Talk:Procyon

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-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.

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)[reply]

See [1]. Procyon does not seem to be a member. Sirius itself is apparently likely not a member. The research cited in the link is from Jeremy King et al., Clemson University, 2003. -- Curps 04:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "meanings" of various asters in astrology should be put somewhere else, their place is not in an astronomy article!

I heartily agree. All the 'astrological significance' and 'kabbalistic symbol' references are arcane and not significant in astronomy. Thus, they belong in a different category. 68Kustom (talk) 10:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are placed at the bottom of the article. With many, cultural significance was associated with ancient observations (eg. heliacal rising of Sirius), and just about all articles have some form of etymology/derivation of the name, no matter how odd it turns out to be. If you do not wish to read it, the bottom is a good palce for them to be as they can then be missed. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evasion of the point. Etymology is fine, as is cultural significance. But astrological notions and 'kabbalistic symbols' are just made-up mystical stuff and are not part of a star's observed characteristics. As such, that info-tainment has no place in serious article. 68Kustom (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you're making an automatic assumption then that the article is strictly an astronomical one (which it isn't). Many articles have overlapping spheres and categories. (I never thought I'd be arguing in favour of an astrological snippet..) and your opinion is not necessarily consensus. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Can someone add the pronunciation? -- AstroU (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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 .

The star itself was once on the ecliptic of the zodiac in ancient times, just between of the constellations Gemini and Cancer, but I can't say for sure if the star and companion Beta Canis Minoris were forming a zodiac sign of its own. Sirius and Canopus form a singular up-down (north-south) line, but whenever the sun or moon crosses the northern edge of Canis Minor or close to Procyon, many astrologers consider the near-transit (about 3 to 5 degrees above Procyon) as a time of financial prosperity for the world. 71.102.3.122 (talk) 02:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

also this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@John Reiher: fascinating concept - we can't put anything in unless a reliable source has talked about it...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090628101130/http://www.fotw.net/flags/br_astro.html to http://www.fotw.net/flags/br_astro.html

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]