Triangulum is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 12, 2014.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 23, 2013 Good article nominee Listed December 14, 2013 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

	This  level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Astronomy: Constellations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Constellations task force.

Why is beta brighter than alpha? Nik42 06:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bayer designations often don't follow the alphabetical/decreasing brightness rule. The brightness measurements were made by eye which explains some of the discrepancies. In addition, they often follow some asterism (like is the case in Ursa Major and Sagittarius) and therefore the alpha star may be far from being the brightest star.--JyriL ^talk 00:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Beta" was not brighter than "Alpha" in Bayer's Uranometria (1603). Bayer wrote that three stars ― Alpha, Beta, and Gamma Trianguli were same class (not magnitude) "Quartae Diff[erentiae]" in the star list of the constellation "TRIANGVRVM"[1]. Alpha Trianguli is prior to Beta Trianguli on their position within the constellation Triangulum. It is same case of the Plough in Ursa Major and "Castor and Pollux" in Gemini, not Sagittarius.--Bay Flam 08:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This name should be changed to Triangulum Borale, the Northern Triangle because there is the constellation Triangulum Australe, the Southern Triangle like Corona (Corona Borealis and Corona Australis). Cosmium 22:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Give a source for the claim. (2) If it is changed, it will be in future. For now, the name of the constellation is Triangulum.--JyriL ^talk 00:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the "official" name is Triangulum, not Triangulum Borale. I've never ever heard of "Triangulum Borale". Said: Rursus 20:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely Triangulum is official name of this constellation. "Triangulus Septentrionalis" (sic), the Northern Triangle with TRIANGVRVM found in the star list of Bayer's Uranometria. Please see above.--Bay Flam 08:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know the Mayan name for the constellation? Would it have EK (star) in the name? cecilia (talk) 07:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)cseewiki[reply]

• "nearly isosceles" is in the lede, but its shape is not mentioned in the body text. Given that the lede is a summary, my own view is that "nearly" could be dropped in the lede, but i decline to take responsibility for someone more pedantic than myself seeking to have this reversed during an FAC :-)

removed - I just left as plain old "long and narrow" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I would change "the first quasar observed" to "the first quasar ever observed", I just think that scans more clearly.

ok/done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "...by their incipit." As Manuel would say: "¿que?"

seems like a quaint old term...question is, is a link enough or some parenthetical explanation.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or just get rid of it and use a modern term? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a modern term as such, but have rephrased to get the same meaning Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "called Triangulum Δελτωτόν,..." As Manuel would say... can we have an English transliteration, or something?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "...can be split by medium-sized telescopes" Technical use of the term "split" - is there a wikilink available?

reworded to clarify what it means Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Recent measurements of its motion indicate that it is moving at 190 kilometres (120 mi) per second in the direction of the Andromeda Galaxy, which has led astronomers to surmise that it may actually be orbiting the larger galaxy". Since when did something move towards another thing, when it is orbiting around it? What is meant here?

Took a while, couldn't track down the book, but got the paper which first mentioned it - it is about escape velocities of the larger object (Andromeda) but also warns of uncertainty in distances/margins of error to these galaxies and stops short of proposing it is a satellite. However a 2013 study does so I have added it here instead. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "dark matter filament". LInk/s?

links added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hamiltonstone (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This helps - anything to kickstart some tidying up before FAC is less I have to do once there.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but what is "heliacal rising"?? hamiltonstone (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC

Sorry, but february isn't 45 days before the summer solstice! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.50.85.190 (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, the sun is in it at a different time - the two are not related per se. Given the confusion I have removed that as not germane to the article (as it refers to the Way of Enlil and not the Plough. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC) used "which" instead of a participle to hopefully delineate it better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least three people confused by this statement,[2][3][4] presumably because it is counter-intuitive. I'm not clear how low magnification[5] helps a viewer to see a faint object. DrKay (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Faint is not the relevant factor. Low power is an aid for objects with a low surface brightness. This is because the human eye cannot detect objects with very low contrast, such as a galaxy magnified too much against a dark sky. The same amount of light from the same object, concentrated in a smaller area, can be detected by the eye more easily. There can also be additional instrumental effects with the complex optics required for high magnification causing additional light loss - or not depending on the equipment. Low power observation may not be helpful in areas with light pollution because the surface brightness of the sky is also increased. Detection of some (small, bright) objects against a bright sky can even be improved by high power, and this is used in cases such as daytime observation of astronomical objects.

Just on a more general rant, I find it poor form for editors to take out widely-known concepts from an article simply because they don't understand the concept. A citation would be good if you think one is needed, but this isn't hard to find (first Google book link that came up). There you go, rant over, I won't hold a grudge. Lithopsian (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm merely trying to address the cleanup tag. Is it clearer to say "low magnification" rather than "low power"? DrKay (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It might be. Or perhaps pipe "power" to the magnification article. It may be best to closely paraphrase whatever a reference says, to avoid any confusion. Some jargon like "power" is valuable, but sometimes it is distracting to a lay reader. I may be too familiar with the subject to judge that. Lithopsian (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Triangulum. 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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120713052652/http://ooo.aip.de/groups/activity/index.php/new-results/doppler-imaging-results/4-results-xxtri.html to http://ooo.aip.de/groups/activity/index.php/new-results/doppler-imaging-results/4-results-xxtri.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Marcodatadev (talk · contribs) / NOIRLab NOIRLab

Hello. I am professionally affiliated with NSF NOIRLab and am proposing the following addition for community review. I recognise that this is a Featured Article and understand the higher editorial standards that apply. I am happy to withdraw this proposal entirely if reviewers prefer the article unchanged.

This is an additive proposal. The existing naked-eye photograph (File:TriangulumCC.jpg) would remain in its current position; the proposed annotated image would be placed immediately above it in the same section. No existing content would be removed or replaced.

• Proposed change: Add an annotated wide-field image of Triangulum showing IAU constellation boundaries, the stick figure, and labelled brightest stars, placed in the "Features" section directly above the current naked-eye photograph.
• Image: File:Triangulum (Annotated) (triangulum-ann).tiff
• Suggested caption: The constellation Triangulum showing the IAU boundaries, the constellation stick figure, and labels for its brightest stars. Astrophotograph by Eckhard Slawik, from NOIRLab's 88 Constellations project.
• Placement: "Features" section, left-aligned, immediately above the existing naked-eye image File:TriangulumCC.jpg. Both images would appear in the section: the annotated chart first, then the existing photograph below it. The Stars subsection contains extensive prose (multiple paragraphs covering Beta, Alpha, Gamma, Delta, Iota, and several variable stars), which provides sufficient text to accommodate two left-aligned images without visual imbalance.
• Justification: The annotated image serves a different and complementary purpose to the existing naked-eye photograph. The current image shows Triangulum as it appears to the unaided eye, while the annotated version provides an identification reference showing official IAU boundaries, the constellation stick figure, and star labels. Readers interested in locating Triangulum or identifying its principal stars would benefit from both views side by side. The article currently has no image that shows IAU boundaries or labelled stars.
• License: CC BY 4.0 (NOIRLab/NSF/AURA)

The exact wikitext to insert immediately before the existing image line ([[Image:TriangulumCC.jpg|thumb|left|256px|...]]) would be:

I am entirely open to feedback and would welcome any of the following adjustments: rewording the caption, replacing the inline external link with a <ref> citation if that is preferred, or withdrawing this proposal altogether if the community feels the article is better served as it currently stands. Thank you for reviewing. Marcodatadev (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done DiscoursesonLivvy (talk · contribs) 04:36, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]