Talk:Antares

message: Antares is a class M class M stars are red dwarfs, Anares is a Giant I'm not sure of its classification but it would be "B" or "A" I would think.(Zach Kessin
:Stellar class is based not on size, but on temperature, and Class M includes both supergiants like Antares and red dwarf stars.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.66.68 (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Classification

message: Antares is a class M supergiant star, with a diameter of approximately 9.24 × 10^8 km, or slightly more than the distance from the Sun to Mars,
Those two things contradict themselves. -- Keber 16:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, Mars is "only" 1.52 AU (give or take) = 2.3 X10^8 km, I believe it should say Jupiter (at 7.8 X10^8km)--Kalsermar 16:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the passage mentions that the diameter is 9 x 10^8 km (~6 AU). An Antares placed where the Sun is would not stretch out as far as Jupieter's orbit, but only about 3 AU. Well beyond the orbit of Mars at ~1.5 AU, but not as far as Jupiter, at ~5.2 AU. 3 AU would be somewhere in the asteroid belt. Richard B 20:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now the article states Antares diameter is 1.33 × 109 km which means in place of our sun it would extend out half that or to 6.7 x 108 km.  Could someone with a source provide a fact check and cite it? WilliamKF 01:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to APOD (I know, not the best source for scientific data but it is what I found doing a quick search) Antares is about 700 times the solar diameter. That would make it roughly 9.8 x 108 km.--Kalsermar 16:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Antares has a measured parallax of 5.4 mas (milliarcseconds), so the distance is 1000/5.4 = 185 parsec. Furthermore, the CHARM2 database (CHARM2: an updated Catalog of High Angular Resolution Measurements. Richichi A., Percheron I., Khristoforova M. <Astron. Astrophys. 431, 773 (2005)>) lists a measured angular disk diameter of 45 mas. Thus the diameter is 45*185/1000 =8.3 AU (astronomical units; note that one arcsec at one parsec is one AU). 8.3 AU correspond to 1780 solar radii, so the radius of the star would be 1780/2 = 890 solar radii. Of course it could easily be 200 solar radii more or less, given the observational errors.
The image has the radius of Antares at 300 million kilometers, and the sun's radius at 0.7 million kilometers, so the radius of Antares is about 430 solar radii. This does not agree with the value of 700 solar radii in the details section.  Kwierschem (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Diameter

message: I thought my external link to http://www.rense.com/general72/size.htm The Size of our World on rense.com was a good one. It is a powerful visual comparison of the size of Antares to earth, sun, and other stars. Does everyone agree with Kalsermar that it should be removed?Bytemiser 03:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote for INCLUDING the external link as it is a great pictoral. WilliamKF 01:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great pictoral, perhaps. Encyclopaedic, no.--Kalsermar 16:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see how this is not "encyclopedic".  Many articles have size comparisons, such as :Image:Terrestrial planet size comparisons.jpg and :Image:Gas giants in the solar system.jpg from solar system.  It would be nice if this could be converted into a picture series that could be used on Wikipedia, but, until that time, I see no reason why this should not be included. --tomf688 (talk - email) 10:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External Link Removed

message: It is notable that Antares is one of the few stars whose disk has been photographed (along with the sun, of course, and Betelgeuse and I think Myra).  I'm not sure how to work that into the article, but it might be worth a mention.--Todd 08:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disk of Antares imaged 

message: I tried to figure out some way to actually translate the location into something more meaningful to the average person.  I have failed in this.  Knowing the RA doesn't help me figure out if this star is closer to galactic center, further out, or radial from our location.  Perhaps this really needs to be a discussion on the page that discusses RA, but a reference on this page -- or even a graphic showing a "top down" view of our galaxy with both Sol and Antares located, would be nice.  Anyone?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jplflyer (talk • contribs) 20:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We are looking toward galactic center, from Earth, when we look in the direction of the constellation Sagittarius, which is adjacent to Scorpio, including Antares.  Hence, Antares is closer to galactic center than we are, though not directly between us and it. If I could a.) document this and b.) figure out how to phrase it well, I would work it in to the article. For now, I am putting the info here, if anyone cares to verify this with a source and work it in. 72.49.66.68 (talk) 08:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location 

message: I did a quick Google search on this fact and didn't find anything other than references back to Wikipedia. If it's true there needs to be some explanation. Did Fomalhaut and Achernar dim below first magnitude? Did their proper motion or that of Antares or Alpha Centauri cause the change? Rsduhamel (talk) 07:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most-isolated first magnitude star 

message: I came to the talk page to point out that the text (Antares's radius is approximately 800 times that of the Sun) is inconsistent with the image (showing the Sun's radius as 0.7 and Antares's as 300, both in million km).  I see this was pointed out last year in the #Diameter thread above.  I can't follow all the technical stuff in that thread, but as a layperson I can tell you that the article in its current state cannot be right and is confusing besides.  If the measurement is imprecise, then we should report the imprecision, instead of acting as if two inconsistent values are both well-established facts that need no qualification. JamesMLane t c 06:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency in article 

message: Does someone have the J band magnitude of Antares? SIMBAD does not list it. -- Kheider (talk) 01:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[J band]] magnitude 

message: I couldn't add this to the article because it is the result of my own observation, but when I observed Antares B during a lunar occultation in West Virginia on 25 January 1968, during which I was able to observe the companion star by itself for many seconds, it appeared a rich blue color. This surprised me because I had hitherto observed the companion only as a green "corner" of the bright star Antares when seen through a telescope. I observed no green in the companion when viewed by itself; it was more the color of natural ultramarine. Embram (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color of the secondary 

message: I notice in this drawing Antares is labeled as a giant star, which contradicts the article. Additionally , Arcturus is labeled as an 'orange star' rather than referring to its giant status Mr Morden76 (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Labeling of size comparison drawing 

message: The figure 1/370 is not consistent with 170 solar brightnesses for the secondary compared with 10,000 for Antares which is a factor of 59 and consistent with the approximate 4.5 magnitude difference.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.134.188 (talk) 09:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Brightness of Secondary compared to Antares

message: At present the article has "...and the sixteenth brightest star in the nighttime sky. It is sometimes listed as 15th brightest, if the two brighter components of the Capella quadruple star system are counted as one star."
If you click on the first wikilink above for list of brightest stars Antares is listed in 17th place. Are both this article and the list of brightest stars articles correct? --Marc Kupper|talk 02:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The sixteenth brightest star? 

message: The article says it's a slow irregular variable star but does not say what the period between minimum and maximum brightness have been. Are we talking about a few milliseconds or centuries for Antares' brightness to change? --Marc Kupper|talk 02:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: By definition, irregular variables do not have an identifiable period.  It is also described as "slow", so I think we can rule out milliseconds, which are extremely unlikely for a red supergiant in any case.  In practice the period varies, over quite a small amplitude, on a period of hundreds of days.  Mathematical analysis of the variations over a sufficiently long period can resolve most irregular variables into a number of overlapping (semi-) regular periods.  In the case of Antares, two dominant periods are resolved at about 300 and 1700 days.  Many references, but try DOI 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/1170 for a starting point.  Lithopsian (talk) 11:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the period of the variability? 

message: According to the article section Position on the ecliptic, "The last occultation of Antares by Venus took place on September 17, 525 BC". Generally, the use of "BC" dating implies a calendar reference such as that used primarily by historians, referring to the proleptic Julian calendar. So, does 525 BC mean year -524, or was an editor unmindful and meant -525? Also, what then of September 17? The Julian calendar officially took effect in Rome on January 1, 45 BC. But for at least 100 years, the application of leap years was not in fact done every four years, but instead was subject to the political winds and whims of the Roman Senate who had to vote on when to have one. By calendar definition, the vernal equinox was supposed to occur on March 25, 45 BC, but we know from church history that it occurred again on March 21, AD 325 (the year of the First Council of Nicea), because from that point on Easter was calculated based on that dating. Count the supposed leap years; it doesn't work. In 370 years, the Julian calendar should have seen the equinox drift by a little less than three days, not four. I'm sure historians leave dates across those 370 years as they occurred historically. "Proleptic" does not truly apply to the Julian calendar until one gets earlier than 45 BC. So the historical date for the occultation is perhaps September 18th. But that's not what astronomers do with that calendar. They apply a fully regular four-year pattern of leap years to all times before 1582.
I'm not arguing that astronomers are doing something wrong or unreasonable, only that it's not precisely historic. I am assuming that the occultation date has been confirmed through modern calculation that identifies the timing through a count of days (perhaps using the Julian day?), which would then be applied to the calendar as described in the "Astronomical year numbering" article. To avoid all such questions, I would recommend that the date be clearly given according to astronomical calendarization, with negative year number, a parenthesized "BC" equivalent, and a wikilink to the year numbering article to explain. I'd do it myself if I felt confident of what date is really intended, but unfortunately there is also no source given for the Venus occultations, so I couldn't check it, and came up empty looking. Evensteven (talk) 10:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last occultation by Venus was when? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Antares. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090705011944/http://www.lunar-occultations.com:80/iota/bstar/0731antares.htm to http://www.lunar-occultations.com/iota/bstar/0731antares.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The name translation I remember reading is "Rival of Mars", a name that is listed in Antares at Constellation Guide.  agb  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.233.167.63 (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Antares's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "percy":
From AH Scorpii: 
From RW Cephei: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Antares]] 

message: Should mention be made of the fact that Antares is in the  Milky Way?
Paul (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure anyone wants to touch this.  Should it be mentioned?  Maybe, possibly, but I suspect there are few editors that want it to be mentioned explicitly.  At least not in the lead where I suspected you'd want to see it.  Certain information has to remain implicit or an article becomes unreadable.  An obvious example is that Antares is described in the opening sentence as a star, without any explanation of what a star might be.  Star is not even linked (although some articles about specific types of star are) and it is understood that a typical reader will know what a star is.  And what "naked eye" means, also "night sky", "mass", all terms in the lead which don't occur in everyday conversations between most people, but are in the lead of this article without explanation or even links (incidentally, all three terms have their own Wikipedia article).  So should it be explained that Antares is in the Milky Way, despite it being quite exceptional that any star you've heard of is not in the Milky Way?  Despite the fact that there are very few articles in the whole of Wikipedia about individual stars not in the Milky Way (all explicitly described because it is such an unusual thing)?  Well maybe it could be made more obvious, but I'm not keen to do it.  Lithopsian (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antares is in the Milky Way? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . Community Tech bot (talk) 07:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: For the first time in over a decade I will need to go offsite to get better top level info. I want to know about the original myth on Antares. The star was named after a Greek of Roman god or goddess, I'll bet a magnum of good sparkling. I am dumbfounded and when I have time... Bodysurfinyon (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defect!!! DEMON Antares SHOULD NOT be a link to the Star =