Talk:Tau Ceti

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Tau Ceti 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.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 4, 2011.
WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects  (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Tau Ceti is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

Unlike other prominent stars, Tau Ceti does not have a widely recognized traditional name...[edit]

...Would it be fair to say that Tau Ceti has itself become a widely recognized traditional name? It's been used in enough fictional back stories now (e.g., War of the Worlds (2005 film)) that it's probably the most famous star out there now after Barnard's Star and the Alpha Centauri system.

Are there even other names for it? Mark Stimmel (talk) 15:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't actually find a ref that mentions Tau Ceti in regards to the 2005 film but I'm almost certain I read as much. Does anyone have a Spielberg quote handy? Mark Stimmel (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
By "traditional name", the article means a proper name for the star, as with Sirius or Betelgeuse. I think Tau Ceti is considered a catalogue designation.—RJH (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi RJ -- good to see you typing. I wonder about Chinese/Eastern names? Presumably it had gotten attention from the other side of the world. See Tao. Mark Stimmel (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh God. They've arrived. Thankfully Wikipedia no longer allows us to link to the examiner dot com. But do a Google search. Mark Stimmel (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Never mind. I see some Chinese nomenclature has already been added. RJ, an astro-historical question for you: do you think it's possible that something resembling a telescope was invented 5,000 or 50,000 rather than 500 years ago? -- User:Marskell
Conceivably. The nimrud lens is 3,000 years old. The Ancient Greeks were aware of the pinhole lens ~400 BC. But this is perhaps getting a bit off topic.—RJH (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. Not entirely. Much is in a name. "Tau" is the prefix for many star names and is a homophone with an entire eastern religious movement. Anyway, good seeing you around. -- User:Marskell

"In fiction" is just trivia.[edit]

This recently added section is unsourced and appears to be composed of trivia. The topic of Tau Ceti in fiction is already an article, which is also unsourced and full of trivia. As the star and science fiction appear to be the only common themes, I think the subject can be summarized in a single sentence and the content of the section can be moved to the other article with little impact here. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


It has asteroids and comets nearby,so a habitable planet may be bombarded by asteroids and comets. --Alexrybak (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's true of the Earth as well.—RJH (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


News in France emerging about discovery of 5 planets, including one in habitable zone. News well sourced, with couple of scientists involved being quoted, and name of Journal given in the news source that will publish the discovery.--Exsaol (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

We need to add this info to the later sections of the article, which now contradict the lede. this will take some work. also, i placed a new ref in english. this is better, though if someone feels also having a french language ref here is good, they can add it back. very exciting. I anticipate they will each get their own article, or at least the goldilocks planet.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


What's a more meaningful unit in common usage? Saying "x hs of observation" isn't very informative and should have a parenthetical reference in commonly used time units. (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)