Talk:Wolf 359

SF

Is also home to an inhabited planetary system in an SF story I have read about, but never come across... -- K D F

That's always helpful. -- user:zanimum

If Wolf 359 actually had habitable planets, they's have to be so close to the star that it would fill half the sky. It would be hard to come up with a star much weaker than this one.

Life as we know it simply couldn't exist there. To have the same temperatures as Earth, a planet around Wolf 359 would have to orbit no more than about 400,000 miles away from the star. It would be tidally locked and battered by the star's flares and the radiation from them. The planet's "year" would be about eight hours long. If you stuck Wolf 359 where Jupiter is, it's so weak that it wouldn't affect us any more than Jupiter does. user:Jsc1973

Simulations suggest that a tidally locked planet might be hospitable if it has large oceans. Flares are much more serious problem. Photosynthesis would be also problematic, since the light is much redder than sunlight.--JyriL ^talk 12:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing about that, but I do know that it's the site of a major space battle in Star Trek. 71.203.209.0 (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This is probably best covered at Stars_and_planetary_systems_in_fiction#Wolf_359.—RJH (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Popular Culture?:::

Shouldn't there be a brief pop culture reference here? The a Battle of Wolf 359 is rather significant in Star Trek.

'in popular culture' is a very common feature of Wikipedia articles. As mentioned above, The Battle of Wolf 359 is a very significant event in Star Trek lore (mentioned in a number of Wikipedia articles). This, and other popular culture references (for instance https://www.wolf359.fm/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_359_(The_Outer_Limits) or https://play.google.com/store/books/details/Wolf_359_Book_1?id=LElVDwAAQBAJ&gl=US) deserve a mention Adagio67 (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Question - Would this be the first system that we visit hoping to find a habitable planet? I would think this would be the second, Alpha Centauri being the first.

Celestia renderings

A Celestia rendering, no matter how pretty a picture it makes, is scientifically unacceptable: we have no data to indicate what the star looks like that close up. The star chart is less pretty, but is valid. This problem has appeared on a number of articles: Ceres (dwarf planet), 2003 UB313, and others. Pretty pictures aren't acceptable when they go beyond reasonable conclusions from existing data. Michaelbusch 21:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree. A celestia rendering provides no educational or encyclopedic value; it's just a big generic star. A star chart actually provides information though (namely: the star's position in the sky). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagree strongly. This program is very accurate. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 21:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

As an outsider, I would just like to say that, whichever is better, don't edit war over it as you are both on three reverts at the moment and it certainly isn't something to get blocked over. Will (aka Wimt) 21:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

At what? The star texture is a generic texture applied to all stars, the star is so large on the picture that is obscures the background stars, and there is nothing indicating that those background stars are accurate (the 3D spacial position of the stars may be off). Your word isn't enough. It doesn't even indicate which direction it's pointing at, or what those background stars may be. It provides no encyclopedic, educational, or scientific value. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I am at 3 edits and will stay there. That said, I find Patrick's statements nonsensical: Celestia is not accurate when providing data that doesn't exist. We don't have an image of Wolf 359, therefore Celestia's rendering of it is unacceptable. If we had an image of Wolf 359, then Celestia's rendering would be unnecessary. It gets the star-map approximately right, but that is simply because we know where the stars are. Michaelbusch 21:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree. A Celestia picture of Wolf 359 is (except for background stars) indistinguishable from a Celestia picture of Gliese 581, Luyten's Star, or any other red dwarf; it's a synthetic image based on the program's texture maps which are entirely hypothetical for such objects. Now, sometimes artist's impressions (even via a program) are okay if they illustrate some notable detail (E.g. the artist's impression on the Gliese 581 page is a terrible rendition of a red dwarf (that red is maybe 1000 K, the 3500 K of a "red" dwarf is on the high end of the temperature range for incandescent light bulbs), but shows its three known planets.) AJWM 05:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to point out here that Celestia uses fairly generic temperatures and bolometric corrections for its stars, based on their spectral types. Unfortunately this means the displayed statistics are probably misleading, and as has been said before the generic red dwarf rendering is not particularly convincing. I have therefore removed the image. Icalanise (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"Proxima Leonis"

I removed the name "Proxima Leonis" as it appears to have no historical basis or usage among astronomers. It looks like something a lay person made up one day. If anybody can demonstrate a valid citation to demonstrate otherwise, please say so. — RJH (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again I removed "Proxima Leonis". I can find no reliable source that will validate this name, so it is best to avoid neologisms—RJH (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

SO25300.5+165258 star

Is SO25300.5+165258 star the same to Wolf 359? Newone (talk) 04:57, 22 April 201

Nope, it's the Teegarden's star. RECONS parallax 260.63 gives the distance 12.5 ly to this tiny red dwarf. --Yigor (talk) 09:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, SO25300.5+165258 star is 7.8 light years from the sun, the same to Wolf 359 while Teegarden's star is 12.6 ly to us? Newone (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

7.8 ly was just a preliminary measurement for the Teegarden's star, corrected later to the current value of 12.6 ly :) --Yigor (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wolf 359/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TimothyRias (talk) 08:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm starting the review of this article. First impression, another strong contribution from user:RJHall, might be a bit technical at some points. I'll post some more detailed comments in a minute. TimothyRias (talk) 08:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

comments

• In the lead, and latter in the Outer atmosphere section are the following statements:

  The photosphere of the star has a temperature of about 2,800 K, low enough for absorption lines of compounds such as water and titanium(II) oxide to have been observed.

  This temperature is sufficiently cool that molecular lines appear in the spectrum, ...

  It is not immediately clear why low temperature would imply the appearance of certain absorption lines. (I can make an educated guess based on my own knowledge of physics and astrophysics, but a lay reader may not.) In particular, it is unclear for a reader if the implication is that at higher temperatures the compounds would be present build the absoption lines are absent, or that the compounds are simply not present. I assume the latter, but to lay reader the stress on the appearance of lines may suggest the former. I know this is completely obvious to someone with a background in astronomy, but it might not be to a lay reader. This could be made a little clearer.

• For the sentence The orbital eccentricity is 0.156, and the star can travel as far as 440 light-years (130 pc) away from the galactic plane. I would suggest a change along the line: The (galactic) orbit has an eccentrity of 0.156 and the star can travel as far as 444 light-years (136 pc) away from the galactic plane.

And that is about it for specific comments. Good job! TimothyRias (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I've attempted to address these comments. Thank you for the review.—RJH (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   See comments above. Overall the prose is slightly technical and dry. (But what else can you really expect from an encyclopic article about a star.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Excellently referenced

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Covers about anything you can say about a nearby star.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No problems here.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No issues in visible history

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Could maybe add file:Wolf359incelestia.jpg or file:Wolf359.jpg for flavour.

   I added both. Thanks for the suggestions.—RJH (talk)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   TimothyRias (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I checked in with some of the peer reviewers that voiced concerns about accessibility. Although the text is still quite technical they see no objection to passing the prose for GA. That only leaves me to congratulate the editors of this article for a job well-done, I'm passing this article for GA. If in the future it is brought up for FA, I imagine that the prose will be judged too technical, so there is one point for improvement.TimothyRias (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Since I'm perhaps a little too familiar with the subject matter, sometimes it can be difficult to determine what parts may be considered too technical by others. If there are particular rough patches, please let me know and I'll try to address them. Thanks again for the review.—RJH (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"the convection will allow Wolf 359 to remain a main-sequence star for eight trillion years." I imagine this should be billion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.172.220.166 (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope. See Red dwarf#Description and characteristics. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Calcium hydroxide

The article says CaOH has possibly been detected in Wolf 359, then calls it calcium hydroxide. The problem is that the formula for calcium hydroxide is Ca(OH)₂, and it is ionic. The title of current ref 35 is "CaOH, a New Triatomic Molecule in Stellar Atmospheres", so I would follow that and just say "and possibly the triatomic molecule CaOH." in the article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I left off the 'triatomic' part as it seemed redundant.—RJH (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say the proper name for CaOH is Calcium Hydroxyl.

Brightness

if the Sun was replaced with Wolf359 how bright would it look in the sky? 70.36.177.121 (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Weellll... the luminosity is listed in the article; about a thousandth that of the Sun. The irradiance of the Sun is up to 1000 W/m² at the surface of the Earth. From Wolf 357, I'll take a wild guess and say the ground would have an irradiance of 1 W/m². Hence, about like a poorly lit room; bright enough to get around but not so good for reading. By comparison, moonlight is 1 milliwatt per square meter. Regards, RJH (talk) 04:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't be bright. A thousandth of the sun's. ElliottBelardo (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wolf 359. 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/20110615064340/http://www.csc.villanova.edu/~astronom/obs95/node12.html to http://www.csc.villanova.edu/~astronom/obs95/node12.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) 19:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

References not matching starbox data

A quick glance through the article after recent additions shows several cases where claims do not match the given reference. The biggest culprit is where Simbad has been used as a reference. Simbad is not a reliable citation, it is a portal, and its contents for a particular star can change over time. Possibly the cases were correct 10 years ago, but now they either need updating or a new reference. I spotted spectral class, apparent magnitude, right ascension and declination, parallax, and both proper motions, but there may be more. Lithopsian (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)