Talk:Spica

pronunciation

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.193.143.106 (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

is this pronounced /spɪkæ/ or /spaɪkæ/? --Krsont 16:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's Latin, then it's /spɪkæ/. --84.154.204.23 16:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought no one knows how Latin was pronounced - only Church Latin survives. Carrionluggage (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

This website contradicts some of the stuff in the article.Barbara Shack (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

The first three external links do not work. Kevinhowarth (talk) 02:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B-V

Seen in a few places B-V as low as -0.23 to reflect a good fit to the blue profile of this star in a telescope. I don't believe the number currently in the article is from a reliable source? Pomona17 (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

still no pronunciation ?

I will remedy ...

G. Robert Shiplett 21:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Semi-major axis

What is the actual average separation between these stars? It is mentioned in arcseconds, but not in km or AU. --JorisvS (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of Spica

Here is a great ESO photo showing Spica http://www.eso.org/public/archives/images/screen/potw1414a.jpg It is the blue one below centre with the red Mars to the left of it and a meteor burning up also plus many telescopes. Adding a cropped version of this photo to this page would present a major improvement to the description of the star. More here: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/04/30/meteor_over_alma_fantastic_picture_by_christoph_malin.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.155.45 (talk) 08:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

15th Brightest Star Antares or Spica?

Both Antares and Spica in their respective introduction mention they are the 15th brightest star in the night sky. According to the list of brightest stars Antares is No. 15 with 0.96 (0.6 - 1.6var) and Spica is No. 16 with 0.97 (0.97 - 1.04var). Should we just list Antares as 15th and Spica as 16th. To avoid confusion. Mrebus (talk) 07:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you say in individual articles is liable to being overtaken by history. The list should be considered the definitive source for this information within Wikipedia, but it isn't fixed in stone. You can certainly change both articles to match the list at this point in time, but think whether it is better to simply link to the list. Any precise statement about the order of stars brightnesses is meaningless given that both stars are variable with a range large enough for them to regularly swap positions in any list, even to become brighter or fainter than other stars. Lithopsian (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Spica. 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/20110707230504/http://www.berthoudrecorder.com/2010/03/25/earthsky-tonight-%E2%80%94-march-26-2010-moon-swings-close-to-regulus/ to http://www.berthoudrecorder.com/2010/03/25/earthsky-tonight-%E2%80%94-march-26-2010-moon-swings-close-to-regulus/

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) 08:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luminosity

The main article mentions 12,100 times the Sun’s luminosity, but the box mentions 20,512 times. Which one is right? CielProfond (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both are right :) Both are referenced, one with a peer-reviewed journal paper and one with a blog (although a blog by a well-known astrophysics professor and author). The value on Kaler's page most likely came from an older study and is a valuable indication of the uncertainties in many of the physical properties of even the closest and brightest stars. However, for this article it will be better to be consistent; no need to give two values and try to explain why they are different. I'll edit. Lithopsian (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Azimech" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Azimech. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 12#Azimech until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]