Talk:Delta Trianguli

Copyright infringement

The version of this page dated 16 April 2006, 15:38 contains large portions of text copied verbatim from the Delta Trianguli page at [1]. The editor who inserted this text also removed most of the catalogue references from the starbox, and a link to the catalogue of binary star orbital elements from which the visual binary orbit was taken.

I am thus reverting this article. Chaos syndrome 17:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of catalogue information, orbital data source

User:Hurricane Devon keeps removing catalogue information and the link to the catalogue from which the visual binary orbit for Delta Trianguli was taken. Please could this user justify this removal of information from the article! Chaos syndrome 19:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the catalogue references, again. Also the template specifies the orbital period in years, not days, and the semimajor axis in arcseconds (this is what is measured) not AU (which has to be derived). Chaos syndrome 13:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oopse, my bad! I didn't relise it was 10 days, I thoght it was years! And I didn't recollect that it was arcseconds. I apologize for my mistakes. — Hurricane Dev o n @ 16:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catalogue corrections

I have checked the catalogues against SIMBAD and corrected two errors:

The G 92 reference was given as Giclas but I could not find a Giclas reference for this star in SIMBAD. I did find a Gliese reference with the same number. I changed G to Gl and linked to the Gliese catalogue.
The CCDM reference was missing a J; it appears that the J is needed for some reason.
I also could not find the GCTP reference in SIMBAD but I chose not to change this.

-- B.D.Mills (T, C) 02:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted material

This edit included a large quantity of material copied pretty much straight from the copyrighted website SolStation, with a few wording changes to try and disguise the source. I therefore have reverted the article to its state before the copyrighted material was added. Icalanise (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not recall taking all that wording from SolStation, maybe some sentences, but not everything. Secondly, the article looked sloppy after the undo, so I re-added the snipped starbox, sections, and external links. I also re-added the wording to the "distance and visibility" section (since it was in plain, original language). — Nuclear Vacuum 00:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The graphic is wildly off and the starbox needs to be updated

The circle in the starbox graphic points to an empty area of space. Additionally, the SIMBAD page has been updated with data from GAIA, so the starbox should reflect at least some of those changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlutonianEmpire (talk • contribs) 05:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]