Talk:Binary system

Please think about the readers

Imagine you just stumbled on this article from the outside. It gives maybe an impression of a democratic debate but what about people who are looking for a source of information? Is Wikipedia just another chat room? Why not to leave this discussion to the talk page and avoid these pathetic tags?

centre of weight

In fact, they do not orbit each other, they rotate around their common "centre of weight" <- how do you say that in English? ~~helix84 03:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All bodies in orbit do so around a common center of weight. That is what an orbit is.Derek Balsam 15:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

table of binaries

That table of known binary systems seems to indicate that the only known systems are the two listed there. Furthermore, it is too short to be of any use. There are many interesting points that could be discussed when it comes to binary systems, such as mass transfer between the stars and common envelope orbits. It has been too long since I read about this for me to write about this, but it should definitly be a part of the article. Amaurea 01:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

mergefrom double planet

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no merge.

I propose a mergefrom Double planet. Double planet is the informal term. --Md84419 07:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose double planet is a sizable article, it would completely swamp this. 132.205.44.134 03:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - The proposed merge would combine multiple topics inappropriately, and most of the articles in question should remain separate articles. George J. Bendo 11:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose — Agree with above. — RJH (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per all of the above. Nick Mks 18:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus Conclusion

The two weeks have passed, consensus is oppose. Nick Mks 09:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

mergefrom binary asteroid

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no merge.

I propose a mergefrom binary asteroid. Binary system is the more generic term and the asteroid page is a stub. --Md84419 07:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose - The proposed merge would combine multiple topics inappropriately, and most of the articles in question should remain separate articles. George J. Bendo 11:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose — Agree with above. — RJH (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per all of the above. Nick Mks 18:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

What about merging Binary star too, or at least give a brief description of it in a section? Patrickov 02:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, I don't really see much point to this article (that is, Binary system (astronomy)) except as a disambiguation page. Instead of trying to merge everything into an oversized mess, leave the separate topics separate and link them from here. Chaos syndrome 19:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus Conclusion

The two weeks have passed, consensus is oppose. Nick Mks 09:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

mergefrom contact binary

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no merge.

This is the only article that logically should be merged into this article. But should it even be merged? 132.205.44.134 03:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose - The proposed merge would combine multiple topics inappropriately, and most of the articles in question should remain separate articles. George J. Bendo 11:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose — Agree with above. — RJH (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per all of the above. Nick Mks 18:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Disucssion

• Instead of merging, I'd suggest turning Contact binary into a disambiguation page and creating Contact binary (asteroid) to deal with the topic of contact binary asteroids. The topic deserves a far more expanded treatment than it is currently given. Chaos syndrome 19:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus Conclusion

The two weeks have passed, consensus is oppose. I'll be incorporating the suggestion in the Discussion though. Nick Mks 19:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

mergefrom binary star

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no merge.

Survey

• Oppose Binary star is a long article. A section here should contain binary star information though. 132.205.44.134 03:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. Binary star is a major topic deserving a full treatment. Chaos syndrome 19:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - The proposed merge would combine multiple topics inappropriately, and most of the articles in question should remain separate articles. George J. Bendo 11:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose — Binary star is a rich and interesting topic unto itself. It would not benefit from a merge with this page. My preference would be to have a brief paragraph with a main article link to the binary star page. — RJH (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose per all of the above. Please oh please don't let this article fall victim to the Pluto frenzy as well. Nick Mks 18:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Binary star was a featured article, which means that it is already in a "satisfactory" state. The proposed merge would severely and negatively impact the article, so it should not be carried out. George J. Bendo 11:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus Conclusion

The two weeks have passed, consensus is oppose. Nick Mks 19:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Star Wars image

Can someone please provide a rationale to explain why we can use this image in the article. I don't see how its current use fits with the terms in the fair use box on the image. Chaos syndrome 19:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe simply use artist image from some NASA page?--83.144.95.66 13:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we need the close binaries section?

This article is about astronomical binary systems in general; there is an article about binary stars in particular, with lots of detail on close binaries. Perhaps the section on close binary [stars] should be omitted from this article; it duplicates or overlaps with binary star. This article could be restricted to the dynamics of general binary systems, maybe with a mention of the n-body issue ("multiple system" links here). Pol098 (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your rationale. This article should be about the dynamics in general, but it currently says basically nothing about that (in fact, it says not much more than what's in the close binary star section. Moreover, there is no section on close binary stars in that article. --JorisvS (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Binary system. 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/20110121153650/https://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu:80/minorsats.html to http://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu/minorsats.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 19:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)