Talk:Alnitak

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

A fact from Alnitak appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 December 2007, and was viewed approximately 2,546 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Zeta Orionis, or Alnitak, 'the girdle', in Arabic, is the brightest O-type blue supergiant and one of the hottest bright stars in the sky?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/December.

Wikipedia

Name of this article

According to naming conventions, this star as an accepted common name (Alnitak) as well as, obviously, Zeta Orionis. The name should be under which is more widely used.

WRT Google hits:

Alnitak + star = 17700
"Zeta Orionis" + star = 4910

On google scholar,

"Zeta Orionis" + star = 69
Alnitak + star = 87

Therefore it would appear Alnitak is the more commonly used name. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Requested a technical move of this page. Metebelis (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(chuckle) four and a half year reply...Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity

The passage "the Alnitak system was found to be almost twice as close" is not at all well written; "half as distant" would be a better way to phrase it assuming that is what was actually meant. -68.68.131.252 (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Distance: 700 or 800 LY?

The article switches at least twice between 700 and 800 light years distance. We should pick one, preferably with a recent citation, and stick with it. Any thoughts?

Dspark76 (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This? XMM-Newton observations of ζ Orionis (O9.7 Ib), 251 parsec, 800 l.y. and more, I think.. --Kirk39 (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Validation of the new Hipparcos reduction (2007) gives parallax = 4.43mas, distance = 225pc = 736ly. The distance in the XMM-Newton paper comes from the older, original Hipparcos reduction (parallax = 3.99mas). I will update the article using the newer data and make it consistent. Metebelis (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luminosity and temperature

Why does the infobox give three different luminosities, and three temperatures (two of which are the same) for this star? Bazonka (talk) 06:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Orion Belt.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Distance from solar system

In the Orion's Belt page, the distance of Alnitak is given as "1,260 light years from the earth"; in this article the distance is given as "several hundred parsecs from the Sun". Is there a problem with using "1,260 light years"?
If there is, and it is felt that this article should stick with parsecs, can it be amended to show "around 380 parsecs from the Sun"? (A parsec is around 3.3 light-years … so 1,260 light-years ≈ 380 parsecs.)
(The Sun is the principal reference for our solar system. The distance from the earth to the Sun is about 8 light minutes, which is infinitesimally small compared with a light year. However, again for consistency, perhaps the Sun should be mentioned in the Orion's Belt page.)
The intro mentions that "Alnitak … is a triple star system several hundred parsecs from the Sun in the constellation of Orion." The word order is incorrect, because it puts the Sun in the constellation of Orion! The wording should be adjusted to "Alnitak … is a triple star system in the constellation of Orion around 380 parsecs from the Sun."
I'm unable to make these edits.
Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 06:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The body of the article describes that there are various distance estimates from a little under 300 pc to a little over 400 pc. That means that stating the distance to the nearest 10 light-years is a little mis-leading since we're really not sure of that accuracy. Even the basic 1σ value on the Hipparcos parallax gives a margin of error of 180 ly. So "1,260 light years from the earth" isn't exactly wrong, but taken in isolation it leands an incorrect air of certainty and precision. Lithopsian (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, Lithopsian … how about "900 to 1,300 light-years"?

I have amended the word order.

Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 11:37, 9 July 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:

Orion Belt.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]