This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient EgyptTemplate:WikiProject Ancient EgyptAncient Egypt articles
We should have an article on every pyramid and every nome in Ancient Egypt. I'm sure the rest of us can think of other articles we should have.
Cleanup.
To start with, most of the general history articles badly need attention. And I'm told that at least some of the dynasty articles need work. Any other candidates?
Standardize the Chronology.
A boring task, but the benefit of doing it is that you can set the dates !(e.g., why say Khufu lived 2589-2566? As long as you keep the length of his reign correct, or cite a respected source, you can date it 2590-2567 or 2585-2563)
Stub sorting
Anyone? I consider this probably the most unimportant of tasks on Wikipedia, but if you believe it needs to be done . . .
Data sorting.
This is a project I'd like to take on some day, & could be applied to more of Wikipedia than just Ancient Egypt. Take one of the standard authorities of history or culture -- Herotodus, the Elder Pliny, the writings of Breasted or Kenneth Kitchen, & see if you can't smoothly merge quotations or information into relevant articles. Probably a good exercise for someone who owns one of those impressive texts, yet can't get access to a research library.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Polynesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Polynesia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolynesiaWikipedia:WikiProject PolynesiaTemplate:WikiProject PolynesiaPolynesia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
Aristotle might have referred to the double star in his Meteorologica, citing African sources:
"... some of the fixed stars too get a tail. For this we must not only accept the authority of the Egyptians who assert it, but we have ourselves observed the fact. For a star in the thigh of the Dog had a tail, though a faint one. If you fixed your sight on it its light was dim, but if you just glanced at it, it appeared brighter."
Is "Gaza sphinx" correct? Should it not be "Giza sphinx"?
(Star Study)
The object which is being called "Sirius" is in fact not. The object being discussed within this article is in fact within the boundaries of our solar system. This object being depicted as "Sirus" the "brightest star in the sky" can be viewed moving from east to west, whereas the constellation of "Orion" moves across the sky from west to east. The article is in fact fraudulent and should be revised to show it's fictitious propaganda.
Coming to this page to check some facts about Sirius A for a book I am writing about Manchester physics, I was disappointed to find that one of the things I already knew as an irrefutable fact was incorrectly reported here. This undermines the credibility of the whole article and since I assume it has been written by astronomers and I am a mere particle physicist, I can't trust the article for anything. I am therefore surprised that it has received accolades for being such a good one.
The irrefutable fact is that the first measurement of the diameter was published in 1956 and not 1959 as stated in the text, nor 1958 as given in the (wrong) citation. The original paper was:
[1]
The value they measured was 6.8 +/– 0.5 mas.
In addition, this original paper is cited in the subsection headed "Discovery of a companion" and not in the section "Sirius A" where a "current" uncited value of 5.936±0.016 mas is quoted. I have found a recent Australian compilation giving the diameter as 6.041±0.017 mas which differs from the value quoted here by six standard deviations of the quoted errors, which is most disturbing.
I haven't edited then page because it might be someone's pet baby. But I do urge a thorough vetting and overhaul of the whole article which I feel has gained an undeserved reputation for quality.
TheProfRobin (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Priority 1 (top)
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Under the section 'Apparent Third Star', a reference is made to "0.09 arcseconds". If someone just hovers over 'mas' and reads what the popup says, they might think mas means 'minute of arc'. In other words, it would be nice if when you hover cursor over mas, the first word you see is 'milliarcseconds'.
162.207.203.26 (talk) 04:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But it is already set up in this way? Ruslik_Zero 21:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure set up is the right way to describe it. The ((val)) template wikilinks the unit mas to milliarcsecond, which is a redirect to Minute and second of arc#Symbols and abbreviations. The tooltip for non-logged-in users shows the main image for the linked article and a short piece of the lead. It doesn't respect sections, so in this case it doesn't really say anything about milliarcseconds specifically. I don't see any simple workaround, short of the wiki tooltips getting smarter. ((val)) can be configured to link to something else, but I don't see anything obvious that would help. An article for this relatively obscure unit, just to solve this issue, seems out of step with the relevant policies. Lithopsian (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It has been suggested that the furture fate of Sirius B is to become a type Ia supernova, and although uncited that this is obvious. This is not obvious. Only a small proportion of white dwarfs will ever become a supernova. We still don't fully understand (or understand at all) exactly what type of situation produces a type Ia supernova but it is relatively (relatively, as in extremely) rare compared to the number of white dwarf binaries. Regardless, it would certainly not be obvious to the average non-astronomer that this would be the case, so a reliable source is required before including it in the article. Lithopsian (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sirius A has 2 Solar masses. Don't stars from 1.4 Solar masses on go supernova, becoming neutron stars or black holes? Why shall Sirius A share a similar fate like the Sun? 212.186.15.63 (talk) 06:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Only stars more massive than 8-10 solar masses go supernova. Ruslik_Zero 12:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They usually say 1.4 solar masses, don't they? Since the Sun is said to lose almost half its mass during its red giant phase, maybe the same happens to Sirius A. Then it matches: it would become a white dwarf. 212.186.15.63 (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're getting confused with the Chandrasekhar limit, which relates to the mass of the star after it becomes a white dwarf Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 18:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. So since Sirius A loses enough mass when becoming a red giant, and again by a planetary nebula, its remaining mass will be low enough that it will be a white dwarf? 212.186.15.63 (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this mass can go to Sirius B, and maybe cause Sirius B to explode. Just my speculation- I have seen scenarios like this in the past. 122.60.58.55 (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
References
^R Hanbury Brown and R Q Twiss. Nature. Volume 178. November 1956. pp1046-1048.
There is a dramatic layout mess and MOS:SANDWICHing throughout ... could someone address this ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Citations that do not give specific page numbers (mostly journal articles)
I did what I could. Ap J seems to only give first page (maybe due to transition to online articles). Attic Salt (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some paragraphs that are very long (paragraph 4 in "Observational history") and some that are only one sentence (and very short)
am trying to rectify this - regarding that long para....@Z1720: where would you split it? Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would split it after "Queen of the Heaven" Z1720 (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This paragraph is on one topic, Polynesian observations. The other paragraphs are on other, also self-contained communities. So I think we should leave the paragraph as is. Just my opinion. Attic Salt (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the thing to do is reduce all of those many, many, names that the Polynesians used. They are just a long list that adds little understanding. Doing this would make the paragraph shorter. Attic Salt (talk) 04:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hesitant to remove names. How do we pick which Polynesian cultures get their name of the star listed? I prefer a separate paragraph describing what different Polynesian cultures called the star. Z1720 (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not generally in favour of lists of foreign language names, especially somewhat esoteric names, unless they contribute to the broader content of the article. Attic Salt (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would sandwiching in a small thumbnail make the slabs of text a little less daunting? I'm thinking specifically of the heiroglyph which should be less wide than the first word of the section title so hardly likely to be a layout problem. Lithopsian (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "Other modern references" section is in list form. Would it be better served as prose?
The description of Sirius in fiction is too short and could bring information from Sirius in fiction
I added a short paragraph giving a few of the more prominent (IMO) uses in science-fiction. There is already a good list of cultural uses and some random references not strictly referring to the star as a location in a story. Lithopsian (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone be interested in working on this article to get it ready for TFA? I'm pinging Casliber although any help would be appreciated. Z1720 (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am on it - @Lithopsian: has a better understanding of the hard science than me so would be good to help out too :) Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How's it looking so far? I know there are still a couple of citation needed tags. One is related to ancient understanding of the Sothic cycle which I'm probably not going to be much help with, although the whole claim looks slightly dubious. The other is about the position of Sirius in 14,000 years. I have checked the calculation and it appears correct, with proper motion included, but can't find any source to explicitly make the same claim. Lithopsian (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've scheduled it TFA for March 21. I hope the remaining can be addressed by then? Suggest removing what can't be sourced by then, or modifying to fit what sources you can find. Thanks for your help in the matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think its all done, fingers crossed. Lithopsian (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely enough, a lot of time is spent explaining in which constellations stars live, but the galaxy to which they belong seems to be never mentioned. Sounds like prehistoric thinking to me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.192.35.12 (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can see it, therefore it is in this galaxy. Not so much prehistoric as assuming a certain minimal level of knowledge - unfortunate perhaps, but necessary. Lithopsian (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sirius is 8 light years away from Sun.
Milky Way galaxy has a diameter of 100,000 light years.
So it's obvious that Sirius is inside the Milky Way Galaxy.
Note that the neighbour galaxy of Andromeda is 2,500,000 light years away.
Conclusion: When you want to know which galaxy a star belongs to, just know the distance of the star. Because constellations are an area in the sky from our perspective; hence two or more galaxies can be in one constellation. Note that when you look at the sky and see stars they might be several light years away from each other both horizontally and vertically. Just like when you look at a distant tree and a distant car from a distance, and you see both beside each other. But in fact they are far from each other. Aminabzz (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The text was already in Wikipedia on the date the paper claims to have been written, and several years before that. If it was the other way round, it would be a copyright violation and should be removed. Doesn't reflect well on the journal paper though. Lithopsian (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess imitation is the best form of flattery...Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 23:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The proper motion value in the infobox sets its reference as van Leeuwen, F. (November 2007), doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078357, but that paper does not mention Sirius at all. Urhixidur (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The paper is a description of the derivation of a large database of astrometric data for essentially all the Hipparcos stars. You can query it online at, for example, VizeR. Or the highlights are reproduced on the Simbad page for the star. Lithopsian (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really relevant that Sirius is "the fifth closest stellar system"? I would suppose that the reader would be more interested in learning, that Sirius is the seventh closest system, after Alpha Centauri, Barnard's Star, Luhman 16 (no star!), WISE J085510.74-071442.5 (no star!), Wolf 359, and HD 95735. I suggest that the passage is rephrased to "and it is the seventh closest system to the Sun" and a link is added to the article List_of_nearest_stars_and_brown_dwarfs. CalRis (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is "relevant" (strange choice of words) - interesting fact that should stay. 50.111.25.27 (talk) 08:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The absolute magnitude stated on Sirius A is said to be 1.42
I downloaded the cited source and in there it's stated (twice) that it's actually -1.42
"This was determined through a comparison with stars in the North Polar Sequence5, or bright stars in the vicinity of Sirius, and yielded mV (Sirius)=–1.42±0.03,..." (Page 97, also table at page 189)
That's correct, but still the source cited doesn't even mention the absolute magnitude.
The German version of Wikipedia does a better job at it linking to this statement:
Berechnet sich aus scheinbarer Helligkeit und Parallaxe: M = m + 5 + 5·log(Parallaxe) = −1,46 + 5 + 5·log(0,379″) = +1,43 mag (siehe Entfernungsmodul).
(Calculates from the apparent magnitude and parallax: M = m + 5 +5·log(parallax) = −1,46 + 5 + 5·log(0,379″) = +1,43 mag (see distance modulus)
Also even if the values used in that source were used (as quoted apparent magnitude = -1.42, parallax 380.023) the calculated absolute magnitude would be
Surface gravity is expressed as an acceleration, conventionally, m/s2. Expressing it as cgs is gibberish. cgs is centimetre gram scale, a general description of a scale system, not a unit of acceleration. Sadly, this error has made its irritating wsy into almost every wiki on stars. Also log g is meaningless. There are many different logs, ln, log10 etc. It is therefore necessary to specify which log is being quoted. 209.93.146.80 (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your concern, but claiming that essentially every professional astronomer in existence is talking gibberish might be a little above your pay grade. cgs, as linked in all those articles you think are meaningless is a *system* of units in which, quoting from the Wikipedia article, "All CGS mechanical units are unambiguously derived from these three base units". Hence the cgs units of acceleration are unambiguously cm/s2. The logarithm (base 10) of such an acceleration does not technically have units, but are understood from being designated in the cgs system. This usage is almost universal in astrophysics, probably for historical reasons, but perhaps just because the results fall in a nice range of small (almost always) positive numbers. You can read more, and follow the references, at Surface gravity. Lithopsian (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As Lithopsian correctly stated, the unit of acceleration is cm s-2 in the cgs (centimetre-gramme-second) system of units. The convention across the sciences is for log to mean log10. The very old convention of expressing surface gravities of stars as log10( g / cms-2) has persisted, where g is the acceleration due to gravity at the surface, even though cgs units are virtually never encountered elsewhere. A more modern practice would be to express surface gravities as log10( g / ms-2), but this is still not done widely done. TowardsTheLight (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why does Sirius B has a surface temperature of 25,000 Kelvins, while it has a radius 0.0084 times that of the Sun and also a luminosity 0.056 times that of the Sun? Aminabzz (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This type of question should be referred to the Wiki Help Desk, unless you are requesting some change to the article. 2603:6080:21F0:6140:54CA:9001:27B8:D63 (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]