Talk:Mirach

On 14 November 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Beta Andromedae to Mirach. The result of the discussion was moved.

Given distance of Beta Andromedae correct or not?

Hello, I was translating Carl Sagan's thoughts from Cosmos about Beta-Andromedae where he says the star is 75 light years away from us.

The Wikipedia article says it is 200 lya.

I did a quick google search and realized that I don't have reliable sources on this, because many articles, sites and books confirm Sagan's 75 ly, but some confirm Wikipedia's 200 lya.

Could you please investigate this issue and fix the article (if it's erroneous)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamMorva (talk • contribs) 23:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The parallax from 1995 was 0.048", whereas the current parallax estimate is 0.017". These would explain the discrepancy. Sagan's work was based on an older parallax measurement. The current distance estimates reflect the latest results. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beta Andromedae. 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/20081216035854/http://www.astro.uiuc.edu:80/~kaler/sow/mirach.html to http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/mirach.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 November 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lightoil (talk) 05:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beta Andromedae → Mirach – More common name and easy to remember than the Bayer designation per provisional names that are usually preferred than the latter. JeBonSer ^{(talk | sign)} 15:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are a lot of other (non-star) uses for "Mirach"[1] and its variants (Merach, Mirac, Merac); and "β And" or "Beta And" do not result in clean search results. "Beta Andromedae"[https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22Beta+Andromedae%22&btnG= seems well used -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support on this one - like recent similar nominations the reason given is incorrect, but Mirach does seem to be at least as common as Beta Andromedae (I get a similar number of results for both in ADS, unlike the other recent nominations which have more results for the Bayer designation), and the nicknames Mirach's Ghost and Mirach's Goblin for nearby galaxies indicate that Mirach is a commonly used name. SevenSpheres (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.