Cannabis Indica

Featured articleSirius 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 2, 2010.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 10, 2006Good article nomineeListed
February 1, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 31, 2009, January 31, 2010, January 31, 2011, January 31, 2015, January 31, 2017, January 31, 2019, and January 31, 2020.
Current status: Featured article

mas

Under the section 'Apparent Third Star', a reference is made to "0.09 arcseconds". If someone just hovers over 'mas' and reads what the popup says, they might think mas means 'minute of arc'. In other words, it would be nice if when you hover cursor over mas, the first word you see is 'milliarcseconds'. 162.207.203.26 (talk) 04:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But it is already set up in this way? Ruslik_Zero 21:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure set up is the right way to describe it. The {{val}} template wikilinks the unit mas to milliarcsecond, which is a redirect to Minute and second of arc#Symbols and abbreviations. The tooltip for non-logged-in users shows the main image for the linked article and a short piece of the lead. It doesn't respect sections, so in this case it doesn't really say anything about milliarcseconds specifically. I don't see any simple workaround, short of the wiki tooltips getting smarter. {{val}} can be configured to link to something else, but I don't see anything obvious that would help. An article for this relatively obscure unit, just to solve this issue, seems out of step with the relevant policies. Lithopsian (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fate of Sirius B

It has been suggested that the furture fate of Sirius B is to become a type Ia supernova, and although uncited that this is obvious. This is not obvious. Only a small proportion of white dwarfs will ever become a supernova. We still don't fully understand (or understand at all) exactly what type of situation produces a type Ia supernova but it is relatively (relatively, as in extremely) rare compared to the number of white dwarf binaries. Regardless, it would certainly not be obvious to the average non-astronomer that this would be the case, so a reliable source is required before including it in the article. Lithopsian (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How can Sirius A become a white dwarf?

Sirius A has 2 Solar masses. Don't stars from 1.4 Solar masses on go supernova, becoming neutron stars or black holes? Why shall Sirius A share a similar fate like the Sun? 212.186.15.63 (talk) 06:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only stars more massive than 8-10 solar masses go supernova. Ruslik_Zero 12:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They usually say 1.4 solar masses, don't they? Since the Sun is said to lose almost half its mass during its red giant phase, maybe the same happens to Sirius A. Then it matches: it would become a white dwarf. 212.186.15.63 (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're getting confused with the Chandrasekhar limit, which relates to the mass of the star after it becomes a white dwarf Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. So since Sirius A loses enough mass when becoming a red giant, and again by a planetary nebula, its remaining mass will be low enough that it will be a white dwarf? 212.186.15.63 (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ R Hanbury Brown and R Q Twiss. Nature. Volume 178. November 1956. pp1046-1048.

WP:URFA/2020

There is a dramatic layout mess and MOS:SANDWICHing throughout ... could someone address this ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FA concerns

This article has been proposed to run as today's featured article in March. (Click here for more details.) However, I have some concerns that this article might not meet featured article criteria. Some of my concerns include:

  • Missing citations, which I have marked with "citation needed" tags. Some of these missing citations are for whole paragraphs.
  • MOS:SANDWICHING as noted by Sandy in November
  • Citations that do not give specific page numbers (mostly journal articles)
  • Some paragraphs that are very long (paragraph 4 in "Observational history") and some that are only one sentence (and very short)

Would anyone be interested in working on this article to get it ready for TFA? I'm pinging Casliber although any help would be appreciated. Z1720 (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a Reply