Talk:Deneb

Astronomy: Astronomical objects C‑class Top‑importance

	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
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

Template:Vital article

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Arabic

I suggest that the Arabic meaning of Deneb, and the associated mythology, be added to this article.

Blue Giant

I got to this page by following a link from the Blue Giant article. Shouldn't the Deneb article mention that Deneb is a Blue Giant? This would seem to be important information.

If Deneb is a spectral class of A (not O or B), then it may be confusing to call it a Blue Giant, especially along with the reference that it is a short-lived star. O and B are Blue Giants, A is more a White Giant with a blue tinge. Blue Giants, if my understanding is correct, is a term used for O and B classes, not A classes. If my understanding is correct, the text referencing Deneb as a Blue Giant should probably be clarified. Tesseract501 June 6 2006.

Introduction 'Variable star' is not relevant

This edit[1] that is based on a illogical premise. Again, while Deneb might be a variable star, it is trivial fact about it. Deneb is a bright first-magnitude star in Cygnus. That is what it is known for. My dictionary says "the brightest star in the constellation Cygnus, a yellow supergiant."

This User is similarly arguing this on Rigel and in this thread here.Talk:Rigel#First couple of sentences in lede (It is an example of WP:POINTy behaviour.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stellar parameters

It is surprising that the distance and other derived stellar parameters for Deneb are not based on the 2007 Hipparcos reanalysis or subsequent journal articles based on this astrometry data. Instead the citation is to a journal article (Schiller and Przybilla 2008) whose distance estimate is based on Humphreys 1978, a now quite old set of estimates of distances to OB associations. There is no good scientific reason cited for this choice. The reference to the distance controversy for the Pleiades seems quite irrelevant to Deneb and indeed many other Wikipedia articles do cite the Hipparcos reanalysis data as the source for stellar distance data.

I recommend that this article use a Deneb distance of 433 parsecs, derived directly from the Hipparcos reanalysis value for Deneb of 2.31 mas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galaxymap (talk • contribs) 20:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merely being based on a more recent analysis of old data does not necessarily make the Hipparcos re-analysis the preferred source for any particular object, that's often the case with results that are in tension with previous work. There has actually been very little in the way of published research on this topic in the intervening years. I would however point to this article, https://arxiv.org/abs/1007.2095, which with full knowledge of the discrepancy between Schiller and Przybilla 2008 and van Leeuwen 2007 used the stellar parameters for Deneb based on Schiller and Przybilla 2008. ChiZeroOne (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Hipparcos parallax could be left to calculate the distance in the starbox, although it would be inconsistent with the data in the rest of the starbox. The starbox can only really support one distance, so anything beyond that needs to be explained in the body. There is a paragraph devoted to this in the body and I suggest this is the place to start changing the emphasis on which distance should be preferred. Although original research is not acceptable in Wikipedia, there is still scope for picking which published research is given preference. As for calculating what other data "should" be based on the Hipparcos distance, that wouldn't be allowed. Have to find someone else who has done the calculation and use their values. Peer-reviewed papers are highly-preferred for this sort of primary data, although other reliable sources can be used. Lithopsian (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Hertzsprung-Russel StarData.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]