Talk:Bayer designation

Various arrangements

I find most of this text dubious or not relevant and reads like

Problems

• A general explanation is: "The Manual of Scientific Style: A Guide for Authors, Editors, and Researchers" Edited by Harold Rabinowitz, Suzanne Vogelpg.369[3]
• Most of the text hinges on one source: Ridpath (1989)
• There is no mention of precession (nor why it is relevant to Thuban).
• Proper motions changing order is not stated. Even Table of stars with Bayer designations has no cites at all!
• Bayer likely didn't observe these stars but used other sources and tabulated them arbitrarily himself by deduction and assumption. (The JHA article "A Star Catalogue Used by Johannes Bayer" by N. M. Swerdlow (1986) [4] explains this. This source "roughly following the outline of the figure or by increasing [ecliptical] longitude" pg. 189.) Yet the article under section Bayer designation#Order by magnitude class doesn't allude to this. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In general, there is far too much hand-wringing here about the order Bayer followed within magnitudes. Several sources say that for the brighter magnitudes he generally followed the classical figures or (ecliptic) longitude, but that there are variations. We don't know why he didn't follow a consistent order, so it makes sense to say simply that with many variations he typically followed the figures or the longitude. The rest is just speculation (even by reliable sources). The whole bit about Sagittarius is a red herring, for (as pointed out in the article) the order there does conform to Bayer's understanding of the magnitudes at the time. The important points to get across are (1) the alphabetic order usually follows magnitude classes, not precise magnitude, and (2) even the magnitude classes are not always correct because (a) Bayer's magnitude values were often faulty, and (b) stars added by later astronomers try to avoid clashing with existing Bayer assignments even when in brighter classes.

The whole article could use reorganization: bits have been added piecemeal over time, with the result that the various sections frequently overlap.

Other problems listed above are not critical. Precession and its effect on the charted positions is not really relevant to the designations (with the possible exception of Thuban), and we don't know whether Bayer actually observed the stars himself. We know he relied on previous catalogs. But since the order within magnitude classes is so variable, and our knowledge of his method so dim, that doesn't really speak much to the designations themselves.

-- Elphion (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did a bit of tweaking and a lot of rearranging. Still needs tidying and more citations, but I think it is improved. Lithopsian (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely improved. Eta, theta, and iota Ori are sort of a puzzle -- clearly not in the same magnitude class as kappa, though apparently Bayer (and Ptolemy) considered them all to be 3rd class, along with several of the pi's. On Bayer's chart, kappa appears the same size as these others and noticeably smaller than Bellatrix and the belt stars. -- Elphion (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reverse of Bayer's chart lists the stars, grouped by class. There are clearly only four of the third class: η, θ, ι, and κ. λ through υ are grouped as fourth class. No point complaining, Uranometria contains quite a few dodgy things. I'll see about making the article match without too much speculation and hand-waving. Maybe put all four third-class stars in the table. Lithopsian (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]