Talk:Aldebaran

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Astronomy This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to astronomy, and WikiProject Astronomical Objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aldebaran article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Clarify

I removed It is the sun in the Arabian mythology. If someone can clarify the significance of this statement, I think it would fit nicely in the paragraph about astrological & mythological significance. Lusanaherandraton 13:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aldebaran Ab?

This object is not listed in the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopedia, even in the unconfirmed/controversial/retracted list. The best I've managed to come up with is a paper "Long-period radial velocity variations in three K giants" which suggests that the variation is intrinsic to the star rather than a companion. Chaos syndrome 18:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It was listed in the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopedia before[1] but I guess that Jean Schneider removes from the list the objects that are clearly proved not to be planets. The object should be mentioned in the article, but it doesn't deserve a section, let alone a copyrighted image.--Jyril 06:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
The companion seems to get mentioned on several sites about Aldebaran, e.g. [2] [3], so might as well discuss it. The designation "Aldebaran Ab" on the other hand seems fictitious - it isn't used in the papers published about it. Chaos syndrome 19:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

In the light of the comments above the sentence "In 1997, a possible large planet..." (while literally true in the sense that a planet was reported) should not be allowed to stand unqualified, even though the paragraphs further down indicate that it is not now accepteted that a large planet has been detected. I'll add a reference to the talk page but also ask that somebody with more authoritative knowledge to update this. EdDavies 17:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] persian names of 4 royal stars

please notify that in "star names they lore and meaning" written by richard hickney allen the four royal stars named as following:

Hastorang tasheter Vanant Satevis

this last is for considering put on the article, please check the book mentioned

thanks—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.49.165.171 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC).

[edit] In Fiction

I think that the Enya song Aldebaran was ment as the fallen angel Aldebaran, so I think that hould be taken out of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.180.59.72 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Aldebaran in astrology and mysticism section?

First of all, this section is currently tagged as violating factuality or NPOV, but there's no discussion here of why or how it might be improved. At the very least, this discussion section should cover that.

Secondly, though, and more broadly, this section and the one below it ("Aldeberan in other cultures") seem a bit out of step with the way many other astronomical pages are set up. The information provided about "royal stars" and the like seems, to me, to be a bit out of scope of this article.

For example, Betelgeuse seems to have some significance to astrology [4], but has no section about its astrological significance, and includes the historical and cultural information under the topic "Origin of the name 'Betelgeuse'".

Generally, however, I suspect that these stars' pages have not been nearly as completely hashed over as the planets' pages, which have much more general interest for both astrologers and astronomers. The article for Mars, for example, includes a short "Mars in Human Culture" section which covers the planet's history in several cultures, and mentions astrology only in the sentence which begins "Its symbol, derived from the astrological symbol of Mars..." The article for Jupiter has no section about historical or cultural significance at all. Both of these pages, however, do link to the appropriate section of Planets_in_astrology in their "See Also" section.

Given the way other astronomical pages are set up, I'd suggest combining "Aldebaran in astrology and mysticism" and "Aldebaran in other cultures" into "Aldeberan in human culture" ("Aldeberan in other cultures" is western-centric, anyway), and moving the astrology-specific things to the already existent Stars_in_astrology. I'd also note that these two sections are poorly sourced in general, and part of such a cleanup should be to find citations for their parts (or to remove the unsourced parts).

Brett A. Thomas 14:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apparent magnitude

The paragraph about numerical parameters contained the sentence "Taken together this distance and brightness makes it the 14th brightest star, having an apparent magnitude of 0.87." This formulation could be confusing to laymen, as it tends to suggest that apparent magnitude is computed as a function of distance and brightness. In fact, apparent magnitude ***is*** the observed brightness of the object, with a correction for atmospheric attenuation. Although it is a consequence of distance and ***luminosity*** (a parameter that should not be confused with brightness), it is not determined by a computation involving distance, but by observation. I have rewritten the sentence. Piperh 05:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I am doing a report and i CAN NOT find when Aldebaran is brightest....help?!?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.91.170 (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)