Talk:Algol

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Algol article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 12 months

	Algol has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 31, 2006 Good article nominee Listed March 2, 2009 Good article reassessment Kept
Current status: Good article

This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Astronomy: Astronomical objects Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

The first paragraph refers to the "discovery of Algol." Algol is a second or third magnitude star with a declination of about +40°. No one in the northern hemisphere or the tropics "discovered" it--it was easily visible.

Presumably the intention is to refer to the "discovery of Algol's periodic variability."

I am hesitant to simply make the change, as I am a very infrequent editor and this article has obviously generated a lot of back and forth conversation. SarahLawrence Scott (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Algol Ab (C) or it's the primary pair (Aa1 and Aa2) in either 680 or 681 days - the article gives both numbers in adjacent sections. Which is correct? Mastakos (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

The use of Aa1/Aa2/Ab vs. A/B/C is inconsistent in the article, making it confusing. even the summary table at the front uses Aa1/Aa2 for the primary orbital characteristics, but then uses A/B for the secondary. this occurs later as well. someone knowledgeable should clean this up so us non-astronomers don't get confused. Especially since the two possible companions might be B and C or D and E depending on nomenclature used

also, nowhere does it seem to give the individual masses of the three confirmed stars - only a mass ratio! (For that matter, the possibility of 2 additional stars B and C is mentioned once, then ignored completely. What are their characteristics, do they co-move or not?) Mastakos (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Both formats are used in different published papers, there's no way around that. The article explains the difference, but there's still no way around the confusion. For example, the paper giving the orbit uses A/B/C, as does a significant image included in the page. Other than that, it mostly seems to use the Aa1/Aa2/Ab terminology. Even that directly contradicts the sources given as references in some cases, for example the first one I looked at: the spectral type for Aa1. Which is more confusing: being consistent without the article and contradicting the references, or being consistent to the references and using different terminology in different parts of the article. How about giving both, at least for the starbox components? Lithopsian (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would prefer the third way, giving both designations in the starbox. 21 Andromedae (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Algol A is said to have accreted mass from the once more massive Algol B; should Algol A be then considered a blue straggler as it accreted (or at least removed) enough mass for Algol B to become the secondary? Pancakes321 (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

That's not the definition of a blue straggler. In any case, if a reliable source says it is then put it in the article, otherwise not. Lithopsian (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am aware that blue straggler is 'a star that is less evolved than expected for its size and age' XD I asked this because Algol A, being roughly the same age as Capella AB and being more massive than either of the two, shows no signs of exhausting hydrogen in its core.

I suppose the only reason it isn't called so is because there hasn't been enough research on their stellar evolutions, which is odd for such a famous northern star. Pancakes321 (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

The table with Algol minima times in 2025 is wrong, the times are off.

https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/the-minima-of-algol/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A05:4F46:417:9100:B991:7BD1:B423:C493 (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

They look OK to me. Are you comparing the table to your local time? Can you give a specific date and time which you think is wrong? Lithopsian (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2025 (UTC)Reply