Contents

Talk:Rigel

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rigel article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days

	Rigel is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 28, 2020.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 1, 2020 Good article nominee Listed December 8, 2019 Peer review Reviewed June 30, 2020 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

This  level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Astronomy: Astronomical objects Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

Rigel is actually a multi star system. But the energy output of its components other than the main star are negligable. Its average apperent magnitude is m=0.13 and the distance is d=860 ly. With these figures its absolute magnitude should be M= -6.97 . But the article gives the figure as M= -7.84. Have I missed something? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you missed something. First, the references given for the apparent magnitude, the distance, and the absolute magnitude are not the same, so they are not necessarily consistent. In fact the reference for the absolute magnitude (which I just changed to the original paper that derived the value instead of one that was just quoting it) assumed a distance of 360 pc. There is also extinction, which many people forget about. In this case it isn't obvious how many magnitudes of extinction have been included in the calculation because the paper goes directly from the distance modulus and colour excess to the absolute magnitude. However, the difference between the distance modulus and the absolute magnitude makes it fairly clear that there are about 0.16 magnitudes of extinction in there. That is consistent with the E(B-V) of 0.05. Lithopsian (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph gives a distance of 860 light-years (260 pc) from Earth. Yet the sidebar lists Distance 1,010 ± 20 ly (309 ± 5 pc). KevinTernes (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I took a look and it seems that the infobox value was obtained using another method, but the value of 860 ly (863, to be exact) is the more widely accepted value. I have updated the infobox and added a reference. -Pax Verbum 18:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The distance isn't consistent now to the measured parallax - which i think is a pretty accurate method for this distance. The simbad database also states that the Parallax is actually 3.78 (compare: https://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-basic?Ident=Rigel). Should the parallax be changed to reflect this value? Or is the gaia data which was used for the 3.2 value more accurate? 194.113.40.61 (talk) 07:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The parallax in the starbox is for Rigel B. It should probably have a note to that effect since it isn't obvious from the reference. Yes, it is fairly accurate, but it is also somewhat indirect and potentially doesn't reflect the actual distance of Rigel. The parallax shown at Simbad for Rigel A is the old Hipparcos parallax because Gaia can't yet provide a useful parallax for such bright stars. The Hipparcos value is still widely-used as the "reference" distance for Rigel. Lithopsian (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would rhyme this with Nigel, but is that correct? Would it be a hard G? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:1428:C467:F0B7:ED5:AF2E:FE81 (talk) 07:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I rhyme it with Nigel, the 'g' as in jam. Some pronunciation guides give a hard 'g', but I haven't heard this actually being used. Lithopsian (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And that corresponds to the tri-literal root RJL of the Arabic name (ar-Rijl al-Jauza, the foot of the giant). -- Elphion (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sidebar says that Rigel is on the main sequence but the text says that it has evolved away from the main sequence. Presumably the text is correct 155.137.25.15 (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sidebar says that the faint companion, or at least one component of it if it is a binary, is on the main sequence. It describes the primary star (component A) as being a blue supergiant. Lithopsian (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]