Talk:Rigel/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Season location

At what time of the year is Rigel most visible? I'm trying to locate it around the earth at the spring, summer, winter or fall position

In which hemisphere? :) I imagine it makes a difference? I only know that, in the northwestern United States, we see Rigel most clearly from October to April. Don't know if that's specific enough for you. It also depends on whether you want when Rigel is at its peak at midnight, or whether you want it earlier in the evening. Jwrosenzweig 19:49, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hemisphere in this case (N/S) doesn't matter. Rigel is in the night sky during the winter, as you say. It's in the southern celestial hemisphere, but very near the celestial equator, meaning that it is visible from the entire southern hemisphere of the Earth and all but the highest latitude Arctic regions of the northern hemisphere. -- Decumanus 19:53, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hemisphere does matter when the question is asking in terms of the seasons. Winter in the northern hemisphere translates to summer in the southern. --seav 19:14, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How high does it get from Glasgow (Scotland)? I don't think Orion rises very high in the sky.81.107.126.114 14:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I was gonna say :P It's summer right now and Rigel is bright and high... SpitValve 08:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Giant - Dwarf

The article says Rigel is a super giant;

I suspect the dwarf category was added because the companions of Rigel are main sequence. I have deleted that category though, just to keep things clear as Rigel is usually understood to be the main star.--Kalsermar 19:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

what the hell -- unsigned

In this case, should we split off Rigel B as a separate aticle? -- CaptainMike 17:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Celestia

Excuse me, but what a junk Celestia imagery. :-p It's not even an "artists" rendition as it claims, unless a software is now an artist. :-p

Anyway, my point is, wouldn't it be better to have real images than just Celestia things? Keep in mind that Celestia use about 5 textures for all documented stars it supports in our galaxy. Sure, a real picture can't be quite as up close, but still... It'd at least depict Rigel. -- Northgrove 16:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, the current image is pretty useless as it is not informative. In addition, it is wrong because B supergiant stars like Rigel don't have sunspots. A size comparison might be handy.— JyriL ^talk 17:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Radius and diameter

I don't get it. On Rigel's page it says its 70 solar radii. Yet the list of largest stars has the units in diameter. This list has Rigel on it listed as 70 sun diameters. So is it a simple mistake?

No mistake, but what is exactly the problem? 70 radii means the radius is 70 times the radius of our sun. 70 diameters means 70 times the diameter of our sun. Both things are equivalent.--CWitte 14:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is the back-and-forth. Rigel's radius and diameter are 70 times that of the Sun, yes, but we should adopt a consistent rule across articles to avoid this minor confusion. Radius or diameter? You choose. 68Kustom (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think radius is standard in astronomical texts. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 16:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

why does NASA say that "Rigel is much larger at 78 solar radii" here http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/star_worldbook.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.186.143 (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well first of all, you can calculate the radius of a star based on b-v (color index) and the absolute magnitude as shown in http://cas.sdss.org/dr6/en/proj/advanced/hr/radius1.asp The steps are: 1) based on the b-v (color index) you can find out the temperature of the star 2) using the temperature of the star and the absolute magnitude of the star you can calculate the star radius as shown in the link

The downside is that I calculated Rigel's temperature using those formulas and it isn't 11.000 K, i got 9076.59347 K and that led to its radius of 85.9568577517187 solar radii. Raydekk (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh, we should prefer using sourced radii measured or computed outside. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 16:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

image

What can be seen on the "artist's impression" image? Why is it "viewed from 1AU" and how should it look like e.g. from 2AU or from 7 ly? I just see a white circle, some spots and nothing else. Maybe one should put a small sun inside the picture to have a comparision at least, --CWitte 08:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point of this image either. Rigel is white, blurry, seems to have sunspots or something, and it's so big it doesn't fit into the frame of the picture. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

i wonder who named it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.193.212.203 (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I just ran across this image two years later again. Still I wonder... Isn't File:Rigel_sun_comparision.png better?--CWitte (talk) 08:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Deneb?

The article says "the nearest more powerful star is Deneb" but I could swear that Zeta Puppis is both closer than Deneb and more powerful than Rigel. Wayne Hardman (talk) 12:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems the latest analysis might agree with you on the closeness, but I cannot figure out the accepted, most recent, bolometric luminosity of Deneb to be sure that Deneb is more powerful than Rigel. Can an expert check these? Meanwhile I have added this to the Zeta Puppis article:

2008 reductions of Hipparcos raw data claim a more accurate distance of 335 parsecs (1092 light years) +/- 4%, and for Deneb, 475 pc +/- 20%.

-84user (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and corrected the sentence after checking a few sources to make sure Zeta Pup was both more luminous than Rigel and closer than Deneb - To the best of our knowledge, it is although uncertainties in Deneb's distance are quite large. Wayne Hardman (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I notice that this change has caused some disagreement between this article and the article on Zeta Puppis. I agree that Zeta Puppis is closer than Deneb according to the latest data, but what about the luminosity? The infobox in the Zeta Puppis article lists its absolute magnitude as -5.96, less than that of Rigel's which is listed as -6.7. Hence, Zeta Puppis is not "more powerful than Rigel". Is this inconsistency because Zeta Puppis' absolute magnitude has not yet been corrected for the new distance measurement? One other thing, why say "Zeta Puppis out in Vela"? Surely Zeta Puppis is located in Puppis (though it may have origins in Vela)? Sisterdetestai (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe Zeta Pup. abs mag should be greater, the magnitude in the star box hasn't been corrected for its new distance. If I get chance, I'll look it up. Thanks for the heads up! Wayne Hardman (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've restored Deneb in the sentence. Zeta Pup. has been edited also to reflect its new, closer, distance and lower luminosity. Zeta Pup. *is* still more powerful than Rigel going on the figures in this article (66,000L vs 360,000L) but I'm not confident the bolometric for Rigel is accurate. I may be reverting this edit if it is. Wayne Hardman (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sufficiently convinced that the sentence was inaccurate and that Naos is both more powerful than Rigel and closer than Deneb. This issue should be closed now. Wayne Hardman (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Something I don't get: what about Betelgeuse? More powerful and even closer than Rigel? Talking about "powerful" you should consider bolometric luminosity, shouldn't you? Comparing absolute magnitude M_V is kind of odd (anthropocentric...).--CWitte (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

References

Fact request

I found the text "jumk.de does not cite its sources, so please replace with better source when one found", in the article, as regards to the radius 62 — I just agree, and think it deserves a talk note too. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 16:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It got a new source. NASA should be a little more reliable, I think. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 16:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Size and Mass

This page says, and I quote:

Rigel is a blue supergiant, at 17 solar masses, shining with approximately 40,000 times the luminosity of the Sun.[5]

The "Blue Supergiant" Page says:

"The best known example is Rigel, the brightest star in the constellation of Orion. Its mass is about 20 times that of the Sun, and its luminosity is more than 60,000 times greater."

These pages appear to be in contradiction.--131.215.7.219 (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There appear to be contradictions on this page also. The physical properties section states that Rigel is about 24 solar masses, while the radius is 71 solar radii. That would appear to indicate a volume and thus mass relative to the sun at least 1.5 million times greater (4/3*pi*r^3), unless the density of Rigel B is extremely (vanishingly) low.Plantsurfer (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Rigel is in the supergiant stage, which means the outer atmosphere has expanded significantly compared to when it was a main sequence star. Yes the density of Rigel's outer envelope is very low; most of the mass is likely concentrated near the core. Consider the surface gravity (log g) of Rigel: 1.75; this is equal to a gravitational force of 56 cm/s², or 0.057 g's.

As for the value discrepancy, the values on this page are reliably sourced; the values on the Blue Supergiant page are not. That isn't to say that the estimates on the latter page are wrong. Most likely the two estimates are based on estimates made at different points in time, from observations made with differing instruments, different models or methods and different estimates of the star's distance. Radii based on direct interferometric measurements (as on this article) may be more accurate than those derived from stellar models, assuming you have a good distance estimate. &c. Also it's usually best to go with a recent source rather than a dated reference, when there is a choice in the matter. Regards, RJH (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

In popular culture?

Just sitting here watching an old Star Trek episode (Wolf in the Fold), and the Rigel system features prominently in the episode, as well as other episodes in other Star Trek series. Does it warrant a mention? I assume "Rigel IV" would be the fourth planet in the fictitious Rigel system? Note: I'm not a "Trekkie", just thought maybe it belonged? Ebrockway (talk) 04:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I found this page "Rigel in fiction" and maybe that could be somehow linked? Yeah, I know I'm conversing with myself! Ebrockway (talk) 05:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It is listed in the See Also section at the bottom of the page. Personally I'd make a summary of that article and put it in this one but have not had the time. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, personally I'd prefer that you didn't. "Object in fiction" articles are notorious trivia attractors that are often difficult to summarize concisely, in the form recommended by WP:SS. They end up just drawing useless trivia to astronomy articles. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Spectral type

Simbad lists B8Iab:. The reference it gives for this also quotes B8Iab:, but that is simply copied from another paper: http://www.aavso.org/files/webpublications/ejaavso/v31n1/11.pdf That "original" reference gives the spectral type as B8Iae. I;m not sure if someone made a typo or whether they are simply taking liberties. Incidentally, the current value in the starbox cites the paper that Simbad cites, but gives a spectral type that omits the colon, so that should probably be changed anyway. The reverted edit actually gave the correct value from the paper (via Simbad).

As to the value we should show, there is no doubt that it is B8 because it is defined to be B8. There is little doubt about the I. The spectrum does have some emission, but it is largely emission wings on absorption lines and not very strong. Plenty of authors simply quote Ia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lithopsian (talk • contribs) 17:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Moravveji et al (2012) is a pretty up-to-date summary/study of the star. They list B8 Ia, so why don't we use that? Regards, RJH (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it Ree-Gel or Regal ?

Can someone add the pronunciation? -- AstroU (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

In the infobox. Usually like Nigel. Rothorpe (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Tnks! Some WP pages have it on the top-left. Thanks Again, AstroU (talk) 06:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

---

Distance estimates table

Why does the table of distance estimates include Perryman et al. (1997) (Tycho) 308.6+∞ −298.3 [36] ? The distance cited is over 30 times greater than any of the other three listings, which does not seem reasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dc3~enwiki (talk • contribs) 13:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It does seem pretty pointless. I need to digest and do some reading. Actually table might be better in prose form, which allows for some explanation, weighting, background and history...cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It is what it is. The margin of error is larger than the parallax itself so it doesn't tell you a lot about the distance, but that's what Tycho measured. Lithopsian (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Rigel is the second brightest star in Orion

GVSC gives alpha Ori as +0.00 magnitude.[1] Rigel is +0.13, which is fainter.[2] Evidence is clear and obvious. Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The most accurate way of writing it would be to reflect the overall comparison - hence "Rigel is generally the brightest star in Orion, though there are times when the variable star Betelgeuse outshines it" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Or substitute "generally" with "more often than not" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rigel. 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://archive.is/20130102233719/http://www2.gol.com/users/stever/orion.htm to http://www2.gol.com/users/stever/orion.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) 03:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Luminosity

@Cron11 and Lithopsian: I wonder whether we should just delete the sentence - its luminosity has been measured at 120,000 or 279,000 times that of the sun...clearly does overlap with Betelgeuse (though I do suspect brighter), hence we can't really rank the stars anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I feel that this sort of ranking, other than in the most blatant and reliable (and cited) cases, is unhelpful and impossible to maintain. Lithopsian (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I removed it - it was uncited anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Refimprove tag

I have removed the refimprove tag as about 98% of the article has inline citations. If this tag were relevant, probably 95% of wikipedia articles could be tagged in the same way.

@Arianewiki1: I know you placed the tag originally related to Kaler and the hypothesis about the Bayer Designation. If you have an idea of a specific earlier source then tell me. I can't find Webb nor know who he is. Similarly with other questions of magnitude etc. I am happy to write something just not sure what. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)\

This article is a mess, with many cites being misused or biassed to meet unfounded interpretation. Thomas Webb 'Celestial Objects' is a common source. Either get consensus or leave the template. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1: Webb does not mention anything about Bayer in his book. He does note that Betelgeuse was brighter than Rigel in some observations by Herschel but that's it. So that leaves us with Kaler as the person who linked the brightness with the Bayer desginations and neither of the sources you. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

These reasons are no excuse to remove tags, especially as there is no consensus. Having cites here are not the problem, it is the selected cites require additional verification because they are not necessarily reflect facts nor basic knowledge about Rigel. e.g. Looks like biassed selection. If this article is going to get GA status this must be fixed. To fix it requires other independent editors to check. As for Webb, I claimed no such thing. Bayer is irrelevant. Herschel discovered Betelgeuse was variable , commenting that it was sometimes brighter than Rigel. Kaler's comment is certainly not his 'discovery'. I did not add the tag because of Kaler, it is because of the issues with whole article not just a singular issue.

Again. Do not remove this tag again until these conditions are satisfied. Please read tagging, detag and the Verifiability policy adopted here. As said: "Similarly, editors occasionally remove tags without solving real problems because they are abashed by the tag, do not want additional attention from other editors, or do not like tags." This applies directly here IMO. Note: I have also restored the removed dubious article tag. Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1: "consensus" doesn't mean whatever you think. Now you're changing your story about Herschel, Webb and Kaler. Okay, that is settled. List specific faults instead of just some global statement. I asked you to explain the magnitudes above and you didn't, which suggests you are just tagging because you have an axe to grind rather than wanting to improve the article. If you explain issues then we can act on them, otherwise I can't assume you're acting in good faith. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Using tactics like this is unacceptable behaviour. I have little choice but to use the policies of DR. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

You could start with the apparent magnitude issue - I don't follow how Hauck measured it and how it was better than what is in the article now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs)

Who cares. There is a problem with the stated magnitudes, and it is clear it needs to be fixed if the article is ever to achieve GA. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Per Template:More_citations_needed/doc, "This template should be used only for articles where there are some, but insufficient, inline citations to support the material currently in the article". This article clearly does not satisfy the criteria. Use common sense and apply inline citations to the specific issues. Repeatedly posting the same template is WP:POINTy. Praemonitus (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Necessary reverts

Attic Salt (especially)

I have changed / removed some of this text because it does not meet consensus.

• After the amount of discussion on the designation, the 'global' usage seems to be the name the components e.g. Rigel D for the sake of consistency. Nomenclature says "Rigel's companions can be referred to as Rigel B,[21] C, and D;[26][23]", but the removal now denies it

• After the battle and ignoring of the formal WDS double star designations (RfC still in progress) as being not common, but the adding the following: "Prior to the Bright Star and Henry Draper Catalogues, publications often used the Bonner Durchmusterung catalogue number BD-08°1063 for Rigel." is equally uncommon. Saying "These designations are common in scientific literature…", is utterly false, and the linked source does not say nor imply that. " I've changed this to "These designations sometimes appear in scientific literature,…", which isn't quite right. Worse, the MSC reference is irrelevant here. (The whole sentence should be removed all together.) It is important that the context is factual - they are just catalogue numbers - most are uncommon. The text easily fails NPOV. Even so, surely, the HIP number is more important because the parallax star, as it has been discussed in several sources.

• The last NPOV issue is with the variable star designation Saying " Rigel is included in the General Catalogue of Variable Stars, but since it already has a Bayer designation, β Orionis, it has no separate variable star designation." This was discussed previously, but has been changed back again, and is therefore non-consensus. The GCVS, Rigel is listed as "Bet Ori" (without the 'a') -usage in SIMBAD here[3]. Whilst Beta Orionis might be its Bayer designation (as we are told ad nauseam), the three letter abbreviation is the syntax of the catalogue and IAU approved. Also saying ", it has no other variable star designation.", is redundant, because the GCVS usage IS only "Bet Ori". (Oddly, the BAA cite contradicts the GCVS primary source, which was pointed out to the editor who again adds this.)

Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: The variable star discussion is here[4] Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

β Orionis is not a variable star designation, so we can’t say that it has “no other” variable star designation, as here [5], because to say so implies that β Orionis is a variable star designation. Please write clearly. Please use edit summaries. Thank you. Attic Salt (talk) 00:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

No β Orionis is the Bayer designation. Bet Ori is the GCVS designation. As for: "Buy beta Ori isn’t, as far as I can see in the source, a variable star designation." Simbad gives under 'Identifiers' "V* bet Ori ", clicking V* links to the "Variable Star Nomenclature: defined in the General Catalogue of Variable Stars (GCVS)", with "Bet Ori" the variable star designation. OK? There is another designation too. NSV 1882, in the 'Catalogue of suspected variable stars.' The statement is therefore false.

Edit summaries are suggested NOT mandatory. This has been explained to you several times. Reverting edits because they don't have edit summaries is no excuse to revert. Saying "Unexpksined (no edit summary)" defies PARTR. Stop doing this. as it is HA and DE Got it? Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Confusing, you want to say "Bet Ori" and you want to also say that it has "no other" variable star designation, but here you give two, "V* bet Ori ", "NSV 1882". Which is it? Attic Salt (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Consistent with Arianewiki1's assertion, the variable star designation "BD-08°1063" is "uncommon". Google scholar only finds one article using this designation: [6]. I suggest that mention of this designation be removed from the body of the article. Thanks, Attic Salt (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, a correction: The link on the variable star discussion is here[7]. Their response is here.[8]

The relevant text in response is as follows:

As for "Confusing, you want to say "Bet Ori" and you want to also say that it has "no other" variable star designation," Actually I don't, and I never did. It is the GVSC has no other designation, Lithopsian is actually saying this, and has gone from 'no' designation to 'no other; designation. e,g. They original said: "Although Rigel is a variable star, it does not have a separate variable star designation because it has a Bayer designation."[9] Wrong, and they are still pushing the same incorrect POV, and reverted me denying it. Saying "no other" designation is wrong because NSV 1882 is a variable star designation. OK?

As for: "BET ORI is simply an abbreviation of the Bayer designation, using the official IAU constellation abbreviation" is irrelevant. "Bet Ori" is the GCVS designation. In Kukarkin B.V., "GENERAL CATALOGUE OF VARIABLE STARS", Publ. House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Moscow, 3rd edition. (1969), it says and lists in Table 1. SUMMARY OF VARIABLE STARS NAMES.,"For each constellation the following are shown:

first Argelander designation (e.g., R Cas)

last Argelander designation

first sequential designation (e.g., V335 Cyg)

last sequential designation

all non-standard designations (e.g., Gam Cas)."

According to Lithopsian (own words): "BET ORI is simply an abbreviation of the Bayer designation, using the official IAU constellation abbreviation and a (usually) three-character Greek-letter abbreviation that is unofficial but quite common in online databases (eg. Simbad, GCVS, and VSX)" [[10]]. False.

Four main points :

• 'Bet Ori' is used to refer to the variable, but 'Beta Ori' is the star reference - distinguishing if one is referring under variable star topic or as a star (stellar) topic. AAVSO uses Bet Ori, for example.
• If the statement by them were true, they are saying the GCVS is 'unoffical', when in fact, it is IAU approved. (Look at the article's linked Variable star designation, saying: "As with all categories of astronomical objects, names are assigned by the International Astronomical Union (IAU). " (Even Lithopsian added the cite of Sternberg here[11] Even the original version of this article says: "Variable stars are named using a variation on the Bayer designation format of Identifier <genitive of constellation>." [12] Underlining by me shows it is not the Bayer designation but a variant of it.
• It is interesting in 'The names and catalogues of variable stars' [13] gives a useful history, but does not mention the bright star variable designations. They were added in the 20th century when the brighter stars were found to be variable after the R…Z, etc. system was established. (I.e. It is a compromise to be self consistent.)
• The article's BAA cite [14] 'Nomenclature of Variable Stars' by the British Astronomical Association is actually wrong. Why? It says: "This is the system used in the General Catalogue of Variable Stars (GCVS) and agreed internationally." but the GCVS (said above) doesn't say that. (but it does confirm it is IAU approved, as I've said above.)

I have there again reformatted the wording as factual, and could be reduced/simplified as required without changing the context.

Note: Lithopsian recently removed this text and added another here[15] Plainly the Lacaille statement shows a limit knowledge by them. It is impossible to be true, because only a handful of variables in the entire sky were known in 1751. Pigott in 1786 knew of only 12 of them, as stated in the source. The letters were added by Lacaille himself - a system for the 9,700 odd southern stars' position he measured. It has nothing to do with variable stars! It clearly cherrypicking, WP:NPOV WP:OR & WP:UNDUE, and is applying the same wrong premise(s) universally across multiple articles. e.g. Bayer designation[16] and repeated the same error here.[17] This appears likely either deliberate or accidential personal bias.

I will now reverted this text for obvious reasons.

Caveat. Please Lithopsian, your's is not the only view here, and get please rid us of this obsessive Bayer / Latinised fixation (as we are told ad nauseam). It isn't 'universal' nor set in stone. There are better way to convey this, like linking it to the article Bayer designation than dropping it on every single star article. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Lithopsian Attic Salt OK. Removed the false statement generated by Lithopsian here.[18] now reverted by Attic Salt here.[19] The GCVS designation is catalogued as 'Bet Ori.' Plain fact. Saying "...but since it already has a Bayer designation, β Orionis, it has no separate variable star designation." is false, misleading, and is not in evidence. Also NSV 1882 is a variable star designation, making "...it has no separate variable star designation." The Bayer designation is irrelevant.

Saying it the edit summary "weird understanding of variable star designation, not helpful - "stars which have Bayer designations, e.g. Alpha Ori, which have been discovered to be variable stars have not been given a new variable star designation but are listed by their Bayer designation in the GCVS."

In the GVSC, it says "….traditional transliterations of greek letters are used." Variable star designation in in GVSC in VizieR here [20] is alf Ori NOT Alpha Ori (or any other variant.). For Rigel it is bet Ori NOT Beta Ori, β Orionis, (or any other variant.) These do not appear as this in the GCVS.

Frankly, distorting the facts to suit defies WP:NPOV. Persistently doing so is DE and is also not helpful. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

It’s been explained: “bet Ori” is an abbreviation of the Bayer label “β Orionis”, which was designated before Rigel was known to be a variable star. Okay? Time to move on. Attic Salt (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps, but Bayer is irrelevant. Lithopsian likely will not agree. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Problem Summary

• Lithopsian originally wrote[21]: "Although Rigel is a variable star, it does not have a separate variable star designation because it has a Bayer designation."
• Then added next added this cite[22] to the GCVS.
• When challenged, they removed the whole statement gain here[23]
• They instead removed it completely, claiming: "remove misunderstanding again after it was previously reverted" Knowing by their own words "be careful not to make a claim not in the given reference."[24],
• Attic Salt, seeing the discussion above, makes this edit here[25]
• Lithopsian again reverts it here[26] back to the same (false) : "Rigel is included in the General Catalogue of Variable Stars, but since it already has a Bayer designation, β Orionis, it has no separate variable star designation." because it: "weird understanding of variable star designation, not helpful - "stars which have Bayer designations, e.g. Alpha Ori, which have been discovered to be variable stars have not been given a new variable star designation but are listed by their Bayer designation in the GCVS."
• Then by alternatively removing the contentious wording here[27]
• Finds Attic Salt reverts this immediately here.[28]. explaining because it is "Unexplained, no edit summary. Seems to be the same issue again and again.", when the evidence given in this talkpage section explains it to them.
• Attic Salt adds (above) "It’s been explained: “bet Ori” is an abbreviation of the Bayer label “β Orionis”, which was designated before Rigel was known to be a variable star. Okay? Time to move on. " This again isn't true, and is not proven. (Is not in the GCVS.)

Without any further discussion on this talkpage section, and against any logic or facts to support this statement being true, points towards disruptive editing and pushing something that is not a NPOV, which is against policy. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, it’s been explained: “bet Ori” is an abbreviation of the Bayer label “β Orionis”, which was designated before Rigel was known to be a variable star. Time to move on. Attic Salt (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Attic Salt Lithopsian

Why? Because you say so? If you considered context, and not just reverting nearly every edit on some flimsy excuse or pretext[29], we could all move on. It was necessary to add the POV templates to resolve this with independent editors with outside objectivity. Bleating that is "time to move on" seems more about avoiding scrutiny to avoid the obvious problem.

• Bayer, or anything related to that, here is irrelevant. "Rigel is included in the General Catalogue of Variable Stars, …" It is listed as "bet Ori". The rest to why is irrelevant. If you want to find Rigel's designation in that catalogue, you will not find “β Orionis” or any other variant, just "bet Ori" Worst, Bayer designation has been earlier explained twice in the same paragraph. Lithopsian has reverted the text from Beta Orionis to β Orionis, again, even after all the discussions made above in this talkpage. (Mentioning the double star β 555, confuses the reader too, meaning Burnham double star not Beta Orionis.) Lithopsain suggests "...it has no separate variable star designation.", I correct it, both of you revert it, even though NSV 1882 is plainly a variable star designation. Lithopsain suggest the text is: "...just another fantasy interpretation"[30]. They realise their mistake, revert it again[31], then eight minutes later restore the problematic text again.[32]

There is no logic here at all, and even in light of simple evidence, you both still deny it! Why?

• To show why this POV needs examining is also this. The article says: ", the system is listed variously as H II 33, Σ 668, β 555, or ADS 3823." When I changed 'system' to 'double star'[33], Lithopsian reverted[34] claiming "not only double stars," Yet if you look at the links in the statement "...the system's double stars are listed variously as Herschel Catalogue of Double Stars|H II 33, Struve Double Star Catalog|Σ 668, Burnham Double Star Catalogue|β 555, or Aitken Double Star Catalogue|ADS 2823." All the link tells you they appear in double star catalogues! They are double stars and NOT a '(multiple) system'.

You've both been told several times that a multiple star (assumed to be 'system') comprises of several double stars. You ignore it, when both of you continue to ignore it! Again why?

• Another is this edit being reverted[35] because "Is this not obscure? A "suspected" variable star list?)" Yet, when you go to the article New Catalogue of Suspected Variable Stars, it says ". . .although suspected to be variable, were not given variable star designations prior to 1980." Yet according to Lithopsian "...it has no separate variable star designation." It does, yet you revert it, yet again not understanding the context. Its factual, and it disproves Lithopsian's incorrect statement. Again. why do this?

There is absolutely no excuse for this kind of sloppy editing here, especially when it has been perfectly explained to each of you. Methinks you really need to starting hesitating before making reverts instead of some knee-jerk reaction for the sake of imposing a wrong POV. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

In both Simbad and GCVS, "bet" is simply an abbreviation for "beta", standing for the Greek letter β. This is stated explicitly in Simbad: "Greek letters must be written using the following three letter abbreviations: ... β bet ..." [36], and Simbad's listing for Rigel [37] gives both "* bet Ori" and "V* bet Ori" as Simbad monikers for the star, indicating that "β Orionis" serves both as a stellar name and as a variable star designation -- because variable stars already assigned a Bayer designation don't receive a separate designation in the standard variable star naming system (as most any astro ref book states, e.g., Norton's Star Atlas). The Simbad phrases thus mean "the star (*) known as β Orionis" and "the variable star (V*) known as β Orionis". GCVS does not say explicitly that "bet" is an abbreviation for β, but in the explanation of the name field [38] it does say "traditional transliterations of Greek letters are used", and you see such transliterations throughout the catalog dat file, e.g., alf And, zet And, lam And, omi And, etc. -- Elphion (talk) 12:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

What Elphion says, "bet" is merely an abbreviation of beta. To make anything more out of it is distorting the sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it is not. "bet Ori" is the designated in the GCVS. e,g. If you want to find it in the GCVS, you have to look for "bet Ori" (or NSV 1882, which is also among the GCVS catalogue's tables. [39]) To make anything more out of it is distorting the sources. So in what you say, you agree with Attic Salt then? e.g. " "bet Ori” is an abbreviation of the Bayer label “β Orionis" OR removing the unnecessary Bayer, then ""bet Ori” the designation abbreviated from β Orionis."?

If the statement leads "Rigel is included in the General Catalogue of Variable Stars,…" as what then? If we read Lithopsian's crazy logic "...but since it already has a Bayer designation, β Orionis, it has no separate variable star designation." Reading this either (1) It appears as: "β Orionis" in the GCVS. (wrong) (2) When Bayer gave the designation, zero variable stars were known. (3) The other variable star designation is NSV 1882. Here[ttp://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/VizieR-3?-source=B/gcvs/nsv_cat&-out.max=50&-out.form=HTML%20Table&-out.add=_r&-out.add=_RAJ,_DEJ&-sort=_r&-oc.form=sexa] (typing 1882 in the NSV constraint (3rd) find "bet Ori") (4) Bayer designation has been mentioned twice before in the same paragraph. Why?

Yet according to Lithopsian this is all some kind of "fantasy", when the evidence is paper thin, and the wording looks like a concoction of unrelated or unnecessary facts. Frankly, several here are acting more like a coterie of single-minded individuals promoting fringe science: where no ordinary reader can decipher any relevance or importance. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Rigel A?

There's a reason none of the references given for this article use the term Rigel A (some journal papers do use the term Rigel A when explicitly referring to the separate components, but this is very much a minority usage). Several reasons, even. Consistency is good, but using the term Rigel A consistently throughout the article simply makes it more wordy, and in most cases more confusing for the lay reader who doesn't much care about anything other than the blue supergiant. Oh, and Rigel A is also wrong, if we want to be strict about it. Even Rigel B is dodgy. Rigel is the blue supergiant, and nothing else. The IAU has even formalised that. Component designations are used with those designators that encompass the various components: Rigel does not; β Orionis arguably does; WDS J05145-0812 definitely does, although interestingly it isn't in the starbox. Using the term Rigel A (or B) might be justified in isolated cases where we need to be explicit about distinguishing components, but where we also want to use the Wikipedia article title, but we shouldn't use it "consistently" because we'd be imposing our own interpretation of "right" on the world. Lithopsian (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd agree with that -it's how all stars that are part of binary systems are called. The IAU has muffed that slightly but maybe it actually clarified it a bit. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Then the article needs to make clear what is being discussed, because right now it's downright ambiguous. Praemonitus (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Again. Notorious Lithopsian looks like they are just making things up when they actually don't understand. Anyone who challenge them has the attitude of just ignoring. [40] Saying : "Component designations are used with those designators that encompass the various components: Rigel does not; "The IAU has even formalised that. " Eh? It is plaining referring to the double star component. Any intelligent person would realise that the distinction is due to the star being a spectroscopic binary, SB9 307. Determination of spectral type and stellar parameters depends on separation of the spectral lines, hence the Rigel A and Rigel B for components.

The only thing that is right is this statement: "…because we'd be imposing our own interpretation of "right" on the world." Pot . Kettle. Black. Either understand conventions or leave editing to others. Praemonitus seems the only one here with objectivity seeing this.[41] I'm sick to death of educating those who pretend to be "experts". Really, Lithopsian!![ Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

No, for me it's just a matter of internal consistency within the article. I'm fine with what appears to be the preferred approach of applying the name Rigel to the primary. As long as it is consistent for the readers. Praemonitus (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

So the question is now whether Rigel B etc. are all strictly Beta Orionis B etc. Be good to find a source discussing the names before this (using Rigel A), which has now been superceded...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Praemonitus:Look. If you are referring to double star components, the convention is simply the discoverer abbreviation, catalogue number, then the component relationships. e.g. For Rigel it is STF 668A,BC, or BU 555AD, BU 555BC. Astrometric or unresolved components are Aa or Bb, etc. Double stars are measured between components, and this becomes complicated in multiple systems. Measures of distance or position angle for AB, AC, BC are explicit. Referring to components is STF 668A or BU 555D, but for the bright stars with Greek letters, β Ori A or β Ori D is used. There are other variants. You can look at WDS Notes section [42] under : 05145-0812 STF 668 (note the uncertainties with some of these Rigel components.)

References of use also depend on the convention of how the object is observed. e.g. Spectroscopic observations use something like β Ori A or Rigel A. Radio or X-ray observation would use Rigel A. As astronomers have much interest is supermassive bright stars like Rigel, it makes sense to implicitly refer to Rigel A, and not the multiple system per se. Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)