Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a251896cdc445645

Jump to content

Talk:Period-luminosity relation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Timb66 in topic delta Scuti stars

Deletion for move complete

[edit]

@StarryGrandma: I have deleted Period-luminosity relation so this article may be moved there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Article title

[edit]

There are period-luminosity relations (PLR) for several types of variable star, but this article only describes one. Arguably the most important one and the first to be discovered, but still at least some mention should be made of others. Most importantly, the type II Cepheid PLR, which is so closely-related to the classical Cepheid PLR that it is remiss to discuss one without the other. I understand the article was originally titled Leavitt's Law, so the focus is understandable, but it is a definite problem under its current title. Lithopsian (talk) 13:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

When I saw this article at AfC I was very surprised that Wikipedia didn't have an article on the period-luminosity relation. I think it should cover the pop II Cepheids and mention that there are distance scales for other types of stars. It is a real lack here. In the literature the unmodified term "period-luminosity relation" refers to this one, but one article should consider them all. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
I've also been surprised that it didn't exist, although there is the section at Classical Cepheid variable, and shorter pieces in a couple of other places. I've just been adding (a lot of!) wikilinks to this article and noticed that a few use punctuation other than a simple hyphen. I'm not a huge fan of grammatical sophistry in article titles, but is hyphen the right thing here? Lithopsian (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
I've generalised the lead to cover potentially all pulsating variable stars, and thrown in a quick mention in the body of some of the other relations (a little history also of important discoveries linked to this). Needs more obviously, but at least shows they exist. Lithopsian (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the additions. As far as the name, in the journal world hyphens seem to be used. I copied it in from a journal article title. But see Titius–Bode law. It was moved to the title with the dash in 2008. But this isn't a named title, it is just a hyphenated word. So I don't know what applies. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
There may be a WP:ENGVAR thing going on here. American journals use hyphens in the titles of P-L related articles, while British journals use dashes. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

delta Scuti stars

[edit]

Is anyone interested in updating this page to add delta Scutis? I'm afraid I don't have time to take the lead at the moment, but I am happy to help. Here are some papers on the P-L relation:

Timb66 (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply