This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Acrux article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
I hope everyone likes it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68Kustom ( talk • contribs) 02:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Should be almost exactly the same as Mimosa, both around -3.5 - -4, and not 0. If it were 0, then it wouldn't be a prominent star. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.221.231 ( talk) 13:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Some photos show Acrux embedded in an extended halo not mentioned here. Is this real or an artifact of the particular telescope or camera that was used? Virgil H. Soule ( talk) 14:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
List of stars in Crux and this article text give Alpha A and Alpha B as 1.40 and 2.09, respectively. So what are the 1.33 and 1.75 magnitudes for them in the infobox? Someone forgot to change them while changing the other? 85.76.73.19 ( talk) 04:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I refer to my edit of 18 October - More precisely specifying the star named Acrux; consequential amendments; tidying up - which was reverted by Lithopsian the same day: Undid revision 744929327 ... it was basically right before - Acrux is both the (unresolved) Aa and Ab components of α Cru A (which is resolved from α Cru B). Basically, I think I'm right and he's wrong! :)
(A note on nomenclature to avoid confusion. I'll disregard the potential additional component - α Cru C - as it's not relevant here. That makes α Cru a triple star system with a binary pair and a single star in mutual orbit with that pair. One designation scheme is to call the binary α¹ Cru and the singleton α² Cru. Alternatively they can be called α Cru A and α Cru B. In the latter scheme, the binary's two components are designated α Cru Aa and α Cru Ab. However, if the former scheme is used, the two components should be α¹ Cru A and α¹ Cru B. I say 'should' because I haven't seen any designation of the two components starting with α¹ Cru. Not saying there aren't any; just that I haven't seen any!)
The name Acrux historically applied to α¹ Cru. The new IAU WGSN approved the name for α¹ Cru on 20 July 2016, set out in its Bulletin No.1]. This, I surmise, is why Lithopsian argues that the name Acrux applies to the binary as a whole. However in the WGSN's Bulletin No.2 it states that:
Acrux is listed by the WGSN as applying to α¹ Cru aka HR 4730 (α² Cru is HR 4731). However, α¹ Cru is multiple (binary). Therefore, I argue, the name should now be attributed to the brightest component of α¹ Cru - that is to α¹ Cru A/α Cru Aa only.
Comments? Cuddlyopedia ( talk) 09:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Alpha Crucis. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ginan (star) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 14:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
The cited value of -3.77 does not appear in the cited source at all and conflicts with other sources, WolframAlpha has a few alternate sources: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=absolute+magnitude+of+acrux Singulary ( talk) 20:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Acrux article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
I hope everyone likes it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68Kustom ( talk • contribs) 02:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Should be almost exactly the same as Mimosa, both around -3.5 - -4, and not 0. If it were 0, then it wouldn't be a prominent star. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.221.231 ( talk) 13:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Some photos show Acrux embedded in an extended halo not mentioned here. Is this real or an artifact of the particular telescope or camera that was used? Virgil H. Soule ( talk) 14:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
List of stars in Crux and this article text give Alpha A and Alpha B as 1.40 and 2.09, respectively. So what are the 1.33 and 1.75 magnitudes for them in the infobox? Someone forgot to change them while changing the other? 85.76.73.19 ( talk) 04:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I refer to my edit of 18 October - More precisely specifying the star named Acrux; consequential amendments; tidying up - which was reverted by Lithopsian the same day: Undid revision 744929327 ... it was basically right before - Acrux is both the (unresolved) Aa and Ab components of α Cru A (which is resolved from α Cru B). Basically, I think I'm right and he's wrong! :)
(A note on nomenclature to avoid confusion. I'll disregard the potential additional component - α Cru C - as it's not relevant here. That makes α Cru a triple star system with a binary pair and a single star in mutual orbit with that pair. One designation scheme is to call the binary α¹ Cru and the singleton α² Cru. Alternatively they can be called α Cru A and α Cru B. In the latter scheme, the binary's two components are designated α Cru Aa and α Cru Ab. However, if the former scheme is used, the two components should be α¹ Cru A and α¹ Cru B. I say 'should' because I haven't seen any designation of the two components starting with α¹ Cru. Not saying there aren't any; just that I haven't seen any!)
The name Acrux historically applied to α¹ Cru. The new IAU WGSN approved the name for α¹ Cru on 20 July 2016, set out in its Bulletin No.1]. This, I surmise, is why Lithopsian argues that the name Acrux applies to the binary as a whole. However in the WGSN's Bulletin No.2 it states that:
Acrux is listed by the WGSN as applying to α¹ Cru aka HR 4730 (α² Cru is HR 4731). However, α¹ Cru is multiple (binary). Therefore, I argue, the name should now be attributed to the brightest component of α¹ Cru - that is to α¹ Cru A/α Cru Aa only.
Comments? Cuddlyopedia ( talk) 09:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Alpha Crucis. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ginan (star) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 14:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
The cited value of -3.77 does not appear in the cited source at all and conflicts with other sources, WolframAlpha has a few alternate sources: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=absolute+magnitude+of+acrux Singulary ( talk) 20:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)