Talk:119 Tauri

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects  (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 119 Tauri is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-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.

One evening in late April 2004, Abdul Ahad (b. 12/15/1968, Sylhet, Bangladesh) stumbled across this star whilst sweeping the western skies through a pair of binoculars soon after sunset. He was immediately taken back by its intense, ruby red color and coined this little gem his "Ruby Star". He then did some analytical rankings based on (B-V) color index against visual magnitude and arrived at the conclusion that 119 Tauri (aka CE Tauri) is the second reddest naked eye star to shine consistently at a magnitude level brighter than +5:

[[Image:Ahad_redstars_chart.jpg |center|400px]]

The article page needs the citation [1] Sitara12 21:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

A second cite from the Journal of the British Astronomical Association [2] and The Spectrum Western Colorado Astronomy club [3] Iain4707 (talk) 07:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Good on ole Ahad. It's redder than Betelgeuse and Antares and certainly looks the ruby red star to me.

Earliest recorded occultation?[edit]

In a letter to the secretary of the RAS from Mr. Snow, dated Jan 2, 1832, there is a vivid description of a lunar occultation of this star. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

ruby star[edit]

Why should 119 tauri be called "ruby star"? There is nobody exept Mr. A. Ahad who invented this name.--Chicygni (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You can see many references above; to remove the name ruby star just seems like plain vanadalism to me. Clear skies to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Many references? There´s just one, and that one is self-referential because it refers to this article. The name ruby star does not reflect its use in the astronomical community. There is only this Mr. Ahad whose website is linked in the article who invented the name. Mr. Ahad are you the author of the above comment?Chicygni (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
The links to Mr. Ahad´s website are clearly a violation against the principle that wikipedia is not the place to publish one´s personal views on the subject. His list of red stars may be correct, but it is his list, full of personal remarks. If you follow you may see that it is conceitedness what´s behind such statements as: sometimes called ruby star.Chicygni (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Dude, I don't get what your problem is? ALL star names are linked back to people who coin them and popularise them as inspiration to the rest of us astronomic stargazers. So we have "Herschel's Garnet star", first popularised by William Herschel. Do you see my point, or dontcha? Are you claiming that this "Ahad" gentleman is in charge of the Western Colorado Astronomical society? Are you claiming that he is also in charge of this stellar database (in German) that too uses the name Ruby Star for this object? Time to have a think.
The Western Colorado Astronomical society refers to the article in Wikipedia when naming 119 tauri "ruby star" and the author of the article cites the Western Colorado Astronomical society as proof that "ruby star" is in common use among astronomers. Clearly a circular argument. What you call "stellar database" is a website maintained by a german amateur who took his information from...???? the website of Abdul Ahad, the man who coined the name ruby star. Show me any astronomical papers, amateur or professional, to prove the claim that "ruby star" is a name in use out there. And please read wp:nor!Chicygni (talk) 13:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
And what about that: Wikipedia is not for things that you or your friends made up. If you have invented something novel in school, your garage, or the pub, but it has not yet become well known to the rest of the world, please do not write about it in Wikipedia. Write about it on your own website or blog instead. If you do, don't try to write an article based on you or your friend's website. (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day (or night))This is exactly the way this nice sounding "ruby star" found its way to Wikipedia.--Chicygni (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a publically editable encyclopedia. The rules that dictate what gets included in this encyclopedia and what doesn't are also publically editable and continually changing. This means your argument is as equally circular as the circular article above. Have it your way if you must. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)