Talk:Vega

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleVega is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 16, 2010.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 8, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
November 17, 2007Good article nomineeListed
November 26, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 17, 2022.
Current status: Featured article

Vega as an X-ray source[edit]

There is currently one sentence in the article regarding Vega as an X-ray source. I have more text about this I would like to include in the article, but would like some feedback before I do. The possible addition can be found here Vega. If you like I can insert it first and let editors critique it, or will transfer it per consensus. Marshallsumter (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of it looks good to me and I think it would be a nice addition. I do have a couple of suggestions though if that's okay. First, I'm not sure that you need to mention Altair, unless you wanted to add a more detailed comparison. Also, I'd suggest replacing the statement "To understand what's going on in Vega it is important to realize that the coronal magnetic field" with something more direct like "The coronal magnetic field of the star".—RJH (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a merger suggestion for Vega as an X-ray source into Vega at Talk:Vega as an X-ray source. 65.93.12.93 (talk) 06:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Having in bold all caps 'VEGA IS NOT BIGGER THAN THE SUN' and then later having a description of its estimated size state it is > 1.0 times the size of the sun is contradictory, and non-encyclopedia-like. One of these should go, especially if this is to be the example of a top notch article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.212.160 (talk • contribs)

You had the unfortunate experience of viewing the page after it had been "enhanced" by an anonymous poster. The edit has since been reverted.—RJH (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lucida Lyrae[edit]

I'm not sure, but I think this is not really a proper name, even if it occured in a book. It's a Latin description meaning "the brightest in the Lyre", and whether a name or just a mentioning, is a matter of how the phrase is regularly used, such as Lucida Anseris. Alpha Coronae Borealis was described in Tabulae Rudolphinae (Tycho/Kepler/Bartsch) as Lucida coronæ, which doesn't mean that was a name – Epsilon Coronae Borealis was similarly described as Quæ hanc rurſus comitatur, which doesn't mean it is named Rursus Comitatur... Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 10:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals, vandals[edit]

Multiple vandal revisions have been done since the page was featured. I just finished undoing one. Please lock the page.

Very hard to read with the current Vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.226.84 (talk) 10:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology[edit]

The "Etymology and Cultural Significance" section doesn't really explain the origin of the word Vega very well. It implies it a little bit in the Latin section but this could be better explained. Perhaps a paragraph dedicated to the origin could tie this together better. --claygate (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vega < wāqi‘ from the phrase an-nasr al-wāqi‘ "the alighting vulture" being an old symbol attested from Egypt and India? What more can we wish for, that the science knows of? (It's there!) Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 13:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I swapped the order so that etymology comes first. Hope that helps... Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 14:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that helps the overall flow, I think I just overlooked it with expectations of that being near the top as the heading suggests. --claygate (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not sure this is as clear as it could be, having come to the page for this reason, I didn't find the section clear at all. I wonder if it would not be better to split the etymology from the cross cultural naming.Lacunae (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vega as Pole Star[edit]

I'm being a bit picky here, but to say that Vega 'served as the northern pole star in 12,000 BCE' implies that it served someone or something. Is there any evidence that people in those days navigated by a pole star? I've changed it to 'was the northern pole star' but am happy to be reverted if evidence is there. PhilUK (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joseph Norman Lockyer suggested in 1894 that the Great Pyramids in Egypt were oriented toward Vega as the pole star. Not sure whether that is still held to be true.—RJH (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thuban was the polestar at the time that the pyramids were built. Given that Paleolithic technology was state-of-the-art 14000 years ago, it's probably safe to say that there are no records of Vega being used for navigation purposes.--Sinazita (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I expect you're correct.—RJH (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qixi Festival[edit]

Do Vega and Altair actually move closer together on this date, or is it just a legend? Brutannica (talk) 05:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find a reliable source for this notion?—RJH (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The meeting is a key part of the legend and is mentioned in many, many sources. P. 278-280 of In Hot Pursuit of Language in Prehistory offers a pretty good summary. As for whether it actually happens, it seems to me that it must be one of the few parts of the legend that isn't actually reflected in the sky. Stellar parallax is so minor that it wasn't really observable until the 19th century and the story is way, way older than that. --207.216.60.197 (talk) 04:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in the myth, the pair (Altair and Vega) meet once per year; the two being separated by the "river" of the Milky Way. This is already mentioned in the article. But the source you mention doesn't appear to say that the two stars actually move closer together. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was just thinking about the same phenomenon - after reading this article [1] I'm wondering whether it is due to the angle we see the milky way in summer which appears to make the stars Vega and Altair closer. There are no evidence indicating the stars move, however, the article mentioned the milky way appears thinner in winter and wider in summer, thus the milky way (known as the river of the heaven in Chinese) is 'swollen'. It might be possible that the 'swelling' gives the illusion that the stars have moved closer together in summer, and further away during the rest of the year. But this is purely my humble and romantic theory. Best wishes, 109.156.148.242 (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)M.Y. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.148.242 (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://starryskies.com/articles/2007/07/milky-way.html

Why was Vega used as a baseline?[edit]

Is there any particular reason that Vega was used as a baseline for the apparent magnitude scale and for telescope calibration? Why not, say, Arcturus? Just curious. It might be nice to explain in the article, just a sentence or two. 74.131.181.240 (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Vega was chosen because of its high declination, non-variability and relative lack of color. Of the ten brightest stars, it has the highest declination, making it more accessible to astronomers in the U.S. and Europe. Possibly it may also be preferred because of its proximity, which reduces the amount of interstellar reddening. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks (though somewhat belatedly) for your response. I was wondering, though, why you reverted the info that you added? Thanks again, 74.131.181.240 (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further investigation, I found that the addition about Norman Robert Pogson was probably not quite true. While he had a significant role in setting the magnitude scale, I'm not convinced he was responsible for selecting Vega as a baseline. That happened much later. Thus I reverted it. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vega's lifetime is closer to 1 billion, or to a 0.5 billion years?[edit]

The simplificated calculation:

Mass/Luminosity*SunLife = 2.135/37*SunLife= 0.577 billion years

gives a lifetime closer to a half billion year.

The text says "a billion year", and the note 43 says "less than a billion".

I can't understand the tables of the paper the note 43 links.

Could anybody interpolate a precise value (or so) from the table?

If the lifetime is closer to 0.5 billion year, Vega is near the end of the lifetime in the main sequence, and not in the middle of it.

Thanks!

Please avoid WP:OR. A direct reference is more appropriate. Thank you. RJH (talk) 03:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Assuming that the bid on Vega's present age (the bottom of the factbox) is correct, wherever the notion that's now in the article came from, that "Vega and the Sun are both approaching the midpoint of their respective life spans" is something that probably refers to their time in the main sequence, not to their total lifetimes. In about five billion years from now, according to established theory on the development of stars, the Sun will swell to become a bloated red giant for a while, and later throw out much of its outer layers and shrink to a white dwarf. Vega will do the same, only sooner. None of them will ever become a nova or supernova, they have too small masses for that. But white dwarves are still regular stars, and an ordinary star developing from the main series will dwell much longer in that state - as a white dwarf - than all of its earlier lifetime. So Vega is nowhere near the mid-point of its expected lifespan, only the time it's expected to stay in the main sequence. The fact that when the Sun and Vega swell up they will destroy the inner regions of the planetary systems orbiting them, including Earth, is of no consequence here.83.254.151.33 (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For stars like the Sun and Vega, the total fusing lifetime is usually only about 10% longer than the main sequence lifetime, so the difference is not that significant. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much a question of definitions. "Fusing lifetime" does not equal lifetime except in sloppy astronomy journalese; white dwarves have consistent output of light and energy too, although fainter than during the main sequence stadium of their lifespans.Strausszek (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the fusing duration is probably the interesting part from a lay reader's perspective. The total lifetime is then what? How long it takes to collide or for all the constituent protons to decay? Regards, RJH (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology[edit]

A remark on a detail : the reference (Kunitzsch 1986) (currently ref [89]), does not say that "The Arabic name then appeared in the western world in the Alfonsine Tables" as written, but that this name appears in an edition of the Tables from 1492 (and later ones). It is explicitely said that the star catalogue of Alfonsine Tables was originally the one of the Almagest (translation by Gerard of Cremona), and that Vega (with some others arabic names), comes from other sources. The current version is probably the one in Star Names: Their Lore and Meaning (1899), apparently known not to be reliable. Proz (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Vega. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vega. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 22:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Vega. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 22:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Original research or routine calculation?[edit]

Is this original research? I've read WP:OR and WP:CALC states that routine calculations are allowed. Am I supposed to cite the definition of stellar magnitude? I thought this would be very informative as the variability is shown in magnitudes there, while another estimate is in percentage at the end of the paragraph. 93.136.114.197 (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:OR: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." If you can provide a reliable published source for your calculation, then it would be acceptable under WP:CALC. I'm going to start tagging the other such calculations in this article for the same issue. This is pretty sloppy for a supposedly FA-quality article. Praemonitus (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have thought a footnote would be sufficient for explaining this well-defined calculation. Of course an external source would be better. Lithopsian (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm just going by this: "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources." The last part implies there is a source for the calculations. I've seen sources provided for calculations before, so I know it's do-able. It's just a matter of hunting one down. Praemonitus (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous. The apparent magnitude article says "Furthermore, the magnitude scale is logarithmic. A difference of 1 in magnitude corresponds to a change in brightness by a factor of 5√100, or about 2.512." Search for the sources yourself. This should be known to all astronomers. We don't cite that 1 mph = 1.609344 km/h, do we? We don't even cite the inscrutable cgs gravity "unit". Yesterday someone else wanted me to find a citation that 11000 - 8848 > 2000, but they were happy with the equally unsourced claim that it is > 1600... 93.136.38.21 (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse my language here, I'm just bothered by the double standards. Some calculations require lengthy footnotes if allowed at all, never mind the benefit, while other units are peppered left and right just because they fit in {{convert}}. 93.136.38.21 (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source, so it is unsuitable for your needs. The fact that a formulation is well known among astronomers means it should be trivially easy to reliably cite. I'm not asking for your left leg here, just compliance with the requirements for a Featured Article. I do agree with you that the {{convert}} template should be reliably sourced since it is so widely used, and I will so comment on their talk page. Praemonitus (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly didn't mean to imply that convert should have citations in it. If we were to cite every km/h-mph conversion, the articles would be cluttered to unreadability by useless and needless citations. I think that would be a big detriment to the encyclopedia. What is the benefit of citing ISO or whoever that xx mph is yy km/h? Who in the world would click on that citation? That idea reminds me of the time you people used to hyperlink dates. All the convert stuff, and this too (I'd even suggest to put it in the convert template) are easily verifiable calculations that don't need the clutter from citations. 93.136.38.21 (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't take it that way; I just think the conversion constants need to have a reference on the documentation page for the Convert template. That way readers can go there and check, much like you can check for properly licensed images. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you there, that would be completely unnecessary, when the reader can just click the link to the page and see for themselves. To go back to the original topic at hand, I really don't see the point of your removing the magnitude to percentage conversion. The removal infers that everyone should do the conversion for themselves, but your arguments imply that we should hold the reader's hand...? 93.139.1.106 (talk) 02:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well you're welcome to your opinion. I'm sticking with WP:5P1: "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources". Your recent edit is bordering on WP:VANDAL and WP:POINT, so I reverted it. Praemonitus (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So is your peppering of OR tags. Maybe you would want to remove all these explanations altogether -- the reader shouldn't be tasked with understanding information they couldn't deduce on their own?? 93.139.1.106 (talk) 03:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nope and nope. Praemonitus (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, I'm done trying to figure out the logic behind your actions. 93.139.1.106 (talk) 03:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The logic is this: Vega is a featured article, which means it must meet very stringent standards – much higher than for a typical article. My preference is to keep it at that high level. It's unfortunate that you don't seem to be able to relate, but so be it. Praemonitus (talk) 03:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style[edit]

There are at least three citation styles used in this article. Many other articles have the same problem and worse, but this isa featured article and I'd like to clean it up. I see:

  • CS1: fields separated by full stops and the citation terminated by a full stop. These are generated by individual cite templates such as {{cite journal}};
  • strict CS2: fields separated by commas and no punctuation at the end of the citation. These are generated by the {{citation}} template unless overridden;
  • modified CS2: fields separated by commas and the citation terminated by a full stop. These are generated by the {{citation}} template with the field "postscript=.".

In all cases, the templates can be forced to use a different style by using the mode field set to CS1 or CS2 to override the default style, so moving to a consistent style would be relatively simple.

So, who likes which style?

Lithopsian (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there's a consensus to switch, for consistency it should stick to the convention established by the time it became an FA article. I.e. using cite journal, &c. Praemonitus (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Citation style at promotion to FA was CS1 using individual templates (eg. cite journal and cite web). This was changed around this edit by RJHall, who curiously was the main editor leading up to the FA status. I don't know if the style change was intentional, the references were switched to use the plain citation template. Some further references were added later in other styles. 176.25.28.31 (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some drift and entropy is inevitable. It's easy enough to make things consistent again. Praemonitus (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've converted everything to CS1 style, fingers crossed, using the individual cite templates. Lithopsian (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The second-brightest or third-brightest star in the northern celestial hemisphere, after Arcturus?[edit]

The poor Sirius is not counted? ChJn (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sirius is in the southern celestial hemisphere. So no. TowardsTheLight (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Equatorial vs. polar temperature contrast[edit]

For non-physicists like me, it's not obvious why Vega's ellipsoidal shape due to its rapid rotation/centrifugal forces would result in higher polar temperatures. A brief explanation would seem appropriate. 82.38.64.117 (talk) 05:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably be explained in more detail on the gravity darkening article. Praemonitus (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vega&oldid=1193674015"