Talk:Mizar and Alcor

message: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-12/uor-fkb120909.php 70.179.127.14 (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mizar is four stars

message: The link to the "Extensive article on Mizar" gets a "page cannot be found message." Has it been moved? 4.243.146.153 19:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken Link

message: This article states The two stars lie more than a quarter of a light year apart and yet, Mizar's distance is given as 78 ± 1 ly, and Alcor's is given as 81.2 ± 1.2.  Even if you take the maximum estimate for Mizar's distance and the minimum for Alcor's, you get a 1 light-year distance, and if you take the mid-range for each, you get a distance of about 3.2 ly Nik42 05:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mizar-Alcor Distance 

message: I find the third paragraph confusing.  It probably should be clarified. Hue White (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Paragraph 

message: The following sentence is really weird:
With normal eyesight one can make out a faint companion just to the east, named Alcor or 80 Ursae Majoris.
Recomend rewriting it, to something NOT east, because east is relative to the way you are standing on earth, and therefore also the way you are looking at Ursa Major.
--Faina windu (talk) 08:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and I edited the text to remove "east."  (One *might* say it's to the north, since it roughly is; but I didn't.) Mcswell (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space direction?? 

message: I was reading along in an astronomy article and suddenly found myself reading about Japanese culture  (complete with accompanying kanji for the uberliterati), including manga culture. After I got through that, I found myself reading about astronomy again. Am I an astronomer who dreams he is a Japanese, or a Japanese who dreams he is an astronomer? Writtenright (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beware of Japanese Intruders! 

message: According to this article  October 1894 - Mizar's companion is called "Jack by the horse's head" in common language... would this be Alcor? 76.66.194.32 (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mizar companion 

message: I think that this article should be split into two separate articles, and Alcor B should be combined with Alcor  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.92.133 (talk) 04:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm planning on performing this split, with separate articles for Mizar and Alcor, leaving this article to discuss mostly historical information relating to the two as a pair.  Speak up if you're opposed.  Lithopsian (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Split done.  Mizar and Alcor are both disambiguation pages.  It might be nice to grab one or both of them, but I'll leave that for others to decide.  For now, I've put the split content at Zeta Ursae Majoris and Alcor (star).  There is certainly scope for some renames, retargets, and hatnotes.  Both articles can now be expanded at leisure to describe the stars in detail.  I envisage this article as a resting place for anecdotes, history, maybe some amateur astronomy tips, mythology, etc. Lithopsian (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article should be split into two separate articles(mizar/alcor) 

message: The History section is interesting but needs work - the meaning here is difficult to penetrate (almost as if its been translated from another language) and there's an unattributed quote in the middle of it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.56.198.62 (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: A couple of issues: First, the section entitled "Etymology" does not actually include the etymology of the names Mizar and Alcor (which is actually including in a preceding section, "Nomenclature"). The "Etymology" section, instead, discusses other names that have been given to this pair of stars. In comparing articles of other stars in the Big Dipper asterism, the Arabic etymology for the common name is given under a section heading "Nomenclature" (or similar) and alternate names for the star are discussed in the same section. In comparing articles on other well-known stars (specifically, Arcturus, Sirius, and Betelgeuse), the etymology of the primary common name is given under a section entitled "Nomenclature" (or similar) and a separate section treats the other names, but is more correctly titled "Other Names" (or similar). One convention or the other ought to be adopted for this article, but clearly the title "Etymology" needs to be eliminated as it doesn't accurately describe the content of the section.
Second, the construction of the paragraphs in this section is somewhat telegraphic. There isn't enough background information given to transition between one brief statement and the next for many of the alternate names. I don't think there needs to be much more than a sentence or two added for most of these, but as it reads right now it is difficult to understand the origin and significance of all the alternate names. Perhaps even just some careful editing of the currently present material might be adequate for the passage to read more clearly. El piel (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I've renamed it "Other names"; added in the military namesakes as a sub-section, and separated out the 'test of eyesight' material to a new section. It now more accurately reflects the contents; and it's difficult to think of a better title. As to readability, I suspect that arose from ad hoc additions over time. Perhaps a list of bullet points would be preferable, at least in part? Cuddlyopedia (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology? 

message: The data in the info box show identical mass-radius etc values for Aa and Ab. This surely is not the case; the source given (Hummel) has nothing about Ab. Who can correct that?Kipala (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hummel certainly does say something about Mizar Ab: "In Table 6 we list the derived physical parameters for Mizar A based on the assumption of identical components."  So that's why the properties (except mass) are identical, straight from the horse's mouth.  Lithopsian (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Data in info box?

message: Last year  split the article Mizar and Alcor into two, but he gave the one on Mizar the name Zeta Ursae Majoris. Shouldn't it have the common name "Mizar"? Do we have a policy on this? Please ping me if you reply. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a policy, at WP:TITLE.  Basically the article title should be the most recognizable and commonly-used name.  For stars, that is a proper name for only a few dozen of the best-known, despite several hundred having proper names of some sort.  Mizar might qualify.  I picked Zeta Ursae Majoris, largely because Mizar (star) had previously existed and been renamed and I didn't want to override that without further discussion.  I know that you tried to rename Zeta Ursae Majoris once already; I reverted that because it was a cut'n'paste move instead of a proper rename.  Since none of us probably have the permissions to move Zeta Ursae Majoris over Mizar (star), it might make sense to have this discussion in a formal requested move so that the move will happen properly at the conclusion.  Consider carefully that Mizar exists and is a disambiguation page, but the star could be considered to be a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (similarly, probably more so, Alcor).  Lithopsian (talk) 12:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of article on Mizar

message: * It is absurd to credit Riccioli or anyone else as the "discoverer" of stars that have always been visible with the eye.
* If it remains open whether M and A are gravitationally bound, then neither can anyone claim to have discovered that they are a binary system, and the article should not describe them as one. Surely Riccioli, who had no concept of stars as interacting masses, could not make that claim. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious "discovery"