Talk:Zeta Ophiuchi

Inaccuracies

It is inaccurate to say that this star is "reddish". It is slightly "reddened" in that its B-V color index is 0.02 instead of the -0.3 you would expect for an O9 star, but this would only make the star appear white instead of blue-white.

It is also a bit of an exaggeration to say that without the absorbing dust it would be "among the very brightest visible". It would probably be roughly one magnitude brighter which would put it at around magnitude 1.5, that is on the lower limit of the first magnitude. There are about 23 stars brighter than this.

Also, most of the sources I can find list this as a main sequence star (O9V or O9.5V), and not as a giant (O9III).

TristramBrelstaff (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New wise image

Is the WISE image in this story in the public domain? It would make a spectacular addition to the article. -- 119.31.126.68 (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect circle on the lead map

It seems that the constellation map at the beginning of the article circles the wrong star. The circled star is a fainter unlabeled one on the map, whereas the star labeled with the Greek ζ is about two degrees due west of the circle. I do not know how to fix the image, alas. Wwheaton (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Zeta Ophiuchi. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closest O star

It has been suggested that this is the closest class O star. No citation was given. Obviously we shouldn't state this without some way for it to be verified. A quick piece of original research shows a number of closer candidates, for example BD+52 913 (white dwarf, sometimes given class O type) and BD+28 4211 (O sub-dwarf). Lithopsian (talk) 11:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just came from searching up this: https://forum.cosmoquest.org/archive/index.php/t-98466.html I can say that BD+52 913 is definitely not an O-type star, as multiple references have it moving far too quick and far too close to be one. BD+28 4211 seems very suspicious, having a luminosity of ~0.4 despite O-type subdwarfs supposedly having luminosities of at least 10 times the Sun. At the very least, Zeta Ophiuchi should be pretty clearly the nearest main-sequence O-type star. 2605:E000:141B:7A:6CBA:635D:8171:D165 (talk) 06:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the closest main sequence O star, but as you can see it is very much open to interpretation. You can say the other stars aren't O stars, but there are reliable references that say at least one of them is and is closer than ζ Oph (eg. Simbad). Find a reliable reference (that forum discussion won't cut it, nor will most blogs although they may just be repeating something more "official") and then you can say whatever that reference says - at the very least you can report it and say there are other contenders for the title. Lithopsian (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]