Talk:Triangulum Australe

Triangulum Australe 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.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 12, 2014.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 30, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
October 3, 2012	Peer review	Reviewed
November 7, 2012	Featured article candidate	Promoted
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 11, 2012. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Southern Triangle* can't be seen from Europe?*
Current status: Featured article

Johann Bayer

The constellation was devised by Keyser and de Houtman on behalf of Petrus Plancius, the Flemish globe-maker. According to Ian Ridpath, however, the Triangulum Australe that appeared on Plancius's celestial globe of 1598 lay south of Argo Navis and was not the same as the modern Triangulum Australe.

Johann Bayer's Triangulum Australe does correspond to the modern constellation, but did Bayer himself devise it? There is evidence, I believe that one of his principal models for the Uranometria was the Dutch globe of Jodocus Hondius. Eroica (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image removed

The image turned into a red link because I capitalized 'A' from Triangulum australe to Triangulum Australe, which is correct constellation name. So can you move this image page by capitalizing A, thank you. BlueEarth (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image lies on the Wikimedia Commons servers; you'll have to request the move there. --Harald Khan Ճ 13:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the commons doesn't allow renames; it needs to be uploaded under the correct name.—RJH (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Nomination 1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: StringTheory11 (talk · contribs) 06:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article. StringTheory11 (t • c) 06:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

great! Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some quick comments:

Check refs 22 and 24 for URL problems or dead links.

Weird. The hotlinks from the article titles of the two respective refs are working fine today....? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two refs in the ref section that do not appear to be connected to any footnotes. These should probably be moved into a further reading section or the like.

I just removed them. They are textbooks which are not any more integral to the understanding of the subject mattter at hand. I think they are from an early version with non-inlined refs Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance, the rest of the article appears to meet GA standards. I'll do a content review later. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if you could give it as bi a shove towards FAC as possible! So be as tough as you like. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed review:

Characteristics:
- North should not be capitalized.

typo; fixed now Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- What are the pointers? (I know the answer, but I don't think a random person reading the article would)

Tricky as there is no one place I can link to for that, so have spelt out the stars. Must rectify that somewhere down the track... Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notable features:
- Probably shouldn't say that it is an equilateral triangle, as the illustration at the top contradicts this...

removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History:
- All good here!

Other than these few issues, the article appears to be GA-worthy. Short article, but there's not much else to write about the subject. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

--06:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

source issue

"CPD-63 3854B", SIMBAD Astronomical Database, Centre de Données astronomiques de Strasbourg, retrieved 4 October 2012

Hello User:Casliber, I'm translating this article to Chinese, but this link seem to be incorrect, could you help me out here? Thanks.--Jarodalien (talk) 07:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is very strange - I can't find the star either now. I am baffled. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber:Any chance you just have a typo? "CPD-63 3854B" also shows Identifier not found in the database : CPD-63 3854B.--Jarodalien (talk) 10:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry got sidetracked (emergency fix of fishtank!). Nothing is coming up within a 2 arcminute radius of Del TrA - very odd. Cas Liber (talk · contribs)

this suggests the fainter star has moved away. it is nearly 2am here (Australia). I need to sleep and will muse on how to fix tomorrow Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

right, I just removed it - not notable Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]