Talk:Taygeta

Taygeta vs Taygete

Since there is no other "Taygeta" (the Pleiadian nymph is spelled "Taygete"), why isn't this article simply called "Taygeta"? And by the way, why is the star's name spelled differently? Some mention of Taygete should be in the article. Paul August ☎ 15:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Taygeta. 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/wds/wdsweb_format.txt to http://ad.usno.navy.mil/wds/wdsweb_format.txt

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

Y 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Is data for (Taygeta) 19 Tauri B available?

I spent some time tonight editing the opening section to make clear that this is a triple star system. In the 'Info Box' the article lists appropriate data for Aa and Ab, but B is not mentioned at all.

However, in the 'Properties' section, there is data on the distance in arc-seconds between the binary A's and B (and it is quite a distance in orbit!) and the type of star for B is also mentioned.

It seems to me that B should be mentioned in the Info Box, with its Mass and Luminosity, as well as the diameter of its orbit. We could also, in the body of the text, place mention of the orbital period, which would be quite large, I suspect.

All the best,

James 203.150.126.116 (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I had to revert your edits. 19 Tau B is a more distant star, not gravitationally related to the spectroscopic pair. The previous version was more correct, if somewhat misleading. "Double star" is not the same as "binary star", instead referring to a pair of "dots on the sky" that can be seen but may or may not be related. Probably a complete section going into the details would make things unambiguous, then could be summarised in the lead. Lithopsian (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

About your original question, obviously no orbital data. However, basic physical data is available if you want that in the starbox. Also things like parallax and magnitude. There is always a balance between mentioning all the nearby, but often unrelated, stars that have been listed as "companions" and turning the starbox into a table of all the stars in a patch of sky. Lithopsian (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Article name is misspelled

This misspelled page should be moved to the correct spelling Taygeta, but it's not possible currently as that page exists already. Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 08:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I have moved it. -- Whpq (talk) Whpq (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Calculated luminosity of Taygeta B

By reversing Stefan–Boltzmann law;

150 solar luminosity / ( 1.439x temperature of Sun ) ^ 4 = 34.98 x surface area of Sun = 5.9 solar radii

Note: this would make it an A type giant star akin to Beta Carinae. Pancakes321 (talk) 07:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Calculating the radius from two very-approximate, and probably not independent, estimates of the temperature and luminosity is extremely unreliable even for your own edification. For the purposes of Wikipedia, it is WP:SYNTHESIS. Anyway, why bother? You have the temperature, so you have a good idea of the spectral class, and you have the surface gravity so you have a good idea of the luminosity class. That it looks like an early A-type main sequence star on the basis of those two numbers tells you something about the reliability of the values in the starbox. I'm off to look for some better numbers. Lithopsian (talk) 13:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Nope, nothing. I found a very old, very approximate, orbit. It gave a mass function, but that isn't really good enough to determine what mass any companion would actually have. Estimates are based on the magnitude difference. Kaler seems to come up with a rather large luminosity and then assumes it is a late-B main sequence star. White uses a much smaller luminosity estimate to guess at a late-A main sequence star. Combining those two guesstimates to derive anything further is pretty meaningless since they are inherently contradictory. Lithopsian (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2025 (UTC)