Talk:Binary system

message: In fact, they do not orbit each other, they rotate around their common "centre of weight" <- how do you say that in English? ~~helix84 03:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All bodies in orbit do so around a common center of weight.  That is what an orbit is.Derek Balsam 15:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  centre of weight 

message: That table of known binary systems seems to indicate that the only known systems are the two listed there. Furthermore, it is too short to be of any use. There are many interesting points that could be discussed when it comes to binary systems, such as mass transfer between the stars and common envelope orbits. It has been too long since I read about this for me to write about this, but it should definitly be a part of the article. Amaurea 01:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  table of binaries 

message: no merge.
I propose a mergefrom Double planet.  Double planet is the informal term. --Md84419 07:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  mergefrom [[double planet]] 

message: * Oppose double planet is a sizable article, it would completely swamp this. 132.205.44.134 03:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: The two weeks have passed, consensus is oppose. Nick Mks 09:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus Conclusion

message: no merge.
I propose a mergefrom binary asteroid. Binary system is the more generic term and the asteroid page is a stub. --Md84419 07:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  mergefrom [[binary asteroid]] 

message: * Oppose - The proposed merge would combine multiple topics inappropriately, and most of the articles in question should remain separate articles. George J. Bendo 11:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: What about merging Binary star too, or at least give a brief description of it in a section? Patrickov 02:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: The two weeks have passed, consensus is oppose. Nick Mks 09:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus Conclusion

message: no merge.
This is the only article that logically should be merged into this article. But should it even be merged? 132.205.44.134 03:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  mergefrom [[contact binary]] 

message: * Oppose - The proposed merge would combine multiple topics inappropriately, and most of the articles in question should remain separate articles. George J. Bendo 11:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: * Instead of merging, I'd suggest turning Contact binary into a disambiguation page and creating Contact binary (asteroid) to deal with the topic of contact binary asteroids. The topic deserves a far more expanded treatment than it is currently given. Chaos syndrome 19:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disucssion

message: The two weeks have passed, consensus is oppose. I'll be incorporating the suggestion in the Discussion though. Nick Mks 19:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus Conclusion

message: no merge.
===Survey===
* Oppose Binary star is a long article. A section here should contain binary star information though. 132.205.44.134 03:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  mergefrom [[binary star]] 

message: * Oppose Binary star is a long article. A section here should contain binary star information though. 132.205.44.134 03:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Binary star was a featured article, which means that it is already in a "satisfactory" state.  The proposed merge would severely and negatively impact the article, so it should not be carried out.  George J. Bendo 11:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: The two weeks have passed, consensus is oppose. Nick Mks 19:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus Conclusion

message: Can someone please provide a rationale to explain why we can use this image in the article. I don't see how its current use fits with the terms in the fair use box on the image. Chaos syndrome 19:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe simply use artist image from some NASA page?--83.144.95.66 13:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Wars image 

message: This article is about astronomical binary systems in general; there is an article about binary stars in particular, with lots of detail on close binaries. Perhaps the section on close binary [stars] should be omitted from this article; it duplicates or overlaps with binary star. This article could be restricted to the dynamics of general binary systems, maybe with a mention of the n-body issue ("multiple system" links here). Pol098 (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your rationale. This article should be about the dynamics in general, but it currently says basically nothing about that (in fact, it says not much more than what's in the close binary star section. Moreover, there is no section on close binary stars in that article. --JorisvS (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we need the close binaries section? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Binary system. 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/20110121153650/https://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu:80/minorsats.html to http://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu/minorsats.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified