Talk:List of brightest stars/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Usefulness

I'm finding that this list is confusing at best, misleading at worst. The main reason is that there does not seem to be any clear parameters as to when multiple stars are shown individually or collectively. Capella and Alpha Centauri are broken up into 2 components. Meanwhile Sirius, a triple star system, is shown as one star, as is Arcturus, Rigel, Procyon etc, which are all star systems as well.

It seems to me that the KISS formula would work well here. Let's keep this list as simple as possible and list ALL stars, as they typically appear to us on Earth. Consequently, I'd like to show Capella as one star and Alpha Centauri as well for the purpose of this list. The refinements in apparent or absolute magnitude that result from other factors like variability or orbital companions can either show up in a note column (with Detailed Note section below) or, of course, in the star article itself.

Why I believe this would be more useful is it answers some of the most basic questions that stargazers have regarding stars — questions like which stars are the brightest. Dividing stars up arbitrarily as we do here only obfuscates the issue, and that makes it difficult when you are drafting a Visibility section (see FA articles Sirius and Vega) whose main purpose is to discuss some of the most basic characteristics of these stars.

Where I ran into this problem is with the star Betelgeuse. I made a claim it was the 8th brightest star in the sky as SIMBAD lists it with an average apparent magnitude of 0.42, ahead of Achernar. But lo and behold Spacepotato pointed out that Capella is brighter; it just doesn't seem so from the list, as it is broken up in two. This kind of confusion is not helpful, which causes me to wonder whether I should reference this list at all, hoping to save the reader from unnecessary befuddlement. Sadalsuud (talk) 03:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the list as it stands is the list most people want. I think what they want is the list of brightest star systems that are one point of light to the naked eye. The current list could be retained lower down in the page as a second list of brightest individual stars. The problems Sadalsuud mentions might still need sorting out. If we are talking brightest individual stars then it's absolute not apparent magnitude that is important. Caviare (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, someone should change this list accordingly. 2405:205:2518:1759:D00E:F9D3:4A76:2EDD (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment: Listing individual components of stars which are seen as single points from earth

Right, let's vote and get some idea of consensus on this. At the moment separate components of star systems (Alpha Centauri, Capella, Castor are listed individually. Issues raised include that these values are not helpful as they are only seen as single points of light from earth, and other stars are star systems (Rigel, Sirius) and not split. Given Apparent Magnitude is what is seen from earth, it does beg the question what apparent magnitude of a star which you can't split (i.e. Capella) means anyway. So let's have some input.

Keep binary stars as single-entry

• This involves listing Capella, Alpha Cent, Castor etc. at their combined apparent magnitude for the systems.

Support

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
2. Reyk _YO! 05:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
3. This seems reasonable for a list whose main criterion is visual appearance. Of course, binary splits visible to the naked eye should be listed separately, if any happen to appear on the list; I'm assuming this is only for telescopic or spectral binaries. David Eppstein (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
4. Conditional support; I support this as long as footnotes are provided that say where in the list the systems' individual components would be. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
5. That's fine with me. —Tamfang (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
6. As noted at the top, This article is about apparent magnitude. -- Scray (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
7. It appears that a lot of other sources list the combined magnitude, not the individual magnitude. Currently, a lot of wiki pages on stars list different brightness rankings than other sources do (like Procyon and this page), which is confusing. Additionally, some of the pages in other languages (German, Dutch) list the combined magnitude. Dberard (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
8. That is what I would expect, as a reader. I also expect to be informed when it happens to be a multi-star system. I'd bet it is possible to make a list mainly sorted by (system) visual magnitude, while allowing to see/sort by individual star. - Nabla (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
9. As long as we can clearly mark the binary systems in the table, this makes sense.  — daranz [ t ] 05:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. That you can't split them unaided does not mean the apparent magnitute of the star is incorrect, apparent magnitude still makes sense because we have decoupled it from the unaided human eye long ago. It's very useful for understanding objects, say, if we know their distance. You may want to remake the page so it's for unaided eye stars, which makes sense for brightest stars, but the current reasoning I can't follow. Hekerui (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

1. I agree with above. Manubhatt3 (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Defining it as stars splittable by naked eye as two stars and others as single entries seems eminently prudent to me. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, if this is successful, I agree that we should have some notation to denote component stars' position. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Spectroscopic binaries should not be split. Naked-eye splittable ones should be listed separately. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 07:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think there are any on the list (Mizar A is part of Mizar A/B which is splittable in a telescope - what we'd have in that case is (essentially) Mizar A/B on this list which is splittable from Alcor by the naked eye...Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Closing

I am closing this discussion as requested on WP:AN. Consensus is clear on the "support" side. The second-to-last commenter made a good point about what readers expect to find here. I didn't understand the point the opposer was trying to make. If there's any work to be done to bring this article into compliance with this decision, someone else will have to do that work, as I am not an expert on astronomy. Chutznik (talk) 02:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

An idea from Arianewiki1

It has been suggested to me that the magnitudes in this list should be taken from the Yale Bright Star Catalog. I'll bring that suggestion here from my talk page:

It is clear from your recent edits on the List of brightest stars page that you don't comprehend the edits you are doing. The magnitude of these stars is visual magnitude or 'v', not 'V' magnitudes which are photometrically obtained. Just presuming that the magnitudes are quoted all from SIMBAD, assumes that all the magnitudes are from the same source. They are not. I.e. Magnitudes should be quoted from the Yale Bright Star Catalogue V5, which are visual magnitudes. You need to either discuss/ persuade that another magnitude system should be used, and change all of them, not just because you 'think' they might be right. (as said in your reason to revert.) You have already erroneously assumed that variable stars were mean magnitudes, when in fact they were at maximum brightness as I conclusively proved before.

Ideas? Comments? Lithopsian (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

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.

Furthermore, there are many issues with comparison/calibration stars used, and the spectral range of the filter in use. Visual magnitudes difference in SIMBAD can be usually found in 'Measurements' section further down the page under "ubv", where you can see the variances for yourself. The 'common' quoted source in most references is from; Johnson,H.L.,1963,in K.A.A. Strand (ed), Basic Astronomical Data,Univ. of Chicago Press,204) later compiled by J.-Cl. Mermilliod from Institut d Astronomie de Lausanne (Mermilliod,J.-C.,1987,A&A Sup. 71,413). Recent updates use either average magnitude in the Tycho photometry, but these visual magnitudes are not equivalent to 'v' or 'V' magnitudes - notably not the same values BTW.

As it says in the main article, which I added; "There are sometimes small statistical variations in measured magnitudes; however, for most of the brightest stars, accurate photometry means brightness stays unchanged."

Selection of magnitudes in the table of these brightest stars, on checking, have been standardised via the Bright Star Catalogue, or even something like the FK5 or FK6, which has been used since 1966, up to the current version 5. There are two methods here. Either adopt a photometric catalogue and use that, or label each quoted visual magnitude with its source.

Changing arbitrary visual magnitudes without giving a reason is basically impossible to manage, and especially by a non-registered user like 59.6.78.89 with a history of just five edits, is close to suspected vandalism. Changing twelve stellar magnitudes in one go, with out sourcing or referencing the changes just lead to confusion and argument of some 'correct' value, where in fact there isn't one. Also User:59.6.78.89 gave three SIMBAD dead references that are not correctly linked.

Quoted magnitudes I've checked match well with the literature, and do not need changing unless there is clear evidence to show a marked improvement against the expectant instrumental errors or necessary issues of the atmosphere corrections like airmass. Errors of ±0.01 or ±0.02 magnitudes, for what this clearly debatable/questionable bright star list, makes further changes either minor or insignificant. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is. An anonymous editor can make good edits, might even be an experienced editor that got logged out. In this case, someone spotted that some of the values in the table did not match any meaningful reference. None of them actually have meaningful references (other than a link to Simbad which often doesn't contain that apparent magnitude value anyway), and many of the values don't match anything I can find, even the Bright Star Catalog. You have actually been reverting changes from something unknown and unreferenced to the value straight out of the Bright Star Catalog. Lithopsian (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Lithopsian: I've reverted your last illegitimate edit. You are supposed and need to gain consensus to make such multiple edits, which you have seemingly avoided. Saying "I don't see what the problem is." then thinking it is perfectly OK to avoid consensus in not on. By doing such edits, you insult other editors by enforcing a point if view that is in contention.

As for saying that "You have actually been reverting changes from something unknown and unreferenced to the value straight out of the Bright Star Catalog." is unfair, especially as I never said such a thing at all. Because there are multiple sources of visual magnitudes the sources of that data must be predefined. Most given in the list are from the Bright Star Catalogue V5, but not all. If you change magnitudes they must be consistent, especially if the list is for comparison brightnesses. These changes being made force the list to be more inconsistent. This issue, which I posted to you initially, said "You need to either discuss/ persuade that another magnitude system should be used, and change all of them, not just because you 'think' they might be right." You've avoided this. We must seek consensus on the magnitude source in this list (and reference it) so there is not inconsistencies nor expanding the issue of debate. Not understanding the source of magnitudes reinforces adds to this confusion. All this must be done by consensus and not just your point of view and just ignoring mine. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest the magnitudes for all these stars be the FK6, which have the Hipparcos magnitudes expressed to two decimal places [1] [2] in Field 19. Whilst not necessarily consistent with the data from multiple sources (like SIMBAD), the magnitudes are taken from the one same source. Variable stars and double stars, need another source of apparent visual magnitudes, if not given individually in the FK6. Any disagreement? Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You're having a laugh, right? You do know that the FK6 only has 4th-5th magnitude stars, plus a handful of brighter stars? Lithopsian (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I've just fully-protected the article for four days, so the edit-warring here stops. This is not my ruling on content, as I protected it on the version I happened to see it at when I noticed the warring. Yes, I'm probably WP:INVOLVED here, but I'm invoking WP:IAR, because I really don't want to see anyone get blocked here over this issue, and would rather it be discussed than edit warred over. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Lithopsian: @StringTheory11: You have 24 hours to justify your illegitimate edits before I revert to the original edit. So far you have said absolutely nothing of your justifications, and have just mock me instead of trying to solve the issue at hand and reaching a consensus. You have no consensus for these current edits. StringTheory11 should have reverted to the last uncontested version until consensus was reached. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

GIven article protection was imposed for edit warring, waiting for it to expire and giving 24 hours notice that you are about to re-start the edit war seems poorly advised. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@Tarlneustaedter: How? This editor has made unjustified changes without reason, especially as there is no consensus towards these edits at all. Changing the magnitudes without reason opens up the historical troubles getting this page to the state it is in, removing much of the contention, missing data, and errors. As there has been no consensus attempted at all by this editor, I'm justified to change it to the non-contentious until we have mutual agreement. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

What you are saying is effectively: "I'm right, he's wrong, and I'm going to war until I get my way". Whether you are right or not, that attitude is a problem. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 03:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@Tarlneustaedter: There is one word here you are ignoring "consensus." Where is it, eh? Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

We have consensus, albeit a consensus of one. 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. Since the article did not include any references for the star magnitudes and the magnitudes did not correspond to those in the Bright Star catalogue, I updated them. Half of them anyway, before the article was protected. What's not to like? I'll do the rest when I have time in the next few days. Or you could help, and update them yourself. Lithopsian (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Lithopsian: @StringTheory11: If you really understood what your doing, you'd have the insight to solve all this quickly. (Like the question on the visual magnitudes of variable stars, it again proves the lack of understanding.) The source of these magnitudes was taken from the USNO's Astronomical Almanac [3], 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.

Stating using the HR Catalogue as a basis of the list again shows your ill advice in this matter. As for the ridiculous alleged achieved claim of 'consensus', please stop acting like a adolescent jackass. It is clear someone needs to explain what 'consensus' means to you, because it is a fundamental issue when editing. Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that perhaps WP:THIRD be invoked here. I don't qualify, I've already stuck my oar in. Besides, I read the above, and I'm further prejudiced based on language and attitude. Get someone who isn't involved to express some thoughts, before things get out of hand again. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 01:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I will make my own suggestion here. The magnitudes here do not need citations. They need references to Wikipedia articles (essentially all these stars have their own articles), and they should give the value in the article. The article itself should have a citation for the magnitude, and any discussion about which reference to use should take place in the articles for the individual stars. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 01:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I tried that and it was reverted. I tried Arianewiki1's original suggestion of using the Yale Bright Star catalogue and now suddenly that makes me worthy of personal abuse. I'm at a loss what would be acceptable. Everything I try to meet each of Arianewiki1's complaints just meets with another excuse and another revert. Lithopsian (talk) 13:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah right. Let's see. You said [4]; "And what is all this about the Bright Star Catalog? There is nothing in the article about that, or about a particular photometric system being required. You're just making it up. I'll take your ideas to the correct place, but I have no clue where you get this stuff."

Now you say; "I tried Arianewiki1's original suggestion of using the Yale Bright Star catalogue and now suddenly that makes me worthy of personal abuse."

You said; "We have consensus, albeit a consensus of one.", and then "(HR mags down to Polaris)" [5] and

Hence, I replied; "Stating using the HR Catalogue as a basis of the list again shows your ill advice in this matter. As for the ridiculous alleged achieved claim of 'consensus', please stop acting like a adolescent jackass."

So why even bother to say you'd changed your mind to me? How I'm supposed to guess that you've changed your mind or that you may actual was proven incorrect? This is just like the variable star experience, where you fight tooth and nail to justify your untenable position, change your mind, and don't even acknowledge it. It is clear you have little interest in seeking any consensus at all, instead sticking to a belligerent attitude when challenged. Pity. Arianewiki1 (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

May I suggest that this has gotten personal and the discussion brings little to the improvement of this list? Arianewiki1, if you want to pursue this further, I suggest dialing the vitriol back, and perhaps officially requesting a neutral third party opinion WP:THIRD, since evidently you are hostile to everyone on this talk page. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I've requested WP:THIRD as I don't know how to move the discussion forward towards resolution. The edit warring has stopped for now, but there is no agreement. Without wishing to put words in anyone's mouth, User: Arianewiki1 is clearly not happy with where the article was left after my most recent edit, and even if it were to stand, then the second half of the list would need to be brought into a consistent state. Lithopsian (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Hi all - could someone just clarify which two editors this disagreement is between? Sorry to be a pain, but the third opinion guidelines make it quite clear only two editors can be involved: "If no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved". If this isn't the case (and it doesn't look to be), you may be better suited to a Request for Comment or another method of dispute resolution. samtar (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I (User:Lithopsian) and User:Arianewiki1 have a disagreement. User:StringTheory11 and User: Tarlneustaedter have urged calm or WP:THIRD, but (IMO) have tried to stay neutral in the disagreement itself. Lithopsian (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Please, I don't want a third opinion. I don't want anything but to standardise the magnitudes using the text. The Bright Star Catalogue Version 5 is the standard source of magnitudes which is used in the FK5 and the Bright Stars 2015 in the USNO's Astronomical Almanac - the latter being the latest and up to date source. This applies to all the bright stars in the list EXCEPT for double stars (having additive magnitudes) and variable stars (red stars), which are maximum magnitudes quoted from the literature. [These have been solved, BTW.]

User:Lithopsian disagreed with this, but apparently now agrees. He should either state a different position, identifying what magnitude source you want to use, else he should agree with the statement I've just said. Simple. If you don't know, say so.

SO FAR YOU HAVE STATED NO OPINION ON WHAT MAGNITUDE SOURCE SHOULD BE USED. Why?

As for User: Tarlneustaedter. If you have something to say on magnitudes, say it or else MYOB. You are just adding to the problem and not solving it. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Jeez Loise. I reread this overly tepid response of deniability by Lithopsian "...but (IMO) have tried to stay neutral in the disagreement itself." Absolute BS. You've said absolutely NOTHING of your position here, whose reverted edits now just look like deliberate obfuscation just to annoy another editor. Please. Either declare a formative position or buzz off. Simple. It is becoming clearer to me this is either deliberate vandalism (at its worse) or I'm arguing with a person who can't get past the second and seventh stages of the Gestalt theory of teaching. Gestalt psychology (Clearly reductionist views ain't your strong suit.) Really. Wikipedia ought to be for commonsense not flagrant time wasting! State an opinion, or go away! Arianewiki1 (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Arianewiki1 said: "... say it or else MYOB"

My opinion on magnitudes was stated above. There should be no citations in this list, the magnitudes stated should match what the individual referenced article infoboxes say, and all discussion about which source to use should be in the individual articles. But my larger opinion is I DON'T WANT AN EDIT WAR.

I'll also state that I'm really tired of your attitude, insults and personal attacks. Your attitude expressed above is "everyone go away, as long as it's done my way and nobody argues, everything will be great. If you don't like it I'll ferociously attack you as a person". That's not how Wikipedia operates. It is a good way to get sanctioned. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Absolute rubbish. The frustration is that I'm trying to reach consensus, and one editor is avoiding saying anything at all to resolve it. You can't have an edit war unless there are two points of view. Either Lithopsian states an actual position or his revert are pure vandalism. I've given references and sources to verify the source data, yet this individual refuses too engage if he agrees with it or not. My assumed 'ferocious attack' is only due to the frustration to even getting a straight forward response.

Again, you don't understand the problem, which is clear from what you write above. Individual magnitude from different sources means that comparison of a group of stars cannot be made, and this is because of issues in how magnitudes are fundamentally derived. They are take by a source that is as best as possible comparable across the whole sky. It is not a very simple problem to solve. Each star has multiple derived magnitudes which are based on many different measurements and instrumental techniques, all relying on calibrations against comparison brightnesses from standard 'calibrated' sources. I am not arguing on the basis that of having magnitudes expressed by my opinion, but on an needed agreed set of criteria to make sense of the magnitudes given. I.e. Bright Star Catalogue V5, Hipparcos, or whatever else. Since this began, Lithopsian has give NO OPINION. hence how do we get to consensus if the individual refuses point blank to address it. He offers absolute nothing. Saying "...but (IMO) have tried to stay neutral in the disagreement itself." means what exactly?

What the hell is he disagreeing about, if he doesn't even express an inkling of some basic solution to solve the problem here? Arianewiki1 (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Lithopsian:@Tarlneustaedter: @Samtar:

As I've said in the very begin.

1) "Magnitudes should be quoted from the Yale Bright Star Catalogue V5, which are visual magnitudes. You need to either discuss/ persuade that another magnitude system should be used, and change all of them, not just because you 'think' they might be right. (as said in your reason to revert.)"

So far Lithopsian has quoted nothing to contradict this view point.

2) Lithopsian said [6]; "And what is all this about the Bright Star Catalog? There is nothing in the article about that, or about a particular photometric system being required. You're just making it up. I'll take your ideas to the correct place, but I have no clue where you get this stuff." Now Lithopsian also says; "I tried Arianewiki1's original suggestion of using the Yale Bright Star catalogue and now suddenly that makes me worthy of personal abuse."

3) Evidence says Lithopsian disagrees with me, then now agrees with me.

First Solution Lithopsian states his position that;

a.) Lithopsian agrees with using the Yale Bright Star Catalogue Version 5

b.) Lithopsian does not agree with using the Yale Bright Star Catalogue Version 5

If Lithopsian does not agree with using the Yale Bright Star Catalogue Version 5, then please state the alternate magnitude source of the data.

If Lithopsian cannot simply resolve this question, then his reverts of my edits can be considered as vandalism, because Lithopsian is avoiding getting a simple agreement or towards a consensus.

As for Tarl.Neustaedter, please darn well keep out of the conversation until Lithopsian states his position.

samtar. At the moment the issue needed to be solved is only between Lithopsian and me.

If Lithopsian agrees with the usage of the Yale Bright Star Catalogue V5 as the standard source, there is no further issue with magnitudes here. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1 You do not have the right to demand I stay out of the conversation. This isn't only between you and one other editor, all edits are a matter for the entire Wikipedia community. I've tried to limit myself to pointing out things which would be violations of policies, and upon your request I repeated my preferred solution. I would suggest perhaps a review of WP:BULLY#Forms_of_WikiBullying is in order. Notice in particular the fourth item, "Making "no-edit" orders contrary to policy". Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Tarlneustaedter: Listen for once. I am not trying to keep you Tarl.Neustaedter out of the conversation nor am I censoring you. I am trying to resolve the central position of what magnitude source Lithopsian suggests we use. As already stated by the requested third opinion guidelines, is between TWO editors. I.e. This IS only between me and one other editor. Every time you butt in just interferes with my attempts to find out Lithopsian actual position. After Lithopsian makes his actual position known, you can say anything you like, but your irrelevant comments plainly at the moment just don't help to gain any consensus. If you have to comment, talk on sources of magnitude not irrelevancies, please. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1 - If you didn't notice the third-party said "not suitable", and we are now in a formal open RFC. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Well then discuss it in the open RFC then, and that actually requires you to talk on magnitudes not irrelevancies. It is you guys keep pulling up the 'rules', when all I'm trying to understand is Lithopsian unstated position. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The RFC directs conversations to right here. I've stated and re-stated my opinion, which you've simply ignored. At this point, I've personally concluded this entire thing is WP:NOTHERE (fourth item). Lithopsian's opinion, while interesting, is not the sole point of this talk page. You being able to argue so as to declare a "victory" against him on some point is not of interest to the rest of us. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Now who is WP:BULLY#Forms_of_WikiBullying now? Is there really no victory in wanting or gaining a useful consensus?. I make mistakes too, but at least I admit to them. I've frequently changed my mind, and been decent enough to act with contrition. Actual, I do want to add another seven stars to make the list an even 100, but of course, selecting them depends on the magnitude source. The secret, naturally, is doing things consistently. If we just add any magnitude from random sources, what you find is chaos, which this particular page has been for sometime. (Read all the comments on the Talk page above.) I partial solved this by adding the various points in how this list was construction, which quickly solved many of the unnecessary debates. I.e. Magnitudes of double stars, especially regarding the nearest Alpha Centauri. This page has now been stable now for some time. Not solving these problems formally means a larger problem, because it effects hundreds of other article pages on stars. If you unwittingly change the order of things, it can just cascade down the line. This makes Wikipedia pages quite worthless.

In the end, when we do get some consensus, I'll add the main sources to the page as a reference, and improve the stability of the page even further. That is a better outcome of "victory" then any of your own wrong assumptions here.

As for ignoring your opinions, well you're 110% right. This is mostly because you've said nothing even remotely related to sources of magnitudes at all. Enough said. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

This list should include planets.

As far as I can imagine/understand, this list serves the purpose of identifying the brightest stars in the sky. I think this list will be much more useful if planets and their satellites are also included, and the list name changed to 'List of brightest objects in night sky'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manubhatt3 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Isn't going to happen. Planets are not stars, and the majority of the brightest of them may or may not planets. Arianewiki1 (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Star names

As the introduction says, the star names in this list are deliberately restricted to those approved by the IAU's Working Group on Star Names. The point of the IAU list is to standardize names and avoid the free-for all that previously existed. To prevent confusion, it would help if non-approved names are not added to this list. Other names that are now deprecated can be mentioned in the entries on the individual stars. Skeptic2 (talk) 10:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The introduction is plainly wrong, and was made without consensus. It is opinion only and is not set in stone. Even IAU Working Group on Star Names the "preliminary guidelines", as does the Bulletin of the IAU Working Group on Star Names, No. 1.[7] Also edits require using WP:BRD, but changing this yet again. If you do a search for 'Regor', you get Ganmma Velorum. If you read the article, it tells you that it is Regor and why. The rest of what you say above is basically fiction that is not based on the evidence available. Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

May I suggest that the current column entitled 'Proper name' is re-titled 'IAU approved name' and an additional column is added (there's room) entitled 'Other proper names' or somesuch. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 08:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Cuddlyopedia: Good call!! Five-star suggestion (★★★★★) !!!! I've place a note next to the star in question, and added article text to support it. As there are only a few that are not approved, a note should suffice for the moment as least till we get to consensus. Thanks. 12:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 21 January 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus that clarifying brightness is worth the extra verbiage in the title; although there might be some support for a title involving "apparent magnitude". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

---

List of brightest stars → List of brightest stars from Earth – The article is actually about the brightest stars from Earth, NOT a list of the brightest stars. The title could be seen as misleading. IWI (chat) 17:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom and disambiguate. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - as pedantic and not WP:CONCISE. This distinction is already addressed in the hatnote, the lead sentence, and the line "Stellar brightness is traditionally based on the apparent visual magnitude as perceived by the human eye". I don't see much room for confusion, but even List of stars by apparent magnitude (and moving the companion list to list of stars by absolute magnitude) would be a better place to start from. -- Netoholic @ 00:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support or List of stars by apparent visual magnitude or similar. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 21:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Even I know that "brightest" and "most luminous" mean different things. I naturally assumed that it meant "as seen by humans" and this title change seems unnecessarily nitpicky._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  There is some discussion here on this noting for example that our Sun is 8 and a bit minutes from us while Sirius is 8 and a bit light years. Even though Sirius is actually brighter than the Sun, the Sun appears over 13 billion times brighter from Earth. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

That blog page is assiduous and correct in distinguishing between "brightness" and "luminosity". You appear to be reading something into it that is written there. For example, you statement "Sirius is actually brighter than the sun" simply isn't there. We shouldn't be creating convoluted titles when the existing one is correct. Any misconceptions or confusion that some people might have should be corrected with a hatnote or in the article. I have already adjusted the hatnote to be more helpful to people that don't already know the scientific terminology (too long perhaps?). Lithopsian (talk)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Silly idea? Coordinates? (Declinations?)

For myself, I would have liked to see here--if not the full celestial coordinates of each star--at least the N/S declination. The reason is, the declination tells a reader immediately if s/he might ever be able to see that star from his/her part of the world. Yes, I know I can click to look it up, but doing it for each one is kind of plodding. So for instance, I know that from my home at about 39°N, I can see Sirius and Arcturus, but not Canopus or Rigil Kentaurus. And if it's sortable, one can see at a glance which ones can ever be visible. I'd be willing to add the column (two columns?), IF I can be reasonably sure it won't be judged an unnecessary and frivolous cluttering of the table. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Sun as number zero?

Another thought! I wonder about renumbering the list to start with the Sun as number 0 (zero). When people talk about the "brightest star in the sky," they're commonly talking about Sirius, the brightest star in the NIGHT sky--with the tacit understanding that the special case of the Sun is excluded from consideration. With that understanding, then, Canopus is the second brightest star--where this table calls it the third. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Could do. Seems to me like sophistry has triumphed over clear presentation of information in this article. Lithopsian (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The Bayer designations--two columns or one?

User:Lithopsian You just changed this table to show Bayer designations in a single column, rather than two. I suggest there was this advantage to having the two sortable columns. Before, one could sort them by Greek letter, and group all the Alphas, all the Betas, etc. (if anybody wanted to do that). OR, one could sort the column for the constellations, and get them grouped by constellation. It seems to me that one would be more likely to want the second of those than the first. But your change has made that unavailable. I have a vague notion that there's some way--like Sortkeys for Categories--to specify an ordering term, different from what actually appears in a table, for sorting a column. I'd kind of like to take that on, here, but I'm working on a huge comparable project involving thousands of species of beetles; that's probably going to take a few more weeks. Uporządnicki (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, we could split it so you can search by the second letter of the proper name? Seriously now, adding too much micro-structure to a table makes it unreadable for a casual reader and clunky for everyone else. If you want to sort a column on something other than the strict alphabetical or numerical cell contents, that can certainly be done. See data-sort-value or the {{ntsh}} template. So, for example, you could make the Bayer column sortable by constellation. I was going to use it on the distance column since there was some complaint about it not sorting properly with commas in the value, but it seems OK just with a data-sort-type in the header. Lithopsian (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I think you're reading more into my comment than I meant; probably I used too many words. I did not mean to fault making the two columns one; I just thought that sorting by constellation is more useful than sorting all the alphas first, then betas, etc. That's what it does now. Since I made my first comment, I've looked and found data-sort-value, and it looks easy--so I might take a break from categorizing beetles, and work on that. Uporządnicki (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Lithopsian (talk) 11:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

variable stars?

"For variable stars, the listing is by maximum brightness"
Where? Not in this list, at least. There are 29 stars marked with (var), of which only Spica & Mintaka are ranked by their maximums, and Achernar is ranked by its lowest brightness. Most seem to be ranked by some sort average brightness, which should be explained also. I checked 5 highest ranked variable stars, and it is not explained in their articles either. 109.240.3.133 (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

That statement is just wrong. I have removed it. The table is ranked by the "mean" brightnesses used in each of the individual star articles. These are not necessarily statistically valid averages, but "accepted" photometric values for the stars. Very often, this is the value chosen by Simbad as being most representative for that star, but it may be a different widely-used "consensus" value. Ranking by maximum brightness would be fairly silly, since these are stars that have been widely observed over a very long period and the maximum brightness is often an outlier, possibly not even a very reliable one. To settle various edit wars that have happened over these values, any arguments have been shunted off to the individual star articles. Lithopsian (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The Circular Reference Problem

In the Table section, it says that the references for the apparent magnitude of each star can be found in the articles for the stars themselves. However, this has been labelled as a circular reference. Is there a site with magnitudes for each bright star that we can use (including consistencies for variable stars that change in brightness, like maximum or average magnitude)? Or will we have to manually sift through each article, finding references that are good enough for each star? InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The references aren't circular. The individual articles, at least none that I'm aware of, don't use this table as a source for the apparent magnitudes. All the individual articles have references to peer-reviewed journal papers for their respective apparent magnitudes. Some of those articles do refer back to this table as a source for being the "nth brightest star", but that is a whole different issue. You could lift the references from each individual article and put them here, although personally I don't think it adds anything. Lithopsian (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

So does that mean we should remove the circular reference tag? InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)