![]() | Binary star is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 24, 2006. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"The brightness of the two stars is also an important factor, as brighter stars are harder to separate, due to their glare, than the dimmer ones."
Not being an astronomer, I'm loath to immediately change this myself, but this unsourced statement seems plainly wrong. Aperture or exposure time can easily be reduced, cutting down on glare artifacts. The correct statement is probably that if there is a large difference between the luminosities of the two stars, then the faint secondary can be more difficult to detect due to the overwhelming glare of the primary. Undomelin ( talk) 07:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
This is an outstanding article, but you have to admit that an animation of a trinary star system would be extremely cool and really should be added.
75.166.179.110 ( talk) 19:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Would it be plausible to add a section on the fictional Mirrodin installment of Magic, The Gathering, which features a multi-star system? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.159.176.131 ( talk • contribs) 00:16, 29 August, 2006 (UTC)
The fiction section was getting a bit large (especially since the article is quite big itself), so I split it off today. Nick Mks 19:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible for a binary star to collide with its companion? After all, their orbits do overlap: [ [1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Just James ( talk • contribs) 12:56, 6 October, 2006 (UTC)
As from now, I am discontinuing my efforts to limit vandalism to this article (which I got featured last spring). Without the requested support from admins, this is becoming an impossible task. Nick Mks 18:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
This line in the article is intriguing: "Recent research suggests that a large percentage of stars are part of systems with at least two stars" Could a footnote or link be added to explore it? Thanks, John Sweeney —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.230.141 ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 29 November, 2006 (UTC)
I apologize if it sounds like a very basic question, but how would the two stars on a binary system appear on the sky of an Earth-like planet orbiting one of the two suns and relatively far from the other ? Specially, how would sunset/sunrise, day/night look like ? 161.24.19.82 17:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Sun/Nemesis hypothesis be added in some way to the article? Scientists think that our Solar System is a binary-star if Nemesis is out there beyond the Oort Cloud. Spark Moon 16:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The first sentence says A binary star is a stellar system consisting of two stars orbiting around their center of mass. And right two it there is a picture with only 1 star and a blackhole. I know blackholes were stars before they died, but I think the first sentence ain't right. Silver Spoon 08:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Reading this [ AJ paper], they claim that NSVS01031772 is a DDEB type binary. Looking on this page, it does not mention it. This is the first time I seen this term, wondering if any of you know what this means. It also states that these objects are scarce. And that the first 2 low-mass ones discovered are CM Dra & YY Gem. What makes NSVS01031772 unique is that both stars are of stellar metallicity. I will try rereading the paper to see if I missed anything. Thanks, CarpD 6/22/07.
I looked at the paper. I think DDEB is just their non-standard notation for a double-lined system, so not worth noting. I couldn't find any other papers using this notation on a quick search. Timb66 07:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I think there should be a bit about how gravitational lensing can make one object look like two (or more). For example the Twin Quasar is a gravitationally lensed object that looks like two. -- 72.39.35.178 ( talk) 18:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
This whole article in a factually an absolute mess, which I have made a significant improvement n "Terminology" using primary sources.
There are too missing references to much of the quoted text.
The status of the text as a feature article should be removed until this issues are fixes. The peer review made in 8th June 2006 is far out of date, and the whole article has been significantly modified. It is important this page is fixed, as it hinges on other binary and double stars being referenced in other Wikipedia articles. (estimate +1000)
This also needs to be integrated with the Wikipedia pages on Double stars and Multiple stars
Arianewiki1 ( talk) 04:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The current version of this article is greatly improved here. I have great appreciation for Spacepotato's efforts in correction some glaring mistakes and investigating various references.
However, I have grave concerns with the use of terms for "double stars" and "binary stars" - especially the distinction of the two.
The persistent and wrong view of "stellar systems" throughout the astronomy articles in "Wikipedia" shows the lack of understanding about the nature multiple gravitational systems. Namely, single stars, double stars, multiple stars, associations, open star clusters and globular star clusters. These divisions are not just based on numerical counts, but also on their own internal dynamics. Such distinctions are important for their evolution, stability and behaviours.
Double stars, Multiple stars, Associations, Open Star Clusters and Globular Star Clusters are not just singular objects, by are also distinct subjects in observational and theoretical astronomy.
in this instance, "Double stars" are the generic term for these objects AND the topic of such gravitational celestial bodies. Observationally, both "Binary stars" and "optical pairs are typically a subset of subject "Double stars." "Double stars" use as a term is especially important by visual observers, who are making so-called "measures" to determine if "double stars" are either binaries or optical pairs. Arianewiki1 ( talk) 09:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Over time this distinction is made by the apparent motion of components. Shorter period binaries have been learnt rather quickly. Ie. William Herschel with Gamma Virginus (Porrima) and Castor, but the majority remain uncertain if they are attached gravitationally or not. These are commonly called "double stars" or "visual double stars" - 'pairs' if you must. They are not umbrella "stellar systems", they are actually important distinct classes of astronomical objects.
The same problem is with "Multiple stars", they are a class of objects. "Multiple star systems" is simply a redundant term, which is both confusing and rarely used. (Read whole discussion in the page stellar systems. This reads like an agenda produced by some individual writers. Sadly, this usage is historically has been rarely used, and through the nomenclature of the I.A.U.
Another is Lortet, M.-C., Borde, S., Ochsenbein, F. 1994, The Second Reference Dictionary of the Nomenclature of Celestial Objects, A&AS, 107, 193 ( [aa 2]
Unless writers are prepared to adopt common usage terms for astronomical classes of objects, then most of these Wikipedia articles will continue to be rejected as portraying how such systems are actually investigated and understood.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arianewiki1 ( talk • contribs) 09:52, 23 August 2008
reference section added by Spacepotato ( talk) 18:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
A multiple star system is three or more stars, gravitationally bound, and moving together. Multiple systems are arranged hierarchically...
ON 20 December 2008 Spacepotato (Talk | contribs) (50,279 bytes) said "Copyedit again. Also, incorrect to equate visual binary stars with binaries whose orbits are known." Please. This is not what I'm actually saying!!!!!! The statement is that "binary stars with orbits" are a sub-set of "visual DOUBLE stars" !! As I said before there are are THREE types of (visual) Double Stars and NOT just TWO. These are Binary stars, Optical Doubles or pairs, and THOSE NOT DETERMINED AS EITHER BINARIES OR OPTICAL DOUB:ES. Such indeterminate systems are called by observers as PAIRS or "globally" as DOUBLE STARS. In fact, the majority of (visual) double stars 98% are NOT absolutely known to be binaries, while perhaps about 30% have been determined as very likely optical. The rest of the systems are unknown attachment. So what should YOU call these???? They are (c. 68% of them) neither established binaries nor optical doubles! But I do see your point of view, and basically where you are coming from. Yes, theoretically there are can only be binaries or non-binaries (optical double stars), but to the reader it leaves the impression that we already know for certain they are all one or the other. Clearly the real truth is we don't really know where the majority fall - it is actually the driving force for the last two hundred years or so now behind basic double star research. Arianewiki1 ( talk) 06:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Is this no.23 Ref broken:
I wrote to author and got new correct link: http://astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro101/herter/lectures/lec16.htm
Not sure how to edit the article, though- sorry I'm newbie ;-) Zak06 ( talk) 16:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
As I suggested at AfD (comment 21:29, 5 March 2011), the editors unhappy with Hot companion would do more good pouring their energy into moving any relevant content into this article and redirecting. [Clarification: I am neutral on the merge. I'm just trying to move the project along.]- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 13:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone - Unfortunately, this article has not kept up with featured article standards in the years since it's promotion. If it is to remain a featured article, some rather significant work is needed. The major issues that caught my eye include:
If, at the very least, the major issues are not addressed, this article will need to go to WP:FAR. Dana boomer ( talk) 14:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
These characteristics are very important when it comes to evolution of stars and planets in multiple star systems. -- Artman40 ( talk) 23:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Two articles discussing the star RR Caeli describe it as a post-common-envelope binary, a red link. As far as I can see, these are the only occurrences of the term in the English Wikipedia. Should the concept be explained, probably in this article, or should we get rid of it? J S Ayer ( talk) 01:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Binary star. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I removed this material from the Discovery section. It did not seem appropriate where it was placed, and the reference was inaccessible. I see a National Radio Astronomy Observatory news release about these results, but no other decent secondary sources.
John Tobin and his team found that there are two types of binary star system categories: there either being separated between a distance between less than 300 astronomical units or greater than 1000 astronomical units(Hall, Shannon). [1]
Stigmatella aurantiaca ( talk) 18:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Before a series of animations:
The phrase "not simulated" usually means it's the real thing. Let's find another wording. How about "These animations do not attempt to represent any specific real system"? — Tamfang ( talk) 19:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Binary_star#Spectroscopic_binaries says "Binary stars that are both visual and spectroscopic binaries are rare, and are a precious source of valuable information when found" but it doesn't list any or have a source we can refer to. Should we note some here or where ? - Rod57 ( talk) 18:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Binary star. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Binary star. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.space-art.co.uk/gallery.php?gallery=Stars2When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Binary star. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Binary star. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The article currently claims that
but don't they always appear to the unaided eye as a single point of light?
(Some of them can be resolved with optical telescopes; I wonder if someone misunderstood some reference to "visual binaries" and thought that they were visible to the naked eye?)
—
Ruakh
TALK
02:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
It would be useful to have information in this article about percentages: What fraction of stars are optical binaries, and what fraction are true double stars? Doubtless, there are estimates. Friendly Person ( talk) 15:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
The video used in this article is not properly credited. I found it on https://www.eso.org/public/videos/eso1311b/ , credited as "ESO/L. Calçada". A reference to this page is basic etiquette of crediting scientific works. 178.165.191.108 ( talk) 15:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)