Talk:Alpha Centauri

message: Hello everyone! I noticed that this article is rated as B-class. Considering its high importance rating, I think it should be made a GA as soon as possible. However, it's not there yet - it failed the last nomination. I'm asking anyone who's read this article (or contributed to it) to put their suggestions below. For example, I think the planetary system section is a little clunky. The more suggestions posted, the better chance we all have of eventually upgrading this article to GA-candidate material! Supernova58 (talk) 02:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Since we will almost surely never be "able to travel at light speed", that would be a no.2601:41:200:5260:2D36:29AC:1099:E53B (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting general thoughts/suggestions on the article 

message: can think of quite a few notable cultural works that heavily feature Alpha Centauri. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Alot of people hate those sections. Best way is to find some secondary source that discusses various appearances/references to Alpha Centauri. There is also Stars and planetary systems in fiction, where almost all of this content got diverted to about 15 years ago. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

text: Oops - found Alpha Centauri in fiction (note this is a huge list of primary sources....) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  worth adding an "in popular culture" section? 

message: Based on the new parallax (2021), shouldn't the distance be corrected to 4,344?--McBayne (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distance 

message: Expiration date: indefinite
Reason 1: High-risk page
Reason 2: This is one of the most famous star systems.
--2600:1700:6180:6290:B035:F1A4:CC25:7A4C (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-Protection request 

message: This page is getting too long, so can someone fell free to split it up, by the following:
* Alpha Centauri/Nomenclature
* Alpha Centauri/Stellar system
* Alpha Centauri/Observation
* Alpha Centauri/Kinematics
* Alpha Centauri/Planetary system
* Alpha Centauri/View from this system
* Alpha Centauri/Other Names
* Alpha Centauri/Future exploration
* Alpha Centauri/Historical distance estimates
Thanks! --2600:1700:6180:6290:7D89:F761:BBA0:74D1 (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split request 

message: are these planets confirmed or not. i see them in lists like list of closest exoplanets and list of multiplanetary systems as if they are confirmed and also in the aplha centauri & proxima centauri articles. but in the pages themselves they are apparently "controversial" (c) and a candidate only (d). c is "not formally confirmed" but "existence is undisputed" according to this article but apparently there is one source disputing it in c's article.
this is opposed to candidate 1 which is just a candidate and pretty clearly defined as such everywhere through its absence from the above exoplanet lists and also it has a "?" marker in the alpha centauri template.
i've tried looking in the talks sections of all the directly related articles; i found 2 discussions on proxima centauri and proxima centauri c, but they are all from 1+ year ago and thus cant incorporate the 2022 source disputing c (but both discussions say it's a candidate). d is conflictingly claimed to be confirmed and candidate on proxima centauri and its own article repsectively, both using the same sources to say different things
(it also doesn't help that idk how a planent would be "formally" confirmed...is it just 1 other group of scientists saying "yeh this checks out" or "i see the same pattern here"? or if "general consensus" is needed, what is the definition of that? or how mny independent investigations/confirmations are needed)
I'm probably misunderstanding something here so just wanted to make sure before doing any changes on multiple articles and that template.
Sbznpoe (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, as you mention, Proxima c has recently been disputed. I would say that Proxima d is confirmed (and it's described as such in the same recent paper), but I wouldn't want to start another argument about a planet's confirmation status. It's always possible that further observations might cast doubt on it in the future, as happened with planet c. SevenSpheres (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proxima Centauri c & d 

message: I think that this article is a chimera of trying to describe Alpha Centauri AB system and the whole Alpha Centauri system (with Proxima Centauri) as a whole. We should split off Alpha Centauri A and Alpha Centauri B into its own article, and only talk about the whole system with a summary of individual stars in this article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:54, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chimera article 

message: Article currently says "" with a source. I have not checked the source but I have concerns that whatever the source says, it doesn't seem to be correct. Binary star and Mizar suggests Mizar was discovered first before even Acrux. If my read is correct, Mizar was discovered as a binary sometime earlier in the 17th century via telescope and it's undisputed this is Mizar rather than Mizar and Alcor. Of course, technically we now know Mizar is not a binary star since it has four compononents but nor is Acrux which has 6. If there is some reason why this is still argued to be correct e.g. because parts of Acrux could be called a binary but nothing of Mizar, IMO this needs clarification at least via footnote which would probably also explain why Alpha Centauri itself is counted. Nil Einne (talk) 10:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second binary discovered?