Talk:Pollux (star)

Tightened up the article a bit.

I hope it works for everyone. 68Kustom (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planet or magnetic field?

Should the information in [1], which suggests the radial velocity variations attributed to a planetary companion are actually a result of the star's weak magnetic field be included in the article, or should we wait until it is published in a refereed journal? 77.57.43.11 (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Translation Correction

In the "in other cultures" section, it says something about "translated into Latin as Posterior Brachii, meaning the end in the paw.[21]" I take Latin, and I know that Brachii would mean 'of the arm," so Posterior Brachii would mean 'the end of the arm.' Mfein10 (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)mfein10[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pollux (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/20110130063024/http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/CE/Museum/Space/Research/StarName/c_research_chinengstars_n_r.htm to http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/CE/Museum/Space/Research/StarName/c_research_chinengstars_n_r.htm

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

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 10:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pollux b is disputed?

See this study. 21 Andromedae (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also another, older study mentioned above. Somehow neither of these ever got added to either this or the Pollux b article - the latter of which doesn't even have inline citations. I'll try to improve the Pollux b article and that can be summarized here. SevenSpheres (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pollux is on the red giant branch or red clump

Seeing "red clump" as the star's evolutionary phase (albeit with a source) is quite surprising; I've remembered seeing at least once source stating Pollux to be on the red giant branch (hence inert He core). Any other sources we can consider? Stanley Joseph Wilkins (talk) 03:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]