Talk:Corona Borealis

message: Gliese 611 seems pretty unremarkable - a yellow and red dwarf binary, no planets, just beyond naked eye visibility....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes to self 

message: *Be consistent with numbers,  The other six stars are Theta, Beta, Gamma, Delta, Epsilon, and Iota Coronae Borealis. The German cartographer Johann Bayer gave twenty stars vs 37 stars etc.
::damn...I sorta like the numbers as words and that one damn '37' stuffs it....need to think about if it's far enough away not to bother... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: linked now - the explanation is a sentence or two down - i.e. a red giant and white dwarf sucking matter off it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

text: yeah, trimmed that a bit and streamlined it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

text: He's a notable author of star guides etc. See here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by Doctor Blofeld

message: Comments in response to a request for feedback from Casliber.
* Yes the prose quickly takes us into fairly technical content, but I'm not seeing evidence yet that it is done poorly.
* "The components of the double star Zeta Coronae Borealis have since been designated Zeta1 and Zeta2, and John Flamsteed equated his 20 and 21 Coronae Borealis with Nu1 and Nu2". This sentence confused me. I presume the "his" here means Flamsteed; if not, then it needs tweaking. Either way, I have no idea what Nu1 is about, and therefore couldn't work out what information the sentence was conveying.
::Clarified. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been expanded, but I'm afraid I'm still a bit lost. There were 20 stars in the constellation. Then one was split into a binary and designated Zeta1 and Zeta2. That makes 21 stars. Then we see Flamsteed has 21, but when we're told what his designations for the last two are, they turn out to be two different stars to the two Zetas. So now I have, what 22? Or is it 23? I think we need a text that is more historical in nature. That says something like - while Bayer had twenty stars, in the Xth century, one of these was recognised as a binary and denoted as A and B. Then, in 18XX, Flamsteed separated another binary that was amongst Bayer's original list; these are now known as C and D. I hope that is clear! hamiltonstone (talk) 12:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: how's that? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

text: I have massaged it a bit - the (slight) contrastive is that it is two stars - have massaged the prose to that effect Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

text: reduced one decimal place. I think the 'around' is necessary despite the repetitiveness Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I probably don't agree re "around", but see how you go at FAC - it seems to me the sort of prose thing that may get picked on. Happy to leave it for now. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

text: done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

text: 8 months is the period the stars go round each other. clarified now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

text: yeah, can't argue with sources, and any othr way is less accurate...sigh Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

text: I'll take AAVSO over lay guidebook - the former quite different so material replaced. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

text: done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

text: done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  comments