Talk:Pictor

Issue with hook

Is it possible to update the `Did you know' section (October 20, 2012) of the English main page to no longer reflect that this cluster has `800 trillion stars' (~8e15 M_sun is the total mass according to the cited reference, but most of that is dark matter so the assertion is bogus).

Thanks for catching that. -Fjozk (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The statement, "with a mass equivalent to approximately 800 trillion suns," does not mean is has "800 trillion stars" that each weigh the equivalent of our sun? We can't count the number of stars, we can however calculate the mass of the system. The latter was done, the former was, unfortunately, featured on the main page, and is neither verifiable nor sourced. It's also probably not true. -Fjozk (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hamiltonstone (talk · contribs) 05:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The article appears nuetral, stable and relatively well-written. Images appear in order, but given that every now and then we have to go round a loop with someone about Till Credner's images, you might consider adding a note on the image page itself, with a link to where Credner explains the status of the images (I can't remember where that is, off the top of my head).

• I don't know what culmination is, but interestingly it is not mentioned in the Triangulum FA, but is included here. Not an issue for this GA obviously!
• "...spectral type A8VnkA6". First of all, we have not been given a link to anything that explains the concept of spectrum or type, so this is probably the place to do it. Second, WTF is A8VnkA6?? This seems like gibberish even by the arcane standards of spectrum analysis. Can we give readers something more meaningful? Related to this, it is a bit odd to be told that the second star is "another white main sequence star" when we were told neither of these things about the first.

sorted main sequence issue - alpha is as well, I just neglected to put it in..put footnote and linked to spectral type now..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• should "orange giant" be linked to giant star?

yep. linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• "had recorded its Right Ascension one hour too small." this sounds somehow ungrammatical to me, but i'm having trouble working out what would be better. Not sure if the issue is just the word "small", or it's something else.

maybe "low" sounds better .... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Lacaille named two neighbouring stars Eta Pictoris." How can someone name two stars by one name? Is the point that he named a star something, and it turned out to be a binary? If so, reword.

I added a note - Bayer and lacaille would simply give two stars very close to each other the same designation with no modifier. It was left to later astronomers such as Gould to designate Eta¹, Eta²etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• "eclipsing binary " - link?

linked to binary star#Eclipsing_binaries Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• "intrinsic variability" - what is this?

reworded - I need to read the source again to get my head around it....I think it needs a bit more info. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• How amazing - a planet potentially 11 billion years old!
• " magnetic white dwarf" - what is this?

It is Polar (cataclysmic variable star) - but I've found another study questioning this so might remove for the time being as a bit of a mess that I will have to unravel Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Small stuff mostly, and hopefully easily sorted. Interesting assemblage of exoplanets. Soon i think we will have discovered so many that it will become a challenge to filter the most significant for the constellation articles... hamiltonstone (talk) 05:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed - one of the reasons I was unsure how to proceed with Cygnus (constellation) was that it has 88 stellar systems with planets so far..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Cas, i think we're done here. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

much appreciated/thanks Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed addition of annotated NOIRLab Pictor image

Hello. I have a conflict of interest because I am connected with NOIRLab, so I am not making the edit directly. I would like to propose adding the NOIRLab annotated image of Pictor to the article while keeping the existing naked-eye constellation image in place. The proposed change is to add the annotated NOIRLab image in the “Stars” section, immediately above the current naked-eye image. This would provide readers with a labeled view of the constellation boundaries, stick figure, and brightest stars, while preserving the existing image that shows how Pictor appears in the sky. Commons image: File:Pictor (Annotated) (pictor-ann).tiff Suggested caption: The constellation Pictor showing the IAU boundaries, the constellation stick figure, and labels for its brightest stars. Astrophotograph by Eckhard Slawik, from NOIRLab's 88 Constellations project. Proposed wikitext:

The constellation Pictor showing the IAU boundaries, the constellation stick figure, and labels for its brightest stars. Astrophotograph by Eckhard Slawik, from NOIRLab's 88 Constellations project.

Based on the current article layout, the “Stars” section has enough text and visual space to accommodate an additional image without removing or crowding the existing naked-eye constellation image. The annotated image would complement the current image by making the constellation boundaries and principal stars easier to identify. The file is already available on Wikimedia Commons under a free license compatible with use on Wikipedia. The caption wording can be adjusted if editors prefer a different style. The external caption link can also be replaced with a <ref> citation if preferred. If the community prefers the article as it stands, this proposal can be withdrawn entirely. Marcodatadev (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Reply 24-JUN-2026

  Edit request declined  

• The requirement that the author's name be shown in the caption in this many photographs appears promotional in nature.

Regards,  Spintendo  10:08, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Spintendo

Thank you for your feedback.

If removing the author’s name from the caption would help address the concern and make the captions non-promotional, we can certainly do that.

Please let us know if that would be an acceptable fix, and we can proceed with removing the author’s name from the captions. Marcodatadev (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2026 (UTC)