Talk:Algol

"Discovery of Algol"

The first paragraph refers to the "discovery of Algol." Algol is a second or third magnitude star with a declination of about +40°. No one in the northern hemisphere or the tropics "discovered" it--it was easily visible.

Presumably the intention is to refer to the "discovery of Algol's periodic variability."

I am hesitant to simply make the change, as I am a very infrequent editor and this article has obviously generated a lot of back and forth conversation. SarahLawrence Scott (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

680 or 681?

Algol Ab (C) or it's the primary pair (Aa1 and Aa2) in either 680 or 681 days - the article gives both numbers in adjacent sections. Which is correct? Mastakos (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Star designation confusion

The use of Aa1/Aa2/Ab vs. A/B/C is inconsistent in the article, making it confusing. even the summary table at the front uses Aa1/Aa2 for the primary orbital characteristics, but then uses A/B for the secondary. this occurs later as well. someone knowledgeable should clean this up so us non-astronomers don't get confused. Especially since the two possible companions might be B and C or D and E depending on nomenclature used

also, nowhere does it seem to give the individual masses of the three confirmed stars - only a mass ratio! (For that matter, the possibility of 2 additional stars B and C is mentioned once, then ignored completely. What are their characteristics, do they co-move or not?) Mastakos (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Both formats are used in different published papers, there's no way around that. The article explains the difference, but there's still no way around the confusion. For example, the paper giving the orbit uses A/B/C, as does a significant image included in the page. Other than that, it mostly seems to use the Aa1/Aa2/Ab terminology. Even that directly contradicts the sources given as references in some cases, for example the first one I looked at: the spectral type for Aa1. Which is more confusing: being consistent without the article and contradicting the references, or being consistent to the references and using different terminology in different parts of the article. How about giving both, at least for the starbox components? Lithopsian (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I would prefer the third way, giving both designations in the starbox. 21 Andromedae (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Is Algol a blue straggler?

Algol A is said to have accreted mass from the once more massive Algol B; should Algol A be then considered a blue straggler as it accreted (or at least removed) enough mass for Algol B to become the secondary? Pancakes321 (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

That's not the definition of a blue straggler. In any case, if a reliable source says it is then put it in the article, otherwise not. Lithopsian (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I am aware that blue straggler is 'a star that is less evolved than expected for its size and age' XD I asked this because Algol A, being roughly the same age as Capella AB and being more massive than either of the two, shows no signs of exhausting hydrogen in its core.

I suppose the only reason it isn't called so is because there hasn't been enough research on their stellar evolutions, which is odd for such a famous northern star. Pancakes321 (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Algol minima times are off

The table with Algol minima times in 2025 is wrong, the times are off.

https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/the-minima-of-algol/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A05:4F46:417:9100:B991:7BD1:B423:C493 (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

They look OK to me. Are you comparing the table to your local time? Can you give a specific date and time which you think is wrong? Lithopsian (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2025 (UTC)