Talk:Xi Ursae Majoris

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Xi Ursae Majoris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angular separation of Xi Ursae Majoris A & B[edit]

Grant Gussie added:"currently" to the separation of Xi Ursae Majoris A & B by an edit on the 18th of January 2008. It could not remain "currently" true for all of the last ten years. - Fartherred (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I measure by putting a ruler up to the screen image of the map of the orbit and using the scale of arc seconds is about 1.5 arc seconds for 2008 and about 2 arc seconds for 2018. - Fartherred (talk) 01:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skatebiker added a link to((File:Xi UMa orbit.gif|Orbit of Xi Ursae Majoris.)) with the proper brackets to make it wiki mark up on the 11th of October 2009. Is this image reliable? - Fartherred (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The image is credible, apparently sourced from a personal page. The claim for "own work" seems dubious and the web page specifically restricts the images to personal use. It presumably comes from some sort of software, but I don't know what. Stellarium? Skatebiker has some history of uploading non-free files, some blatantly copyright, but that might only be s amll fraction of the files they uploaded. There is no source given for the orbits, but this one at least is credible. Guessing a separation of an image without a reliable source isn't good. There are plenty of sources giving exact separations at particular dates, for example WDS currently shows 1.9" in 2017. Better yet might be to describe the orbit more completely in terms of axis, and minimum and maximum separations, with dates. Lithopsian (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the separation should be given as for a specific date, perhaps 2018. I am unfamiliar with WDS and the conventions for describing orbits but I might be able to learn to look up some of this stuff. I could perhaps contact skatebiker but I am not in a big hurry. If he has a liscence to use some software then fair use ought to allow him to post a resulting image on Wikipedia unless some stipulation expressly forbids that. For all I know skatebiker could be associated with dibonsmith.com, but it is something to be determined. - Fartherred (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Herschel Xi Usrsae Majoris[edit]

Hershel did not discover that Xi UM was a binary star in 1780. In 1804, in Phil Trans Roy Soc v 94 (1804) pp 353-384, he presented the possibility that Xi UM was a binary star, and that a few more years of observation would either confirm or deny that Xi UM was or was not a binary star. (Phil Trans Roy Soc v 94 (1804) p 363.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.130.191 (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed that claim since it appears to be false. It might be nice to have a proper explanation of the history, including reliable references, in the article. Lithopsian (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]