Talk:Regulus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to astronomy, and WikiProject Astronomical Objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
|
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
||
Contents |
[edit] Revert explanation
I restored the Star Trek reference. Yes, "Encounter at Farpoint" took place at "Deneb IV". However, Deneb is used inconsistently in Star Trek: the episode clearly could not take place at the star we call Deneb, which is between 1600 and 3200 light years from Earth. Even if it is 1600 light years away, at warp 6 it would take 4 years to reach; even at warp 9.99 it would take over six months. The semi-canon Star Trek: Star Charts identifies "Deneb IV" as corresponding to our "Alpha Leonis IV", which makes it the fourth planet of the Alpha Leonis, or Regulus, system. If my analysis is incorrect or flawed, please let me know. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "semi-canon"
No analysis is needed. "Star Trek" is fictional. They said very clearly "Deneb IV". Your point may go over well with involved fans, but the casual viewer hears "Deneb IV" when watching "Encounter at Farpoint". You are attempting to retcon the episode, which is beyond the bounds of this encyclopedia entry. Your points should be made in a Star Trek specific forum.
If you still feel the need to include the reference, the entry deserves a qualification that "Deneb IV" is the specific name mentioned in the episode, but fanfic writers believe Regulus fits the continuity of the series better.
[edit] Ah, nevermind.
I'll add the qualifier myself.
[edit] Persians in 3000BC????
Thats something new!!! I don't understand why astrology keeps being mixed with astronomy... 91.92.176.184 07:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know why either, since astrology is pseudo-science. Star Trek references are about the same value. Anyway, I tightened up the article and put the 'cultural' stuff where it belongs. 68Kustom (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
