Talk:Alpha Centauri

Distance
Based on the new parallax (2021), shouldn't the distance be corrected to 4,344?--McBayne (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-Protection request
Expiration date: indefinite

Reason 1: High-risk page

Reason 2: This is one of the most famous star systems.

--2600:1700:6180:6290:B035:F1A4:CC25:7A4C (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Split request
This page is getting too long, so can someone fell free to split it up, by the following:
 * Alpha Centauri/Nomenclature
 * Alpha Centauri/Stellar system
 * Alpha Centauri/Observation
 * Alpha Centauri/Kinematics
 * Alpha Centauri/Planetary system
 * Alpha Centauri/View from this system
 * Alpha Centauri/Other Names
 * Alpha Centauri/Future exploration
 * Alpha Centauri/Historical distance estimates

Thanks! --2600:1700:6180:6290:7D89:F761:BBA0:74D1 (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Similar to your request at Talk:Solar System. By the way, I removed your extraneous "Other" section header. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 04:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Long articles can easily be scrolled, there is no real reason to split it into smaller parts. Artem.G (talk) 06:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Proxima Centauri c & d
are these planets confirmed or not. i see them in lists like list of closest exoplanets and list of multiplanetary systems as if they are confirmed and also in the aplha centauri & proxima centauri articles. but in the pages themselves they are apparently "controversial" (c) and a candidate only (d). c is "not formally confirmed" but "existence is undisputed" according to this article but apparently there is one source disputing it in c 's article.

this is opposed to candidate 1 which is just a candidate and pretty clearly defined as such everywhere through its absence from the above exoplanet lists and also it has a "?" marker in the alpha centauri template.

i've tried looking in the talks sections of all the directly related articles; i found 2 discussions on proxima centauri and proxima centauri c, but they are all from 1+ year ago and thus cant incorporate the 2022 source disputing c (but both discussions say it's a candidate). d is conflictingly claimed to be confirmed and candidate on proxima centauri and its own article repsectively, both using the same sources to say different things

(it also doesn't help that idk how a planent would be "formally" confirmed...is it just 1 other group of scientists saying "yeh this checks out" or "i see the same pattern here"? or if "general consensus" is needed, what is the definition of that? or how mny independent investigations/confirmations are needed)

I'm probably misunderstanding something here so just wanted to make sure before doing any changes on multiple articles and that template.

Sbznpoe (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, as you mention, Proxima c has recently been disputed. I would say that Proxima d is confirmed (and it's described as such in the same recent paper), but I wouldn't want to start another argument about a planet's confirmation status. It's always possible that further observations might cast doubt on it in the future, as happened with planet c. SevenSpheres (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Chimera article
I think that this article is a chimera of trying to describe Alpha Centauri AB system and the whole Alpha Centauri system (with Proxima Centauri) as a whole. We should split off Alpha Centauri A and Alpha Centauri B into its own article, and only talk about the whole system with a summary of individual stars in this article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:54, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Second binary discovered?
Article currently says "" with a source. I have not checked the source but I have concerns that whatever the source says, it doesn't seem to be correct. Binary star and Mizar suggests Mizar was discovered first before even Acrux. If my read is correct, Mizar was discovered as a binary sometime earlier in the 17th century via telescope and it's undisputed this is Mizar rather than Mizar and Alcor. Of course, technically we now know Mizar is not a binary star since it has four compononents but nor is Acrux which has 6. If there is some reason why this is still argued to be correct e.g. because parts of Acrux could be called a binary but nothing of Mizar, IMO this needs clarification at least via footnote which would probably also explain why Alpha Centauri itself is counted. Nil Einne (talk) 10:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm yes, Mizar A and B were distinguished in 1617. This was only recently discovered in Galileo's notebooks. Further reading. But double star cites that Battista Riccioli knew by 1650, before Acrux was known to be so. DAVilla (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Circled in red?
"Alpha Centauri AB (left) forms a triple star system with Proxima Centauri, circled in red." I don't see anything circled. Similarly where the same photo is used on Proxima Centauri. Image is unchanged since 2016. DAVilla (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * There is a circle. is just hard to see 87.52.110.156 (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Proxima Centauri‘s circumstellar disk
Proxima Centauri has a Circumstellar disc

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...855L...2M/abstract https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...850L...6A/abstract https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/proxima-centauris-dust-belt-hints-at-more-planets Fredeee335 (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * See Proxima Centauri where this is discussed. There most likely is not a disk according to the 2018 paper you linked. SevenSpheres (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh ok Fredeee335 (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)