Talk:Eta Cassiopeiae

Needs a reference

The following was inserted into the article without a reference. I have no means of confirming it, and English wikipedia isn't a non-English language dictionary. So I moved it here until a reference shows up and the cultural relevance can be clarified.

It is known as 王良三 (the Third Star of Wang Liang) in Chinese.

Sorry.—RJH (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

RS Canum Venaticorum variable?

While the Eta Cas binary seems to be listed as an RS CVn ststem in a very outdated edition of the General Catalogue of Variable Stars (according to SIMBAD), I've been able to find no convincing sources that suggest this to actually be the case--and neither of the individual stars are listed as being variable on their own SIMBAD pages. The AB system doesn't even have a distinct variable star designation either (e.g. like how Proxima Centauri is designated as ), the catalogue apparently just lists the star by its Bayer designation.

I suspect that its inclusion in the catalogue may be an error--the stars don't seem to come near enough to one another to elicit the heightened chromospheric activity and emissions profile seen in RS CVn systems, for starters. Could it be worth listing it as dubious?--203.57.211.237 (talk) 09:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

First point: what you suspect is irrelevant. Sorry, but Wikipedia doesn't "determine", it only "reports". If you can find a reliable source that states this is a mistake then by all means ...

Now, back to the verifiable "facts". The GCVS first designated η Cas as variable in 1999, so hardly very outdated. There was a mass variable star naming based on Hipparcos photometry. The stars on this list typically *are* variable, although usually with a very small amplitude. The variability type is listed as "RS:", so I've added a question mark in the article and given GCVS as the reference. VSX, which is updated more often, just gives the same information. η Cas is not listed in either of the Hipparcos photometry variability annexes. That's it, no other sources that I can see. η Cas A has occasionally been reported as a close binary, but this has been refuted a number of times.

BTW, Bayer-designated stars don't get a separate variable star designations. Lithopsian (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

"Traditional" name

Achird is given as a traditional name without a reference. The usual reliable published sources don't mention this name. It is relatively common in books and web articles, but only since about the year 2000. Jim Kaler gives the name, possibly the oldest reference I can find and one of the few that probably wasn't copied from Wikipedia. The name was added in the third edit for this article, in 2004. Who made up this name? Lithopsian (talk) 12:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Responding to a nearly five year old question, Achird was approved as a common name for eta Cas on 2017-09-05 by the IAU Working Group on Star Names. Rick Boatright (talk) 05:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eta Cassiopeiae. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100903162121/http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/CE/Museum/Space/Research/StarName/c_research_chinengstars_a_al.htm to http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/CE/Museum/Space/Research/StarName/c_research_chinengstars_a_al.htm

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) 01:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)