Talk:Star/Archive 3

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

After the phrase "putting this into question.[ref]" please add the following sentence into the same paragraph as its new last sentence:

A study have determined that stars larger than 150 solar masses in R136 were created through the collision and merger of massive stars in close binary systems, providing a way to sidestep the 150 solar mass limit.^[1]

-- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 07:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thank you, RJH (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Which version? I prefer the larger version since it gives more context. If there is an awkward strip of text beneath one or the other when you see it in the article, that formatting is may due to the width of your browser window rather than being the "fault" of either image.

Does anyone else have a preference? I prefer the larger version. Pine^✉ 07:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the smaller one because the larger one seems a bit too tall, and ends up pushing the text into narrower area which doesn't look good to me, not to mention it does leave a strip of text underneath for most modern screen resolutions. If you could somehow find an intermediate between those two maybe that would be better. Cadiomals (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The article notes the age of stars as "1 to 10 billion years", but does not specify if it is a US billion (thousand million) or a European billion (million million). As this is a significant difference, it would be very helpful if the article listed the age as a fully-written number in order to more clearly specify units. I'd edit it myself, but the citations don't seem to clarify, either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.172.76.114 (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Short scale (billion = 10⁹) is what was meant; the references in the academic literature mostly refer to Gyr, not "billion", so there's no ambiguity. Given that the English-speaking world now essentially uniformly uses the short scale, I don't think this is confusing in an English article, but I made that explicit the first time billion is used in this context in the article. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 02:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change "A star is a massive, luminous sphere of plasma held together by gravity" to "A star is thought to be a massive, luminous sphere of plasma held together by gravity.", in the first sentence, because it is an absolute statement. What we believe about the makeup of a star is still a theory given that no one has ever traveled to and taken a sample from one. Even when we are 99% sure of something, we always have to be careful not to make absolute statements.

Jpbstylist (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - with changes like this, discussion would be better first. Mdann52 (talk) 13:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

After the "Massive" section, I would like a section about hypergiants to be made. 35.11.55.167 (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 21:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Below the image of the constellation of Leo - "The constellation of Leo as it can be seen by the naked aye" - The naked aye? It should be "eye". 129.206.199.82 (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You're right, of course, and I've fixed it. WilyD 18:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Claiming a ref is needed is not an excuse to re-insert incorrect and equally unsourced info into an article, claiming red dwarfs only last hundreds of billions of yrs was both incorrect and unsourced as well, read the red dwarf article! I have now given refs that 2 of the 3 closest stars to us have a lifespan of 4 and 8 trillion yrs and hope this will now allow the matter to lie. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The tens to hundreds of billions of years was better supported than tens of trillions by the ref that was there. The (better) ref you provided better supports your number; thanks. I expanded a bit and also made the statement more general, rather than using specific stars as examples. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 01:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

article starts by "A star is a massive, luminous sphere". where luminous is objective, "massive" is only subjective. massive comparing to what? and why does it matter that it looks massive when compared to my daughter's ball and not to the black hole at the centre of most galaxies?!! 41.68.236.8 (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

"massive" is used 27 times in this article, in very few occasions it means anything at all i think. and please don't revert this last comment i am the same anon. user who posted this new section and i have no idea why you reverted my last edit!! 197.134.86.188 (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if you are misunderstanding the word "massive". It is being used in sense 1 of the Wiktionary definition "Of or pertaining to a large mass", not the imprecise colloquial usage that you seem to assume. I agree that specifying a range of masses might make this usage clearer to non-scientists. Neither of your IP addresses has had any edits reverted. Dbfirs 22:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The term "massive star" is not defined until late in the article. It should be done earlier (perhaps in the lede), and I'll try to find a way to do it. The term "massive" is also sometimes just used as an adjective (eg "stars less massive than 0.25 solar masses" or "one of the most massive stars known" and sometimes to refer to a class of stars (massive enough to go supernova -- the conventional definition). This latter class is finally defined at the end of Star#Mass, but was used many times before that.

An edit was reverted, presumably because it looked like an edit of someone else's comment due to the change in IP. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 22:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I missed that revert. Changing IP addresses made the reverted edit look like vandalism by someone else. To avoid confusion, why not create an account? It would certainly improve the readability of the article to define "massive" earlier, even if it's just a footnote. Dbfirs 06:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• lol @ user:Dbfirs, man, i'm not misunderstanding anything. it's you who don't get it yo! i explicitly explained: "large mass" compared to what? is the sun massive compared to other objects? sometimes, relatively, it depends compared to what! phew 197.134.147.164 (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote above, it would certainly be better to define what astronomers mean by "massive". I agree that it can be vague adjective, though I think stars have a greater mass than most other objects in the universe. (We don't actually know how many black holes there are, but most of them are less massive than a star.) Apologies for doubting your level of education! I've made a link that should clarify what astronomers mean by "massive". Why not create an account to avoid confusion? Dbfirs 09:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

In the Formation section the statement is made about a "terrestrial vacuum chamber". It is confusing, I think. It confused me, at least. Please change to "laboratory vacuum chamber". < My reasoning is that while you can have both industrial vacuums and laboratory vacuums, there are no vacuum chambers that are nonterrestrial, so using the term "terrestrial" contains no information in this context. (Although I suppose some of our satellites and possibly Martian probes might have vacuum chambers, IDK, virtually nobody will be aware of that minutia, so the qualification is useless in this context) >. Thanks for the consideration! Two other things I noticed: 1) The introduction 'defines' a star as a massive ball of plasma but you have to really dig into the article to find out that that means masses of at least 85-90 times the mass of Jupiter. I think that it would be helpful to put that in the introduction explicitly (and also how many Earth masses that is) and 2) In the photograph comparing the size of the terrestrial planets with gas giants and gas giants with stars, I had to look at the second panel for some time to distinguish Earth in the second panel. For some reason Neptune is colored blue in that panel. Adding "Earth is small black sphere on far left in the 2nd panel" would be helpful. 216.96.76.236 (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The oldest star said here is HE 1523-0901. However, HD 140283 is considerably older. Can I move it here? ==Johndric Valdez (talk) 09:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)==

At the moment, it is written in the main text:

"The first direct measurement of the distance to a star (61 Cygni at 11.4 light-years) was made in 1838 by Friedrich Bessel using the parallax technique. Parallax measurements demonstrated the vast separation of the stars in the heavens.[23] Observation of double stars gained increasing importance during the 19th century. In 1834, Friedrich Bessel observed changes in the proper motion of the star Sirius, and inferred a hidden companion. Edward Pickering discovered the first spectroscopic binary in 1899 when he observed the periodic splitting of the spectral lines of the star Mizar in a 104-day period. Detailed observations of many binary star systems were collected by astronomers such as William Struve and S. W. Burnham, allowing the masses of stars to be determined from computation of the orbital elements."

There are two problems in this paragraph.

First, Bessel was not the fist to directly measure the distance to a star. Specially when putting in this way: "first direct measurement of the distance to a star". Struve even published his results about the distance of Vega before Bessel did. Yes, in the discussions at the articles about Struve, Bessel, Vega and stellar distances, it has been claimed that "authoritative sources say that...". What (science) historians do say? Citations to original papers will be needed!

Second, there is written "William Struve", while actually his name was Friedrich Georg Wilhelm von Struve (link points to correct article and the name _inside_ the link has correct name). Just a 'typo', but should be corrected for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonisee (talk • contribs) 12:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Getting to this late, but better late than never I suppose. I have removed the piping on Struve's name. I'll try to look into the priority for stellar parallax. I expect it is a very murky issue, however, and I'm not hopeful of finding a clear answer. A2soup (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

http://news.sciencemag.org/space/2015/03/fastest-unbound-star-flee-our-galaxy
--YeOldeGentleman (talk) 00:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

In a recent edit, Lithopsian changed the item on low-mass stars to suggest that they never become white dwarfs, but simply exhaust their hydrogen and begin to cool. The Stellar evolution article, however, states that these stars do eventually evolve directly into white dwarfs. Obviously, this is a theoretical matter since no one has observed (or even could have observed) a low-mass star that has exhausted its hydrogen, but the two articles should be consistent and both reflect scientific consensus. This is not something I know much about, so I was wondering if anyone could throw light on the matter? Is one of the articles wrong? Is there significant debate in the scientific community, which could perhaps be noted in the text, with both theories described? A2soup (talk) 08:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The cited source says that low-mass stars become helium white dwarfs. The main point of Lithopsian's change was that they never become red giants of any flavor, which is supported by the source. I will make this correction; thanks for pointing it out. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 08:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, hard to encapsulate all the subtleties in one bullet-point. I think it is better now. I've tweaked a couple of wikilinks and straightened out two references with the same name. I don't think there is significant debate except perhaps on minor detail. You could quibble about whether the final stage of the lowest mass red dwarfs deserve to be called white dwarfs when they are hardly hot enough to be called yellow, but they are a degenerate ball of helium so no big deal. It is possible that there is a short period of thin hydrogen shell burning that could significantly affect the final temperature before fusion gives out, but again it is just a detail. A more important clarification might be to make it obvious that these theoretical helium white dwarfs are not the helium white dwarfs that we have actually observed. Those come from binary interactions.

The stellar evolution article jars a bit with this one in other ways, classifying things into different groups with different names. I should probably straighten them out to match although it is all a bit arbitrary and not even all researchers use the same names. The dividing lines between the masses could also be a bit confusing. For example, within this single article the limit for very low mass stars is set at 0.25, 0.4, and 0.5 without much clarification on why the differences. All can be considered correct, for different initial conditions and slightly different models, but more consistency would be less confusing. Lithopsian (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

In the 41H → 22H + 2e+ + 2νe reaction, the energy release is given as (4.0 MeV + 1.0 MeV) which is not consistent with the Wiki page on the proton-proton chain reaction (which assigns 0.4 MeV to the same process). Is there any chance someone could fix this? I suspect that 0.4 MeV is correct but not sure.128.240.12.1 (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed that reaction, but the whole thing probably needs citing better. Lithopsian (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

the article's teaser seems to imply that some stars *outside* the milky way are visible from earth, which i understood as being with the naked eye, but after some research of my own (https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070619192110AAkkCVp) and a little bit of thinking about the scale of things, makes no sense at all: all the stars we see with the naked eye are from within the milky way of course. Shouldn't we correct the summary to make that clearer? In general, having a section that would clear up how many stars are visible (see To do) and where they generally are located would be useful. There's some information about that in List_of_brightest_stars, but it would be useful to have a summary in here... --TheAnarcat (talk) 03:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree about the lead being misleading, so I took out the part about the Milky Way. I didn't say that all visible stars were in the Milky Way, because that would also be misleading in a different way since there are telescopes and such. A2soup (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

A star runs proton fusion continuously, a planet has never run any fusion process. Brown dwarf have deuterium or/and lithium fusion for a short time upon formation. Nothing poor about that! --129.13.72.196 (talk) 09:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

That's not a universally accepted definition. Also, there is no sharp division between deuterium burning or not at the lower mass end. Some objects burn just a little deuterium, some more. There are also definitions involving a mass range or formation scenarios. Gap9551 (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

For entirely unrelated reasons I've just had occasion to go through this article clicking on every single external link (i.e. non-internal, not just the stuff in the similarly named section). It is a… depressing exercise. I would encourage regular editors on this article to do the same, and fix the various links that are plain dead, 404, point to a domain squatting service, etc. I'd offer to help but I have a few too many maintenance tasks on my plate as it is (one of which lead me to this drive-by visit) and I have absolutely zero relevant domain knowledge. Sorry. --Xover (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Simply tagging the dead links would have been an almost-no-effort exercise, far more helpful than just pointing out that "everything is broke". Lithopsian (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

My apologies if I came across as "everything is broke". What I intended to convey was simply the factual statement that I had observed a number of external links in the article that were no longer functioning in various ways and that the number was not an insignificant one. I realise it would make the job for the regular editors easier if I were to tag each link, but regret that I simply do not have the capacity right now. I'm working from a list of broken links captured on the incoming side of an external website; so I'm looking for (often) a single broken link in an article that has hundreds of them, and in a list of about 750 articles (so we're talking several thousand links). Again, my apologies. --Xover (talk) 13:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I added a bit on binaries to the section on stellar evolution. I left this section pretty vague, so if anyone would like to add more detail, I think it would be worthwhile. OtterAM (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

What are the importances of star? Ishanbull (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The temperature of the core of the sun is widely stated to be 15 million kelvins, not 10 million as stated in the "Nuclear Fusion Reaction Pathways" section. On that note, the correct terminology is "kelvins" (plural), not "kelvin" (singular), unless the temperature is only one kelvin. Kelvins are quantitative, not degrees on a scale. At least I try (talk) 08:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The "solar core" does not have a single temperature. Unless you just want to pick the temperature of the single point at the centre of the star. The fusing region of the sun extends to about 20-25% of its radius and the temperature varies from around 15 million K (actually closer to 16 million) at the centre to below 10 million at the outer edge. The 15 million number is widely quoted as "the core temperature", but (approximately) 10 million may be a more appropriate single number for characterising fusion across the whole core. Lithopsian (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to Star has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In paragraph 3, the sentence "When the hydrogen fuel at the core is exhausted, a star of mass 0.4 times greater than the Sun's[2] will expand to become a red giant." would be significantly more intelligible if it read: " When the hydrogen fuel at the core is exhausted, a star of mass greater than 0.4 times the Sun's mass[2] will expand to become a red giant."

66.222.227.129 (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Reading and musing about the Death Star, I suddenly began to wonder: why is it called a "star"? It's neither bright, nor point-like, nor even large enough to be a planet – it has none of the properties associated with stars, or even planets, except that it floats in space, too. However, in light of the historical division into fixed stars – stars in the astronomical sense, essentially – and wandering stars, plus shooting stars, it occurred me that the original historical meaning of star corresponds to that of "(simple) celestial body", and could cover anything from luminous stars, planets, moons (the Sun, Moon and comets used to be counted among the planets in the early modern period), minor planets and comets to meteors, and echoes of this original broad definition are still extant in popular usage and culture. There's also the concept of the "dark star", which seems to have originally referred to an outdated scientific theory, but entered popular consciousness as a metaphor and became widespread although nobody seems to know what a dark star might be in the literal sense. (In contemporary German, Gestirn – also compare Wandelgestirn – preserves this wide meaning, remaining as a separate, if somewhat dated term besides Stern.) Maybe this is worth including in the article as a historical note. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources discussing these concepts then you can write a new section. Otherwise it is WP:OR and you'll need to wait until after your paper on the subject is accepted for publication ;) Lithopsian (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Alternatively, it could also be included in Wiktionary. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

No, the relationship between "star" and "astronomical object" should be stated in the first few sentences of this article, but my edits are brutally reverted. UU (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Your revision was incorrect because the initial change you made happens to match an H II region. Please read Wikipedia:Civility and tone down your attitude. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

This edit request to Star has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under Formation and evolution: Main sequence section change 'The Sun's is expected to live 10 billion (10^10) years.' to 'The Sun is expected to live 10 billion (10^10) years.' 142.73.82.13 (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. Edit done. Lithopsian (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I've been lookin' in Wikipedia for information about the distribution of sizes of stars, and I can't find anything except a statement in Sun that the sun is bigger than some percentage of stars. Could someone add some information like this? There are several distributions that could be mentioned: mass, absolute magnitude, spectral class, mass-to-light ratio... Eric Kvaalen (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The initial mass function varies depending on what population you're studying, so you can't really give a simple table of data. Praemonitus (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Praemonitus:: Well yes, one can give data for the whole Milky Way, or for our neighborhood. I can actually get a rough idea by looking at the List of nearest stars, but I'm sure there are better sources! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 07:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Eric Kvaalen:: Okay, but now you're talking about properties of a region (solar neighborhood or Milky Way) rather than an object (star). I don't disagree that it would be interesting data, but perhaps this isn't the right place for it? Praemonitus (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Praemonitus:: We could start an article called something like Stellar size distribution, and link to it in this article. But we need some content! By the way, I see that in the Initial mass function article there's a link to Luminosity function, which can be for galaxies or for stars. For instance, there's a White dwarf luminosity function. They don't seem to worry about what part of the galaxy is being considered. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 05:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

This edit request to Star has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under the section Formation and Evolution, a bullet point reads: Intermediate-mass stars, between 1.8–2.5 M☉ and 5–10 M☉, pass through evolutionary stages similar to low mass stars, but after a relatively short period on the RGB.... The acronym RGB as meaning Red Giant Branch is not stated anywhere in the document. Please can this be added. Many thanks, Jonathan. 86.179.18.222 (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for spotting that. I'm not particularly fond of TLAs, even when they are explained somewhere, so I've changed "RGB" to "red giant". I hope this is OK. Dbfirs 18:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I changed it back. RGB is not an synonym (or acronym) for red giant. I expanded the term and linked it to the appropriate article. No more TLA, at least not in that paragraph. Possibly more work is needed to clarify just why red giants are not only found on the red giant branch. Lithopsian (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for linking. I should have checked if we had an article. I'm still not clear what was wrong with my edit, except that not all red giants are in what is now called the RGB, but I'll trust your expertise. As far as I can see, RGB stars are just a specific type of red giants. Dbfirs 20:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

You pretty much got it. Red giants are any relatively cool inflated star (short of being a supergiant), but the red giant branch (RGB) is a specific evolutionary stage named for its position in the H-R diagram. Red giants may also be found in other parts of the H-R diagram such as the asymptotic giant branch (AGB) and red clump (not really a TLA for that). RGB stars are hydrogen-shell burners with an inert, and sometimes degenerate, helium core. Lithopsian (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.carnegieinstitution.org/News4-3%2C2001.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn9771-mass-cutoff-between-stars-and-brown-dwarfs-revealed.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6630AbtJZ?url=http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/education/senior/astrophysics/photometry_colour.html to http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/education/senior/astrophysics/photometry_colour.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140809120004/http://www.atnf.csiro.au/outreach//education/senior/astrophysics/photometry_specparallax.html to http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/education/senior/astrophysics/photometry_luminosity.html

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) 19:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

In the second paragraph, "The total mass of a star is the determines its evolution and eventual fate."

I believe "is the" should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 20:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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/20060927091554/http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/9804/eta.html to http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/9804/eta.html

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) 21:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The sun is an average signed yellow star.It is about 10 ill ion kilometers wide and about 4.5 billion years old.Below is a list of different types of star supergiant,dwarfstar,netron star,black holes,blue-white star,Average-sized star and other. Group in ICT (talk) 02:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to brush up on my astronomy and am surprised that the "Post-main sequence" main-article reference is to Red Giant. The text also implies the next stage post-main sequence is a red giant, and in trying to follow it I felt I was misdirected. Other Wikipedia articles state there's a subgiant phase that comes first, and for solar mass stars it will last considerably longer than the star's time as a red giant (2.6 billion years as opposed to 130 million years burning helium - numbers from Subgiant and Main Sequence pages). Nor is a red giant the end of the process either. Not for any mass of star. So why is the reader being pushed toward red giants? I would have found it more helpful if the featured main-article reference for this section was Stellar Evolution.

I'd also liked to have seen

• a sub-header for the initial part of the section, something like "Small and medium mass stars" to parallel the "Massive stars" sub-section that follows it.
• a clear statement that a star is called a red giant during separate potentially-disconnected stages: red giant branch, red clump and AGB phases.
• more clarity about when the star enters the red giant branch phase. I feel the lumping together of hydrogen shell burning, core collapse and helium burning in the first paragraph obscures what happens when.
• better agreement between this page and others as to time to go before the Sun starts helium burning. For example here it's 5 billion years and on the Main sequence page it's 6.5 billion. There's also little clarity about whether these are main sequence times or main-sequence plus subgiant times.

A table of timescales that stars are expected to spend in all evolutionary phases for a few sample masses of stars would be awesome, similar to the one on the subgiant page but including later phases. Either here or on the Stellar Evolution page.

Jonh333 (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I've added links to some more informative pages. Despite being a featured article, this one is pretty light in that area. Of course stellar evolution is the best starting point for learning about ... well, stellar evolution. Lithopsian (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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/20100617054639/http://www.astrometry.org/starnaming.php to http://www.astrometry.org/starnaming.php

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) 13:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by The lord 66 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The exact number is not known, of course, but if you read the article, it says that the number in the observable universe could be as many as 3 × 10²³, that's three hundred thousand million million million. Dbfirs 17:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Good morning Wikipedia team!, In order to add more accurate historical reference details to the start public article, could you please help add the Maya culture Astronomical observation facts reference information to the "Observation history" section of the "Star" article ASAP

Reference information dates to America, pre-hispanic observations made by the Mayan culture, construction of astronomical observatories, and the creation of numerous complex calendars dated around 2000 years B.C.

Reference useful information gathered from the main "Maya Wikipedia article" that I could gather is the following:

The Maya made meticulous observations of celestial bodies, patiently recording astronomical data on the movements of the sun, moon, Venus, and the stars. This information was used for divination, so Maya astronomy was essentially for astrological purposes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_civilization#Astronomy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_astronomy#Astronomical_Observations

Thank you ! Renato Muro (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I would recommend taking a look at History_of_astronomy#Mesoamerica and see if you can enhance that content. The history section on this page is just a high-level overview. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sam Sailor 16:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Comparison of planets and stars (2017 update).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 07:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I've replaced the image in the article. Praemonitus (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The opening paragraph should say how many stars there are in the observable universe.--Wyn.junior (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Added an estimate to an existing sentence. Praemonitus (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

In "Collapse" you write of stars of "less than 1.4 M☉" (said to become white dwarves) and "more than 1.4" (said to become neutron stars). What about precisely 1.4 solar masses? Adjust it correctly please! 212.186.0.174 (talk) 08:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Most sources say "about" or "roughly" 1.4, so I changed it accordingly. A strong magnetic field or rapid rotation can allow a higher mass white dwarf, for a time. I think a full explanation would add a lot of low-level detail that isn't needed for a summary of this type. Praemonitus (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Pleiades large.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Pleiades large.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)