This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
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)
The "meanings" of various asters in astrology should be put somewhere else, their place is not in an astronomy article!
Well I guess the section you're discussing is gone now, which is too bad because it relates to my research and I would like to see it. Thanks a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.71.2 ( talk) 22:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
What are we trying to say here?
"However others argued that the non-detection was consistent with published ground-based radial velocity observations of solar-like oscillations.[9][10]
...
Unlike the MOST result, the variation seen in the WIRE photometry was in agreement with radial velocity measurements from the ground."
It can't be unlike the MOST result if both MOST and WIRE are in agreement with the radial velocity measurements...
70.190.100.92 (
talk) 02:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
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).
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)
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)
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)
Procyon B's spectral type is not DA. A spectral type of DA means that the atmosphere is almost solely hydrogen. Procyon B is the exact opposite, with no hydrogen in its atmosphere. The spectral type of Procyon B is DQZ, refer Provencal (2002) APJ 568, 324-334. Mollwollfumble ( talk) 00:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
(This section is linked from Procyon in Astrology)
Astrologically, Procyon portends wealth, fame, and good fortune. It is also one of fifteen Behenian stars, associated with agate and water crowfoot. According to Cornelius Agrippa, its kabbalistic symbol is .
See this Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
As noted in this article, at one time, 1.2 Gya, Procyon B was larger and more massive than Procyon A. That means Procyon A orbited Procyon B. When B lost most of its mass 1.2 Gya ago, the dance between the two stars would have been very interesting. If there were any planets around Procyon A, they were more than likely tossed out of the system as the stars switched places and the barycenter of their orbits shifted to where it is now. Has anyone tried to simulate this? Kedamono ( talk) 04:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Procyon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)