Talk:61 Cygni

message: The mention that there might be a planet of 61 Cygni is unsourced in the article and rather inprecise.  If it is only a dubious and decades out-of-date claim then that should be noted.  In any event references should be given.  From 61 Cygni 2, I have links to  this 1943 paper claiming a planet, this 1957 paper  also claiming one and a 1978 paper attempting to refute such claims.  MichaelSH 19:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk 2

message: I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of October 3, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: A thorough and enjoyable read. I thought the bottom of the article could use tightening a bit though, it just sort of ended.
:2. Factually accurate?: I am a layman so may not be the best person to check that but all the references I checked seemed to test out.
:3. Broad in coverage?: Seemed quite thorough. Some suggestions: Are there any future plans for study? or long term implications of what was learned so far? Where is the proper motion taking this pair? When will it get there?
:4. Neutral point of view?: Very. A no brainer.
:5. Article stability? Seems quite stable, no sign of edit wars. Signs that a few dedicated editors have worked hard over the years to polish this nicely.
:6. Images?: Two good images. I found the relative size one informative. The star map I found a bit confusingly labeled... are both black spots 61 Cygni? Is there a locator for where Cygni is in the stellar sphere that could be added?
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. 
— ++Lar: t/c 01:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the review and the feedback. — RJH (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Successful [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] nomination

message: Do we really need to mention that "61 Cygni" should not be confused with "16 Cygni" in the lead? I'm not clear what value, if any, that paragraph provides. It is also unsourced. At most a hatnote should suffice.—RJH (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  16 Cygni 

message: The parallax of the star is given as 287.18 ± 1.51[1] mas, where mas links to minutes of arc. Shouldn't it be milliarcseconds instead?
202.129.234.249 (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a case of articles being merged. The milliarcsecond link redirects to the minutes of arc article. If you look on the minutes of arc article, it covers milliarcseconds.—RJH (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parallax 

message: The international standard symbol for astronomical unit is au, not AU.  It is confusing to introduce a non-standard symbol. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather, "AU" is by far the more commonly used, both in scientific publications and in more-popular astronomical writing, which makes "au" the confusing symbol, regardless of the official sanction. But you know that already. I don't know why you now insist on "au" when earlier you were okay with "AU", as long as it was used consistently. --JorisvS (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am OK with any symbol, including AU, for which there is consensus, but despite several attempts, consensus seems beyond our grasp.  I do not understand the objections raised at MOSNUM to this choice, but until such time as agreement is reached there I will continue to argue that Wikipedia should follow international standard symbols, which in this case means au, not AU.  I do agree that AU is more common, but I completely reject the suggestion that it is clearer. Does this help clarify? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it does. But if the majority of the readers is (much) more familiar with "AU" than "au", how would "AU" not be clearer? --JorisvS (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  For exactly the same reason that Mbit/s is clearer than Mbps.  The former is defined by international agreement.  The latter is not.  In the absence of guidance from MOSNUM the natural way of defining any symbol is to follow the appropriate international standards body, which in the case of the au is the IAU, with the support of BIPM. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: But Mbit/s has the common "/" for "per", whereas Mbps has the uncommon "p". No such decomposition is possible with either "au" or "AU". --JorisvS (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  The issue of whether one or other symbol or part of symbol is common does not come into it.  My argument is entirely about whether something "exists", in the sense that it is defined by a an authoritative body.  For WP that authoritative body is MOSNUM.  (Yes I know it is a guideline, but it is an authoritative guideline).  For as long as AU remains undefined, I cannot support it as a symbol for anything, and will continue to argue against it on those grounds. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No matter that "AU" is more common (which more to whether it "exists" than any formal recommendation) and a number of editors have indicated that it is easier for them to understand "AU" than "au"... I don't see the logic in that. --JorisvS (talk) 08:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  What an editor says  and what (s)he means are sometimes two different things.  In this case I suspect they confuse familiarity (what they mean) with clarity (what they say).  Just my opinion, of course.  I just typed something similar, with better explanation, in my response to Ashill on MOSNUM.Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  From how I read it, they find "AU" much clearer because they are much more familiar with it (e.g. being familiar with the unit and having read a lot of texts that use "AU" for it, but few, if any that use "au" for it). Ashill has actually explained this rather nicely. --JorisvS (talk) 09:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  AU or au? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 61 Cygni. 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/20120204150631/http://messier.seds.org/xtra/Bios/bessel.html to http://messier.seds.org/xtra/Bios/bessel.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070707012512/http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/61cyg.html to http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/61cyg.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi, its been three years since the last two FA nominations and I am ready to pick up the baton and run for it once again. Anybody willing to, are more than welcome to join the ride. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking to initiate the FAC run some time in this week and any help for prepping it up for the run would be greatly appreciated. Thank you all. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC