Talk:List of brightest stars/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

from article

(moved from article:) Magnitudes should be added at some point, plus maybe some basis stellar data, tabulate...

I created a new list, this one of 100 brightest stars, started with the Observer's Handbook list of 314 bightest stars, and sorted by brightness, and reformatted here. I included apparent magnitude and constellation designation names, as well as proper names. There may be value in giving distance, luminosity, spectral types, or other information, but I didn't have these easily available now.

It looks like most of the proper names are good links to articles about the stars, although I didn't check them all.

Feel free to edit further.

--Tomruen 05:30, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

this list

This list is inaccurate. I have gone through and added proper names to the stars that have them, or links to Bayer designations where the star does not have one so that an entry can be created for them. I have not dealt with the inaccuracies yet (for example, τ CrB is listed as the 50th brightest star when it's visual magnitude is far dimmer than a 4) but may do so in the future. Arkyan 20:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree it is inaccurate and also difficult to verify. It claims the Hipparcos as the source of distances but gives no good link for me to check (I tried and failed via http://astro.estec.esa.nl/Hipparcos/hipparcos.html). Also what is the source of the magnitudes? It does not appear to be the Bright Star Catalogue, 5th Revised Ed. (I checked a few). Finally I've moved the text about the list being ill defined to the top to warn the reader, and marked Polaris and Betelgeuse as variable. -Wikibob | Talk 18:13, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

Most luminous stars

Different sources give drastically different information for lists of the most luminous stars (by absolute magnitude). See for instance: http://www.rssd.esa.int/SA-general/Projects/Hipparcos/table364.html , from Hipparcos data.

I wonder about the usefulness of this information, when different sources give such radically different lists (and I do mean radically different). -- Curps 21:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Why did you delete over 50% of the article (by absolute magnitude) without discussing this first? There are ofcourse different measures in the luminosity of a star, and there will always be. but that is already explained in the introduction of that section. You are assuming that the Hipparcos catalogue is like the 'holy bible'. However, that catalogue is not updated since: Mon Sep 15 17:08:57 MEST 2003, almost two years ago! New measurements have been taken since, if you search deeper on the web, other observatories have given more recent measurements. But besides this, google is not the holy bible either. I have compiled this list with consulting a lot of resources, and took me over 3 times 8 hours to verify & complete. In cases of doubt, I decided to follow the latest-to-date measurement, or else the maximum given for that specific star. All are from credible sources, catalogues and observatories around the globe. This list will ofcourse always be incomplete, and new measurements in the future might give a diffent reading on a star. But this should not mean that this section should not be present on wikipedia. Absence of knowledge is ignorance!

Patrick1982 10:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I gave the reasons for the removal in the edit summary, and I did leave a comment here on the talk page, just above your own comment. When data is entirely unreliable, it is better not to present it at all.

By the way, your table included two entries each for Beta Crucis and Lambda Scorpii, with different information. When I noticed this, I tried to look up which of the two entries was correct, and that was when I discovered the problem with different online sources drastically disagreeing with one another.

Also, the last eleven entries (Spica through Sirius) should really be omitted; Sirius, in particular is not at all one of the intrinsically most luminous stars.

Can you provide references for the data table you present? References to scientific literature, for instance, via NASA ADS. This should be some widely available reference, not your own original research. Wikipedia usually recommends but does not require supplying references, but given the very great contradictions of various online sources, and given that you are claiming that your data is more accurate than Hipparcos data, it is really necessary to document where this data comes from.

It is not surprising that Hipparcos data hasn't been updated, because the satellite took its measurements and more accurate measurements aren't expected until the proposed European probe launches in 2012 or so. Are you saying that new ground-based parallax measurements have been made in recent years that are more accurate than Hipparcos? Can you provide references?

-- Curps 22:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I propose moving By absolute magnitude and Other objects to List of most luminous stars. Most luminous is not the same as brightest and I think they deserve separate pages. --Fournax 14:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I wonder if List of largest stars ought to be merged with a List of most luminous stars in some way since they'll be closely related. Tom Ruen 22:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I did the move and linked from List of most luminous stars to List of largest stars (and vice-versa). --Fournax 13:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Negative Brightness?

Could someone add a line explaining how luminosity is measured, and why the brightness of the brightest stars is negative? (Or link to same.) Mjs 11:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• The brightness is quoted in arcane astronomer's units called "magnitudes". They are related to the real intensity F_x through the following relationship:

$m_{x}=-2.5\log _{10}(F_{x})+C\!\,$

For more details see the pages on Apparent magnitude and Absolute magnitude.

Rnt20 12:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• It's not really that arcane.

The Greeks categorized a star's brightness by placing it in one of six classes, from 1st magnitude (the brightest) down to 6th magnitude (the dimmest). Now it turns out that the human nervous system, including its sensitivity to light, reacts to stimuli on a logarithmic scale. It also turned out that, when we were able to measure starlight accurately, the approximate difference between a typical 1st mag star and a 6th mag star was 100:1. So, if the difference of five magnitudes is 100x the brightness, the difference of one magnitude is the fifth root of 100. That's what the formula above is all about.

Okay now, we've got a relative scale, but we still need some specific reference point to measure from. Polaris, the North Star was taken as the typical 2nd magnitude star and assigned the magnitude of 2.0 exactly. Any star between 1.5 and 2.5 was 2nd magnitude. By analogy 1st magnitude was between 0.5 and 1.5 on the same scale. It turned out that six stars were even brighter, falling between 0.0 and 0.5 with Arcturus and Vega at 0.0 exactly. (Things have been slightly refined since.) Still, no problem. Any star brighter than 0.5 is stll called "1st magnitude" as nobody felt like saying "zeroth magnitude."

However, three stars (Sirius, Canopus, and Alpha Centauri) are even brighter than Arcturus. So the scale was extended beyond 0.0 into negative numbers. That's all.

So a negative magnitude just means "even brighter than 1st." B00P 03:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Stub?

Why is this still a stub? It seems long enough that the term should no longer apply. Whitepaw 20:04, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

Distance

The implied accuracy for some of these distance measurements seems a bit too high, at least to me. At best probably only three digits are reasonably accurate, so anything over 99 ly you could drop the decimal and be about as close. For example, the parallax of Canopus is 0.01043" ± 0.00053". That's equivalent to error range on the order of 297-329 ly. 313 ly should be good enough I would think, rather than 312.73. Thanks. :) — RJH 20:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The only star justified to 2 decimals is alpha Centauri. The Hipparcos catalog is within 10% only for distances less than 100 parsecs(~326 lys.), as per the Hipparcos site. Over 100 parsecs, the data are good for statistical analysis only. For a list such as this, there is no set protocol with manipulating the distance estimates. So, how about 1 decimal if less than 5 parsecs, to the nearest light year if 10 parsecs(~32.6 lys) or less; less than 100 lys- add a tilde (for roughly) and to the nearest ly or so. One hundred to a thousand-to the nearest 50 lys; one thousand to 2 thousand-nearest 100 lys. More than 2 thousand-nearest thousand lys. Mytg8 19:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a very handsome and informative table but... The idea of changing the distances, e.g. Saiph from 722 to 720 is really not justified due to the inherent inaccuracies of the parallax method. In reality, this star could be 620 light years or 860; either is just as likely as 720 or 722, according to the quoted errors.Mytg8 15:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, 722 is very slightly more likely than 720 and both are significantly more likely than 617 light years (the one sigma lower limit) or 870 light years (the one sigma upper limit). But your point is well taken. The Hipparcos parallaxes are not of sufficient quality to justify three significant figures so I've changed the distances to two significant figures. Fournax 00:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You're correct; I overstated my remarks. What I should have said, probably, was that there was a real possibility, however small, that the distance quoted could be 100 light years in error.Mytg8 15:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

S. Doradus

Why is S Doradus not on the list of stars with highest absolute brightness?

But it is! See List of most luminous stars! This is the list of stars with highest apparent brightness as seen from Earth. Said: Rursus (☻) 18:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Alpha Centauri

For some unknown reason Alpha Centauri is treated differently than all other stars in Wikipedia.

It is being listed as the fourth brightest star in apparent magnitude when it is actually third. The discrepancy comes about because it is Alpha Centauri A that is being referred to. Then Alpha Centauri B gets a separate listing. Why? Capella, Acrux, and Mimosa, for example, are not treated component-by-component, but as the single point sources they appear to be to the naked eye. This is inconsistant. Worse, it is a positive source of confusion and misinformation. Consider, say, Acrux and Deneb. Based on this list alone, one would be led to think that all the 1st magnitude stars are singles except for α Cen, and that Acrux is brighter than Deneb. The reality is that Acrux is a binary and that Deneb is brighter than either α Cru A or B. Combined the stars of the Acrux system outshine Deneb, but unless one referred to the article on Acrux directly, one would never know.

Why is Alpha Centauri the only system whose components are individually listed? (Unsigned by B00P.)

It's a good point. We could have an additional table listing the brightest components that can't be resolved by the unaided eye, then merge your examples in there. — RJH 19:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I've separated out Capella, Acrux, Castor, and Mizar. Capella B and Acrux B are bright enough to be on the list by themselves so now we have the 102 brightest stars. It might make more sense to make it a magnitude cutoff (2.50 would give us 95 stars). Other stars on the list are multiples but if the magnitude difference between them is greater than five then the total magnitude is changed by less than 0.01 so it probably doesn't make sense to break those out indivudually. Fournax 14:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Theta1 C Orionis

Surely, there must be something wrong with the values for Theta 1 C Orionis. If it is 210000 times brighter than the sun, why does it only have an absoute magnitude of -4.3? Shouldn't it be in the neighbourhood of -9 to sort properly into the list? Drhex 20:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Distances derived from OB studies

In an attempt to provide distances for the more remote stars on the list, I have the following URL for a survey of OB associations. This catalog is a compendium by the respected astronomer Roberta Humphreys.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1978ApJS...38..309H&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=&high=4206e4e61f25463

There are a couple of problems with this, however. One, it's almost 30 years old of course. Two, I'm not sure, and it's not stated in the paper, the errors involved. I read somewhere--unfortunately where I can't find--that the errors are estimated at 20 per cent, plus or minus? Any one else know more? Would these distances therefore be more accurate than a trig. parallax? (they would only involve those stars in OB associations--namely Deneb, Rigel, and several others more than 1000 light years away) Mytg8 16:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, it is a rather old and apparently obscure paper.<gr> The author is a respected and veteran astrophysicist. It is a compendium of results; I'm not aware of a similiar more recent paper. She gives the distance modulus and extinction of each star so it's trivial to calculate the distance. Surely this wouldn't be original research? Anyway, when I get to it, I'll add the distances calculated from her results. It would result in modifying 5 stars belonging to OB associations.Mytg8 16:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hipparcos has now provided us with parallax data that Roberta Humphreys didn't have 30 years ago. Trigonometric parallax is the gold standard for stellar distances and I think it would probably be better to stick with Hipparcos distances when we have them. The closest of the five, Saiph, is definitely closer than the OB association distance (parallax distance of 720 light years with an uncertainty range of 620 to 870 light years, compared to the OB association distance of 1,500 light years). Given that the OB association distance is so far off in that case, I would recommend switching back to the parallax distances for all five. It's true that the OB association distances are within the parallax errors for the more distant four (for example, Deneb and Aludra have parallax distances of 3,200 light years, with uncertainty ranges of about 2,100 to 7,300 light years). But keeping all distances as Hipparcos parallax distances gives us a consistent set. Even if they are wrong, they are likely to be wrong in the same way. Also, the individual star pages gives the parallax distance, so we should probably stick to that for consistency. --Fournax 23:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree your consistency argument makes sense and you've made some good points. The errors for such well known stars as Deneb and Saiph seem to be so huge, despite the remarkable successes of the Hipparcos satellite with many closer stars, that I thought there might be other sources as accurate or more so. I guess we'll have to await for the proposed new astrometric satellites to settle this complicated issue.Mytg8 17:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand :), your example Saiph has been consistently listed as B0 or B0.5 spectral class; a Ia or Iab supergiant. Compendium estimates for the M_visual for that class is -6 or -7. http://www.astro.lsa.umich.edu/users/hdproj/mosaicinfo/absmag.html or http://www.isthe.com/chongo/tech/astro/HR-temp-mass-table-bymag.html Which would indicate Saiph is much further away than 700 light years and closer to Humphrey's OB estimate, if the extinction is small. I'm not trying to belabor the point, but we're talking about one of the brightest stars in probably the most famous constellation in the sky.Mytg8 16:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You make an excellent point. I found a recent paper ( Cowther et al., 2006, A&A, Vol. 446, pp. 279-293 ) that references Brown et al. 1994 for the distances to Alnilam (1200 light years) and Saiph (1300 light years), rather than their 1997 Hipparcos distances of 1300 and 720 light years, respectively. Here's what they say about Saiph: "Kudritzki et al. (1999) adopted the Hipparcos distance to HD 38771, whilst we adhere its the membership of Ori OB1c." So there's a difference of opinion among stellar astronomers. Given my consistency arguments above, I still think we should stick to Hipparcos distances for this page. But adding the OB association distances to the individual star pages sounds like a good idea. It would, however, probably be better to use a more recent paper than Humphreys. Cowther et al. give distance references in their Table 1. Most of these references are from the last fifteen years or so, although the distance reference for two of the dimmer stars is Humphreys (1978), so some of her distances are still being used. --Fournax 20:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

L:st size

Should this list be the 100 brightest stars? It would make a round number list size. 70.55.87.147

• I think it makes more sense to have a brightness cutoff (in this case a V magnitude of 2.50) rather that a particular number of stars. --Fournax 20:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Historical brightest stars

Reference: Sky and Telescope, April 1998 (p60), based on computations from HIPPARCOS data. The calculations exclude stars where distance or proper motion figures are uncertain.

Star	Start Year	End Year	Maximum Year	Maximum magnitude	Distance at maximum (LY)
Epsilon Canis Majoris	...	-4,460,000	-4,700,000	-3.99	34
Beta Canis Majoris	-4,460,000	-3,700,000	-4,420,000	-3.65	37
Canopus (first time)	-3,700,000	-1,370,000	-3,110,000	-1.86	177
Zeta Sagittarii	-1,370,000	-1,080,000	-1,200,000	-2.74	8
Zeta Leporis	-1,080,000	-950,000	-1,050,000	-2.05	5.3
Canopus (second time)	-950,000	-420,000	-950,000[1]	-1.09[1]	252[1]
Aldebaran	-420,000	-210,000	-320,000	-1.54	21.5
Capella	-210,000	-160,000	-240,000[2]	-0.82[2]	27.9[2]
Canopus (third time)	-160,000	-90,000	-160,000 [1]	-0.70[1]	302[1]
Sirius	-90,000	+210,000	+60,000	-1.64	7.8
Vega	+210,000	+480,000	+290,000	-0.81	17.2
Canopus (fourth time)[3]	+480,000	+990,000	+480,000[1]	-0.40	346[1]
Beta Aurigae	+990,000	+1,150,000	+1,190,000[2]	-0.40[2]	28.5[2]
Delta Scuti	+1,150,000	+1,330,000	+1,250,000	-1.84	9.2
Gamma Draconis	+1,330,000	+2,030,000	+1,550,000	-1.39	27.7
Upsilon Librae	+2,030,000	+2,670,000	+2,290,000	-0.46	30
HR 2853	+2,670,000	+3,050,000	+2,870,000	-0.88	14
Omicron Herculis	+3,050,000	+3,870,000	+3,470,000	-0.63	44
Beta Cygni	+3,870,000	...	+4,610,000	-0.52	80

[1] Peak magnitude is not the brightest for this star

[2] This peak occurs when another star is brightest

[3] This assumes that the star does not become a supernova before this time

-- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 08:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Historical? Can we have some context here? Start and end of what? —Tamfang (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, having read Epsilon Canis Majoris I get it: "Start and End" of the given star's reign as brightest, in years relative to the present. —Tamfang (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

A very interesting table - worthy to put in the article I think! Tom Ruen (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a graph to get a better visual understanding. I "faked" 3 magnitude points per star to include start/end brightnesses since they'll cross at least. Better to get original source data from the article if included OR recompute real graphs (not too hard) for each star interval. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Created

Normally I would have said: "Be bold" etc. Now I don't, just go HERE! Said: Rursus (☻) 18:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Delta Orionis

Why isn't Mintaka on the list? Is it because it's a binary star with magnitude 3.3 each? Ginu.at (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the list includes all individual stars with magnitudes less than or equal to 2.50. — Fournax (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorting by Distance

When you try to sort by distance in descending order, it seems to be sorting by alphabetical rather than numerical order. For example, 97 light years shows up as being farther than 840 light years. Fried Gold (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Can that be avoided other than by inserting leading zeros? —Tamfang (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The sorts work on character values rather than numerical values, so the magnitude sort doesn't handle stars with negative magnitudes correctly. It might make sense to remove the distance and magnitude sorts until they can be fixed. —Fournax (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly, the sort in ascending order seems to operate numerically (for example: 11 is placed before 25, but 110 is placed after 25) however, the sort in descending order seems to operate lexicographically. I think this should be reported as a bug. 209.183.151.182 (talk) 13:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The table in U.S. state#List of states uses a cunning device: the population of Alaska, for example, is "<span style="display:none">00,</span>683,478". The negative magnitude problem could be solved by adding a constant, say 10, to the invisible version of each entry. —Tamfang (talk) 04:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I added zeros before I saw this conversation. When table coding gets too complicated, my brain explodes so I don't know if can do what Tamfang has suggested but I certainly won't get mad if someone reverts me and fixes the problem in a better way. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Rigel

Being interested in Orion's belt, I noticed Rigel, on it's own Wikipedia page, was listed to have a brightness of .18. Meanwhile, here it is listed as .112. I don't know if the .112 is from new information, but everywhere else I've read said .18. Could someone verify this? I don't feel confident searching on my own to pick and choose what should be regarded as safe and trustable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.204.117 (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hm, Rigel is multiple but the second-brightest component is nowhere near bright enough to explain the difference (its magnitude is 6.7 and it would need to be 3.2). —Tamfang (talk) 06:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Menkalinan

I noticed that Menkalinan is missing from the list, even if its magnitude is 1.9.89.72.16.93 (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Also Mintaka, at 2.23. Something to do with multiples? Rothorpe (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Spectral classes in table

Can someone fix the problem, that when i sort by spectral classes, it sorts by the correct order of colour (OBAFGKM), not alphabetically, because it doesn't make any sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.82.183 (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Purpose?

What is the purpose of this table? The most sensible and logical perspective to me is: 'What are the top 100 brightest stars visible in the night sky?' In this straightforward question, the table will give me the top 100 brightest stars visble with the naked eye, ranked in descending order of brightness. The level of detail going down to stars like Capella A, Capella B, Alpha-1 Centauri, Alpha-2 Centauri, etc seems overcomplicated, since both Capella and Alpha Centauri appear as single points of light to the unaided human eye. If we're gonna go down this route with every star in this list, it will become neverending. Castor (Alpha Geminorum), for example, is a six-star system. Are we going to list the spectroscopic componets of Castor? :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruislick0 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Several distances are off

Several of these stars have pages which list distances very different from the values in this table. I don't have the expertise to evaluate these, but shouldn't the value in the table be about the center of the range of possible distances listed on the page in the star data? I changed the value for Beta Centauri which looked like a typo ( 530ly -> 350ly ), but the following stars are also significantly off: Rigel, Beta Crucis, Alnitak, Alpha Persei, Delta Canis Majoris, Saiph, Zeta Puppis, Gamma Cygni, Alpha Lupi, Delta Scorpii, Gamma Cassiopeiae, and Eta Canis Majoris. 24.98.1.233 (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Proper name

I see that a 'proper name' has recently been changed but what exactly does this term mean. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't mean the Bayer designation, but some traditional name (usually Arabic) that has been given to the star. Note for some stars these are seldom used and the Bayer designation is much more popular (e.g. Alpha Centauri) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

In what way is this name the 'proper' name for the star and who decides this? Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

As it is the column 'Proper name' is pure OR. There are no references and no description of what the term means. I suggest that the column is removed until the data can be verified properly. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

No it is not OR, it is unreferenced. If you were familiar with stars you'd know this was a pretty bog-standard list. Wikipedia didn't come up with the term "Proper name" - will get some refs anon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

See here or here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Your refs show star names but not the use of the word 'proper'. As you well know, whether you or I are familiar with stars is irrelevant, WP needs sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, then here, here and here (scroll up), among other places.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you are rather missing my point. I do not doubt that most, if not all, of the names in the list are in common use, maybe even with astronomers, but WP has a list headed 'Proper name'. This title gives the impression that this is the definitively correct name and that other names given in the same table are, in some way, not correct. This is a fairly strong statement being made by WP and if we wish to make it we should have a reliable source stating that an appropriate authority, such as the International Astronomical Union has determined that the names in this column are the proper ones.

The sources you have found by searching Google do not meet this standard. I therefore think that, if we cannot find a really authoritative source, we should change the heading to something less official sounding, such 'common name' or just 'name'.

At the moment WP is propagating what seems to be just the opinion of one or more editors. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The issue I think is that the term "Proper Name" has a certain connotation more akin to "Traditional name" than to what lay people would consider to be Proper or True Names or whatever. I am tempted to replace with "traditional" - will have a look....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I think 'traditional' would be much better, although it does raise the question of whose tradition. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

See Proper_noun Lithopsian (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no expertise in this, but will note the articles Proper names (astronomy), List of proper names of stars, and List of proper names of stars in alphabetical order and the category Category:Stars with proper names, so it seems that the idea of "proper name" is widespread at WP. Star designation notes that "proper name" is a synonym for a traditional name. It seems that the International Astronomical Union would be considered the authority on star names. If we wanted an authoritative list of proper names, we would be hard pressed to find one, as tradition comes from a number of sources. The closest thing to a recent authoritative list may be a 1971 NASA document that has a list of 537 "named stars" [1] --Mark viking (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I'd never seen that before! Some interesting names on that list I have not seen elsewhere...hmmmm. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I had seen some of those articles too and this increased my concern that WP was propagating opinion as fact.

To retain the the 'proper name' I would say that we need to reference some well respected international authority. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, here we go, the IAU has a guideline on the naming of stars at [2]. At the bottom of the section is a list of links that include lists of star names, such as [3], [4] and [5]. If these lists are good enough to be referenced by the IAU, they are good enough for us. From the lists, we might simply call it the "common name" --Mark viking (talk) 13:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The IAU document does not give these links as in any way 'official' lists, in fact the wording tends to state the opposite, that there are no 'official' names. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Very few of these names are in regular use. We should be cautious about promoting essentially made-up names as somehow official. It has become popular in recent years to dig up, or simply make up, some name that doesn't have numbers of greek letters in it, as part of the program of promoting astronomy to people who are scared of numbers and greek letters. Still, other than NASA press releases and BBC documentaries (and derivative sources such as Wikipedia) nobody actually refers to stars by those names beyond perhaps the brightest dozen or two. Have you ever heard anyone in real life say "Saiph"? Lithopsian (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

In this list, how about swapping the SIMBAD and 'Proper name' columns and renaming 'Proper name' to 'Other names'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

That's unnecessarily ambiguous. We should be able to expect people to know what a proper name is, and if not, to be able to look it up. Common name would also work, IMO, though I don't know if it's sourceable for star names. — kwami (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

This has no connection with the term 'proper noun'. It is about whether there are authoritative correct names for stars. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe it does? I have no argument with the fact that star names are proper nouns but to use the term 'Proper name' in this context is unnecessary (as they are capitalised) and confusing because it suggests that they are official names. The SIMBAD names are, of course, also proper nouns, which confuses things even further. Why do we need this column at all? As far as I can see it is only to put alternative names to the SIMBAD names in. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

wikt:proper has nothing to do with wikt:official, they are not synonyms. The term "proper name" is a term used in astronomy, that's it. Just as "goofy footed" is a term used in snowboarding, it does not mean the snowboarder's foot is disabled. -- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand that although it was not obvious to me when I first came here, just as that fact will not be clear to many other readers. The term 'Proper name' is used in some astronomical sources for what the rest of the world would just call 'Name'.

Even if we were to rename the first column 'Name', 'Traditional name', 'Astronomical name', or something else, the column would still serve no purpose and be essentially OR in the sense that, where there is more than one name for a star, it is editors here who have decided which name to put in that first column.

It would seem that there are no star names agreed by every source and that the SIMBAD list is the closest that we are going to get to an official name. Using this name as the first one is the best way forwards, mainly because it makes clear which authority specifies the name for that star. Where there are additional names, we can list them in a separate column. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

What SIMBAD chooses to be its default title can be very far from what's actually being used, especially concerning popular astronomy sources. Further "proper name" is the term used, using a different term would be OR or SYNTH. Using "name" would be wrong, since many people call the Bayer designation a "name". You can always add a footnote and link it to the proper name header ( <ref group=Note> and corresponding {{reflist|group=Note}} )-- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, but unless we have a reliable source stating what is actually used it is the best we can do. We cannot do our own research to decide which is the most commonly used (by whom) title. That is the rules. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

This list might help: http://www.ianridpath.com/starnames.htm. I call them "popular" names. Ian. 81.178.191.135 (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that it is just one of many such lists, all with slight differences. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

"Popular name" won't work, there are many proper names that aren't very popular, and for many stars, their Bayer designations are the most popular name. -- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you’re confusing “common” with “popular”. I was talking of the names that are widely used in popular books, which tend not to use Bayer letters. My list is a digest of those names most commonly encountered, which I thought was what you were looking for. But, if not, let it pass.81.178.178.231 (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

There are two problems with the list as it is now. The first is the use of the term 'proper name' to mean just 'name'. Most names of individual objects are indeed proper nouns but it is not usual to use the word 'proper' when referring to them. Use of the term can easily lead to confusion amongst readers.

The more serious problem is that, in cases where a star has more than one name, one specific name is selected by editors here to be entered in that column. There seems to be no definitive correct name for all stars so we must not just pick one, even if 'everybody knows'; that is OR.

My earlier proposal, to use the SIMBAD, name has a problem with linking. Names in this column currently link to the SIMBAD site but we also want links to WP articles for stars which have then. Reorganising the table would also be quite complicated.

A simple solution, therefore, would be to rename the column 'Name(s)' and to put in it all names for that star found in sources meeting our normal reliability standards. We do not need to choose which is the 'best' or 'correct' name. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

That would confuse more than enlighten - all star have several names and every single one on this list could be sourced. The one improvement I could think of would be to add a footnote to all names that are not in common use to say exactly thus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

In that case the question arises as to why we have picked the names that we have. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose; no convincing evidence has been presented that there is anything wrong with this list's format as it stands. The only possibility I see that might improve this is renaming "Proper name" to "Traditional name". Also, we select the name that is most commonly in usage for the name of the article, and from the proper name category here, we select the most commonly-used proper name. I don't see any problems with it at all. We obviously have links to article that have them, unlike what the proposer seems to be implying. We're also not going to put every name in the column; many stars have at least 30 different catalog designations; are you really suggesting that we need all of them? StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I would support the change to a different heading for the column, such as 'Traditional name', but that does not relieve us of the duty to WP:verify that the specific name for a star that we have chosen meets the description in the heading. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. However, the SIMBAD entries have the name listed for all but a few stars on this list, and thus only a few stars will need to have other refs provided, such as the one I just added for Alpha Centauri. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

But what tells us that Rigil Kent is the proper name for the star? The source is acceptable to show that Rigil Kent is a name for the star but it does not tell us that this name is preferable to 'Alpha Centauri' (note that this is not the Bayer name but a capitalised version of it and thus a proper noun). For reference "Alpha Centauri" gets 602,000 Google hits and "Rigil Kent" 47,000. This is not authoritative either but it shows the problem. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is saying the name is preferable to Alpha Centauri. BTW, Alpha Centauri is the Bayer name, which are always capitalized. Despite being told the contrary by multiple editors here, you're still insisting that "proper name" means "most common name", which it does not. Proper name simply means a name that is not a specific catalog name, but is used for the star. For example, Rigel is a proper name, while Gamma Cassiopeiae, despite being by far the most common name for the star, is not a proper name, but a Bayer Designation. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The Bayer designation is α Cen. 'Alpha Centauri' is a very common proper noun used in many sources as the name of the star. In what sense is it not a proper name? How can being Bayer designation written out in the Latin alphabet disqualify it from being a proper name? Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

No, you are flat-out wrong on that point. A Bayer designation is any designation that contains a greek letter, either spelled out or not, followed by the genitive of the constellation, written out in full or not. A Bayer designation is different from a proper name. α Cen is the abbreviated Bayer designation; Alpha Centauri is the full Bayer designation. I'm normally a patient person, but you're wearing my patience. I also notice that you altered my signature on my last post, for some reason. I've fixed that. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for mangling your sig it was just a mistake.

[This academic source] says, 'Most of the brighter stars were assigned their first systematic names by the German astronomer Johann Bayer in 1603, in his star atlas Uranometria (named after Urania, the Greek Muse of Astronomy, along with Uranus, the Greek god of the sky and heavens). Bayer assigned a lower-case Greek letter, such as alpha (α), beta (β), gamma (γ), etc., to each star he catalogued, combined with the Latin name of the star’s parent constellation in genitive (possessive) form'. But it really does not matter, you have not explained why 'Alpha Centauri' which is undoubtedly a proper noun when capitalised and used to refer to a specific star and is, by over a factor of ten the most commonly used name, cannot be considered a proper name. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, that 'academic source' says at the bottom of the page: "The article content of this page came from Wikipedia". So a bit of a circular argument, methinks. 81.178.189.148 (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

It is not in any way circular, it just confirms that other editors here have stated that, 'Bayer assigned a lower-case Greek letter, such as alpha (α)... to each star'. Regardless of that you have still not explained why the most commonly used name when spelled out in the Latin alphabet and capitalised cannot be considered a 'proper name'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Because the word "proper name" has a specific meaning in astronomy, namely that of a name that is not a catalog designation of some sort. Sure, Alpha Centauri may be a proper noun, like any designation for any star would be (e.g. 55 Cancri, HD 6, WR 124), but by definition it is not a proper name for the star. I do apologize for the signature comment; I should have assumed better faith there. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand that you are saying that 'proper name' has a specific meaning in astronomy but you need to provide some evidence of that and exactly what it means, specifically that the term 'proper name' excludes any form of catalogue designation. It is no good just finding some sources that use the term 'proper name', you need to find an authoritative source that verifies the claim that you have just made above. It is not like the term 'proper motion' where I can easilly find academic sources that define the term as well as use it. For example [[6]], [[7]],[[8]].

With proper name, it is also easy to find reliable sources that do not use the term 'proper name' but use different terms. We can find ['name'], [name again], [Star Name]. On a quick look 'proper name is quite common, but no more so that just 'name'.

Even if you could prove that 'proper name' is the standard astronomical jargon we would be unwise to use it here, certainly without some kind of note as to what it means because this is not obvious to the general reader. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per StringTheory. It is not using "proper name" to mean "name", it is using "proper name" to mean "proper name". It's not just any old label the star has acquired. The use of the term "proper name" (it is a two word term, not two one word terms as you are suggesting it is) is in accordance with sources other people have already pointed out to you. And the term is used to distinguish proper names from other sorts of monikers that star acquire, in accordance with its use in the field of astronomy. This is an astronomy article, the context of terminology found in astronomy articles is astronomical, not medical, or biblical, etc. Thus the term "proper name" should be construed in an astronomical context. Further there is no implication of best name or correct name. Indeed the way the table is structured, if anything is to be implied, it is that the Bayer designation is primary, because it occurs first. And some stars have 30 or more "names", I hardly see the reason why we should list all of them in this article. The stars each have their own article for such a thing. While there is a thing to be said about "traditional name", that is a far broader and more encompassing term. Every star has a multitude of designations, the brightest ones (as would appear on this list) would at least have Bayer, Flamsteed/Gould, Henry Draper, Bright Star, Hipparcos designations, and plentiful enough folk names. WP:NOTDIC, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, suggesting we add all the names a star has acquired just to list the bloody thing is violating policy of not being an astronomical dictionary gazetteer. Further, our geographic articles don't even bother with listing all the various names geographical locations end up with, so why should we be so burdened on a simple list article that isn't even the article on that particular star? The brightest of all stars will have thousands of names from the thousands of cultures that have observed the stars over the thousands of years of civilization. -- 70.50.150.125 (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean by, '...the term is used to distinguish proper names from other sorts of monikers that star acquire' if 'there is no implication of best name or correct name'. How do we decide what name to put under proper name? How do we WP:verify that choice? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

If you cannot WP:V by looking at WP:RS as to what those RS claim are proper names, then you've got issues with editing anything on Wikipedia, since reading the RS that explicitly states what are proper names should be bloody obvious. Per Calisber, do you know this subject at all? -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 03:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

That proposal was just a suggestion. There is no need to get quite so excited about your disapproval.

However there are two problems that need to be addressed. Firstly the heading 'Proper name'. On the one hand some editors here tell me that it just means that the name is a proper noun (like practically all names for individual objects) whilst others say that it is the astronomical name. If it is not clear to editors here what the term means and it was not clear to me, I can imagine that it will not be clear to many readers.

The second problem is that, whatever we decide to head the column, we have to decide which of the many possible names for each star to put in it. For each star there will be several names that could be supported by a reliable source. How do we choose? There is no single authoritative source to tell us. The only way is personal opinion or OR. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Many sources describe what are common and uncommonly used proper names. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Martin, a proper name is both a proper noun and an astronomical name, so there is no contradiction. Which proper name is the most common can easily be found, as Casliber mentions, through multiple sources. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

We cannot easily find out which is the most common name. We first have to determine what we mean by 'common'. Do we mean in all sources, can we just count Google hits, should we only count astronomical sources (and how do we define them) or maybe we should only count only peer reviewed papers? Do we mean worldwide or just in the US or Europe or English speaking countries? Doing all that is OR and not permitted in WP, for very good reason.

I know that a proper name is a proper noun and and that the term is used in some astronomical sources. But in what sense are we using it here? Are we saying that it is the correct astronomical term for the name of a star? I have seen no source saying that this is the term most commonly used by astronomers. Even if that were to be the case it would very confusing and unnecessary WP:Jargon. We need to find a definitive source using the term 'proper name'.Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Martin are you actually familiar with this topic at all? Most people who have more than a passing interest in astronomy will know which names are used more often than others . Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

A few days ago I immodestly offered this list http://www.ianridpath.com/starnames.htm as being what he was looking for, but he waved it aside (see above). So I wondered the same thing. Ian. 81.178.189.148 (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Casliber, you well know that 'Most people ... will know which names are used more often than others' is not an acceptable for verifying information in WP. In the case of Rigil Kent it is not even correct. By far the most commonly used name is 'Alpha Centauri'. That fact that this name may be considered a version of the Bayer name is irrelevant, it is the most commonly used proper noun used to refer to the star. If you want to put something different you need a source. Not a source that just shows that the name Rigil Kent is sometimes used for the star, we all know that, but an authoritative source which shows that Rigil Kent is the proper name and that Alpha Centauri is not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The short answer, again, is that there are no 'proper' names for stars because the IAU does not officially recognize any, unlike with constellations. The best you can do is quote those most frequently used in popular-level books. 81.178.189.148 (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly! Which is why we cannot have a heading 'Proper name' and then chose amongst ourselves which name or names to put in the column, which in one case at least is not the most frequently used name. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

For consistency you could simply harvest the names used in the existing Wikipedia entries on stars. For example: "Alpha Persei (Alpha Per, α Persei, α Per)... Known by the traditional names Mirfak and Algenib". Done. 81.178.189.148 (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

That is more or less what I suggested. Having a heading 'Proper name' and putting just one name under it, chosen by editors here is completely against the most basic policies of WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

....except that the sources often use the term "Proper Name" and so to use otherwise might be OR.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

PS: "Alpha Centauri" is a name but it is described as the Bayer Designation, not the Proper Name (which Rigil Kent is). James Kaler's "Brightest Stars" describes them as such (see page 260). No Bayer Designations are Proper Names. To suggest otherwise is OR - our job is to reflect knowledge and practice, not correct it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that some sources use the term 'proper name' but some do not and the term is not defined anywhere and is confusing to the general reader. Several editors have said that a Bayer designation cannot be a proper name but there seems to be no source to support this assertion. Have a look at page 268 of the source you cite above. 'Proper motion' is defined in the glossary but not 'Proper name'. Note also that your source calls Alpha Centauri a 'Greek name' not a Bayer designation. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

(outdent) - Martin, for crying out loud, Ian Ridpath, Jim Kaler and Patrick Moore are three authors eminently qualified to make a call on this (and don't forget NASA too!) - and all use the term "proper name". Most Peer Reviewed material will use designations that are long strings of numbers and/or letters that are unrecallable by lay-readers and not meant to be. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

And these sources: [[9]], [[10]], [[11]] some of which were supplied by you, do not use the term 'proper name'. I do not doubt that many reliable sources use the term but although several editors have told me that 'proper name' means a name that is not in a star catalogue, no one has given me any evidence of this or found any definition of the term by a reputable body. The term is not used in peer reviewed articles and it is not always the most commonly used name so what exactly is its status. It seem to me to be just a term held rather dear by some more serious amateur astronomers.

So what is the problem? Well, you said yourself, 'The issue I think is that the term "Proper Name" has a certain connotation more akin to "Traditional name" than to what lay people would consider to be Proper or True Names or whatever'. That is exactly correct; it is misleading to the general reader. If it were a well defined and universally used term like 'proper motion' we would have the justification that it is the correct terminology used by all experts in the subject but that simply is not the case with 'proper name'.

It is worse than that though. Can there be more than one proper name? Which of the many names for each star are eligible to be called 'proper names'. Are proper nouns based on Bayer designations (such as Alpha Centauri) disbarred from being called proper names? If you can show me an authoritative source that answers these questions then I could accept the term. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 2

How about a note to the heading 'Proper name' stating that this term is used in many astronomy sources, but not all, and that the term 'proper name' does not imply that a name listed is the 'correct' or 'official' or the most commonly used name? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking too after sleeping on it. Happy to do this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus then? Does anyone want to propose wording for the note? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I made that suggestion under proposal 1's discussion. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 03:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for note

'Proper name' is a term used in many, but not all, astronomical sources for the name of a star as opposed than its catalog number or coordinates. Most such names are hundreds or even thousands of years old and of ancient Greek, Latin, Arabic, or Chinese origin. Inclusion of a name in this column does not imply that the name listed is the 'correct', 'official', or even the most commonly used name. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks ok - I'd add Bayer designation after "catalog number". Actually I'd say " a catalog number as there are many different ones. About 3/4 the names are Arabic, so that should be first, with a smattering of other languages. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem with putting Arabic first and 'a' catalogue number. I guess that Bayer designation is OK. We can leave Rigil Kent as it is but the fact remains that the logic for your recent change, which is what brought me here, remains dubious.

'Alpha Centuari' is the most commonly used name for that star. Although it is clearly based on its Bayer designation it has become a name in it own right being much more common than any other Bayer-based name (Alpha Orionis, Alpha Boötis, Alpha Canis Majoris for example). This is probably because of the use of the name in science fiction. Since the term is so ill-defined it really could be said that 'Alpha Centauri' is a proper name.

On that subject I think that the Bayer designation article could do with some attention, it seems to contain some unsourced assertions. If WP is to maintain its respect, credibility, and authority the very worst thing we can do is to make stuff up and put in in here. I will make some small changes and await comments.

All that having been said we now have:

'Proper name' is a term used in many, but not all, astronomical sources for the name of a star as opposed to a catalogue number, its coordinates, or its Bayer designation. Most such names are hundreds or even thousands of years old and of ancient Arabic, Greek, Latin, or Chinese origin. Inclusion of a name in this column does not imply that the name listed is the 'correct', 'official', or even the most commonly used name.

I am wondering whether we should take out 'but not all' as a superfluous ('many' does not imply 'all') remnant of discussion here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

"Alpha Centauri" is clearly not a "proper name". And yes "but not all" is superfluous. You won't be able to embed a reference unless you use the {{#tag:}} formatting, if you use <ref group=Note> tagging. I suppose you could use {{efn}}/{{notelist}} -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 03:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

70.50.151.11, I welcome any help in dealing with the reference. I was not sure whether it could be included. You say, '"Alpha Centauri" is clearly not a "proper name"' but there is no evidence for this. The best source for that anyone has found so far for what a proper name is is the one that I have cited above. This does not make clear that 'Alpha Centauri' cannot be considered a proper name. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree in removing "but not all" - I put a footnote for Rigil Kent as it is rarely used (unlike the others), though purists are a bit snobbish about "Acrux" too....Agree Bayer designation needs work - but has to be in as they amount to the default name for around most of the brighter visible stars Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Reason for changing the numbers is using American format numbers like 1,550 using a decimal point/comma as a thousands separator. This can be interpreted as one point five five light years which is obviously incorrect. There is an ISO notation which uses spaces as a comma and point are rather similar in most typefaces.

S k a t e b i k e r (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

References

Alpha Centauri A and Arcturus

Alpha Centauri A is listed as being brighter than Arcturus within this Wiki page. According to another source the information is contrary and the information for the other source other than Wikipedia.org references/sources is listed below.

    "By itself, Alpha Centauri A is the fourth brightest star in the sky; just a bit dimmer, by 0.02 of a magnitude, than Arcturus. "

...Reference: Alpha Centauri: Nearest Star System to the Sun by Tim Sharp, Reference Editor | October 16, 2012 04:35pm ET

http://www.space.com/18090-alpha-centauri-nearest-star-system.html— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.217.4 (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem was that the SIMBAD link was a link to Alpha Centauri A instead of just Alpha Centauri. Since A by itself is only the 4th brightest, but combined, they are the third brightest, I've modified the link to link to the combined double. Consider this  Done. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Koo She and Wei

The names "Koo She" for star number 44, delta Velorum, and "Wei" for number 77, epsilon Scorpii, on this list appears to be inventions/suggestions of Wikipedia editors. These names are inconsistent with various standard Wikipedia policies (unsourced, original research --at best), and they certainly do not qualify as "proper names" as suggested in the article. 2600:1000:B027:DA92:DD9C:8202:7F0:6241 (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It should be removed. Arianewiki1 (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

(Both names have long been around though.) Rothorpe (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Eh? So what, Rothorpe. These are clearly not common names that are in use. There are probably about 3000 recorded star names. I.e. Stated by Allen (1899). Should we recognise all of them or only the commonly used ones? Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

R.H. Allen sys, under Argo, that “δ, 2.2, and ω, with stars in Canis Major, were the Chinese Koo She, the Bow and Arrow.” However, under Canis Major, he writes it Hoo She: “The Chinese knew η and κ of Canis Major, with stars in Argo, as Hoo She, the Bow and Arrow.” The Wikipedia entry on Canis Major tells us that the modern transliteration is Húshǐ, which sounds more like Hoo She than Koo She. So, Koo She is not the name of a star but a Chinese asterism, and it looks as though it should actually have been Hoo She. Other than that, spot on. Skeptic2 (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking further on this Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_(Chinese_astronomy) it seems that Delta Vel is not even part of the bow and arrow but something quite different. The more you look the wronger it gets. Skeptic2 (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Nr. 63

where is he??? Jelle Gouw (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Fixed, by adding missing listed star, Beta Aurigae / Menkalinan. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Why β Aur is not included?

β Auriga isn't included, despite having apparent brightness 1,9 Menkalinan. --C messier (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

You are correct. Fixed. Added missing listed star, Beta Aurigae / Menkalinan. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Given Magnitudes of Variable Stars

@Lithopsian: Variable stars given in the list are based on the mean maximum brightness of the star in question.

Betelgeuse, as exampled here has the magnitude of +0.42, whose range of variability is +0.2 to +1.2 - a range of 1.0 magnitudes over a main period of 5.7 years. If the quoted value in the table is the 'average', then the magnitude quoted should be +0.7 not +0.42. If you look at the AAVSO light curve displayed on the Betelgeuse page under the heading "Recent studies", the line draw through the peaks of the maxima, find the magnitude of +0.42. At +0.7, being the alleged average, the number of points below a line through +0.7 is about 15%-20% - showing clearly this is not an average value.

Antares is another example, whose visual magnitude is given as +0.96. Although the established variation is +0.88 to +1.16 over 7140 days, the given visual magnitude is still higher than same alleged average of +1.02. Again, the reasoning behind this is that all variable star magnitudes quoted for visual magnitudes are based on mean maximum brightness. (See Fig 36. "AAVSO data" pg. 76 "A Variability Study of the Typical Red Giant Antares A" by T.J.D. Pugh (April 2013) [12], where the tops of the light curve is +0.96 magnitude.)

Stars with minor variations in magnitudes just quote the maxima.

This evidence positively concludes this point is true, as per my necessary edits. Arianewiki1 (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Leaving aside all your own research, you use the word "mean". What is that if not an average? I've tried to express the concept but you didn't like it. Unfortunately what is there now is not correct (eg. GCVS says 0.88 is the maximum magnitude for Antares, and it certainly becomes brighter than that) so I'm removing it. Feel free to write something more suitable instead of just reverting it again. Lithopsian (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Lithopsian: Insulting editors in not on, and you can be sanctioned for it. I.e. Say "own research" when it is just showing evidence to show my exact point - which does, incidentally, appears on Wikipedia pages. They have been struck per Bad faith.

It is clear that mean maximum magnitude actually means, which is because red variable star magnitudes are semi-regular, so that maxima can still exceed the quoted magnitude (and this applies to the minima as well.) Values are the mean of the maximum magnitudes NOT the mean of all the magnitudes nor the magnitude range. Note: The GVSC also is not the only source of magnitudes, which is is based on another primary source.

Two choices. Either the magnitudes presented are the mean of the magnitude range or the mean of the maximas. Which is it? I.e. Arianewiki1 (talk) 15:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I"ll comment that your above statement directly contradicts what you put into the article. "Mean of the maximas" is different than the phrase you used "at their maximum magnitudes". My familiarity (limited) with descriptions of variable stars suggests that they when they aren't presented as a range, they will generally present a magnitude the star tends to be at in steady state, rather than a maxima - but probably AAVSO would be a more meaningful reference than my recollections. Irregular red giants aren't usually described by their maxima (e.g., Mira Ceti is not usually described as a 2nd magnitude star). Eclipsing variables will be described by their maxima simply because that's their "normal" brightness, the eclipse period is brief relative to normal conditions. Either way, a statement about how such magnitudes are presented requires a cite. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer it if you don't edit my comments for me. I'd rather be judged on what I wrote or retracted, not what you thought I should write or retract. Hence my comments on this talk page are reverted to their original state. Want to know what "own research" looks like? When you start drawing lines through graphs and estimating values instead of reading the references. Lithopsian (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Umm. Again. So what is the magnitude added in the table? Its either the mean of the magnitude range or the mean of the maximas. Both Betelgeuse and Antares articles state the data in the table, and I've cited the primary sources where the data comes from. If it is the 'average magnitude', then what is the average magnitude of these stars then? What is the unquoted source for that? If 'average magnitude is accepted, then the data on all these three pages is simply wrong. Else wise, the quoted values of +0.42 and +0.96, are not the average magnitudes, because they do not correspond to the average of +0.7 and +1.02, respectively. Unless these values cannot be attributed or cited, then they should be also be removed from the list?

If the AAVSO graphic is not the 'average magnitude' on the Betelguse, then what is the magnitude based on?

Please show the evidence (+citation) that these are actually 'average magnitudes'? (The same applies to the double stars. It is not the average magnitude, either.)

My initial statement says it is based on the maxima of these variable's magnitudes without complicating the that it the mean of the maximas, which is also based on the time frame of the data in use. As the photometric systems vary over time, it is usual to quote values in the last 50 years. Arianewiki1 (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Why are you asking me what the magnitudes in the table are? I didn't write them. 1.09 for Antares is suspiciously close to a simple mean of the maximum and minimum GCVS magnitudes, while the eclipsing variables all appear to be true maxima within a small margin of error. What's all the two choices rubbish? Just being confrontational for the sake of it? The Antares article gives 0.96 (with a citation), not 1.09. The Betelgeuse article contains the 0.42 value which is cited, and the rather old reference states "Table 2 contains our estimate of the best mean values obtainable from our data and previously published data". Hence I said some were averages and some were maxima, but you reverted it to something that was clearly wrong.. And where did double stars come from? The disputed sentence is specifically about variable stars, and neither a maximum nor an average would make any sense in the context of a double star. Lithopsian (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Well...

I was responding to Tarl.Neustaedter, points actually...

Why can't you answer this very simple question? There are two choices. Either the magnitudes presented are the mean of the magnitude range or the mean of the maximas. So which is it, because I feel you seemingly don't understand the basic difference here?

Clearly "mean values" are wrong, because the quoted result is not the average of all measurements, but the average of the maxima values only. (This is used as it applies to all variable stars, not just SRa variables.)

"1.09 for Antares is suspiciously close to a simple mean of the maximum and minimum GCVS magnitudes" Eh? But the Table gives +0.96. So where does the difference come from then?

BTW. The GVSC is irrelevant, because its magnitudes are not the primary source, because the magnitudes in it are quoted from other places. Arianewiki1 (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Umm, why don't we put the magnitude range in the left-hand box then instead? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but I don't think the table sorting will work then. Arianewiki1 (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

See Help:Sorting#Specifying_a_sort_key_for_a_cell and Help:Sorting#Numerical_sorting_problems. That does still beg the question which value you'll use as the primary sorting value. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

What value to use seems like the least of our worries. Other than the top 10-15 stars, very few of the magnitudes listed match either the linked article or Simbad. If they did, at least the more curious readers could see for themselves what was going on. See here for an example of a table sorted by a value other than the displayed value. Might be confusing though, maybe show both the single value used for sorting and the range. Lithopsian (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I've just looked at all the seven variable stars in the main list, comparing the values with SIMBAD and the article pages on each of these stars. Arcturus, Aldebaran, Menkalinan, Polaris and Algol are all stated at their maximum magnitudes in their light curves or observed maxima. These five can be left where they are without modification. The two stars in dispute are Betelgeuse and Antares.

1) Quoted magnitude of Betelgeuse (used in SIMBAD) of +0.46 comes from the photometric magnitude in Optical V band between 500-600nm made by Johnston et al. (1966) The GVSC (2013) give the magnitude range of +0.00 to +1.30 in the period of 2335 days, while the ubv magnitudes given in the list of measurements, has the highest value of +0.40v magnitude (This appears from Ducati's "Catalogue of Stellar Photometry in Johnson's 11-color system." (2002) and lowest 0.80v. The value quoted in the main table of +0.46 of these brightest stars, should be considered near the mean maximum magnitude, even though the quoted +0.46 is really a fixed magnitude when Johnson did the initial photometry on this star in 1966.

2) Quoted magnitude in the Table for Antares is given as +1.09, which is from Johnston et al. (1966), notably the same source as Betelgeuse above. The Antares page claims this is from SIMBAD, but SIMBAD, the magnitude is now quoted as +0.91, which actually appears in Ducati's "Catalogue of Stellar Photometry in Johnson's 11-color system." (2002) Yet the small data box gives +0.96, which is from Nicolet (1978). This should really be discarded. Hence, the adopted value should be +0.91. Furthermore, the ubv values in the list of measurements, range between +0.91 and +1.08. Again, as I've stated, the value is at the mean maximum magnitude. I have changed Antares in the Table to +0.91, as with the linked article page on Antares.

From this, there is absolutely no need to change the magnitude column, and under "An exact order of the visual brightness of stars is not perfectly defined for the following reasons:", it should proper say that the variable star magnitudes quoted are in fact based on the maximum or mean maxima magnitudes using the data used in SIMBAD. Note: As red stars are now usually measured only in the red or infrared bands, visual magnitudes are not usually quoted in the modern literature.

This should finally end the matter. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

We still need to mention red stars in the V-mag and not the R- or I-mag, since we're talking about how people will actually see them with the naked eye. Also, to me it would make the most sense to use the mean magnitude for placement in the list for any variables in the list while using the baseline magnitude for eclipsing or cataclysmic variables. For example, using the mean magnitude for Algol makes no sense (since the star is basically never actually at that magnitude), while only using the maximum magnitude for, say, Antares would screw up the data by making it appear brighter than it usually does. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Lithopsian: @StringTheory11: Absolutely No. I'm not suggesting to use R- or I- magnitudes. It is just that red stars generally are not photometrically measured in V- wavelengths, and this is why there are fewer photometric measures to gauge their variability. (Amateurs do that, but only to the accuracy of about ±0.1!) Again. Mean magnitude is not generally used in lists of bright stars (like this article) that are also red SR/x/ variables, because most of their brightness spend more time nearer the top of the light curve. Looking at the light curve of Betelgeuse article clearly shows that. [13] If you draw a line across the +0.46 mag on this graph, it is clear that the maximas are there. Using the AAVSO's Light Curve Generator (LCG) [14] shows a more detailed light-curve, and it is clear that +0.46 mag has about 85% of the dots below the line than the 15% above it. (Note the maximum magnitude exceed 0.0 magnitude on occasion.) Again, this is clear evidence, that the stated magnitude is not any mean or average magnitude, which using all the points, would be a mean magnitude of about +0.75. If you want to use +0.75 magnitude, that is fine by me, but most cited sources say +0.46 or +0.5. Why?

For Antares, see the similar AAVSO output [15]

I do fail to see this evidence can be at all refuted. Again, mean maximum magnitude is correct for red SR/x/ variables, maximum magnitude is correct for all other variable types in lists of bright stars. That is what I've edited, but it has been removed by Lithopsian. So how is this now wrong?

Note: For most reading this article, maximum magnitude is correct for most readers. I'm sorry, by cannot get any more clearer than this. Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC

−

[RFC tag removed, no apparent interest outside this talk page.] Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Further comments are unnecessary until Lithopsian actually tells and explains his stance for the source of magnitudes. This issue cannot be resolved until Lithopsian states his solution.

I have explained and given my reasons several times now, and Lithopsian has said nothing.

How can the community resolve any issue, if they cannot grasp the basic information that is is supposedly in contention? Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I am fed up being bullied, personally abused, and now accused of somehow blocking this process. I find it inappropriate that you suddenly try to take this content discussion to my user talk page in an attempt to sidestep other editors. There is no "my solution", only a good solution for the article. This is not a personal battle. I attempted to make edits that meet each of your rejections, only for you to create new objections and question my integrity. My most recent attempted solution was to use the Bright Star Catalogue 5th edition as a single fixed source, as requested by you after I previously tried to match to Simbad or the individual Wikipedia articles. You can call that my "stance" if you like, but I am not going to cling stubbornly to any particular outcome. Lithopsian (talk) 10:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on your talk page. I think it would be best for everyone if discussion regarding this matter remained here. samtar (talk) 11:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1: Further comments are and will be necessary until this matter is resolved. I humbly apologise that I cannot be any more help, but I don't understand the topic at hand and feel unqualified to make a judgement on content. However, I am versed in Wikipedia policy and the expectations of the community as to the behavior of editors. Arianewiki1, I'd like to ask you to calm down and remain civil, and keep discussion of this matter to the article's talk page. I understand it's a heated debate, and each side is bringing it's argument to the table - there is a need to calmly discuss the issue so we can all get back to working on an encyclopedia. Thank you everyone. samtar (talk) 11:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Tarlneustaedter has suggested that magnitudes from the individual linked Wikipedia articles would be best. Another idea is to explicitly cite references for given magnitudes in the list. Each approach has its pros and cons, and I am not ideologically wedded to either method. Using a non-fixed reference source such as the individual articles is simple, but values can become out of sync and if it isn't made explicitly clear where the values came from then they will just look wrong and could get updated from a different source. Values from a single fixed reference are more easily verifiable and comparable, but may not necessarily be the most recent or most accurate, and differences to apparent magnitudes in linked articles need careful explanation or they just look like mistakes. The article appears to have used Simbad as a single non-fixed reference at some point in the past, and even has a column with links to Simbad pages, but the apparent magnitudes listed prior to the edits of User: 59.6.78.89 don't match the current Simbad data, don't match the individual Wikipedia articles, and aren't consistent with any other single source I could find. Hence they need to be updated, and here we are. Lithopsian (talk) 10:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion that we simply reflect the magnitudes from the articles comes from the nature of what lists are, per WP:LISTV and WP:WTAF commentaries. The list article is merely a help to find the appropriate star articles, not a reference in itself. In the case of bright stars, WP:WTAF doesn't even have to apply, there are no stars on that list which don't have their own article. The only reason it's a list rather than a category is the desire to present an ordered list, which wouldn't happen with a category.

As for the magnitudes themselves, there are many things which can affect which magnitude is used to describe a star: Variability and wavelengths measured being the two which have most recently have resulted in arguments on this talk page. The discussion about which authoritative source to use belongs with the particular star being debated. The differences between sources aren't so large that there need be a requirement that all magnitude measurements for all stars must come from the same source. In general, it would be nice if all magnitudes were sourced from the same reference, but that's impractical as a general stance for all stars - and that discussion, affecting all stars not just the brightest, belongs in WikiProject Astronomy WP:AST, not here. As Lithopsian comments above, having a different value here than in the star's article will simply look like a mistake and produce its own series of edit wars. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 17:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Tarlneustaedter: Feel free to remove the RfC tag. Again, apologies to everyone for not being more assistance, but as I explained above, I don't feel suitably qualified to make a judgement on content (although, this is more a call on the acceptability of a reference). I hope I've managed to at least assist in the mediation between some editors and allowed some time for people to cool off :) I hope this gets resolved and everyone can get back to what we're here for. Cheers! samtar (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help samtar, but I think closing the RFC at this time would be premature. Since it was just sent out to the wider world, let's see if other voices care to chime in. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's been five days and no further comments from anyone. Shall we assume that just matching the articles is the right thing to do? I'll volunteer to do that this weekend if so. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 04:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm OK with that. It would have been nice to get more comments, but we can at least assume they don't have very strong objections. Lithopsian (talk) 12:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Lithopsian: @Tarlneustaedter: @Samtar: This debate is far from over, anf five days is far to short to expect other User inputs. Lithopsian has provided no explanation of his revert(s) of my earlier edits, and whose odd behaviour seemingly just gets more bizarre. I have properly proposed an explanation of the magnitude sources but the editor continues to avoid any scrutiny or comment. I wrote this innocently on Lithopsian talk page (which is not even slightly offensive nor unhelpful to solve this debate);

Quick Solution to Current List of Bright Stars Issue

@Lithopsian My apologies for the last few posts, but trying to understanding your point of view is getting frustrating. Let's immediately and quickly fix this issue by putting it behind us, because I too have other edits and stuff to do... (like adding another seven stars to the List of brightest stars to tally them to 100 stars.)

I did happen to reread this "User:Arianewiki1 wanted all magnitudes to be clearly referenced and to come from a single source, preferably the Yale Bright Star catalogue (or FK5, but that is a non-starter). Nobody objected." mixed with some of the unnecessary rhetoric...

Q1. Do you Lithopsian actually object to using the Yale Bright Star Catalogue V5?

I also later said;

"The source of these magnitudes was taken from the USNO's Astronomical Almanac [16], which has a list of bright stars and their positions. If you bothered to look page L14 under "Section H:Stars ans Stellar Systems" it says of the 1467 stars listed; "all stars of visual magnitude 4.5 or brighter, as listed in the fifth revised edition of the Yale Bright Star Catalogue (BSC). I know this to be true, as the once missing No.63 β Auriga Beta Aurigae / Menkalinan 1.9 magnitude isn't included. (I fixed this on 18 June 2015, myself.) It is not in the FK5, because the star is a variable. (Most of these magnitudes also appear in the Fifth Fundamental Catalogue (FK5) Part I (Fricke+, 1988) (FK5), which had a revised edition in 1991.) The BSC V5 is mostly used because the magnitudes are consistent in both hemispheres of the sky. (The only useful 'update' is HIP magnitudes, which is also within the FK6, etc. This has the advantage of not suffering from atmospheric effects, which have to be properly accounted for in photometry.)"

Q2. Do you Lithopsian object to using the magnitudes in the 2015 USNO's Astronomical Almanac [17]?

Q3. As most of the star magnitudes quoted in USNO's Astronomical Almanac also appear in the Fifth Fundamental Catalogue (FK5) Part I (Fricke+, 1988), do you object to quoting both of these as reference sources in the List of brightest stars page?

Q4. Do you know of any other consistent magnitude listings better than the BSCV5 or FK5?

(Note: HIP photometry is good, but is not precisely 'V' magnitude. I don't know of any other sources that are acceptably recent.)

Yet according to him now this is; "I find it inappropriate that you suddenly try to take this content discussion to my user talk page in an attempt to sidestep other editors. There is no "my solution", only a good solution for the article."

I've attempted to sideline no one, but to actually figure out what the real objection to the reverts of my own edits. Yet I am trying to get information of his point of view, discuss a possible compromise and some shared solution. I have asked this now seven times to absolutely no avail. The only response seems to use the BSC V5, which this user initially use to justify reverting one of my edits. If others add other views that is OK, but stating no actual supported reasoning for reverts is tantamount to just being difficult for the sake of it. THIS IS BLOCKING THE PROCESS and is avoiding getting to consensus solution.

Yet Lithopsian says; "My most recent attempted solution was to use the Bright Star Catalogue 5th edition as a single fixed source, as requested by you after I previously tried to match to Simbad or the individual Wikipedia articles. or the individual Wikipedia articles. You can call that my "stance" if you like, but I am not going to cling stubbornly to any particular outcome." What?

Where the hell have you said this before in this discussion? (It is actually an assumption!) And who is saying I want some particular outcome? SO FAR YOU HAVE SAID VIRTUALLY NOTHING. If you bothered to read and answer the four question above, we can find the differences and attempt to solve all this.

Either Lithopsian can respond and explain himself, or I'll just start make new edits to start and fix this page to the way I see it. Your choice.Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Do not make threats, do not claim ownership. If you claim there is no consensus, take it to arbitration. At this point, there seem to be three active participants in the discussion, myself, Lithopsian and yourself. Lithopsian was willing to accept my suggestion. It appears you are a dissent of one. Again, if you dislike this, take it to arbitration, but I'm no longer willing to listen to threatening language. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I came because of an RfC call, but it is not clear to me that there is a current RfC. Once there is clarity on that point, plus any sense that I can help in establishment of constructive objectives, try me again. Meanwhile, it would help anyway if the hotter stars in this field would cool it. The exchanges so far convey a strong sense of unnecessary acceleration of entropy increase. JonRichfield (talk) 03:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The RFC was opened by User:Samtar on 30 August. He suggested the next day that I close the RFC. Since we hadn't attracted any comments after five days, I closed it. If you would care to go through the last three major sections of this talk page, you will see the discussion which has occurred over the last several weeks. Is it worth re-opening the RFC? Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

.Tarl.Neustaedter said "Do not make threats, do not claim ownership. If you claim there is no consensus, take it to arbitration." What?

I have made no threats, no claim of ownership. There is no consensus, because you and Lithopsian are failing to engage in any discussion on the topic. You want arbitration you have to have an actual dispute. I.e. Engage with the discussion.

At the moment, I have actually asked four sensible questions just chasing some point of view. If you agree fine. If you disagree, fine. But you at least have to say something relevant. If Lithopsian reverted my edits, he should be explaining why, and not just leave it hanging in the air. I want to do further edits based on how we interpret magnitudes.

The list I think should be based on USNO's Astronomical Almanac 2015 and appearing in the Yale Bright Star Catalogue Version 5 and the Fifth Fundamental Catalogue (FK5) Part I (Fricke+, 1988)

Do you agree or disagree? What is the alternative source?Arianewiki1 (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd stayed out of this till now as I did have the time to read through the discussion in detail (and am getting a bit lost in it when I do try to look but don't have time), however, now this is getting silly when Arianewiki you do this. Please don't do wholesale reverts but just revert the problem. So I am reverting that one and you can clarify and change the bit that is the problem. I thought we avoided SIMBAD refs and we certainly try to address tags. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Arianewiki1 And you've left Alpha Gruis with a 1966 ref. Okay, I can see (I think) your concerns with Ducati, but then why not update to one of the new ones you mention above? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

As far as what catalogue/reference we use, your proposal seems a reasonable one. I am a neophyte at astronomy so will defer to someone who knows, so seems ok to me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

So for Alpha Gruis, this is right then?

@Casliber: So sorry. I'm really trying to keep my head around these multiple changes and also trying to solve the magnitudes from some obvious consensus. It is very very frustrating when someone avoids saying or even attempting a neutral or reasonable point of view, then goes and changes other pages to an unsaid non-agreed POV. Ducati is unreasonable, because the source is from multiple magnitude sources, which I've already said. I.e. "The bigger problem is that the magnitudes used in SIMBAD come from several different magnitude sources, which differ in both where the star lies in the sky I.e north or south, or even, the better catalogue which has most amount of the photometric data. I.e. Johnston's Seven or Eleven filter photometry. (SIMBAD uses for some stars Ducati, J.R., "Catalogue of Stellar Photometry in Johnson's 11-color system." (2002)) Those quoted in SIMBAD of Ducati come from twelve separate catalogues, including the Bright Star Catalogue (BSC). the SIMBAD also changes these values from time to time, especially with improved photometric observation come to hand."

Lithopsian is not only ignoring it, he is also even refusing to discuss it. If these changes are not provocation, what else is? Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

---

@StringTheory11: @Lithopsian: @Tarlneustaedter: @Samtar: @JonRichfield: @Tarlneustaedter:

It now has now become perfectly crystal clear to me that Lithopsian is presently deliberately avoiding any need towards necessary consensus and is now making other edits on related articles on individual articles on the very same stars in question just to avoid scrutiny. It is also very clear that from Lithopsian lack of response that he absolutely no intention of discussing, by blatantly avoiding any real semblance of WP:CONSENSUS, WP:GF or about the current WP:RfC. This are clearly all subject to formal sanctions. This is also not the proper behaviour expected of someone who edits Wikipedia. This seems a just deliberate attempt to escalate these issues for the sake of just proving a point.

Conduct of a User here under WP:RfC is specifically; "The use of requests for comment on user conduct has been discontinued. In severe cases of misconduct, you may try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If none of those steps resolve the dispute, then arbitration may be warranted as a last resort." I now have attempted to "Mediate where possible—identify common ground, and attempt to draw editors together rather than push them apart.", but Lithopsian is now clearly totally ignored that possibility.

Furthermore, all contributors are supposed to place "Formal requests for closure can be posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure." No one has done that, and have tried to shut all discussion down to avoid actual consensus or scrutiny.

I've also asked four simple questions here to seek reasonable consensus (and done so multiple times). I.e.

Q1. Do you Lithopsian actually object to using the Yale Bright Star Catalogue V5?

I've later said; "The source of these magnitudes was taken from the USNO's Astronomical Almanac [18], which has a list of bright stars and their positions. If you bothered to look page L14 under "Section H:Stars ans Stellar Systems" it says of the 1467 stars listed; "all stars of visual magnitude 4.5 or brighter, as listed in the fifth revised edition of the Yale Bright Star Catalogue (BSC). I know this to be true, as the once missing No.63 β Auriga Beta Aurigae / Menkalinan 1.9 magnitude isn't included. (I fixed this on 18 June 2015, myself.) It is not in the FK5, because the star is a variable. (Most of these magnitudes also appear in the Fifth Fundamental Catalogue (FK5) Part I (Fricke+, 1988) (FK5), which had a revised edition in 1991.) The BSC V5 is mostly used because the magnitudes are consistent in both hemispheres of the sky. (The only useful 'update' is HIP magnitudes, which is also within the FK6, etc. This has the advantage of not suffering from atmospheric effects, which have to be properly accounted for in photometry.)"

Q2. Do you Lithopsian object to using the magnitudes in the 2015 USNO's Astronomical Almanac [19]?

Q3. As most of the star magnitudes quoted in USNO's Astronomical Almanac also appear in the Fifth Fundamental Catalogue (FK5) Part I (Fricke+, 1988), do you object to quoting both of these as reference sources in the List of brightest stars page?

Q4. Do you know of any other consistent magnitude listings better than the BSCV5 or FK5?

I have asked/ and tried to discuss the issue already with the SIMBAD use for some stars Ducati, J.R., "Catalogue of Stellar Photometry in Johnson's 11-color system." (2002)), but you have avoided both discussing it nor talking about it. I already said and have properly explained why this is a bad idea. I.e. "The bigger problem is that the magnitudes used in SIMBAD come from several different magnitude sources, which differ in both where the star lies in the sky I.e north or south, or even, the better catalogue which has most amount of the photometric data. I.e. Johnston's Seven or Eleven filter photometry. (SIMBAD uses for some stars Ducati, J.R., "Catalogue of Stellar Photometry in Johnson's 11-color system." (2002)) Those quoted in SIMBAD of Ducati come from twelve separate catalogues, including the Bright Star Catalogue (BSC). the SIMBAD also changes these values from time to time, especially with improved photometric observation come to hand." From your seemingly deliberate edits on the individual stars, it is clear you do not have no want for consensus to do this, and I do request you refrain from edits until you do until this matter is formally resolved - either way.

@StringTheory11 I do kindly request advice on how to proceed in regards the gross misconduct to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents WP:ANI. Clear evidence from my responses is that I have actively been seeking some WP:Consensus whilst Lithopsian has just deliberately avoided it by editing other pages directly affecting any reasonable finding consensus on the List of brightest stars here. Please advise how else I can solve this en-pass. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1: take a deep breath. No-one is wanting to fight/combat/armwrestle over this. If Lithopsian says he's happy to use the BSC then just accept that we've reached a consensus. Try to look forward and not look back. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

NB: I for one had to read though your comments a couple of times before I could figure out what you were recommending, so it might be others have had that trouble as well. So just pause before assuming that anyone is trying to wrestle over this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Casliber:Great point. If Lithopsian says he wants to use the Yale BSC Version 5, then why are the edits by Lithopsian then why is he using SIMBAD and Ducati (2002) then? If we use the USNO Astronomical Almanac as the magnitude source, then all these issues are not a problem. Answering the four questions, now nine times, will move swiftly to finding some kind consensus with further discussions. (Yet every time I say this, I get accused of claim ownership, or trying to enforcing my own POV. How am I supposed to really solve this then?

All I see is someone trying to avoid reasonable processes towards a quick an obvious solution. Its called deliberate avoidance actually. If reasoning doesn't work, what else do you do?Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying that using a reference different from what is used in the star articles is unencyclopedic and will lead to problems down the road. This list isn't a primary reference, it's a guide-post to articles which have the detailed information. That's where the sources and controversies are documented. Trying to demand, DEMAND, DEMAND a single unitary source of magnitudes doesn't work in astronomy. Not all catalogs contain all stars. The brightest stars have many different documented sources, and the place to work out why some sources are better than others is in the star articles. Don't end up with an arbitrary choice here which differs from the infoboxes in each of the stars. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I cannot, from the above, clearly work out what the two proposals are. There's a lot of bluster and anger but very little in the way of argument. The position, that seems obvious to me and is used throughout wiki is. "Magnitudes from the individual linked Wikipedia articles would be best explicitly cited references for given magnitudes in the list." Each article will have gone through a process of finding the most reliable value for that star, that value will be sourced. If on researching you find dispute with the source or value for an individual star it is best discussed at that page. A single source for the table is WP:UNDUE, leads to in wiki inconsistencies and is likely, over time, to be less accurate than sourcing each individual star as well as possible.

Now the situation may come up that one star has several sources citing it as brighter than some other star but every source that compares them cites it as dimmer. The sources that directly compare are to be preferred. So, where exactly does the disagreement stem from?SPACKlick (talk) 11:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

As best I can tell, the confusion over the proposals is universal. I don't think any specific proposal was made, just straw-men tossed out as an excuse to undo edits and/or keep the argument going. My personal suspicion is that the argument itself was the goal. In any case, I'll fix the list this weekend to match the articles. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Again. Magnitudes are mostly not consistent because of effects like filters, distance from the zenith (affected by air mass) and calibrations using different standards. This is made worst by having different instrumentation. The Yale Bright Star Catalog V5 have standardised this using the same instrumentation in both hemispheres, making the comparisons consistent. (The FK5, for example is supposed to be a standardised calibration stars.) Each of these bright stars have many tens if not hundreds of magnitudes from various studies by different observers. These have significant variances. If you are going to have a list of stars it is best to have parameters based on similar criteria and not just selecting some star result at random. In this case, the most recent is not the best. As for Tarl.Neustaedter's whimsical notions, as stated above, changing magnitudes for the sake of it, which I first reverted, was lack of references, which would lead to inconsistencies and confusion. Lithopsian hads revert this again, then seemingly changed has mind (and now apparently agrees with the Yale BSC V5, but refused to engage in sorting this out.) The Yale BSC V5 is quoted throughout the literature and in general astronomical books, and is done so with good reason.

So far no one has shown this as incorrect. As for "just straw-men tossed out as an excuse to undo edits and/or keep the argument going" assumes bad faith, especially when no one has contradicted. If you want to do something different, fine. But you have to elucidate some reasoning to do so. So far no one has done that. As for "In any case, I'll fix the list this weekend to match the articles.", you don't have consensus to do that. Arianewiki1 (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I've also asked four simple questions here to seek reasonable consensus (and done so multiple times). NO ONE CAN SEEM TO ANSWER IT, WHICH SHOWS LACK OF UNDERSTANDING TO SOLVE IT. These question are;.

Q1. Do you object to using the Yale Bright Star Catalogue V5?

I've said; "The source of these magnitudes was taken from the USNO's Astronomical Almanac [24], which has a list of bright stars and their positions. If you bothered to look page L14 under "Section H:Stars ans Stellar Systems" it says of the 1467 stars listed; "all stars of visual magnitude 4.5 or brighter, as listed in the fifth revised edition of the Yale Bright Star Catalogue (BSC). I know this to be true, as the once missing No.63 β Auriga Beta Aurigae / Menkalinan 1.9 magnitude isn't included. (I fixed this on 18 June 2015, myself.) It is not in the FK5, because the star is a variable. (Most of these magnitudes also appear in the Fifth Fundamental Catalogue (FK5) Part I (Fricke+, 1988) (FK5), which had a revised edition in 1991.) The BSC V5 is mostly used because the magnitudes are consistent in both hemispheres of the sky. (The only useful 'update' is HIP magnitudes, which is also within the FK6, etc. This has the advantage of not suffering from atmospheric effects, which have to be properly accounted for in photometry.)" (This is a reasonable proposition)

Q2. Do you object to using the magnitudes in the 2015 USNO's Astronomical Almanac? (An up to date reference which is consistent)

Q3. As most of the star magnitudes quoted in USNO's Astronomical Almanac also appear in the Fifth Fundamental Catalogue (FK5) Part I (Fricke+, 1988), do you object to quoting both of these as reference sources in the List of brightest stars page?

Q4. Do you know of any other consistent magnitude listings better than the BSCV5 or FK5?

If you so have better solution(s), state it, please. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I object to using a different source in this list than is used for the actual star articles. I will be fixing this list over the weekend (it's a massive project, I have a job so can't take the time during the week) . You are demanding a particular solution for a problem which is largely non-existent - the differences between catalogs are largely picayune. The places where they have significant differences, the discussion belongs in the star articles. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I have been summoned here by the RFC process – which seems pointless while there is no explanation of what the point in contention is. It seems obvious that for this article and for other articles about stars, Wikipedia should cite a single preferred source for magnitudes. A dispute about what source to use would be understandable. Maproom (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I hope you don't think we're ignoring you after taking the trouble to come and comment. Every viewpoint is helpful. A single source of magnitudes for every star isn't practical; there is no such source and never will be. However, it would be possible to have a single source for every star that is or ever will be in this list. That has been discussed (and I even made an edit to do that, but it was not received well), but currently the situation is to keep list articles consistent with the rest of Wikipedia. It would still be possible to try and impose a single source on the hundred or so individual articles, or even on all naked eye stars. I don't know how practical that would be to enforce, since anyone can come along, see a different value in Simbad, and update to that. Although having looked at all the articles in this list the most common source is Johnson's original 1966 catalogue, so it seems that once a star has a solid citation nobody is in a hurry to change it. Lithopsian (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Conciliated this list with articles it points to

This list has now been conciliated with the individual articles referenced. Points of interest:

• Three star articles (α Cen, α Leo, and ε Boo) did not have overall visual magnitudes, just for the individual components. The magnitude placed in the list was the sum of the components.
• Several stars end up shifted in their positions.
• Only one star changed by as much as 0.1 magnitude, that was a case where the main component magnitude was used instead of combined magnitude.
• One star should fall off the list. α Cep is listed as magnitude 2.51, not qualifying for the 2.50 limit.
• Where articles showed magnitude to more than two decimals, the value was rounded to two decimals for this list.
• I will add comments in the header about minor differences between sources.

Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 04:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Looking further, as I'm fixing the orders of the stars, I'm removing the ordinal column, since it's a major pain for maintenance and doesn't serve any useful purpose (the fact that an entry is the 37th in the list isn't tremendously interesting). Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 04:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe I am now done. If someone strongly feels that the ordinal column needs to be there, they can revert the last edit and fix the ordinal numbering. But I believe that stating that Altair is the 13th brightest star would qualify as WP:OR - it certainly isn't being cited from anywhere else, and the order evidently changes given what sources we use. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 05:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Does it make sense to have the Simbad reference column? It won't (necessarily) contain any of the data shown in the table and is not the source being used for any of that data. The original anonymous editor who started this whole saga was attempting to move the article from not being WP:VERIFIABLE to using Simbad as a reference. Simbad is not the reference and I think everyone agrees it shouldn't be. It is linked from the individual articles if anyone is curious. Or perhaps an explicit statement that the source of the data is the Wikipedia articles themselves? Lithopsian (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree the Simbad column should go; most of the articles have their own reference to Simbad for the star anyway. I didn't remove it under the theory of making incremental changes, allowing for review before making the next major change. I'll take out the Simbad column later tonight. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It's been a day, nobody seems to have had a major problem with the major revision. SIMBAD column now removed. Again, if removing the SIMBAD column is a problem, revert the last edit and we can discuss it here. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 03:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Please don't make edits unless you know what you are doing. The list was sortable, because it allows comparison of all the source data, and not just the numerical order by magnitude. The magnitude list was originally by the Bright Star Catalog V.5, but now for some absolutely stupid reason, it is better for some arbitrary magnitude taken on on some individual star? Lithopsian is 110% correct, how is this now (f at all) WP:VERIFIABLE? (Being unable to present the methodology of adopting a reliable source is the central issue.)

As for expecting reactions within a day for such drastic revision yet again avoid consensus. Please Tarl.Neustaedter stop acting so impulsively. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Sadly a Now Next to Useless Article

Recent editors here are making drastic changes that have converted this list of stars as something that is useless. They have actively and deliberately avoided consensus, refuse to engage with even elementary discussions on the subject, and by the purposeful changes of the text show clearly a lack of comprehension or even understanding the problem or even how visual magnitudes are derived. (All the ridiculous magnitude 'points' made by Tarl.Neustaedter, for example, are plainly beyond the point of absurdity.)

It is now certainly will (again) cause more confusion and debate, which was absolutely rife when the article was originally created, and now encourages such future unnecessary poor edits. I've spend much time removing the confusion, only to find some individual decimating things for the sake of it.

There is a relevant saying that "Garbage in equals garbage out", and from the dreadful behaviour of them, it is clear why Wikipedia continues to become an unreliable source of information - especially as the fundamental gaining of consensus relies on [[WP::GF]] - which some editors ignore. This is made worst by novices having no inkling of the subject matter and edit for seemingly selfish purposes. Yet deliberately 'pissing-off' other editors is one thing, but just damaging whole articles against the targeted general readership is quite unacceptable here.

IMO, it is probably much better to just dump this whole page and place it under speedy deletion. Pity. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1 There are procedures to deal with disagreement. You can try arbitration, you can try a complaint on the administrator's noticeboard, you can open an RFC (which we had but got no interest). You could also try articles for deletion. This dispute has been going on for months, I have little interest in talking about the same issues with the same person who provides little beyond invective. Please use one of the appeal mechanisms if you are so so convinced there is a problem. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, what's going on here? I know that Arianewiki1, Lithopsian, and Tarlneustaedter are engaged in some kind of dispute, but what's it about? I am. furhan. (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Magnitudes column

The magnitudes column, which now includes both variability and multiple components, is a bit cluttered now that it's being exhaustively filled in. Shall we add something to visually distinguish between those two cases? Currently the two cases are distinguished by a minus sign vs a plus sign between the two numbers, perhaps we could use brackets instead of parenthesis or italics for one of the cases?Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Something would be good, but I'm not sure what. I thought about separate columns, but it seems a bit overkill for information that is only for a minority of stars in each case. Lithopsian (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Since there are only five stars where the components are called out separately, I'm thinking of simply removing the double-star expansions. This is a list of stars by visual magnitude, so the visual appearance is the primary criterion - and the multiple components are not separately visible. The double-star information is available in the spectral class column, anyway (not to mention the main star article). I'll do that tomorrow if nobody objects. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's any rush to do this. If we can display variable star ranges separately in some way, then having a few stars with slightly clumsy component magnitudes isn't the end of the world for now. Maybe they come out, or maybe someone has a good idea what to do with them. Lithopsian (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I had a thought that the min and max magnitudes of the variable range could be put in separate columns and then would be sortable. For non-variable stars, the ntsh template would have the main magnitude in both columns, just so they sort sensibly. That still leaves the double star stuff to be handled separately in some way. Lithopsian (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I had that thought as well. But my preference would be to have a separate table listing the variable stars in the list, along with their magnitude range and type of variability. It's not like there's a shortage of space. Praemonitus (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)