Talk:Fomalhaut

message: The concentric rings around Fomalhaut on the picture from Hubble are artefacts from the coronagraph. These artefacts make the image similar to the Eye of Sauron. But without these artefacts, Fomalhaut system is only a single star surrounded by a dust ring. In my opinion, going from Fomalhaut through an image with artefacts to the Eye of Sauron is too far for this article. Hubble image caption should not contain link to the Eye of Sauron. Ghalas
Hi
well the resemblance is incontestably noteworthy: there was an article in New Scientist this week about it.  I hear what you say about lens artefacts, but the fact is that many many mainstream news articles have commented on the resemblance, which is therefore noteworthy by definition.  The article would be incomplete without some mention of it.
best wishes
Robinh 29 June 2005 10:16 (UTC)
: I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning. While it may be a fact that many news articles have commented on the resemblance, it is not enough to render it relevant; this is the strategy of tabloid newspapers, not encyclopedias. I'm willing to argue this further, but if there will be no objections, I'll remove the paragraph in a while. Naphra 23:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. If someone wishes to revive the paragraph, I would like to suggest the (in my opinion much more approppriate) Star systems in fiction article for doing so. Naphra 03:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Similarity to the Eye of Sauron

message: Science magazines may boast and brawl, but there's at least 50% chance that Fomalhaut b is not the first visually detected one. First of all: it's detected in IR, but we may ignore that for being pedantery; secondly: the planets around HR 8799 were discovered about the same time; thirdly: if I'm remembering correctly rough planets have been detected by IR before, so maybe both Fomalhaut and HR 8799 disqualify ... Said: Rursus (☻) 08:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Skip that about IR. If Fomalhaut was the first exoplanet detected in visual (c:a 350-700nm), then my complaint is invalid. I'll take a look. L8R. Said: Rursus (☻) 08:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: First exoplanet visually detected?

message: Is the disc actually thought to be protoplanetary? At 200 million years old, Fomalhaut seems to be much older than the typical system undergoing planet formation. Furthermore the disc is depleted in gas, hence its description as a "debris disk". Circumstellar discs are not necessarily protoplanetary, e.g. the dust disks around our own star, which do not indicate ongoing planet formation. Icalanise (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protoplanetary? 

message: Are there any images which actually show Fomalhaut itself available that could be used in this article? It is somewhat amusing that the image in the starbox has the star itself hidden behind an occulter. Icalanise (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images? 

message: The text regarding the postulated brown dward companion seems irrelevant.  The anomalous disk characteristics are interesting and factual, but to build up a strawman explanation and then knock it down doesn't really serve much purpose except to confuse the lay reader. Perew (talk) 13:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah sorry it's one of those "event in progress" things. As for it being a strawman, it was a solution that was proposed in one paper, it was a new set of results that came to light after the first paper made its arXiv debut that disproved it. More a rapidly-disproven hypothesis than a strawman. Icalanise (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brown dwarf companion 

message: I corrected a mistake in significant figures in the article, and gave an explanation in the comment field for my edit. User Blue Earth undid my edit without explanation. I'm reverting. Blue Earth, please comment here before reverting again. As explained in the comment on my edit, it seems obvious to me that giving the star's surface temperature to four sig figs is simply an incorrect use of significant figures.207.233.86.18 (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference cited for the temperature value gives four significant figures. If we're going to use a given reference for the temperature, we should use the temperature as given by the reference. Icalanise (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: significant figures

message: Orbit in the table looks like it is still using the elements from when the object was thought to be in a ring-shepherd orbit. Current information is that the orbit is highly eccentric. I am aware of two orbit determinations with the elements,  gives (a, e) = (177 ± 68 AU, 0.8 ± 0.1) and  giving (81 – 193 AU, 0.82 – 0.98) at 1σ confidence. 77.57.43.11 (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orbit of Fomalhaut b 

message: I propose that the article TW Piscis Austrini is merged into this article. The star is a confirmed member of the Fomalhaut system and mostly attracts attention in that context. The TW Piscis Austrini article is very short and therefore merging it here would not unbalance the Fomalhaut article but enhance the opportunity to discuss the Fomalhaut system as a whole. 77.57.25.250 (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 04 Jul 2014 

message: Is there anybody who can add an International Pronunciation for this name?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.129.146.33 (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fomalhaut. 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/20081220130945/http://afp.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5iA-PPiKC8oJh3qqkV2ZsF09HmmCA to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iA-PPiKC8oJh3qqkV2ZsF09HmmCA
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) 10:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Statement in section Fomalhaut A:
:and from southern Alaska or Scandinavia, it never rises above the horizon at all.[28]
Which is nonsential, at least regarding Scandinavia, and probably a misinterpretation of the source. A Swedish friend of mine saw Fomalhaut from Sweden. Sweden lies between latitudes 55° and 70°, the southermost point of Denmark is at 54° 33' 35", for example. 54.5°-90 = -35.5°. Fomalhaut's declination is c:a -30° which means that is at maximum about 5° over the horizon. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 18:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Never rises above the horizon at all? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Fomalhaut. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iA-PPiKC8oJh3qqkV2ZsF09HmmCA
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130113152320/http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/02files/Eye_of_Sauron.html to http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/02files/Eye_of_Sauron.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) 05:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I decided that the 2014 decision to merge was stale.  I am ing , the only participant still active here.
I thought it was odd that we had an article about the third star, but not the second star.
As a nearby star with an exoplanet candidate, I think it is more notable than it was in 2014.
So I restored it.  Geo Swan (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: (shrugs) err...ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: I restored the article on the second star in the Fomalhaut system

message: This youtube film says and shows that the planet later vanished (about 2 min into the film). This doesn't make the article false about the visible planet. But if what was interpreted as a planet was really a cloud of debris, then the article is missing relevant and interesting information. --Ettrig (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Planet" wasn't planet?