This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Found this on the main page here:
This isn't an encyclopedia article...I'm not sure what it is. Will we even want an article titled "70 Virginis"? -- LMS
Argh--wiki snobs!. Look, this information needs to be placed somewhere, because there are now hundreds of wrong pages that disregard it. I don't care if you want to rephrase it in fucking Lojban, just don't remove something that is needed out of personal prejudices of style! --graywyvern
I removed it because it doesn't make sense to anyone who doesn't already know a fair bit about the subject (apparently). Why should Wikipedia tolerate nonsense? If you would like to rewrite it in a coherent paragraph or several, beginning with an explanation of what "70 Virginis" is, that would be grand. -- LMS
Which puts me in mind of a book Asimov wrote on ALPHA CENTAURI. Now, at that time what was known about that star would not have filled an 8 1/2 by 11 sheet of note paper, so he managed to fill the book with elementary explanations of, basically, everything an uneducated person might have needed to know in order to understand what the meager data we had on this star might MEAN. Now, it seems to me that anyone who gets as far as "70 Virginis" in a wiki is going to know that this is a stellar designation, & if someone else wants to put double brackets around such jargon as "parallax" that might not be in a tiny dictionary, that's one thing. And if you want to add stuff you know besides this, that's even better. But i added to the Wikipedia once before & my article did not last three days & why must people who have nothing better to do than compulsively check into "Recent Changes" & meddle with other people's work, have to remove what i wrote after not one hour has passed, is beyond me.
I will not contribute again.
Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia. We do not own our entries. See most common Wikipedia faux pas. --LMS
It is either a star or a planet but it can't be both. New paragraph is confused but I don't know what it is supposed to mean to correct it. --rmhermen
Maybe it's what it says it is: a star with a planet. Joao
Coming in a bit late, let me ask, was the planet #3 on the extrasolar list? Trekphiler 06:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)