|Betelgeuse 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 November 26, 2012.|
|Current status: Featured article|
|Betelgeuse has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Science, Physics. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as FA-Class.|
|WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects||(Rated FA-class, Top-importance)|
Threads older than 3 months may be archived by .
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Betelgeuse. 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/20110728164017/http://www.vlti.org/events/assets/1/proceedings/2.4_Wittkowski.pdf to http://www.vlti.org/events/assets/1/proceedings/2.4_Wittkowski.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- 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.
- How do you mean? Strictly speaking no, but since the movie people have pronounced it more like "Beetle juice" I guess...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
@Lithopsian: As the 1,200 R☉ is obsolete and is also the least reliable estimate, is the 950-1,200 R☉ for Betelgeuse even obsolete? I think so, due to the similar number/upper estimate. ZaperaWiki44(✉/Contribs) 14:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Scrap it, except as a purely historical and refuted idea. This is why pop-science websites make terrible sources. One brief paper suggests, on the basis of somewhat inconsistent measurements, that Betelgeuse is shrinking and a hundred stories appear on the internet (or one story appears a hundred times with a couple of words changed to make it look different). When those measurements are refuted and explained away (Ohnaka et al 2011, Montargues et al 2014 and Ohnaka 2014), nothing. The number 1,200 didn't even appear in Townes et al 2009, it is a synthesis of angular measurements from 15 years earlier that are no longer considered reliable with a later distance measurement which is also now obsolete. Of course the other two given radii also use 197 pc as the distance, rather than the more recent 222 pc. Betelgeuse could be bigger than we say! Don't go calculating it for yourself though ;) Lithopsian (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Is it pronounced "beetle-juice"? If so, can we indicate that at the beginning of the article, because I think a lot of people are not quite sure how to pronounce the name. Invertzoo (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- That is one possible pronunciation, but there at least two or three others. Three pronunciations are given in the starbox, one not cited, and at least one common one missing. Might have to put my editing hat on unless some IPAC-expert gets there first. Lithopsian (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Orbital companions to Betelgeuse - a question
Hi everyone, just a quick question here. Is the following strange or self-contradictory? In Observation section, the Star System subsection begins, "Various catalogues list up to nine faint visual companions to Betelgeuse." Yet further down, in the Physical Characteristics section, the Mass subsection begins, "Betelgeuse has no known orbital companions." My reading of this leave me thinking there are either zero, or up to nine, orbital companions to the star. The Interloafer (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- No contradiction, visual companions are not the same as orbital companions. However, referring to "visual companions" in a section called "star system" is just plain misleading. Lithopsian (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)