Talk:Procyon

Astronomy: Astronomical objects Start‑class

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

Dipper

Isn't Procyon a member of the Dipper cluster, like Sirius and Alphecca and all but two of the stars in the Big Dipper in Ursa Major? --Eric Forste (Talk) 03:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See [1]. Procyon does not seem to be a member. Sirius itself is apparently likely not a member. The research cited in the link is from Jeremy King et al., Clemson University, 2003. -- Curps 04:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Astrology is not astronomy

The "meanings" of various asters in astrology should be put somewhere else, their place is not in an astronomy article!

I heartily agree. All the 'astrological significance' and 'kabbalistic symbol' references are arcane and not significant in astronomy. Thus, they belong in a different category. 68Kustom (talk) 10:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are placed at the bottom of the article. With many, cultural significance was associated with ancient observations (eg. heliacal rising of Sirius), and just about all articles have some form of etymology/derivation of the name, no matter how odd it turns out to be. If you do not wish to read it, the bottom is a good palce for them to be as they can then be missed. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evasion of the point. Etymology is fine, as is cultural significance. But astrological notions and 'kabbalistic symbols' are just made-up mystical stuff and are not part of a star's observed characteristics. As such, that info-tainment has no place in serious article. 68Kustom (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you're making an automatic assumption then that the article is strictly an astronomical one (which it isn't). Many articles have overlapping spheres and categories. (I never thought I'd be arguing in favour of an astrological snippet..) and your opinion is not necessarily consensus. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MOST findings overstated?

There's some evidence that the MOST results about the pulsations were at the least, overstated - there may have been other instrumental effects contributing to the non-detection. See [2], [3] and [4]. Chaos syndrome 21:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i agree. I think those three references should be added to the page. But I must declare that I am a coauthor on two of those papers you cite. I am new to Wiki editing and am unsure whethe it is appropriate for me to do it. Advice? thanks Timb66 23:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

check semi major axis...

i believe it is incorrect. its approximate average should read 4.271" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.146.153.229 (talk) 06:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

ocilliations controversey

just under this heading, there is a phrase "however i too went to the fair." Is this supposed to be there? It doesn't seem to make any sense in context.I don't want to edit it just in case Veronase 11:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

What is the correct pronunciation? Judging from the Greek stress placement, I am guessing pro-SIGH-on? -- Cinga (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colour

Procyon ISN'T "yellow-tinged." Not in the actual sense. Compared to Vega, the standard, Procyon is 'yellow', but it's a white star that in photographs is blue-tinged. Even our Sun, a G2V, is white. 68Kustom (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]