Talk:Alpha Centauri

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Alpha Centauri Bc was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 1 May 2016 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Alpha Centauri. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Alpha Centauri was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 6, 2018). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by when more than 8 sections are present.

Changing "Ab" to "C1" in Alpha Cen A's planetary orbitbox?[edit]

I was looking at the planetary orbitbox for Alpha Centauri A and noticed that it had an "Ab" exoplanet present. However, the potential planet is mentioned in the surrounding section as C1 ("Candidate 1"), the name used in the discovery paper. I feel this may be slightly confusing to readers, possibly giving the impression that "Alpha Cen Ab" and "C1" are separate objects. I'm thinking of replacing the "Ab" designation in the orbitbox with "C1" - I would use a note to mention that the planet will likely one day receive the "Ab" designation pending further observations (but has not yet). Please let me know what you think of this proposal. Thanks for considering! Supernova58 (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The name c1 is a purely temporary name for a hypothetical possible uncertain (add a few more qualifiers) detection. Ab would be the official name of the first detected planet of Alpha A. Don’t attempt to make c1 more prominent, if it gets confirmation it will get a real name. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense! I understood that C1 is not a real name, I just like to try to make articles as clear as possible! I see where that might promote the idea of C1 being official though (although it is not). In that case, I'll just add a sentence to the section itself to clarify any confusion - I'll mention that C1 is a temporary name and that Ab is (as of now) the name it will receive if confirmed, following convention. Thanks for your feedback! Supernova58 (talk) 04:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting general thoughts/suggestions on the article[edit]

Hello everyone! I noticed that this article is rated as B-class. Considering its high importance rating, I think it should be made a GA as soon as possible. However, it's not there yet - it failed the last nomination. I'm asking anyone who's read this article (or contributed to it) to put their suggestions below. For example, I think the planetary system section is a little clunky. The more suggestions posted, the better chance we all have of eventually upgrading this article to GA-candidate material! Supernova58 (talk) 02:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I like the article, not clunky. Gives a lot of pics and scientific data. Also a question - Would Alpha Centauri be the first system that we visit once we are able to travel at light speed?

Since we will almost surely never be "able to travel at light speed", that would be a no.2601:41:200:5260:2D36:29AC:1099:E53B (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

worth adding an "in popular culture" section?[edit]

can think of quite a few notable cultural works that heavily feature Alpha Centauri. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alot of people hate those sections. Best way is to find some secondary source that discusses various appearances/references to Alpha Centauri. There is also Stars and planetary systems in fiction, where almost all of this content got diverted to about 15 years ago. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - found Alpha Centauri in fiction (note this is a huge list of primary sources....) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Distance[edit]

Based on the new parallax (2021), shouldn't the distance be corrected to 4,344?--McBayne (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protection request[edit]

Expiration date: indefinite

Reason 1: High-risk page

Reason 2: This is one of the most famous star systems.

--2600:1700:6180:6290:B035:F1A4:CC25:7A4C (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Split request[edit]

This page is getting too long, so can someone fell free to split it up, by the following:

Thanks! --2600:1700:6180:6290:7D89:F761:BBA0:74D1 (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Similar to your request at Talk:Solar System. By the way, I removed your extraneous "Other" section header. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Long articles can easily be scrolled, there is no real reason to split it into smaller parts. Artem.G (talk) 06:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proxima Centauri c & d[edit]

are these planets confirmed or not. i see them in lists like list of closest exoplanets and list of multiplanetary systems as if they are confirmed and also in the aplha centauri & proxima centauri articles. but in the pages themselves they are apparently "controversial" (c) and a candidate only (d). c is "not formally confirmed" but "existence is undisputed" according to this article but apparently there is one source disputing it in c's article.

this is opposed to candidate 1 which is just a candidate and pretty clearly defined as such everywhere through its absence from the above exoplanet lists and also it has a "?" marker in the alpha centauri template.

i've tried looking in the talks sections of all the directly related articles; i found 2 discussions on proxima centauri and proxima centauri c, but they are all from 1+ year ago and thus cant incorporate the 2022 source disputing c (but both discussions say it's a candidate). d is conflictingly claimed to be confirmed and candidate on proxima centauri and its own article repsectively, both using the same sources to say different things

(it also doesn't help that idk how a planent would be "formally" confirmed...is it just 1 other group of scientists saying "yeh this checks out" or "i see the same pattern here"? or if "general consensus" is needed, what is the definition of that? or how mny independent investigations/confirmations are needed)

I'm probably misunderstanding something here so just wanted to make sure before doing any changes on multiple articles and that template.

Sbznpoe (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as you mention, Proxima c has recently been disputed. I would say that Proxima d is confirmed (and it's described as such in the same recent paper), but I wouldn't want to start another argument about a planet's confirmation status. It's always possible that further observations might cast doubt on it in the future, as happened with planet c. SevenSpheres (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chimera article[edit]

I think that this article is a chimera of trying to describe Alpha Centauri AB system and the whole Alpha Centauri system (with Proxima Centauri) as a whole. We should split off Alpha Centauri A and Alpha Centauri B into its own article, and only talk about the whole system with a summary of individual stars in this article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:54, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]