Talk:Alpha Centauri

"Alpha Centauri AB (left) forms a triple star system with Proxima Centauri, circled in red." I don't see anything circled. Similarly where the same photo is used on Proxima Centauri. Image is unchanged since 2016. DAVilla (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a circle. is just hard to see 87.52.110.156 (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Proxima Centauri has a Circumstellar disc

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...855L...2M/abstract https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...850L...6A/abstract https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/proxima-centauris-dust-belt-hints-at-more-planets Fredeee335 (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

See Proxima Centauri#Planetary system where this is discussed. There most likely is not a disk according to the 2018 paper you linked. SevenSpheres (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh ok Fredeee335 (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@PopePompus: A binary system can't be a "star" by definition - it could only be apparent in observation as such. Stating star is furthering the error which science has corrected Onemillionthtree (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

It is very common usage to refer to a multiple star system as a star. For example, people routinely refer to Sirius as a star. Most stars are part of a multiple star system, many stars are no doubt part of a multiple system even though that has not been discovered yet. Some stars are close to another star in the sky (close in the angular sense) and it is not yet known whether the stars are part of a multiple system or merely coincidentally close to each other from our point of view. In all these cases, the system as a whole is often referred to as a star.

The first sentence of the Wikipedia article on constellations is "A constellation is an area on the celestial sphere in which a group of visible stars forms a perceived pattern ...". PopePompus (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

"It is very common usage to refer to a multiple star system as a star." - really that is different realities - and you are supporting that the erroneous position should prevail. It isn't a physics position to state "star" when the reality isn't - it is only convention which is just to state - a repeat error which no-one will correct. Onemillionthtree (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Your understanding is a thing with flippers that thinks it can fly in a world of the Delphium real Onemillionthtree (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

It's not acceptable to tell other editors trying to help that you think they're stupid or unable to understand, no matter what metaphors you use to say it. You frankly need to change your attitude significantly, and start listening more sincerely to what other more experienced editors are volunteering their time trying to tell you. Many things are imperfect on here, but many things are the way they are for good reasons. Remsense ‥ 论 17:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Onemillionthtree can I ask you a favor? When you are confused by why something is phrased the way it is on articles like these, could you first consider the likelihood that there is a good reason for it, and ask what you are missing, instead of assuming you are the first person to have noticed what would be very visible errors in important articles. Remsense ‥ 论 16:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Preliminary results of the search for planets with JWST; nothing detected yet, more complete results forthcoming. SevenSpheres (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Considering that the standard for semi-major axes of binary systems is generally that it is given in terms of astronomical units, why does this article not follow that convention? The infoxbox only cites a study which derived the value in terms of arcseconds, and the "Stellar system" subsection gives only periastron and apastron in AU while still neglecting to give the actual semi-major axis in AU. Even if the infobox gives the semi-major axis in terms of arcseconds, shouldn't it still have the value in terms of AU in paratheses next to it? (The Professor (Time Lord) (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2025 (UTC))

I just undid a change which replaced use of "Alpha Centauri A" and "Alpha Centauri B" in the article with Rigil Kentaurus and Toliman. We're running into the difference between WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME. The IAU has recently (in astronomical terms! :-) granted official names to individual stars such as this pair - but they are not (yet?) the common names. The use of Rigil Kentaurus at all is rather specialized, and the use of Toliman is even rarer yet - until the IAU's implementation of the list, both Rigil Kentaurus and Toliman were alternate names for the pair of stars together, and rarely used. Comments? Tarl N. (discuss) 04:54, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

while its true that Alpha Centauri A and B are common names, Rigil Kentaurus and Toliman sometimes use in this article - for the entire top section, almost all of the names are official names - Rigil Kentaurus and Toliman - except the last part of that section. the reason why i edit is to make the top section (only) to be consistent with the names in that section. the rest of the article... i hvnt touch yet Foxy Husky (talk) 09:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Virtually every publication in the subject use Alpha Centauri A and B, and the average reader will recognize the stars by the designations as they are easier to remember and way more common. I'd suggest only mentioning Toliman and Rigil Kentaurus only in the lead section when they're mentioned, but in the body, specially important sections, use Alpha Cen A and B. 21 Andromedae (talk) 09:12, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

so for the top section.... only use Toliman and Rigil Kentaurus eh? Foxy Husky (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Or do not use anywhere. 21 Andromedae (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

ok done Foxy Husky (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I should mention, in relation to using names for non-visible components, the Alpha Centauri system is unique. All other assigned names (at least as of the list I've seen) refer to the primary (A component) only. The sole exceptions are the Alpha Centauri stars and Alcor. Alcor has its own special case, in that the name dates to antiquity, since it is visible to the naked eye as a separate star from Mizar. It has been found to be gravitationally bound (at something like 100,000 au), so now listed as the C component in the system. So in general nomenclature, when referring to multiple components of a system, we should be referring to the system designation plus A/B/C/... rather than a proper name which will almost certainly refer to only the A component. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

but people nowadays call Alpha Centauri C as Proxima Centauri which is quite common. even astronomers use common name for Alpha Centauri C Foxy Husky (talk) 02:57, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Proxima is an exception. 21 Andromedae (talk) 11:44, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

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

• Illustration of Comet Bernardinelli-Bernstein.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

The article is currently in the following categories:

• Articles needing additional references from March 2023,
• Articles with unsourced statements from January 2025,
• Articles with failed verification from May 2025,

There is also unsourced and untagged content, as well as content after a source. One or more of these could just be misplaced references.

The B-class criteria #1 states, The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Some of the content is considered important, dealing with special information. The last sentence in the lead fourth paragraph, "...equivalent to about 430 times the radius of Neptune's orbit", the last sentence in the "Observational history", second paragraph in the Orbital properties, and several others. -- Otr500 (talk) 06:13, 20 December 2025 (UTC)