a planet anymore? Perhaps a footnote to explain it's been demoted, or was it left alone after all?
Good entry, although I admit I don't understand much of it. Is there an introductory entry that goes with these?
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 27, 2007 by Galaxy Babe - eclectic editor
In my Taurus Entry Gnomon suggested a footnote for the dates:
<<This is fictional information invented by astrologers to make the sun fit their charts. The astrologers' charts have been out of date for about 2,000 years.>>
but I did put in the "fictional" dates 21 April to 20 May (which many people recognise) to fit my "Famous Taurean People" section, so that footnote won't be suitable for Deke's Entry.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 28, 2007 by Deke
Thanks for your comments.
Zodiac dates.
I’m still working on this. I’m trying to get the correct terminology. Somehow I knew that this was going to cause confusion, because I know it confuses me. Really, it is a fairly useless piece of information and I only kept it in in deference to Cefpret’s original format. For the moment I’ve taken the easy option and taken it out. I’ll put it back in if I can find the right words for it. You are probably in the majority with this since the dates you refer to are published in every daily horoscope., but that’s not what I was trying (badly) to get over here.
>..and is < Corrected
Outgas… Reworded and hopefully now clearer.
Pluto… demotion footnoted.
(You’re right, but it was still a planet when this was originally written.)
There should have been an introductory page explaining the origins of constellations, and would have been had the original project come to be completed. That is what makes these individual entries difficult to rehash to stand alone.
DK
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 28, 2007 by Mina
People seem to be doing a fine job - I put through an entry I'd written for a project that when nowhere through PR and had to do some major rewriting without that behind it.
Although technically, each entry should stand alone anyway, it's a lot easier with a main intro page to link to.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 28, 2007 by Galaxy Babe - eclectic editor
I could put together a basic Entry on constellations - talk about the 48 originally listed by the Greek astronomer Ptolemy and the expansion to the 88 modern constellations. Although, I'm not promising when it will appear
|
| | |
| |
| |
Key |  |  |
A: An older reply to the parent Posting
B: The parent Posting, to which this is a reply
C: A newer reply to the parent posting
D: The first reply to this Posting
| | |
Click on this icon to make a complaint about a specific Posting | |
|
Reply
