|WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
Why does this page exist?
If Double star is another term for binary star, then why don't we turn this page into a redirect instead of an article? CDClock 03:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
It's my understanding that true binary stars comprise about half the stars (some sources say more, others say less) that we see. In any case, they are not the "vast majority" asserted in the article. 188.8.131.52 14:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Why does it exist? I wonder why too. Binary star contains everything that this page have and a lot more. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 13:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, this page because double stars include stars that appear near each other as seen by direction from earth, optical doubles are those who are near each other by chance, and they have no physical connection. Binary stars are physically connected, and so are included among double stars. Relevant links to be added. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 15:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
This article is worthless as it stands. Actual, gravitationally bound binaries are the only type worth discussing in an article. So what if two stars "appear close together?" What if three stars appear close together--do we need a "triple star" article, too? Or four? Or five? Oh wait--we already have an article about that. It's called, Star cloud. But more significantly, there already is an article about binary stars. We do not need a more general article about stars that appear close to one another, and may or may not be gravitationally related. For that, we have the article about star clouds. Two stars appearing close together is not fundamentally different or even interesting. -184.108.40.206 07:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that a double star is just two stars that are close together. Sometimes that is interesting, such as with Mizar and Alcor. I do not think, though, that a double star and a binary star are synonymous. --Segregold 05:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- It can be made interesting in the sense of how astronomers determine whether a double star is physically connected. I.e. whether they are at about the same distance and share a common motion through space. An example is proxima centauri, where it remains uncertain whether it is part of the alpha centauri system or just happens to be a member of the same moving group. It's also important to differentiate the term from binary star, because many pairs are catalogued as double stars, which some may mistake as indicating they are binaries. (That has happened here on Wikipedia.) Providing this article also provides a link point separate from binary star.—RJH (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems this page was completely rewritten by one editor. It has been reverted and should now make more sense. Vsst 18:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Multiple stars are classically sub-class of double stars, both historically and currently. I.e. If it were not called the Washington Double Star Catalogue, therefore why does it list multiple stars? I accuse Spacepotato of gross manipulation of the definition of double star. (If you want to have the decided on some arbiter, then I am prepared to go the distance, because you clearly don't know what you are actually talking about.) User:Arianewiki1 07:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- To quote Aitken (The Binary Stars, Dover, 1964, p. ix): "The term double star is of earlier origin...It is still occasionally applied to this [ν Sagittarii] and other pairs of stars visible to the unaided eye, but is generally used to designate pairs separated by not more than a few seconds of arc and therefore visible as two stars only with the aid of a telescope." For him, then, a double star is a pair of stars. As for the Washington Double Star Catalog, the USNO writes : "The Washington Double Star Catalog (WDS) maintained by the United States Naval Observatory is the world's principal database of astrometric double and multiple star information." So, here as well, double stars do not include multiple stars. Of course, it may be that historically double and multiple stars have been studied together, but that is not to say that the objects themselves are the same. Spacepotato (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
There are so many errors and inconsistencies that this entry is mostly a waste of time fixing. The new entries by Spacepotato, and the continuous his reverts is totally unacceptable - who is still prepared to delete whole sections, even though they are relevant and are placed for clarity. I have fixed these same problems on three separate occasions, and will not be doing this again. User:Arianewiki1 07:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding accusations of this and that, try to follow WP:GOODFAITH! That's a wikipedia policy. Find the error of individual edits, and object by citing sources that oppose the statements in the article, please refrain from attacking individuals. Besides Spacepotato have been around for a time, so his edits are generally knowledgeable. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 13:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The page says, 'if the relative motion is small compared to the common proper motion of both stars, it may be concluded that the pair is in mutual orbit as a binary star.' Is this correct? I can't see how the proper motion is relevant, surely only their relative motion (and perhaps proximity) are relevant. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 05:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Double star. 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/20080412092018/http://ad.usno.navy.mil:80/wds/wdsweb_format.txt to http://ad.usno.navy.mil/wds/wdsweb_format.txt
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- 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.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.