Talk:Pole star

No mention of the size of the Earth's precession?
I'm not seeing any angles quantifying the precession. Is it 5 degrees, or 25 degrees, or what? Where was it pointed half a cycle ago (13,000 years ago) and how far away from Polaris (by perspective angle) is that? Br77rino (talk) 08:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The center of the axial precession cycle is the ecliptic pole, so the diameter is about 23.5°×2 or 47°. --Lasunncty (talk) 10:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Merge Proposal
This article is rather thin. North Star and South Star are a pair of short pages that somewhat duplicate this one and each other. Further, all three admit their incompleteness by directing the reader to others of the set for more information. One, more substantial, article could be formed by merging the other two into the appropriate sections of this one.

If there are no strong objections, I plan to accomplish the merge in March 2009. B00P (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Good idea. 86.152.242.69 (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC).


 * Since there have been no objections in a long time, I have done the merge. 81.157.196.83 (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC).

Pluto
Pluto is currently included in the list of planets, but it is no longer recognized as such. So, the table of planets should read from Mercury through to Neptune. Pluto should be referred to as a dwarf planet, its official designation. It may keep its pole star (heh). 68Kustom (talk) 04:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Text from Precession (astronomy)
With this edit on June 24, 2009, Robogun created the section Pole star by copying the section Precession (astronomy) without attribution. Please see the page history for appropriate attribution. Novangelis (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

possible merge with Polaris
I realize that Polaris is "currently" the pole star, and that there may in theory be others. The problem is that there aren't. The only star that has historically ever been described as "pole star" is Polaris. Indeed "[stella] Polaris" means nothing else but "pole star". Hence it is misleading and a potential WP:CFORK to keep these pages separate.

It is true that Polaris is only "currently" the pole star, and that a thousand years ago, and in a thousand years' time, there will be no pole star. Well, 2000 years is a pretty good expectation for the usefulness of any Wikipedia article.

The statement that "Currently, there is no South Star as useful as Polaris" sounds as if this may change any day, and yes, Wikipedia will keep you updated as soon as new developments arise. This may be the case in as little as another five millennia. Enough to tag this article with current? --dab (𒁳) 18:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thuban was the recognized pole star for the early Ancient Egyptians. They laid out the Great Pyramid with it so the sides would face north south east and west. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

GenacGenac (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC) Agree with your conclusion, but your premises are out of line.

Visibility
I made two small changes to the article. 1: The presence of a 19th magnitude star near the north celestial pole is irrelevant to the topic. 2: The north star is not visible south of the equator. It's true that refraction lifts the stars but extinction makes fainter stars like Polaris invisible to the naked eye at lower latitudes. The north star (today) is visible from about 3 degrees north and above.2600:1000:B003:733C:CCD0:F7AA:265E:924D (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with your second edit, however I Want to remind you that, regarding your first edit, the topic is not on the closest visible object to the north, but rather simply the north star. While USNOA etc etc may only be north star for a few years, it is currently the closest star to the north pole and as such is worthy of being mentioned in the article. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The concept of the "pole star" has always been a star visible to the naked eye, and the entire article is otherwise about such stars. The opening sentence of the article describes a pole star as a "visible star". While that's a bit ambiguous (all stars are visible in some sense, even black holes), the clear implication is a "naked eye" star. The article is ABOUT stars near the celestial poles visible to the naked eye. I cannot recall any time in the history of astronomy or celestial navigation when anyone has identified a star too faint to be seen with unaided vision as the "true" pole star. In addition, why stop at magnitude 19? I guarantee that there is a 22nd magnitude star that is even closer to the north celestial pole today. Finally when dealing with such faint stars, the distance from the celestial pole becomes so small that there would a new "true" pole star on a daily basis. Merely looking up a star in a catalog and finding the one with the declination closest to 90.0 north is bad astronomy. Precession, nutation, aberration, proper motion and more will shift that star's position around more than than the small residual distance from the coordinate pole found in the catalog. FINALLY, the simplest problem with the inclusion of this very faint star is that it is unsourced, original research. There are no reliable sources (excluding sources which are clearly referencing the Wikipedia page) that refer to this star as a pole star. Therefore I am removing it again. 2600:1000:B025:4868:11FE:67A4:6B3F:4346 (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I accept your removal of it, however I just want to say first that the position of the Earth's pole points to a relatively sparsely-populated part of space as it is not particularly close to the center of the galaxy, and as such all stars are less than ~3-4000 light years from the Sun. And chances are that even dim K-dwarfs would have a magnitude of ~19 at that location. A quick scan of DSS on wikisky shows that USNOA2 1725-00522696 and another star, J0518+8959 are currently nearly tied for the highest position, with precession leading J0518+8959 to be the north star in a few months to a year. However at the moment, USNOA2 1725-00522696 is above J0518+8959 by only about 6.5 arcseconds, making it for the time being the closest star to the north.
 * Yes, good point about the sparseness of the sky in the current direction of the celestial poles, but go down another two or three magnitudes. Guaranteed there are many more. We've got a galaxy FULL of M dwarfs.

Also a few runners-up

Just thought I'd put this here for now exoplanetaryscience (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * How about listing the brightest star north of +89°15′53″, and then the brightest star north of that one, and so on? Presumably there are some between magnitudes 2 and 18. —Tamfang (talk) 05:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * First a list of all stars above magnitude 7 at +87° or greater
 * {| class="wikitable sortable"

! Object name (sp. type) ! RA ! DEC ! magnitude
 * Polaris F7Ib || 02:31:42 || +89°15′53″ || 2.02
 * Lambda Ursae Minoris M1III || 17:16:55 || +89°02′16″ || 6.38
 * HD 5914 A3V || 01:33:51 || +89°00′56″ || 6.46
 * HD 107192 F2V || 12:15:20 || +87°42′00″ || 6.28
 * HD 221525 A7IV || 23:26:59.5 || +87°18′27.5″ || 5.58
 * HD 6319 K2III || 01:16:13 || +87°08′43.5″ || 6.25
 * HD 51802 M2III || 07:40:31 || +87°01′13″ || 5.07
 * }
 * HD 221525 A7IV || 23:26:59.5 || +87°18′27.5″ || 5.58
 * HD 6319 K2III || 01:16:13 || +87°08′43.5″ || 6.25
 * HD 51802 M2III || 07:40:31 || +87°01′13″ || 5.07
 * }
 * HD 51802 M2III || 07:40:31 || +87°01′13″ || 5.07
 * }
 * }


 * And a list of brightest star closest to the pole.
 * {| class="wikitable sortable"

! Object name (sp. type) ! RA ! DEC ! magnitude
 * Sirius A1V || 06:45:08.92 || -16°42′58.02″ || -1.47
 * Arcturus KOIII || 14:15:39.7 || +19°10′57″ || -0.04
 * Vega A0Va || 18:36:56.34 || +38°47′01.28″ || 0.03
 * Capella G1III || 05:16:41.36 || +45°59′52.77″ || 0.08
 * Epsilon Ursae Majoris A1III || 12:54:01.75 || +55°57′35.36″ || 1.77
 * Alpha Ursae Majoris G9III || 11:03:43.67 || +61°45′03.72″ || 1.79
 * Polaris F7Ib || 02:31:42 || +89°15′53″ || 2.02
 * HD 1687 K0 || 00:39:42 || +89°26′40.0″ || 8.13
 * HD 21070 A5 || 09:46:25 || +89°34′10.3″ || 9.05
 * TYC 4629-37-1 K2 || 04:42:49 || +89°37′49″ || 9.16
 * TYC 4661-2-1 A0 || 21:16:52 || +89°46′27.1″ || 9.66
 * TYC 4643-26-1 ~K5 || 08:12:25 || +89°49′54.6″ || 11.16
 * USNOA2 1725-00386335 ~G || 10:17:00 || +89°54′40.2″ || 13.05
 * USNOA2 1725-00277543 G/K || 06:44:00 || +89°57′17.1″ || 13.85
 * USNOA2 1725-00491197 F/G || 14:50:30 || +89°57′46.2″ || 14.60
 * USNOA2 1725-00440484 K5-9 || 12:44:00 || +89°58′27.6″ || 16.35
 * USNOA2 1725-00034254A ? || 00:43:00 || +89°58′38.3″ || 17.4
 * USNOA2 1725-00681665 F/G/K || 21:07:00 || +89°58′57.4″ || 18.5
 * USNOA2 1725-00522696 G/K/M || 15:58:33 || +89°59′25.4″ || 19.05
 * galaxy(?) || 10:00:00 || +89°59′56.6″ || 20/21
 * }
 * TYC 4661-2-1 A0 || 21:16:52 || +89°46′27.1″ || 9.66
 * TYC 4643-26-1 ~K5 || 08:12:25 || +89°49′54.6″ || 11.16
 * USNOA2 1725-00386335 ~G || 10:17:00 || +89°54′40.2″ || 13.05
 * USNOA2 1725-00277543 G/K || 06:44:00 || +89°57′17.1″ || 13.85
 * USNOA2 1725-00491197 F/G || 14:50:30 || +89°57′46.2″ || 14.60
 * USNOA2 1725-00440484 K5-9 || 12:44:00 || +89°58′27.6″ || 16.35
 * USNOA2 1725-00034254A ? || 00:43:00 || +89°58′38.3″ || 17.4
 * USNOA2 1725-00681665 F/G/K || 21:07:00 || +89°58′57.4″ || 18.5
 * USNOA2 1725-00522696 G/K/M || 15:58:33 || +89°59′25.4″ || 19.05
 * galaxy(?) || 10:00:00 || +89°59′56.6″ || 20/21
 * }
 * USNOA2 1725-00034254A ? || 00:43:00 || +89°58′38.3″ || 17.4
 * USNOA2 1725-00681665 F/G/K || 21:07:00 || +89°58′57.4″ || 18.5
 * USNOA2 1725-00522696 G/K/M || 15:58:33 || +89°59′25.4″ || 19.05
 * galaxy(?) || 10:00:00 || +89°59′56.6″ || 20/21
 * }
 * USNOA2 1725-00522696 G/K/M || 15:58:33 || +89°59′25.4″ || 19.05
 * galaxy(?) || 10:00:00 || +89°59′56.6″ || 20/21
 * }
 * }


 * A list like this has plenty of entertainment value, for sure (and this Talk page is a good place for it), but it's not relevant to the article, and it's not Wikipedia material because it's your creation, your "original research". Back to the main point, historically and today, when we talk about the current "pole star", we're talking about a star that is relatively easy to see and certainly naked eye. In fact, there's even some good reason to debate whether sigma Octantis should be counted as the "south star" and the article, as it stands, is very clear on this. That star, fainter than magnitude 5, is almost too faint to be consider as a pole star. So even by the article's own internal logic, fainter stars don't count. 2600:1000:B00D:6482:8973:622A:704C:F1A2 (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As it appears to me, I believe we already have agreed on the current state of the article as being acceptable, but at this point are simply elaborating on simple trivial topics that were created for no further purpose than existing in a talk page, should anyone decide to go here and see it. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Exo., for the entertainment value. —Tamfang (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

КРУГ СЛАВЫ
1.	Медуза Горгона и Поляриссима тождественные понятия. Прецессия вращения Земли создает картину звездного неба, на которой все светила вращаются вокруг одной точки. Местоположение этой точки медленно очерчивает линию вокруг созвездия Дракона с периодом вращения приблизительно 26000 лет. «Круг славы» или если угодно Славянский круг. Души умерших являются, носителями жизненного опыта и направляются в круг славы к духам предков. Круг Славы существует в подсознании многих языковых групп. Однокоренные слова в языках народов Севера имеют отчетливую генетическую связь. Слова «седой» и «Седава» - неподвижная звезда; Старый и английское «STAR» - главная звезда. Санта Клаус, колокол и Колотун –бабай от древнего названия «Кола». 2.	Звезды, оказывающиеся, на пути небесного полюса называются Медуза Горгона «Хранительницами Круга славы». Чаще всего это две или три близлежащие Звезды одна, из которых, как правило, будущая или бывшая полярная. С их помощью путники безошибочно определяют направление на северный полюс. История Медузы Горгоны не что иное, как отражение судьбы полярной. Восхождение Звёзд на небесный трон вызывает расцвет цивилизаций. Пегас, рожденный Горгоной, покровительствует писателям и поэтам. Крисаор помогает великим ученым постичь тайны мироздания. Длительное отсутствие звёзд рядом с мировым полюсом вызвало небывалый упадок культуры, разрушение институтов власти массовое переселение народов, но вместе с тем зарождение новых мировых религий. Начало нового летоисчисления проводит черту «до и после». Прерывается связь времен, а главное связь с предками. Заратуштра предсказал появление Христианской религии в этот период. Как мы видим, хранителем и проводником опыта земного проживания людей стал человек с необычными способностями. Возможно, таких людей было много. Аватары пришедшие по их словам с той или иной Звезды появляются на Земле, в трудные времена их слова обладают огромной духовной силой и цитируются тысячелетиями. Круг замкнулся. В 1100 г.н.э. на полюс мира взошла очередная полярная Звезда. Сказка о Белоснежке и семи гномах, Царевне и семи богатырях рассказывают нам о приходе новой полярной в созвездье Ковша малой медведицы, в древности, считавшейся крылом Дракона. На конце ручки ковша, находится Киносура «собачий хвост». Трех звездная система состоит из Звезды гиганта и двух карликов, вращающихся вокруг него на различном удалении. Похожие на Солнце они имеют сложную планетную систему. На одном из спутников живёт Раса людей-гигантов, которые сохраняют в себе опыт жизни землян. Звезда окончательно взойдёт на трон через сто лет, но и сейчас уже дух захватывает от темпов развития науки, искусства. 3.	Нынешняя полярная почиталась древними греками, как кормилица царей, спасшая Зевса от гнева отца. Индусы считали ее Родиной орлов, на которых, летал Вишну. Именно отсюда приходят на землю Аватары Всевышнего. Bold text — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saarmatti (talk • contribs) 05:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Google Translate says: ''1. Medusa Gorgon and Polarissima are identical concepts. The precession of the Earth's rotation creates a picture of the starry sky, in which all the stars revolve around one point. The location of this point slowly delineates a line around the constellation Draco with a rotation period of approximately 26,000 years. "Circle of Glory" or, if you like, the Slavic Circle. The souls of the dead are carriers of life experience and are sent to the circle of glory to the spirits of their ancestors. The Circle of Glory exists in the subconscious of many linguistic groups. Single-root words in the languages ​​of the peoples of the North have a distinct genetic link. The words "gray-haired" and "Sedava" are a fixed star; Old and English "STAR" is the main star. Santa Claus, Bell and Kolotun - Babay from the ancient name "Cola". 2. The stars that appear on the path of the celestial pole are called Medusa Gorgon "Guardians of the Circle of Glory." Most often, these are two or three nearby stars, one of which, as a rule, the future or former polar one. With their help, travelers unmistakably determine the direction to the North Pole. The story of Medusa the Gorgon is nothing more than a reflection of the polar fate. The ascent of the Stars to the heavenly throne causes the flourishing of civilizations. Pegasus, born of the Gorgon, patronizes writers and poets. Krisaor helps great scientists to comprehend the secrets of the universe. The long absence of stars near the world pole caused an unprecedented decline in culture, destruction of institutions of power, mass migration of peoples, but at the same time the emergence of new world religions. The beginning of the new chronology draws a line “before and after”. The connection of times is interrupted, and most importantly, the connection with the ancestors. Zarathushtra predicted the emergence of the Christian religion during this period. As we can see, a person with unusual abilities became the keeper and conductor of the experience of the earthly living of people. Perhaps there were many such people. Avatars who, according to their words, come from one or another Star appear on Earth, in difficult times their words have tremendous spiritual power and have been quoted for thousands of years. The circle is complete. In 1100 A.D. the next pole star has ascended to the pole of the world. The tale of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, the Princess and the Seven Bogatyrs tells us about the arrival of a new polar bear in the constellation Bucket Ursa Minor, in ancient times, considered the wing of the Dragon. At the end of the bucket handle, there is a Kinosura "dog's tail". The three star system consists of a giant star and two dwarfs orbiting it at different distances. Similar to the Sun, they have a complex planetary system. On one of the satellites, the Race of Giant People lives, which retain the experience of the life of earthlings. The star will finally ascend the throne in a hundred years, but even now it is already taking your breath away from the pace of development of science and art. 3. The current polar was revered by the ancient Greeks as the nurse of the kings, who saved Zeus from the wrath of his father. The Hindus considered it the homeland of the eagles, on which Vishnu flew. It is from here that the Avatars of the Most High come to earth.'' —Tamfang (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Word Choice
GenacGenac (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC) "Better" than one degree means "greater"? "Less"?


 * Closer, I would guess without looking. —Tamfang (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

use in antiquty
The claim that "Polaris was known as Phoenicie because the Phoenicians used it for navigation" is poorly referenced. I believe that Cynosura came to be used as a name for the entire constellation of Ursa Minor, and the claim that "Cynosura" was used by the Phoenicians may in fact amount to the claim that the entire constellation was taken to indicate roughly northern direction, without the implication that Alpha Ursae Minoris was singled out -- which would make perfect sense, because at the time Beta Ursae Minoris was still significantly closer to the pole than Alpha Ursae Minoris. Either way, we also still need the authority just for the claim that "Cynosura" was used for navigation in antiquity. --dab (𒁳) 07:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I have just realised for the first time that stella maris was used of the Blessed Virgin since Late Antiquity, at least according to Eucherius Lugdunensis (d. 449), Instructiones (PL 50 0811C), "Hebraeorum nominum interpretatio":
 * Maria, illuminata, sive stella maris: sed sermone Syro, domina. 

So the claim is that the name "Mary" in Hebrew means "illumined" or "star of the sea". This might even predate the identification of Polaris as the pole-star (because it was barely close enough to the pole in the 5th century to serve that purpose, although it would by then have been slightly closer than Kochab). Hence I have to seriously ask myself if the gloss stella maris predates the interpretation pole-star, and the pole-star was later named stella maris, as it were after Mary? More literature research is needed here. --dab (𒁳) 12:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pole star. 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/20061026055548/http://astro2.byu.edu/~sdb/Astrophotos/GuidingLights.html to http://astro2.byu.edu/~sdb/Astrophotos/GuidingLights.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

List of stars in cycle?
Can a list of all the stars in the cycle be added? The only unlisted star I know for sure is Vega. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.152.242 (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Down to what magnitude, and what declination? —Tamfang (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

"See Also" Section
Why is the voyage of Christopher Columbus here? There is nothing novel about his journey in relation to the pole star, he did not advance navigation in any way shape or form, and it feels fairly unrelated. Why not Magellan, or Vasco De Gama? I propose deletion, and will check back in a few days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.255.38.129 (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Table needs dates
The table of what stars will be pole stars during the precession of the axis would be more valuable if it also included when each star will be the pole star. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

A "Pole star" or "The Pole star", Polaris.
Hello there Wikipedia content editors with celestial knowledge.

I have no idea why these two pages have developed separately on essentially the same subject, and there seems to be substantial ambiguity in this page, likely as a legacy.

The lead section here is attempting to define both a generic celestial pole star, and also the Earth's particular pole star, Polaris, the North Star, which has already a substantial page and scientific description (there is presently NO south pole star).

What they appear to be shooting for is

A Pole star = generic astronomical pole star.

Polaris = Earth's pole star, Polaris

It has been alluded to previously, this potential merge, and the "thin article" here. No action has been obvious and the page has grown since.

To avoid all the duplication and the contingent inaccuracies, I suggest this article be pared down to represent only what is in its title, and direct The Pole Star, to Polaris early into the article.

I will make a start on removing some duplication, which could be substantial. There is different good information both here and under Polaris. The more precise location for Earth's North Pole star information is under Polaris, for any and all good copy.

I don't wish to see good information lost, and by the same token if it is here and refers to Polaris it should be located only there. This avoids not only duplication but also the information not being found where it should be.

If you have other thoughts and concerns to improve the encyclopedic value, please bring them forward here, but two North Star pages is not right. Ssaco (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

redirect
Why does Polar Star redirects to Pole star without offering a disambiguation selection?

Polar Star is used as a name for several ships. I know you will find them under the disambiguation polestar, but that is quite a different word.Jochum (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Polar Star redirects to the (presumed most popular) ship. Polar star redirect here.  Both are examples of primary topics where a possibly-ambiguous term is redirected to the most likely target.  Don't assume that these should all be disambiguation pages simply because there are multiple possibilities, that's not how Wikipedia works.  However, there is no polar star (disambiguation) (in either case) page, it is a redirect to Polestar (disambiguation), so perhaps that could be improved.  The hatnote at this page also doesn't mention "polar star" although ironically it does point to the redirect target for polar star (disambiguation).  Lithopsian (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Gemma Frisius
The text says that Gemma Frisius determined the distance of Polaris from the north celestial pole as 3°7'. I checked the reference given and the figure in the book is actually 3°8'. Trivial, I know, but inconsistent. The same inconsistency occurs in the Polaris entry. Presumably the original Wikipedia editor mistyped. Anyone think it worth changing? Skeptic2 (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The article should state what the citation states. If the citation contradicts the article, that statement should be removed, or just conceivably tagged if it is thought to be correct and the citation wrong.  Lithopsian (talk) 09:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This figure was added by Dbachmann on 2012 February 8. I think it is just a typo so I’ve changed it to what the reference says. If I am wrong then no doubt he will tell us. I have also changed the link so that it points to the specific page in the book rather than just the title page. Skeptic2 (talk) 10:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

"Southern Cross [is] clearly visible"
The caption for the video says that the southern cross is clearly visible. As someone unfamiliar with the southern sky, I can't find it even after 10 rewatches, so I disagree with the statement. Perhaps the text should rather describe where the cross is, if possible. Jack Daw (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's there, next to the Coalsack, when you know where to look. Skeptic2 (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest to look up photos of the Southern Cross to help you know what to look for. --Lasunncty (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This superior attitude isn't helpful. Of course I've looked it up beforehand, and I don't see it in the video, certainly not "clearly". Jack Daw (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean to sound condescending. I'm also not very familiar with the southern sky, and I looked it up to make sure I was looking at the right thing. --Lasunncty (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Accepted degrees from pole to be considered a pole star?
In the section 'Precession of the equinoxes' it states that "Deneb, will be a distant 7° from the pole, never close enough to be taken as marking the pole", but in the chart below claims that "will become the North Star at about 9,800 AD".

Also, lower in the section it states "There will also be periods during the cycle when bright stars give only an approximate guide to "north", as they may be greater than 5° of angular diameter removed from direct alignment with the north celestial pole" suggesting 5 degrees as the limit, but this statement is not backed up by its citation which says nothing about degrees, or the usability of a star.

So, is there an official definition of degrees to determine a star to be The pole star? Strangerpete (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

becoming
What does it mean for a star to "become the pole star"? Seems to me it depends on the relative weights given to brightness and proximity (and perhaps other criteria). I suggest replacing such language with the date when the star is nearest to the pole. —Tamfang (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)