This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Eta Carinae 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 |
Archives:
1,
2,
3Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | Eta Carinae 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. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 12, 2017. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on March 11, 2016, March 11, 2018, March 11, 2022, and March 11, 2023. | ||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
"One remarkable aspect of Eta Carinae is its changing brightness. When it was first catalogued in 1677 by Edmond Halley, it was of the 4th magnitude, but later it brightened, reaching its greatest brightness in April 1843"
I don't know how to word it, but could the 2nd sentence be changed without getting too detailed, to indicate its varying brightness so readers don't think it only brightened from 1677 to 1843. Also, is it too fine a point to say "greatest *recorded* brightness in April 1843"? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jeandré du Toit (
talk •
contribs) 11:16, 19 January 2003
There are two conflicting magnitudes listed in the article. It appears eta car has apparent magnitude around 5.1: AAVSO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.206.150.195 ( talk • contribs) 08:48, 30 May 2007
Does anyone know the true size of the star? Is it likely to be closer to 60 or 881 solar radii? Is there a more recent source with a diameter? Nussun05 ( talk) 06:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
XKCD is at it again. This page should probably be locked to prevent vandalism, at least temporarily. We all know why. 2601:601:1801:3FF0:2DAD:D5F1:F9EF:F332 ( talk) 00:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
The details of the first graphic (Homunculus Nebula) give the distance as "more than 8,000 light years"; however, Astrometry in the infobox gives the distance as "7,500 ly", as does the detail for the fourth-last graphic. The Distance paragraph has 7,600 ± 330, i.e. between 7,270 and 7,930 ly; so the first graphic would appear to be anomalous. Prisoner of Zenda ( talk) 12:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)