Talk:Achernar

New paper on binary
I added link to 2022 Kervella paper and updated info on the binary orbit in the starbox and main body. I did this quickly, so it may benefit from specialist review. --Az7997 (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Visibility in ancient times
An anonymous user added the following comment to the article, referemcing whether Ptolemy could have observed Achernar. I have moved it here: This is not true. The Aegyptians navegated the seas (fathom, ancla, anchor, are terms of Aegyptian origin. Lithopsian (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Supposed last
The article says "it was the last first magnitude star observed". Those near the Equator and South of the Equator saw it earlier, in view of its magnitude and R.A. and Declination. It is noted that it was named by an Australian aborigine tribe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C1:E083:8201:D9EA:2EBF:182B:6112 (talk) 08:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have improved the article. I have, on several points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C1:E083:8201:D9EA:2EBF:182B:6112 (talk) 08:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Precession
I've added an "explain" to the use of precession here. Is something meant like "as it rotates around the galactic enter it rises higher as against the latitude of Earth?" Because just calling this precession is not very clear.Wjhonson (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Namesake
Due to the way the article is set up, it implies that it is named after an American naval ship, a naval ship that then humorously, links back to the article as being the ship's name Sake. I'd argue that the namesake Category is redundant as such, or could be turned into an explanation of the star's name and how it was arrived upon or discovered

The Legendary Vin (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've clarified that the ship was named after the star. Whether this sort of information belongs in an article about a star has been controversial in the past.  It can be argued either way: it does not impart any information about the star, but it does show a real-world non-fictional "cultural" impact.  It is already in the nomenclature section, as its own sub-section, so I'm struggling to see how it can be linked more closely to the description of the nomenclature; the star was named as described and the ship was named after the star.  Lithopsian (talk) 11:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Spectral type? B3 or B6
I don't understand this but there seems to be some doubt about whether it is B3 or B6. https://simbad.cds.unistra.fr/simbad/sim-id?Ident=Achernar kinda has both William M. Connolley (talk) 07:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It is worth noting that Achernar is a highly-oblate star, with a polar temperature about what you'd expect for a B3 star and an equatorial temperature more like a B8 star would have. It also has a close companion, close enough that most measurements of its spectral type would be a blend of both stars.  Any spectral class that doesn't explicitly account for both stars should be considered suspect, although it is over three magnitudes fainter.  The spectrum is also complicated by the presence of emission lines.  There are differences in the published spectral types of much more normal stars, although B3 to B6 is quite extreme.  Compare Epsilon Cassiopeiae, another Be star although not as extreme, which has been given spectral types from B2 to B5 over the years.  Lithopsian (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)