- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by PFHLai (talk) 05:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Theta Muscae edit
- ...
that the three component stars of the Theta Muscae system are together a million times more luminous than our Sun?
Created by Casliber (talk). Self nominated at 12:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC).
Created ✓; length ✓; cited ... is there any problem that the cited source caveats the claim in the hook? The absolute luminosity of the system is a guesstimate, not a certain thing.
ALT1: ... that the star Theta Muscae turned out to a triple system whose central star has blown off its outer hydrogen layer?
ALT2: ... that the triple star Theta Muscae hovers over the shoulder of the southern hemisphere's Heavenly Fly?
— LlywelynII 13:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- The numbers are only estimates true, so could slot in a "maybe" or "are calculated/estimated to be" in the original hook. I like ALT1 though. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! Good article. — LlywelynII 14:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- LlywelynII, would you please avoid using characters such as the one you used next to "Created" and "length"? Presumably it's a check or an x or a smiley face or a frowny face or something, but whatever it is, I can't see it, and probably a lot of other people can't see it either. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, but here is the link to it—✓—and you're welcome to update your unicode font if it bothers you.
Now, what about the hooks and whether the original's ok? needs to copy the source's caveat? or needs to be replaced? If the last, what should we use?
Cas liked ALT1 but we need a third party to confirm it. — LlywelynII 04:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, but here is the link to it—✓—and you're welcome to update your unicode font if it bothers you.
