Talk:Star

FA mission creep

At the risk of muddling the ongoing work to confirm FA status, there is something that has been niggling at me about this article for a while. The lead is rather long, perhaps appropriate for a lengthy article, but the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs say essentially the same thing. Certainly they cover the same ground. I can see merging them to say what they need to just once, perhaps still as two paragraphs. The slightly tacked-on bit about binaries might also be merged, possibly with a mention of multiple systems going earlier in the lead and a piece about the influence on evolution (mass transfer, mergers, supernovae, etc.) going with the description of the life of stars. Lithopsian (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you are absolutely correct about the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. Especially the detail about energy transport mechanisms and degenerate cores really isn't needed in the lede. I took a stab at merging those. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I like it better now. I tweaked it a bit more but basically it seems sound. Lithopsian (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Getting deep into nitpick land, the statement that stars return material to the interstellar medium by stellar mass loss is absolutely correct, but the linked article says mass loss is observed in some massive stars. In fact all stars undergo mass loss (solar mass stars contribute most of the carbon), so something's not right. I think it's the stellar mass loss article, not the wikilink or text here. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 16:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Stellar mass loss is a really poor article. All stars lose mass, some faster than others. Very massive stars extremely quickly, but also red giants, and especially post-AGB stars (eg. to planetary nebulae). Very massive stars tend to lose hydrogen, perhaps helium, and are very rare. The much larger numbers of post-AGB stars and the loss of heavier elements mean they are the dominant source of many elements. Followed by supernovae. Neutron star mergers may be the dominant source of very heavy elements, still being debated exactly how much. Massive stars barely rank in that respect until they explode. Lithopsian (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Just looking in the body of the article, there is very little on mass loss, just a brief mention from massive stars and quickly-rotating stars, certainly not good support of what is written in the lead. Lithopsian (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. I just added a few sentences to the AGB section. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Most stars do not shine and they are called exoplanets/planets

Most stars do not shine, they consist of non-luminous gas, rocks and minerals. In fact, old stars are planets. All stars lose their mass at different rates as they evolve. This has been known by thousands of scientists and researchers for about a decade now. https://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v5.pdf and here https://vixra.org/abs/1303.0157Airpeka (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I would not consider anything posted on vixra.org to be a reliable source. That view is not supported by reliable sources. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 16:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

All stars shine. Like you said when they don't we call them (exo)planets, stellar remnants or something else. I don't see what the problem is. Kardoen (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2021

There is a typo in the "Nuclear fusion reaction pathways" section, the word "because" in "but becuase enormous numbers" is misspelled. DustyDonkey (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

All set. Thanks for the heads up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

"Kwerralye" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Kwerralye. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26#Kwerralye until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Certes (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2023

Change the title from Star to Star (astronomical object) Rest in peace Technoblade you were a legend (talk) 07:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Lemonaka (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC first. Praemonitus (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

add a picture of the night sky

taken with a camera to represent how the naked eye sees it. Rguyr (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a 'Night sky' article with such pictures if that is what you want to see. Praemonitus (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

how do you remove a topic? Rguyr (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

If you mean this one, I don't think you should. Others might have opinions on the subject that they want to express. Praemonitus (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Star position in relation to the Sun

Is it possible to create a graph of each star in its real position (below/above; distance, etc.) in outer space in relation to the solar system plane/the Sun as the center? Let me explain why: when I see the information given as declination, ascension, latitude/longitude and other data, they do not match the graphs on the various websites (in addition to having too many stars with lines that confuse us). Other confusions appear that have no relation whatsoever to the official data. For example: on the internet I find the position of Aldebaran above or below the plane of the solar system, they show it to the left or right of other stars, the graphs with other terms, near or far from the Sun and so on. Many of them are more confusing than informative. The ideal would be to include in each article of each individual star its position in relation to the Sun and it could even contain a system that contains the declination, ascension, ecliptic latitude/longitude. It could also be in the following perspectives: the plane seen from above and from the side (West on the left and East on the right). And don't forget to place an arrow indicating the center of the Milky Way. 2804:1B3:6601:419B:3083:299E:2D9D:8565 (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Given the immense number of stars in the universe, that's not really practical. Perhaps the charts on List of nearest stars would help? Praemonitus (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I understand. Unfortunately I cannot put drawings here to illustrate what I imagine. I will reformulate my idea. Thanks. 2804:1B3:6601:419B:3083:299E:2D9D:8565 (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

"failed starfailed star"

FYI Failed star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Proper motion is not the same as parallax.

The paragraph where proper motion is described confuses parallax with proper motion. It should distinguish between them instead. This is a serious and obvious mistake. This article is 20 years old; in all that time, no one could be bothered to correct it? Bcgirton (talk) 08:50, 26 April 2026 (UTC)