Talk:Canis Minor

Culmination

It can be seen [at night] in [all but polar] Northern Hemisphere places from December to April. It is given in Norton's Star Atlas (1973 edition) as having culmination at 9pm on February 28. This is close enough to March for the original entry to remain unmodified. --  B.d.mills  (Talk) 11:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Astrological significance

(This section is linked from Procyon in Astrology)

Astrologically, Procyon portends wealth, fame, and good fortune. It is also one of fifteen Behenian stars, associated with agate and water crowfoot. According to Cornelius Agrippa, its kabbalistic symbol is .

The star itself was once on the ecliptic of the zodiac in ancient times, just between of the constellations Gemini and Cancer, but I can't say for sure if the star and companion Beta Canis Minoris were forming a zodiac sign of its own. Sirius and Canopus form a singular up-down (north-south) line, but whenever the sun or moon crosses the northern edge of Canis Minor or close to Procyon, many astrologers consider the near-transit (about 3 to 5 degrees above Procyon) as a time of financial prosperity for the world. 71.102.3.122 (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Bookmark

• check this later Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Removed sentence

I removed a sentence ("Andromeda was one of the original 48 constellations formulated by Ptolemy in his 2nd-century Almagest, in which it was defined as a specific pattern of stars. However, Ptolemy only identified two stars and hence no depiction was possible.") from the article as I was not sure if it was a simple mistaken name or if the sentence was truly meant to refer to Andromeda. Can someone check the original source and see if this is meant to be about Canis Minor or Andromeda? --Khajidha (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Was a lazy cut and paste - forgot to change names. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 09:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

---

• "and it is commonly represented as one of the dogs following the constellation of Orion the hunter." - so there are more than two dogs?
• "In Bayer's Uranometria, Procyon on the dog's belly, and Gomeisa its neck.[10]" - uhmm...
• "however his star 12 Canis Minoris was not found not to exist.[9]" - sounds better and is more logical. Perhaps add "to date" at the end.
• See also a colourful, large table and a very small lead. Not sure we need the hatnote linking to Canis Minor (Chinese astronomy).--Tomcat (7) 12:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

ok, did the first three and buffed the lead. Not sure what you meant about the table...all the constellation articles have those infoboxes at the bottom.....? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to the Canis Minor (Chinese astronomy) article. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 20:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

aah ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Text copied across to Canis-Minorids

Leaving notification here that with this edit I copied across the referenced paragraph that is present here on the Canis-Minorids to the main article (which was a one-line stub). Still a stub, but a bit better now. I believe the edit summary I used there is sufficient to ensure backwards attribution of the authorship of that text, but if those here who wrote that text want to go over to that article and edit it and note their contribution there and maybe even help expand that article, that would be great. Many thanks for doing such great work on this constellation article. Carcharoth (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

NGC 2359

The article lead cites NGC 2359 as a Canis Minor object, however the page NGC 2359 positions it in Canis Major, and so do this and this source. Can it be clarified? --Cyclopia^talk 15:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Damn - meant to take that out of the lead as we'd figured that out a while ago. Removed now/well spotted. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

External links modified

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Proposed image addition: NOIRLab annotated chart of Canis Minor

Hello, I am affiliated with NOIRLab and would like to propose an additive change to this article for community review. I want to note up front that I recognize this is a Featured Article, so I am proposing this conservatively and am fully prepared to withdraw the proposal if reviewers prefer the article unchanged.

The proposal is to add NOIRLab's annotated wide-field chart of Canis Minor (from the 88 Constellations project, photographed by Eckhard Slawik) to the "Features → Stars" section, placed immediately above the existing naked-eye photograph File:CanisMinorCC.jpg. The existing image is preserved in its current position; nothing is removed, replaced, or relocated.

• Proposed change: Add a new {{File}} thumbnail above the existing File:CanisMinorCC.jpg in the "Features → Stars" section.
• Image: File:Canis Minor (Annotated) (canis-minor-ann).tiff
• Suggested caption: The constellation Canis Minor showing the IAU boundaries, the constellation stick figure, and labels for its brightest stars. Astrophotograph by Eckhard Slawik, from NOIRLab's 88 Constellations project.
• Layout: Layout A — both images in the same section. The "Features → Stars" section contains multiple long paragraphs of dense prose (Procyon, Gomeisa, Bayer/Flamsteed designations, the Delta trio, HD 66141, variable stars, Luyten's Star, DY CMi, etc.), which provides ample vertical space to accommodate two thumbnails without crowding. The annotated chart and the naked-eye photograph serve genuinely different reader needs — the annotated chart provides identification reference (IAU boundaries, stick figure, labeled stars), while the existing photograph conveys the unaided visual impression. Both belong, and the existing image is not displaced.
• License: CC BY 4.0 (NOIRLab/NSF/AURA), hosted on Wikimedia Commons.
• Justification: The article currently has no labeled reference chart of the constellation pattern. Readers working through the dense star-by-star prose in the Features section (Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Epsilon, Eta, the three Deltas, Zeta) would benefit from a labeled visual reference. The naked-eye photograph remains valuable for showing what an observer actually sees, but it does not identify the stars by name.

Here is the exact wikitext to insert, immediately before the existing {{Image}} line for File:CanisMinorCC.jpg in the "Features → Stars" section:

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

I welcome any feedback. If the proposal is of interest but the form needs adjustment, I would be happy with any of the following alternatives: (1) adjust the caption wording to whatever the reviewer prefers; (2) Marcodatadev (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Done DiscoursesonLivvy (talk · contribs) 04:51, 25 May 2026 (UTC)