Talk:Epsilon Scorpii

Is Wei the proper name given for this star?

'It is rarely called Wei introduced by Patrick Moore.' What does this mean? Moore named it (hardly, but that's how it reads), or claimed that the name was rare? Pending someone looking up the reference, I'll remove it. Rothorpe (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Wei is the 6th sieu - Chinese lunar mansion - in Chinese astronomy. It is composed from the 9 stars - ε, μ^1-2, ζ^1-2, η, θ, ι, κ, υ, and λ Scorpii. (See <1> <2>) Wei is a name of Chinese lunar mansion or asterism, not a star name. ε Sco is 尾宿二, the 2nd star of this sieu.

In the works around modern western astronomy, noone descriebes it for the proper name of this star except Moore. So "it is rarely called" and "introduced by Patrick Moore".

See Moore, P.,

• (1983): The Guinness Book of Astronomy: Facts & Feats, (2nd. ed.), Guinness Superlatives Limited, p.242,
• (1978): The Observer's Book of Astronomy, F. Warne, p.91,
• (1997): Cambridge Guide to Stars and Planets, Cambridge University Press, p.230,
• (2001): Stargazing: Astronomy without a Telescope, Cambridge University Press, p.200,
• (2005): The Observer's Year: 366 Nights of the Universe, (2nd ed.), Springer, p.10,
• (2006): The Amateur Astronomer, Birkhäuser, p.202.

cf. Koo She for δ Vel, Men for α Lup, KeKouan (sic) for β Lup. --Bay Flam (talk) 05:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've restored it. Thanks for the explanation. Rothorpe (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Epsilon Scorpii. 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/20090628101130/http://www.fotw.net/flags/br_astro.html to http://www.fotw.net/flags/br_astro.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 05:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

System is Binary

Gaia DR2 shows that ε Scorpii has a companion, Gaia DR2 6026152137815012096 (also found in DR1) with G ~ 12.17 and BP-RP ~ 2.57, making it an M3/M3.5 red dwarf.

Not a lot we can do with that, I'm afraid. At best, we'd be making inferences that stray into WP:OR. At worst, doing a bit of my own original research, the DR2-derived data around ε Sco is somewhat dubious, with a sixth-magnitude star being reported at about the same separation (a few arc-seconds) with comparable (very large!) proper motion. It is marked as being subject to duplicate observations which tends to mess things up, also it has a parallax significantly less than ε Sco itself (Hipparcos) or the supposed companion. An educated guess would say the 6th magnitude star is an artefact, so what of the fainter one? ε Sco itself is not shown, which is not surprising for such a bright star. Time will tell. Lithopsian (talk) 20:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I got the impression that Gaia DR2 6026152137854405248 is ε Sco — the estimated G mag of 1.7 is much brighter than Gaia's saturation limit, so the photometry and parallax produced are bad (I've noticed this for some other stars, like Mizar and Porrima). Gaia DR2 6026152137815012096 is much dimmer and the parallax error is under 0.1, in line with many single red dwarfs.JamesFox (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Very likely. The position is slightly off, as is everything else, but that's to be expected. Usually though, bright stars just aren't even listed. Parallax error in DR2 is smallest at about magnitude 12. Still too much speculation to announce anything ground-breaking ourselves. Just mentioning the star in the article would be pushing it, given the obvious problems in that little patch of sky. For example, if both the reported parallaxes turn out to be accurate (and the second star is actually ε Sco), then the two would be about five parsecs apart, quite a lot to be calling them a double system. And given the positional errors for at least one of those stars (again assuming one is ε Sco), then we can't even offer a good separation. My vote would be to wait for someone to actually go and look at what should be a fairly easy-to-spot companion if it is really there. Lithopsian (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Saying that the Gaia data shows that ε Sco has a companion is an interpretation of the data. Let someone else make that interpretation and publish it in a reputable source. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 09:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)