Talk:Acrux

message: I hope everyone likes it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68Kustom (talk • contribs) 02:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smoothed it out. 

message: Should be almost exactly the same as Mimosa, both around -3.5 - -4, and not 0. If it were 0, then it wouldn't be a prominent star.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.221.231 (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absolute magnitude 

message: Some photos show Acrux embedded in an extended halo not mentioned here. Is this real or an artifact of the particular telescope or camera that was used?Virgil H. Soule (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Halo 

message: List of stars in Crux and this article text give Alpha A and Alpha B as 1.40 and 2.09, respectively. So what are the 1.33 and 1.75 magnitudes for them in the infobox? Someone forgot to change them while changing the other? 85.76.73.19 (talk) 04:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox cites a reference for the given magnitudes.  As such it is "correct".  The article text and the list need to change, unless an alternative reference can be found to support them.  Disclosure: I'm the one who edited the infobox magnitudes, relatively recently.  Prior to that there was no reference for the individual magnitudes.  Lithopsian (talk) 12:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The list mentioned has 7 source (books?) referenced, but none are quoted on the list. There are dates on which the sources have been used, but quite hard to know without page references. 85.76.73.19 (talk) 05:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brightness of components 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Alpha Crucis. 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/20100903162121/http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/CE/Museum/Space/Research/StarName/c_research_chinengstars_a_al.htm to http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/CE/Museum/Space/Research/StarName/c_research_chinengstars_a_al.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081025193012/http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/images/raw/raw-images-details.cfm?feiImageID=169588 to http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/images/raw/raw-images-details.cfm?feiImageID=169588
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) 19:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ginan (star) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 14:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: The cited value of -3.77 does not appear in the cited source at all and conflicts with other sources, WolframAlpha has a few alternate sources: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=absolute+magnitude+of+acrux Singulary (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like -3.77 to me.  Lithopsian (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That just points back to the source already cited on this article (Kaltcheva 2014). Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but where does that publication list -3.77? Singulary (talk) 11:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave you a link direct to the page that shows the value -3.77.  Lithopsian (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I saw that. But your link, at the top of the page, points to GSH 305+01-24 stellar content (Kaltcheva+, 2014), which is source 7 in the article. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but that source, on arxiv, does NOT mention the magnitude of Acrux. Calculating the absolute magnitude from the values given in this very article gives the value the wolfam alpha database provides. I'm just trying to understand the discrepancy. Singulary (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absolute Magnitude is not correct.