Talk:Deneb

Template:Vital article

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.

Wrong Hipparcos designation

HIP 97871 actually belongs to V1291 Aquilae and the actual Hipparcos designation for Deneb is HIP 102098 please fix this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nussun05 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Adopted?

"adopted distance". This is a peculiar undefined phrase that I can't find anywhere on the internet. The definition of "adopted" does not include a meaning that would apply to distance. How does one "adopt" a measurement? I'm guessing, from context, that it is an agreed-upon distance because the actual distance is not precisely known. But this odd-ball jargon should be linked to a proper explanation.77Mike77 (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The term is widespread, at least in the scientific literature. The distance of most stars is not precisely and reliably known. Different authors publish different distances at various times, perhaps derived using different methods or just from different observations. When an astronomer is working on a particular star and needs a distance, they will usually just "adopt" a previously-published one rather than go out and try to reinvent the wheel. The adopted distance might just be any old random distance if it is not critical to their own research, or a relatively recent result that is considered reliable, or might be a careful statistical weighting of all the available research if it is important to be as precise as possible. I'm not sure you'll find a suitable article to link this to; it would be little more than a dictionary definition. Is an adjective and a noun going to be unclear to most people? Lithopsian (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that was my guess, but it's widespread use "in the literature" equates to the phrase being jargon. To most people, "adopt" means, e.g. "adopt a stray cat", and this accords with both the dictionary definition and common usage. To "adopt" a measurement is something that makes no dictionary sense, nor common sense. So I was wondering whether one could state with confidence that Deneb is 2600 ly away. Elsewhere, I read that the calculated distance ranges from about 2400 to 2800, depending on the technique, so I see that 2600 is like an average, or a compromise. Probably most people interested in Deneb would guess that much, so it's not a big deal to me, but "adopted" does come across as jargony, given that this is supposed to be a general encyclopedia, not an article targeting experts. "Approximate" might be a less jargony choice, but that's just my opinion.77Mike77 (talk) 22:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

From dictionary.com: "to choose or take as one's own; make one's own by selection or assent". It is the first meaning in that dictionary, not always the first meaning in others, but a standard meaning. Not really much different to adopting a stray cat or even a baby, but less paperwork :) Lithopsian (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

It's still not very scientific. You could adopt the identity of Peter Pan, but that doesn't mean you are. The word "adopted distance" suggests that the distance was plucked out of a buffet of random distances, and may therefore have nothing to do with the actual distance. I'm not saying that the meaning of the word "adopted" cannot be stretched out enough to provide an excuse for using the shop-talk jargon phrase "adopted distance", which is apparently what you are fixated on doing. I am pointing out that it IS insider jargon that leaves the non-specialist reader wondering if the number 2600 is reliable, or just pulled out of a hat. In other words, this article is NOT encylopedic, because it locks out the majority of readers who are not already specialists. Too many wikipedia contributors seem unable to grasp the meaning of the word "encyclopedia". I only looked at this specialist's shop-talk article because the search engines put Wikipedia at the top. In future, I'll skip to the next one as a time-saver. The other articles I read were better than this one, and are more suitable for reading by the general public, and more informative.77Mike77 (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

As a scientific method, "adoption" could well be plucking out a random distance. Or it may be a considered choosing of the best available distance. In many cases it will be better to reference the original derivation of a distance, although an adoption might help to indicate a consensus value. If you want to link it to something, go ahead, but linking individual words with a trivial meaning isn't usually helpful. Maybe there could or should be (or is?) an article about the scientific concept, but I suspect it wouldn't amount to much. Adoption (disambiguation) doesn't mention it, perhaps it should, but again where would it link to? Lithopsian (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

On a more general point: are you just here to complain or do you have some helpful input? There is nothing to stop you editing the article yourself if you think it needs to be improved. It is a wiki after all. Lithopsian (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I think "approximate distance" would be less jargony, and convey the same information. I'm reluctant to edit it myself, because usually my edits are reverted. I'm not complaining, just making a constructive suggestion. Basically, I think it is very cool to be interested in astronomy, and no offence was intended. I'm still in awe of how huge Deneb is, and how it is so bright at such a distance.77Mike77 (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)