Talk:Gamma Andromedae

message: Hinckley says nothing about "desert lynces", he speaks about badgers. A pity my Arabic language lacks too much! Said: Rursus (☻) 18:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Kunitzsch and Smart (A Dictionary of Modern Star Names, p. 15): "The formation of this name [Almach] begins with the ind-A [indigenous Arabic] name for this star: anaq al-ard, "the Caracal" (a black-eared feline predator found in the Middle East)." Spacepotato (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My source says - "Gamma Andromedae was known to the Arabs as 'Almach.' Allen tells us this name was derived from a phrase meaning a small predatory mammal similar to a badger." From P. 27 of Star Lore of All Ages by William Tyler Olcott, G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York and London, The Knickerbocker Press, 1911 - The Allen he speaks of is Richard H. Allen - Author of "Star Names and their Meanings" Moonbug (talk) 07:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: The citation used for γ1 Andromedae's apparent magnitude records it as 2.1, but this Wikipedia article reports it as 2.26.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.184.62.44 (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: fixed --Alexander Vasenin (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

text: Simbad is not a reliable source for most things.  It changes, as new research becomes available.  Better to use the underlying source, which Simbad usually links to, then it is at least verifiable.  It can always be changed later if someone decides a better source is now available.  2A02:C7F:7428:D200:5579:F899:C26F:6A95 (talk) 10:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Apparent Magnitude

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Gamma Andromedae. 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/20060220125558/http://ad.usno.navy.mil/wds/wdsnewweb1.txt to http://ad.usno.navy.mil/wds/wdsnewweb1.txt
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060220125558/http://ad.usno.navy.mil/wds/wdsnewweb1.txt to http://ad.usno.navy.mil/wds/wdsnewweb1.txt
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) 15:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gamma Andromedae. 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/20141016032204/http://www.astrodwarf.com/star/detail/6724 to http://www.astrodwarf.com/star/detail/6724
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) 12:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: So the orbital period of B with C is about 64 years, but what is their period around the primary A?  Would be good to know that when I'm showing off the pretty double, but I'm having trouble finding it. Pekoebrew (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Several thousand years, but that's just a rule of thumb based on Keplerian motion.  No orbit is known because too little orbital motion has been observed.  The Tokovinin's Multiple Star Catalogue states 4,748 years.  Lithopsian (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

text: Thanks Lith.  Yes I see that in Tokovinin's, although I agree it can't be nearly so accurate.  Is there some source that gives several thousand years?  I think that should be in the article, because I know that people are being confused by the 64 year period mentioned, thinking that's for the two easily visible components. Pekoebrew (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

text: I have added the 4,748 orbital period for the easily visible components. I deemed this necessary, because showing only the B-C orbital period of 64 years was confusing. Feel free to tweak my edit; I'm a beginner with the starbox feature. Pekoebrew (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

text: Hi Lith, I like what you did with my edit, thanks! Then you got inspired to tweak lots of other stuff, eh?  I'm sure it's all good, but one nitpick: the two starboxes now have different widths. Looks a bit odd.. Pekoebrew (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The two starboxes is a mess and something needs to be done, just not sure what.  They used to be in a single starbox and got split.  Maybe needs to go back, even though three/four stars is a lot to take in.  Normally, this sort of visual double would get two articles, but these stars are very close together and physically related so not such a good idea.  I might come back to it when I get time.  Lithopsian (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

text:  Thanks.  I rather like the Castor starbox, maybe that could be a model? Pekoebrew (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Orbital Period