Talk:Dorado

Edits[edit]

The map follows as soon as possible; unfortunately upload was disabled when I tried it yesterday. -- Torsten Bronger 06:21, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Done. -- Torsten Bronger 08:41, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Removed a sentence about the constellation being 163,000 light years from Earth. It's incorrect because constellations don't have distances from Earth, only the individual stars. -- B.d.mills (Talk) 03:29, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Latin for Swordfish!?[edit]

Dorado (Latin for Swordfish) is a southern constellation.

Whatever "dorado" is intended to mean, it is most certainly not the Latin for swordfish. No such word exists in Latin, and swordfish is called either "xiphias" or just "gladius." My assumption would be that this is simply the spanish name for mahi-mahi (as noted in the other uses section). --Iustinus 23:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Dorado use to be translated swordfish, but that's of course just an improper astronomer "translation", like Scutum is inexplicably "translated" to mean Sobieski's shield! :-O! These so called "translations" are just an astronomer custom, not real translations. Rursus 15:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dorado is indeed the spanish word for mahi-mahi. The "golden" connotation (d'or) is because the skin turns a golden colour when the fish is taken out of the water (see the mahi-mahi article). Jules Verne mentions the dorado by that name in "25000 Leagues under the sea"; in his time it was the correct English word for the fish in question, just like camelopard (another constellation) was the legitimate word for giraffe. Rursus, your scutum example and discussion is good, but missing one item. The original name WAS 'Scutum Sobielski', which was then simply shortened in translation to 'scutum'. There is nothing inexplicable about it! Fornax is another example. Old_Wombat (talk) 09:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who requested cleanup and why?[edit]

Normally I'll immediatelly remove cleanup or merger requests that lack motivation on the talk page, but for this single occasion I'm inclined to agree: there's a list of red links in the article. That list must be cleaned – but ... cleanup and merger requests without motivation is littering by itself. Rursus 15:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the list of deep sky objects some time ago from Norton's Sky Atlas and provided co-ordinates from another source. Many of these deep sky objects are at least as bright as Messier objects. Most or all Messier objects have their own pages but NGC objects of equivalent brightness often lack articles if they are objects in the southern sky. The continuing presence of red links is not a sign that this article needs to be cleaned, but is a selection effect due to inherent bias in the pool of contributors: most Wikipedians live in the Northern Hemisphere and would be more inclined to provide material on topics familiar to them.

Where the article is in some need of cleanup is in the presentation of the deep sky objects. Deep sky objects in other constellation articles tend to be presented in prose (for an example, see Virgo (constellation)), and additional information on those deep sky objects is presented on individual articles on those deep sky objects. If all the red links were changed into stub articles of reasonable length, the technical information moved to those articles, and the NGC objects presented as more readable prose, the article would of necessity be cleaner-looking. An alternative plan is to introduce a new deep-sky infobox for all constellation articles as a part of the Constellations project. -- B.D.Mills (T, C) 09:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dorado. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]