Talk:Antares

Classification

Antares is a class M class M stars are red dwarfs, Anares is a Giant I'm not sure of its classification but it would be "B" or "A" I would think.(Zach Kessin

Stellar class is based not on size, but on temperature, and Class M includes both supergiants like Antares and red dwarf stars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.66.68 (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Diameter

Antares is a class M supergiant star, with a diameter of approximately 9.24 × 10^8 km, or slightly more than the distance from the Sun to Mars,

Those two things contradict themselves. -- Keber 16:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, Mars is "only" 1.52 AU (give or take) = 2.3 X10^8 km, I believe it should say Jupiter (at 7.8 X10^8km)--Kalsermar 16:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

But the passage mentions that the diameter is 9 x 10^8 km (~6 AU). An Antares placed where the Sun is would not stretch out as far as Jupieter's orbit, but only about 3 AU. Well beyond the orbit of Mars at ~1.5 AU, but not as far as Jupiter, at ~5.2 AU. 3 AU would be somewhere in the asteroid belt. Richard B 20:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Now the article states Antares diameter is 1.33 × 10⁹ km which means in place of our sun it would extend out half that or to 6.7 x 10⁸ km. Could someone with a source provide a fact check and cite it? WilliamKF 01:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

According to APOD (I know, not the best source for scientific data but it is what I found doing a quick search) Antares is about 700 times the solar diameter. That would make it roughly 9.8 x 10⁸ km.--Kalsermar 16:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Antares has a measured parallax of 5.4 mas (milliarcseconds), so the distance is 1000/5.4 = 185 parsec. Furthermore, the CHARM2 database (CHARM2: an updated Catalog of High Angular Resolution Measurements. Richichi A., Percheron I., Khristoforova M. <Astron. Astrophys. 431, 773 (2005)>) lists a measured angular disk diameter of 45 mas. Thus the diameter is 45*185/1000 =8.3 AU (astronomical units; note that one arcsec at one parsec is one AU). 8.3 AU correspond to 1780 solar radii, so the radius of the star would be 1780/2 = 890 solar radii. Of course it could easily be 200 solar radii more or less, given the observational errors.

The image has the radius of Antares at 300 million kilometers, and the sun's radius at 0.7 million kilometers, so the radius of Antares is about 430 solar radii. This does not agree with the value of 700 solar radii in the details section. Kwierschem (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Astronomers do not measure the radius of stars directly. However, for some stars (such as Antares), the angular diameter can be measured. This, combined with the parallax measurement (distance), will determine the size of the star. Using the parallax measurement of the Hipparchus catalogue, and an angular diameter cited in the main article, I have calculated the radius of Antares in solar units to be about 800 solar radii. The exact result is 822 with an uncertainty of 80, so there is no point in including more than one significant figure (unless the uncertainty is indicated). If someone can find a better value somewhere, by all means let's use it. But citing a web page that does not give any sources is not acceptable in my opinion, so I am undoing the changes made by Thangalin in this regard.Kwierschem (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Size in Pixels

If it were to be printed next to a picture of the sun, the sun would be just a pixel while antares would be 10 centimetres (3.9 in) in diameter.

A pixel isn't a fixed unit of measurement (right?). Does the comparison of 1 pixel to 10 centimetres make sense?

External Link Removed

I thought my external link to http://www.rense.com/general72/size.htm The Size of our World on rense.com was a good one. It is a powerful visual comparison of the size of Antares to earth, sun, and other stars. Does everyone agree with Kalsermar that it should be removed?Bytemiser 03:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Bytemiser

I vote for INCLUDING the external link as it is a great pictoral. WilliamKF 01:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Great pictoral, perhaps. Encyclopaedic, no.--Kalsermar 16:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is not "encyclopedic". Many articles have size comparisons, such as Image:Terrestrial planet size comparisons.jpg and Image:Gas giants in the solar system.jpg from solar system. It would be nice if this could be converted into a picture series that could be used on Wikipedia, but, until that time, I see no reason why this should not be included. --tomf688 (talk - email) 10:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I added a few more references, and cleaned up the subheadings.

Disk of Antares imaged

It is notable that Antares is one of the few stars whose disk has been photographed (along with the sun, of course, and Betelgeuse and I think Myra). I'm not sure how to work that into the article, but it might be worth a mention.--Todd 08:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Location

I tried to figure out some way to actually translate the location into something more meaningful to the average person. I have failed in this. Knowing the RA doesn't help me figure out if this star is closer to galactic center, further out, or radial from our location. Perhaps this really needs to be a discussion on the page that discusses RA, but a reference on this page -- or even a graphic showing a "top down" view of our galaxy with both Sol and Antares located, would be nice. Anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jplflyer (talk • contribs) 20:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

We are looking toward galactic center, from Earth, when we look in the direction of the constellation Sagittarius, which is adjacent to Scorpio, including Antares. Hence, Antares is closer to galactic center than we are, though not directly between us and it. If I could a.) document this and b.) figure out how to phrase it well, I would work it in to the article. For now, I am putting the info here, if anyone cares to verify this with a source and work it in. 72.49.66.68 (talk) 08:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Most-isolated first magnitude star

I did a quick Google search on this fact and didn't find anything other than references back to Wikipedia. If it's true there needs to be some explanation. Did Fomalhaut and Achernar dim below first magnitude? Did their proper motion or that of Antares or Alpha Centauri cause the change? Rsduhamel (talk) 07:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency in article

I came to the talk page to point out that the text (Antares's radius is approximately 800 times that of the Sun) is inconsistent with the image (showing the Sun's radius as 0.7 and Antares's as 300, both in million km). I see this was pointed out last year in the #Diameter thread above. I can't follow all the technical stuff in that thread, but as a layperson I can tell you that the article in its current state cannot be right and is confusing besides. If the measurement is imprecise, then we should report the imprecision, instead of acting as if two inconsistent values are both well-established facts that need no qualification. JamesMLane t c 06:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

J band magnitude

Does someone have the J band magnitude of Antares? SIMBAD does not list it. -- Kheider (talk) 01:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Color of the secondary

I couldn't add this to the article because it is the result of my own observation, but when I observed Antares B during a lunar occultation in West Virginia on 25 January 1968, during which I was able to observe the companion star by itself for many seconds, it appeared a rich blue color. This surprised me because I had hitherto observed the companion only as a green "corner" of the bright star Antares when seen through a telescope. I observed no green in the companion when viewed by itself; it was more the color of natural ultramarine. Embram (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Labeling of size comparison drawing

I notice in this drawing Antares is labeled as a giant star, which contradicts the article. Additionally , Arcturus is labeled as an 'orange star' rather than referring to its giant status Mr Morden76 (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Brightness of Secondary compared to Antares

The figure 1/370 is not consistent with 170 solar brightnesses for the secondary compared with 10,000 for Antares which is a factor of 59 and consistent with the approximate 4.5 magnitude difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.134.188 (talk) 09:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The sixteenth brightest star?

At present the article has "...and the sixteenth brightest star in the nighttime sky. It is sometimes listed as 15th brightest, if the two brighter components of the Capella quadruple star system are counted as one star."

If you click on the first wikilink above for list of brightest stars Antares is listed in 17th place. Are both this article and the list of brightest stars articles correct? --Marc Kupper|talk 02:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I added this to Spica talk page. Both Antares and Spica in their respective introduction mention they are the 15th brightest star in the night sky. According to the list of brightest stars Antares is No. 15 with 0.96 (0.6 - 1.6var) and Spica is No. 16 with 0.97 (0.97 - 1.04var). Should we just list Antares as 15th and Spica as 16th. To avoid confusion. Mrebus (talk) 07:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

What's the period of the variability?

The article says it's a slow irregular variable star but does not say what the period between minimum and maximum brightness have been. Are we talking about a few milliseconds or centuries for Antares' brightness to change? --Marc Kupper|talk 02:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

By definition, irregular variables do not have an identifiable period. It is also described as "slow", so I think we can rule out milliseconds, which are extremely unlikely for a red supergiant in any case. In practice the period varies, over quite a small amplitude, on a period of hundreds of days. Mathematical analysis of the variations over a sufficiently long period can resolve most irregular variables into a number of overlapping (semi-) regular periods. In the case of Antares, two dominant periods are resolved at about 300 and 1700 days. Many references, but try DOI 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/1170 for a starting point. Lithopsian (talk) 11:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Last occultation by Venus was when?

According to the article section Position on the ecliptic, "The last occultation of Antares by Venus took place on September 17, 525 BC". Generally, the use of "BC" dating implies a calendar reference such as that used primarily by historians, referring to the proleptic Julian calendar. So, does 525 BC mean year -524, or was an editor unmindful and meant -525? Also, what then of September 17? The Julian calendar officially took effect in Rome on January 1, 45 BC. But for at least 100 years, the application of leap years was not in fact done every four years, but instead was subject to the political winds and whims of the Roman Senate who had to vote on when to have one. By calendar definition, the vernal equinox was supposed to occur on March 25, 45 BC, but we know from church history that it occurred again on March 21, AD 325 (the year of the First Council of Nicea), because from that point on Easter was calculated based on that dating. Count the supposed leap years; it doesn't work. In 370 years, the Julian calendar should have seen the equinox drift by a little less than three days, not four. I'm sure historians leave dates across those 370 years as they occurred historically. "Proleptic" does not truly apply to the Julian calendar until one gets earlier than 45 BC. So the historical date for the occultation is perhaps September 18th. But that's not what astronomers do with that calendar. They apply a fully regular four-year pattern of leap years to all times before 1582.

I'm not arguing that astronomers are doing something wrong or unreasonable, only that it's not precisely historic. I am assuming that the occultation date has been confirmed through modern calculation that identifies the timing through a count of days (perhaps using the Julian day?), which would then be applied to the calendar as described in the "Astronomical year numbering" article. To avoid all such questions, I would recommend that the date be clearly given according to astronomical calendarization, with negative year number, a parenthesized "BC" equivalent, and a wikilink to the year numbering article to explain. I'd do it myself if I felt confident of what date is really intended, but unfortunately there is also no source given for the Venus occultations, so I couldn't check it, and came up empty looking. Evensteven (talk) 10:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Antares. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090705011944/http://www.lunar-occultations.com:80/iota/bstar/0731antares.htm to http://www.lunar-occultations.com/iota/bstar/0731antares.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Name

The name translation I remember reading is "Rival of Mars", a name that is listed in Antares at Constellation Guide. agb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.233.167.63 (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Antares

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Antares's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "percy":

• From AH Scorpii: Percy, John R.; Sato, Hiromitsu (2009). "Long Secondary Periods in Pulsating Red Supergiant Stars". Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada. 103: 11. Bibcode:2009JRASC.103...11P.
• From RW Cephei: Percy, John R.; Kolin, David L. (2000). "Studies of Yellow Semiregular(SRd) Variables". The Journal of the American Association of Variable Star Observers. 28: 1. Bibcode:2000JAVSO..28....1P.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Antares's new size

Should the 680 R_☉ stay, or should it be accompanied by the 883 R_☉? I think the second option is the best so that everyone's opinion counts. After all, many estimates made after ~2014 give Antares a radius of more than 800 R_☉. Remember the footnote given on the note on List of largest stars? Please leave another source that says 653 - 1,246 R_☉ if you can find one. Thank you. --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL ^{(Visit/Talk/Contribs)} 23:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh please. This edit was rightfully reverted.[1] Saying: "Should the 680 R_☉ stay, or should it be accompanied by the 883 R_☉? I think the second option is the best so that everyone's opinion counts." is so far from the point. Considering your own history of edit warring on the List of largest stars page and your involvement with this WP:SYNTHESIS edit here.[2] Even that footnote says (which you added): "approximately 800, derived from the 1990 lunar occultation measurement of apparent diameter of 43.1 milliarcsec (up to ±1 milliarcsec error) (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990A&A...230..355R page 361) together with 1997 parallax of 5.40 [1.68] milliarcsec (SIMBAD citing Hipparcos). The parallax gives a derived distance from 460 to 877 light years. This in turn yields an actual diameter from 653 to 1,246 solar radius. An average of 800 is used here." [Bizarrely, you now want a source for "653 to 1,246 solar radius", but that was your own WP:SYNTHESIS from this same footnote!]

Worst, this is also contradicted by the Antares article says: " The diameter of the limb-darkened disk was measured as 37.38″±0.06″ in 2009 and 37.31″±0.09″ in 2010."

The Antares article also rightly now says: "Like most cool supergiants, Antares size has much uncertainty due to the tenuous and translucent nature of the extended outer regions of the star. Defining an effective temperature is difficult due to spectral lines being generated at different depths within the atmosphere, and linear measurements produce different results depending on the wavelength observed. In addition, Antares appears to pulsate, varying its radius by 165 R_☉ or 19%"

Another statement on this attached 2017 article confirms: "Above the photosphere of a red supergiant, the molecular outer atmosphere extends up to about two stellar radii. Furthermore, the hot chromosphere (5,000–8,000 kelvin) and cool gas (less than 3,500 kelvin) of a red supergiant coexist at about three stellar radii." [3]

The star isn't even fixed in size. So how big is Antares really?

If don't you understand even the basic facts about red giants or supergiants, then consensus for this seems unlikely. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I did not make the 653 - 1,246 R_☉ up. This is where it came from: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_largest_stars&oldid=396450510 . Besides, it is not original research, because it already has a listed source. Thank you. --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL ^{(Visit/Talk/Contribs)} 04:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Please stop making so many false and misleading statements. WP:SYNTHESIS is not WP:NOR. As for "...it already has a listed source." Where? Note has no cites. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you even blind? Here are the sources: --> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_largest_stars&type=revision&diff=792375098&oldid=792208611, http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-basic?Ident=Antares&submit=SIMBAD+search SIMBAD] citing [http://astrobib.u-strasbg.fr:2008/cgi-bin/cdsbib?1997A%26A...323L..49P Hipparcos Thank you. --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL ^{(Visit/Talk/Contribs)} 18:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Saying "Are you even blind?" avoids WP:GF. None of the above are even relevant, and the first one you added yourself. Self-referencing is not good referencing. Please consider changes you add and stop expecting everyone to clean up your mess. Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Here is another good source that I found that actually has references to peer-published papers: Thank you. --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL ^{(Visit/Talk/Contribs)} 00:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. You are not even listening, and this latest revert[4] is deliberately avoiding the WP:BRD, WP:Consensus and is now WP:TE. Two editors disagree with you, have given you suitable edit warnings, and yet you persist with disruptive editing. We have to move on. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Antares is in the Milky Way?

Should mention be made of the fact that Antares is in the Milky Way? Paul (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure anyone wants to touch this. Should it be mentioned? Maybe, possibly, but I suspect there are few editors that want it to be mentioned explicitly. At least not in the lead where I suspected you'd want to see it. Certain information has to remain implicit or an article becomes unreadable. An obvious example is that Antares is described in the opening sentence as a star, without any explanation of what a star might be. Star is not even linked (although some articles about specific types of star are) and it is understood that a typical reader will know what a star is. And what "naked eye" means, also "night sky", "mass", all terms in the lead which don't occur in everyday conversations between most people, but are in the lead of this article without explanation or even links (incidentally, all three terms have their own Wikipedia article). So should it be explained that Antares is in the Milky Way, despite it being quite exceptional that any star you've heard of is not in the Milky Way? Despite the fact that there are very few articles in the whole of Wikipedia about individual stars not in the Milky Way (all explicitly described because it is such an unusual thing)? Well maybe it could be made more obvious, but I'm not keen to do it. Lithopsian (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Comparison of planets and stars (2017 update).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 07:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Magnitudes

Discussion related to this article moved here from my personal talk page. Lithopsian (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

After this recent edit here[5] and the advisement here[6], why did you change the text from '5.0 magnitude' to 'magnitude 5.0'? IAU nomenclature is clear on this saying: "it should be written after the number."? Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the IAU does say that. And nobody does it. Hence I don't do it, in Wikipedia, and neither should you. We're not here to change the world, or right great wrongs. Lithopsian (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Seriously. So do you have any consensus for this? Even a cite? Your statement (an opinion not fact) above sets precedent and crosses over in failing NPOV and editorial bias. So justification for your reverted this usage, only because you say so?

Virtually no one would agree with you on this, and the majority of books I have in my possession do not use such a convention. Magnitude is a dimensionless unit of measure, so the number precedes the unit. If we did agree with this, then we should write, 'seconds 5.8' or 'joules 5.8' or 'fahrenheit 6.0'? Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. I'd always say "magnitude 4.2" or whatever. Never 2.4 magnitude. "3rd magnitude" yes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an astronomer, but I hang around with a number of them online (and rarely IRL), mostly planetary and small bodies but stellar and astrophysics at times. I can't offhand remember seeing "5.0 magnitude" form in common communications or publications, though I am sure it's happened once or twice. "magnitude 5.0" or "5th magnitude" are usual and uncommon respectively. If it's commonly used in textbooks or publications I don't read, we can get cites up. But I almost always see "magnitude 5.0" format. I can do a tool search on something like a decade's minor planet emails if we need to. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Surely, even if one version is used, and even if versions of the format were to be adopted, the statement by Lithopsian exceeds even basic reasoning. Usage is plainly cited and the logic of why it is adopted is shown. The IAU source appears here.[7] and the cite is this: "IAU Style Manual" by G.A. Wilkins, Comm. 5, in IAU Transactions XXB (1989). Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think "logic" is that relevant, here. The English language has conventions, and it is sometimes inconsistent, not following logic. So I don't think the cited example of "5.8 seconds" instead of "seconds 5.8" necessarily applies. As an example of usage in another context, one normally says "magnitude 7" earthquake, not "7 magnitude" earthquake. Attic Salt (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

We are not beholden to the IAU standard; the decision on how to format this information (or whether to do it consistently one way at all) is editorial. Invoking WP:NPOV is a non sequitur. But that doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't follow the IAU standard. Since this is a discussion about a style choice too specialist for the WP:MOS, I suggest a good location for centralized discussion would be WT:WikiProject Astronomy. VQuakr (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

If the alternate version were true, please show a cite. Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

See here and here. Arianewiki you know this so this is you (again) trying to drum up arguments Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The cite needed is to show "magnitude x" is a recognised format. The given cites seem to show mixed usage. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

No, they don't. I see an example of "6.5-magnitude" star, but that is with a dash to form a compound adjective. Otherwise, the examples cited by Cas Liber use "magnitude x". Thank you. Attic Salt (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Don't expect others to follow your arbitrary evidentiary standards just because you say so. This is an editorial decision. VQuakr (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

VQuarkr just go away, that is unless you can add something contructive or even relevant. Saying "Don't expect others to follow your arbitrary evidentiary standards..." is an insulting invective slur just to get a reaction to further use against me. If you bothered to read this[8] (also said in the ANI) this is properly/formally explained. There is no imposition (nor any kind of pecieved insult here). I informed Lithopsian nicely here. They ignored it. I again informed them there was an issue, and they responded with "Yes, the IAU does say that. And nobody does it. Hence I don't do it, in Wikipedia, and neither should you." Lithopsian is reverting edit based on an uninformed position ignoring facts for the sake of OWN - the reverse of your false accusation. It is foolishness to suggest otherwise. Wanna test it via ANI? Speak truth please, not this irrelevant invective. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

"Logic" here is necessary. Numbers are followed by units. As magnitude is a dimensionless unit, it follows this is how it is expressed. (A magnitude of an earthquake is actually expressed as 7.0 ML or 7.0M_L, etc. There are many other earthquake magnitude scales. An ordinary (non-italic, non-bold) capital "M" without subscript is often used to refer to magnitude generically, where an exact value or the specific scale used is not important.) Stellar magnitudes follows scientific precepts based on defined restraints not airy-fairy popular contexts. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

If you think English should follow logic, then that is your challenge. But you are badly misstating conventions for earthquake magnitudes; see [9]. Thank you. Attic Salt (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Read this on Seismic magnitude scales makes this assertion rather glib. If you justify some viewpoint using the USGS, then the this supports what I've said[10]. Science has conventions for a reason, they should be accepted or acknowledge. Someone just uses the formal usage, but their edit is overturned on opinion? Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Um, how does any of that "support" what you've said? The sources cited either don't mention anything relevant or they use "ML 7.0", certainly not "7.0 ML". Attic Salt (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Attic Salt : Usage here[11] Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

You must of spent a long time searching for a case where the magnitude symbol appears after the numerical value (albeit in a table of values, not in sentences). Attic Salt (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah. Nice distraction. The IAU source explains why, and nothing changes that, no matter of 'excuses'. Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Defect!!! DEMON Antares SHOULD NOT be a link to the Star =

For the first time in over a decade I will need to go offsite to get better top level info. I want to know about the original myth on Antares. The star was named after a Greek of Roman god or goddess, I'll bet a magnum of good sparkling. I am dumbfounded and when I have time... Bodysurfinyon (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Yee gods, whoever heard of conservopedia [[12]] Bodysurfinyon (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)