Jump to content

Talk:Zeta Reticuli

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


File:Zeta Reticuli Binary Star.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Zeta Reticuli Binary Star.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Magnitude/Luminance disagreement

[edit]
Resolved

From the infobox:

ζ1 Ret
Absolute magnitude (Mv) 5.11±0.01[5]
Absolute bolometric magnitude (Mbol) 5.03 ± 0.03[3]
Luminosity (bolometric) 0.77[note 1] L☉
Luminosity (visual, Lv) 0.77[note 2] L☉

So, the two abs. mags disagree, but the luminosities agree. - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 15:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ζ2 Ret
Absolute magnitude (Mv) 4.83[5]
Absolute bolometric magnitude (Mbol) 4.79 ± 0.03[3]
Luminosity (bolometric) 0.96[note 1] L☉
Luminosity (visual, Lv) 1.00[note 2] L☉

Even worse, by abs. mag, the bolometric value is higher (more luminous), but the visual luminosity is higher. Is that even theoretically possible?

If I read the formulas right, it's not possible, and the magnitude figures are essentially logarithms. IMO, the only source of the disagreement could be that one source calls certain frequencies visible which the other calls infrared or ultraviolet, or if both stars are significantly variable, esp. WRT spectral type. - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 15:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • All looks good to me. Even has footnotes explaining the exact formulae used to calculate the luminosities from the absolute magnitudes. No thought required, just a little effort. Plug the numbers yourself and you'll see. Lithopsian (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick reply. I missed the fact that the two magnitude figures for the Sun are defined differently.
¡Oops! (hurt me / more pain) 17:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind that measurement errors always exist, which can sometimes lead to seemingly irreconcilable results. All we can do here is report the findings until data with higher accuracy becomes available. Praemonitus (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zeta Reticuli. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exoplanet, debris, etc

[edit]

Considering how little we know of Zeta Reticuli, I don't see what the problem is with a short history of interesting observations and interpretation. It appears that an editor has a strong opinion on what should be there, but Wikipedia should simply reflect reliable sources, not one's imagination... The ZetaTalk reference is not optimal, but appears to serve as context with some better sources cited later. —PaleoNeonate – 07:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there's nothing wrong with the current section. The editor in question has been blocked for disruptive editing, per the talk page. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barney and Betty Hill incident

[edit]

Is there a reason why there is currently no mention of the [Barney and Betty Hill incident] in this article? The interest in this widely-publicized incident is likely the number one reason why this star system has attracted so much outsized attention, particularly interest in the possibility that the system contains planets or possible signs of extraterrestrial life. It has been discussed on Cosmos and numerous television shows solely in relation to this alleged extraterrestrial encounter. TheCrimsonLegacy (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned in the See Also section. The notability among the relevant expert community (astronomers, scientists, academic journals, etc) takes precedence over pop culture references. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the focus of this article is on the star system itself, rather than historical topics only indirectly related to it. That's consistent with most if not all other stellar articles. Praemonitus (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zeta_Reticuli&oldid=1257472654"