Talk:Pyxis

The Constellation article says that Pyxis is a part of Argo Navis. Other sources say that Argo Navis was broken only into three pieces (Carina, Puppis and Vela). Which is correct? Is the question even meaningful? --Zundark, 2001 Sep 16

The question is meaningful, and though I don't have the means to answer it on hand, there is any easy way to tell. Argo Navis was split up some time after Bayer wrote out his star designations, so that there is only one alpha, one beta, one gamma and so forth between all its pieces. Someone with a starchart handy could check if there is an alpha in Pyxis. If not, if was definitely part of Argo Navis, if so, it probably wasn't. --Josh Grosse

I didn't realise the designations were split. Pyxis has Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, Epsilon, Zeta, Eta, Theta and more, so it couldn't have been part of Argo Navis. I'll fix the Argo Navis and Constellation articles. --Zundark, 2001 Sep 16

Ok, thanks. It's my fault Pyxis got counted in as part of Argo in the first place - it never occured to me it might not be part so I didn't check. It's good to see this fixed, and it's good to learn something new. :) --Josh Grosse

Despite this Talk section, an editor has recently tried to reinstate this common misconception. I have changed it back again, along with the authoritative source that made the situation clear. Please take note of the Note to Editors that I added back in August 2011 to the end of the second para of the article. Skeptic2 (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

the stars of Pyxis were once inside an area occupied by Argo Navis...

Here's an image of Argo Navis from Johann Bayer's Uranometria. A prize for anyone who can make sense of it! The orientation is a bit unusual Volans can be seen at bottom centre (the stars labelled v). Canopus, I presume, is the Alpha at bottom right. I think the False Cross is straddling the first four oars on the left, but the Bayer letters are different from today: Epsilon Carinae is Mu Argus; Delta Velorum is Theta Argus; Iota Carinae is Nu Argus (I think!); Kappa Velorum seems to be c Argus, but I'm not sure.

I think Lambda Velorum is Epsilon Argus, behind one of the sailors. If this is correct, then the stars of Pyxis are on the mast, though I'm at a loss to match Bayer's stars with their real counterparts. Can anyone else do better?

Argo Navis

Eroica 09:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I haven't got time to check right now, but Bayer's Greek letters for Argo Navis should agree with the modern ones for Carina, Vela and Puppis, I think. The stars now in Pyxis should indeed be on the mast (and I thought the Pyxis article even said this, but currently it doesn't). --Zundark 10:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Also, a computer software and hardware system used mostly in hospitals to dispense narcotics or controlled access drugs."

1. The sentence structure is poor. Revision is needed here.
2. Is this software system notable?
3. Articles on constellations should not discuss unrelated topics. It is better if a separate page was made. See also the previous point about notability.
4. If it is meant to be a disambiguation, it does not belong here. It should be the first line, in italics. It should preferably be on a separate page - see previous point.

--  B.d.mills  (T, C) 1 July 2005 01:14 (UTC)

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

Reviewer: Reyk (talk · contribs) 10:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'll review this. From my first reading, my impression is that it will be passed with very few changes. I will work through it section by section over the next few days. Reyk _YO! 10:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

In case you miss it, Mike Peel had a few suggestions at Talk:Pyxis#Suggestions, which I have either done or explained otherwise. I find these articles pretty tricky so appreciate it when we get an astonomer to look over it :))) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've had another few reads over the article and I can find nothing else to quibble about, so I am passing it. :) Reyk _YO! 11:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

thx +++ Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

• The lead should mention that Pyxis is on the Galactic plane

agreed - added to lead and linked in body too Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

• The statement about Lacaille cataloguing 10,000 stars from observations at the Cape of Good Hope should have a citation.
• "All but one honoured instruments that symbolised the Age of Enlightenment."- which one? This also needs a citation.

Ok, rather than pepper the text with cites, I have added a commented-out note as three consecutive sentences come from the same source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

This section is fine as it is.

The content is pretty much fine, except that the section is a bit long. Perhaps it could be divided into "Bright stars" and "Variable stars", which works well in eg. Triangulum Australe.

musing on that one. A little tricky as some of the bright stars are also variable stars, and we have some stars at the bottom that aren't variable. The only clean break I can do is "planetary systems", which I have ahead with. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

As requested by @Casliber:, here's some brief suggestions for improvement:

• "flared in brightness" - that phrasing is a bit odd/redundant. Normally you'd just say it's flared; perhaps the explanation that this is an abrupt increase then decrease in brightness could be in brackets?
• "He devised fourteen new constellations" - could this be linked to a list of these constellations somehow?
• I think the ordering of the history section is a bit off: I'd expect it to be in chronological order. Given the point "In 1844 John Herschel attempted to resurrect the classical configuration", it sounds like the Greek identification came first (when?), so that should come before de Lacaille's definition. The Chinese description should definitely come first!
• "(illustrated in infobox)" I'm never sure about including this kind of statement in an article. It makes sense to point towards the illustration, but will people know what an "infobox" is? Particularly when it's referred to as 'Quick facts' in the mobile app. I'm not sure what the best solution is here.
• It's great to see uncertainties here - nice work, keep it up! (and please add them where they're currently missing. ;-) )
• "ejecting it in shells" - it doesn't get ejected as a shell, the shells form because the ejections happen at distinct times rather than continuously.

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

aaaaah, good points. will get cracking...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC) changed "flared" to specific magnitude, added other constellations in footnote, reordered history. Will re-read bit about Herschel, I added the "(illustrated in infobox)" after someone specifically asked me to add it previously and I think on the balance of things it is more useful present than absent. Reworded the "shells" bit. Thx for the input ++++ Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

The changes look good, nice work! :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Casliber: Here are a few other astronomical objects that it might be worth mentioning in this article:

• "The planetary nebula K 1-2 and its binary central star VW Pyx" - [1]
• "delta Scuti star CD-24 7599 (=XX Pyx)" [2] [3] [4]
• Pyxis globular cluster [5] [6] [7]
• TY Pix [8]
• WX Pix [9]

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Mike Peel: have created articles on all - TY, XX and the globular cluster are all interesting and added. WX I am having a bit of trouble getting my head around it - both it and the planetary nebula K 1-2 are pretty faint and am struggling to encapsulate why they stand out. Both have been studied a bit though, and both need more study....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Casliber: With WX/VW/K 1-2, I guess it depends how complete you're aiming to make the article, they probably aren't notable enough to have their own article written about them. One other quick comment: "a distance not previously thought to contain globular clusters." is a bit awkwardly phrased (can you contain something in a distance?). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

In addition to the Pyxis map you provide, I would also supply a locator map, showing Pyxis's position among the other constellations. I'm not making the addition on my own right now because I don't believe in changing today's featured article without broad consensus.

For example, you could use File:Hydra IAU.svg (minus the highlight) with the caption "Pyxis is located just south of the star Alphard in the constellation Hydra midway between Virgo and Cancer". By showing part of the zodiac, you would provide us astronomical novices with a clue to which compass direction we should be facing when we look for Pyxis. (This could be done for most constellations, referring the reader to something overhead that even a child would know.) --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good. Often when writing these articles I have tried to keep an eye out for books describing directions. I can't make them up though. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply