Talk:Alpha Pegasi
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Algeneb
[edit]According to the 1728 Cyclopaedia, Algeneb is a "fixed star of the second magnitude on the right side of Perseus." Whether this refers to Alpha or Gamma Pegasi, I don't know, but it appears to be Alpha Pegasi. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-10 18:15
proper name
[edit]A proper name mankib for β Pegasi, and Mirfak for α Persei.--Bay Flam 11:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Spectral Type
[edit]The page currently states that Alpha Pegasi has spectral type A0 IV. This appears to be in error: the Simbad database (and other references) indicates it is a B9 III type star: [1]. I would make the edit, but I am not sure at all how to set up the reference correctly. It should be corrected though: it's a significant error. Joel (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- It isn't a significant error. It is a marginal difference. Reliable sources report the spectral type (MK unless noted) for this star variously from newer to older as A1IV (BCD), A0IV, A0III-IV, B8IV:, A0V (S2/68), B9III, B9.5III, or B9V. Simbad currently shows a spectral class of B9III but doesn't give a source for it. Simbad itself is not a particularly reliable source because it changes over time. I don't see any compelling reason to change from a recent value from a respected source of A0IV to an old (1968) value of B9III just because Simbad happens to still be showing that value. Simbad does usually pick up on the most recent spectral class from an MK spectral atlas, but it isn't God. The borderline A0/B9 III/IV spectrum should probably be discussed in the body of the article. Just for fun, the Bright Star Catalog shows B9V, the Hipparcos Input Catalog shows B9.5III, and the Henry Draper Catalog (old!) shows A0. Lithopsian (talk) 13:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I'll leave it to you to decide on significance. In any event, "the borderline A0/B9 III/IV spectrum should probably be discussed in the body of the article": that would actually be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel Shepherd (talk • contribs) 05:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)