Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

RFC concerning TOI-1338

There is an RFC at Talk:TOI-1338#Nomenclature RFC and any input would be appreciated. Lithopsian (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

PR on Pulsar planet

If anyone is interested, I've opened Wikipedia:Peer review/Pulsar planet/archive1 to see if this article would work as a GA. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit request(s)/Discussion: Add a "Coordinates" field to the infobox templates

Greetings and felicitations. Might a "Coordinates" field be added to the relevant infobox templates so that the {{Sky}} templates can be moved into the infoboxes, as is standard for the {{Coord}} template for terrestrial locations (e.g. {{Infobox settlement}}) and events (e.g. {{Infobox military conflict}})? — DocWatson42 (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Does it need to be consolidated with the current coordinates fields? That may require a change to the use of the RA and Dec templates. Right now we're already using a separate coordinates template, so it's unclear why it needs to be consolidated with the infobox. It may not be worth the effort. Praemonitus (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not certain if it needs to be consolidated. I'm not very familiar with this project's infobox(es). My immediate example of where I'd like to add the coordinates to the infobox is Mintaka, and the (recent) initial one is Crab Nebula, which both have separate {{Sky}} templates. If I'm just missing how to do that, please tell me how. Perhaps the infobox's coordinates just need to also be displayed at the top of the article? — DocWatson42 (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, in thinking about it, you could pass the strings for the RA and DEC templates as new, unique parameters. Say, for discussion purposes, coord-RA="14|39|36.49400" and coord-DEC="−60|50|02.3737". Those strings could (somehow) then be passed into RA, DEC, and sky templates, and evaluated, using something like an eval execution. Is that feasible with this technology? Praemonitus (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not capable of answering, as I am nowhere near good or knowledgeable enough with the script language(?) to put that into practice (thus my presence here), so I hope you're addressing the greater audience. —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

If this isn't anything someone needs handling this week, I can take a look at the template side of this next week after the heavy lifting on my ArbCom case is done. Primefac (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 10:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Moons of Saturn and WP:NASTRO

User:FilipinoGuy0995 has created a raft of articles about recently-discovered moons of Saturn. ([1]) I don't think these pass NASTRO, but I thought I'd best ask here first before making a fool of myself at XfD (as I am prone to do). Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 14:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

When people create these stubs, I wish they could say something unique about the object other than just listing time-sensitive orbital elements. Mention an orbital resonance, the potential for an impact with another moon, etc.-- Kheider (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The reason there's nothing else on such stub pages is because there's no other published information available. I agree with the lack of NASTRO: I'd support rapid deletion for all of them. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Is there some tool to multi-nominate pages for AfD? Because there are about fifty of these. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 20:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd condense them all into a single page and redirect. Saves an AFD while still allowing or searchability. But no, there is no easy way to mass-nominate pages other than with manually tagging via something like AWB. Primefac (talk) 08:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Lists of minor planets

From 2012 to 2022, Rfassbind has made many thousands of edits to keep the various lists of minor solar system planets, discoveries and observers in order. They have stopped editing in October 2022 (maybe taking a long break, maybe leaving entirely). Rfassbind certainly deserves the break. However, maintenance of those lists has stopped almost entirely since they've left, and that maintenance is our responsibility now. Affected are the lists linked from List of named minor planets (alphabetical) and List of minor planets.

About 1,100 new asteroid names have been announced since then. I have started to put those into a table on my sandbox (here), but I don't know how to finish that table (provisional designations are missing), and how to add them to the existing Meanings of minor-planet names in an efficient way. Rfassbind probably used a script to do so, but I can't find one published on their user page. Can anyone help, or are we giving up on those lists? To my knowledge, since the death of Lutz Schmadel, Wikipedia has been the only place that has kept track of these lists, and it would be a shame to lose that.

I am tagging Nrco0e, who have communicated with Rfassbind about those lists before (like here). Renerpho (talk) 08:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Well that is the elephant in the room with these pseudo-trivia lists: who is going to keep maintaining and updating them? The only list that really matters is: List of minor planets: 1–1000. After that, the objects of interest are going to grow increasingly rare. The List of minor planets: 99001–100000 page has just three linked articles out of a thousand. We have many articles of greater interest that need more TLC. Praemonitus (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Moons of saturn... again.

See the above section for context. Okay, so I AfD'd S/2005 S 4 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S/2005 S 4) and the result was to merge to Inuit Group. Working from that as precedent, I boldly BLAR'd the other 50-or-so related articles citing that discussion as precedent. Recently, a new user Florida sfs (talk · contribs) has re-added the same content to several of these redirects, including S/2005 S 4. These have been their only edits so far. Hoping to follow the "bold, revert, discuss" cycle, I'm inviting them (and of course the participants of this project) to discuss these articles as a whole before things get out of hand. I did revert their edit to S/2005, as the existing consensus was to merge. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 20:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to bring up that we had a whole discussion on which irregular moon articles to keep at Talk:Moons_of_Jupiter/Archive_2#Should_we_stop_creating_articles_for_newly-discovered_irregular_moons?, but it turned into a whole debacle where User:Double sharp and I boldly made redirects that got people opposing our actions, so we ultimately didn't get rid of anything. It looks like we'll have to revisit that debate once more now with Saturn's 63 new irregular moons. Nrco0e (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Authority control on minor planets?

What do we think of adding JPL Small-Body Database SPK-ID (P716), Minor Planet Center body ID (P5736), and other relevant identifiers to the {{Authority control}} template, in either the existing AC section "Other", or in a new section called "Scientific"?

{{JPL small body}}, {{NeoDys}}, and other templates exist, but they each require separate placement on each page, while {{Authority control}} would be able to capture all current and future database inclusions, and automatically display them compactly at the bottom of the page. I'm not suggesting {{Authority control}} replace {{JPL small body}}, etc., since they provide much more info, but that {{Authority control}} be used regardless.

Courtesy ping to Rfassbind ~ I hope he is well and chooses to return to editing.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Posted @ WT:AST#Authority control on minor planets?. Please only reply there.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Starbox

We know that many stars are so far away that, by the time their light reaches us, the stars themselves are long since gone. So, too, are the wikitext markup of templates, which echo out through the decades... anyway, what's the deal with Template:Starboxes? I guess there are a lot of infoboxes that are composed of individual templates. Is anyone interested in converting this to a module? I've never done this before but I would be willing to help. jp×g 02:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Well no, most stars last for millions to billions of years, and their light normally reaches us in up to just a few thousand years. The starbox templates work okay as they are; no star system requires the use of every starbox template, so this level of flexibility is needed. Praemonitus (talk) 06:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Possibly Template:Starbox observe 2s and Template:Starbox observe 3s can be merged with Template:Starbox observe into a single template that admits multiple sets of parameters. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Porting all that template code correctly into Lua, and then correctly updating the wikicode for all ~5,300 pages that use those templates seems like a royal pain in the ***.

I ported the various segments of {{Navseasoncats}} template code piecemeal into Lua, if only to not break the existing functionality. Because the scope of that template increased dramatically after doing do, I wish I had rewritten the Lua code from scratch. I don't see the same "issue" with the Starbox templates though, so subsuming the templates into Lua one at a time over time is probably the best way to do it.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Folks at WP:TFD can use bots for merging uses over. Of course, it depends on exactly what is being merged into what. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Replace 'Brocchi's Cluster' with 'Double Cluster'

On the level 5 VA talk page, I'm suggesting replacing Brocchi's Cluster with Double Cluster. Please comment on that suggestion. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

"Hottest planet" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Hottest planet has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 6 § Hottest planet until a consensus is reached. Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

List of minor planets: 624001–625000 nominated for deletion

@ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor planets: 624001–625000, the scope of which affects many of these list pages.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

& @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meanings of minor planet names: 623001–624000.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of 2MASX J22550681+0058396 (and many other stubs by User:Galaxybeing) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2MASX J22550681+0058396 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2MASX J22550681+0058396 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Parejkoj (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I've also nominated many other articles created by User_talk:Galaxybeing, and there are more yet to delete. We'll see if the author responds. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on redesign of the Starbox

...is underway at Template talk:Starbox begin#Broader redesign of apparent-magnitude and color-index entries. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

I propose we split articles on comets such as Halley's Comet or Comet Hale-Bopp into separate articles such as 1986 approach of Halley's Comet and 1997 approach of Comet Hale-Bopp. There are articles on the 2004 transit of Venus and the 2012 transit of Venus. That is why I think they should be split. DementiaGaming (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Halley's Comet § 1986 is six paragraphs long. I do not see a need to have a six-paragraph stub, nor do I think the existing article (at 100k) is so large that it needs to be split. Hale–Bopp's article is half that size and doesn't really have an "approach" section, making even less of a need to split. Primefac (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Removal of cited material and original research

An editor (pinging @InTheAstronomy32:) is removing quite a selection of cited material from star articles, effectively because they "know it is wrong". Example at EV Carinae, but many more cases. The response to any reversion of such changes is an instant re-revert in all cases. So, WP:OR or valid filtering of sources? Lithopsian (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I am following Wikipedia:Editing policy, by removing inaccuracies in articles. Just because something is sourced does not mean that it is accurate. About the reverts, i will stop reverting your edits every time (and other edits) and start discussion InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

In fact, there was nothing wrong with my edits. I was merely correcting inaccuracies in articles, which is encouraged by editing policy. Reverting others' reverts (with a proper edit summary explaining my edit) is not disruptive, in fact it's a productive way of editing, and does not creating edit wars, because if my revert is reverted I will simply take no action. When editing these articles, I did not insert my own thoughts (or any unverifiable information) into the articles and therefore did not violate the WP:NOR policy. I will close this discussion because no futher discussion is required. There was no problem at all. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

First, @InTheAstronomy32: you are required by policy to engage with the community and answer questions when they are raised. You may not unilaterally close discussions either.

Second, removal of sourced material based on a 'I know it's wrong' type of reasoning is not valid. If there is a valid source, the content should remain, until and unless there is consensus that the material is inappropriate, or that the source is outdated/misunderstood or whatever, or a more accurate source provided that contradicts the sourced material.

This is general advice that applies to every article on the encyclopedia. I haven't looked into any of the specific reversions. If you're called on it, slow down, have a discussion, and establish consensus. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok then. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

My edits weren't just "removing content that I think is wrong": Actually i was removing inaccurate and outdated information in articles and prefering newer ones, and it is encouraged by the editing policy. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

This discussion should maybe happen on the article's talk page, but why do you think Anders et al. (2019) is incorrect, and what citation would you use to replace it? You left the ref for the metallicity; why is that less outdated than the mass in this case? Separately, why is it referred to as "starhorse" in the ref? - Parejkoj (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The mass of EV Carinae of 5.36 M_☉ is highly inconsistent with masses of another red supergiants (see Category:M-type supergiants). Basically any RSG will have a mass larger than 10 M_☉. A star with a radius of 1,168 R_☉ would be required to have an inital mass larger than 15 M_☉ (see this page) for exist. StarHorse is the algorithm that generate these masses, but create a lot of unreliable values like 3.61 M_☉ for V354 Cep, 4.89 M_☉ for KW Sgr or 6.3 M_☉ for BI Cyg, which are all highly underestimate. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Being "highly inconsistent" does not mean "wrong"; if there is no source for this statement then it is, as implied above, you determining what is accurate and what is inaccurate, which is no bueno. Primefac (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Given the discussion at Talk:Betelgeuse, it seems that the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is a very good method of resolving certain disputes. I will start using it as well. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Should I revert the removals of mass estimates, or find a more recent estimate? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Help needed in expanding "List of conjunctions (astronomy)"

What I'm thinking is that the page "List of conjunctions (astronomy)" is a bit outdated, (the latest listed year being 2020) and that the page only lists a limited amount of years, (2005-2020) and is pretty crowded. So you see, I found this website that lists every conjunction from every year from 1950-2024 and is computed from NASA's DE430 planetary ephemeris so it is pretty accurate and reliable. My plan is to use that website to make a couple of pages about the "list of conjunctions", so each "list of conjunctions" page that I will make has 10 years of conjunctions in it. For example, the first page in the series will be "List of conjunctions (astronomy) from 1950-1959" and the second one will be "List of conjunctions (astronomy) from 1960-1969" et cetera. I know that this should be in the talk page for the article, but I've already done that, it's been 4 days since I posted it, and no-one has responded. Since this place has a bigger community, I hope someone will have the time to help me for this cause. Iamamodforjellymario (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

This article seems of more interest to the Astrology WikiProject. I suppose it might be of use for amateur astrophotography purposes. Praemonitus (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay! The options in Astronomy were so similar, it was hard to know which project was right. I'll go to the Astrology WikiProject. Hope that'll work :) Iamamodforjellymario (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

For any more inquiries or offers to help on this subject, go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astrology#Help needed in expanding "List of conjunctions (astronomy)" Iamamodforjellymario (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy § Project-independent quality assessments

Requested move at Talk:2MASS J05352184−0546085#Requested move 29 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2MASS J05352184−0546085#Requested move 29 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of (495603) 2015 AM281 and many other TNO articles for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether several TNO articles like (495603) 2015 AM281 are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(495603) 2015 AM281 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 07:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:B Centauri b#Requested move 20 February 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:B Centauri b#Requested move 20 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 06:19, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Galactic Center#Requested move 21 March 2025

A request to lowercase 'Galactic Center' is being discussed and may be of interest to participants in this project. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Andromeda Galaxy#Requested move 18 April 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Andromeda Galaxy#Requested move 18 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

solstation.com

There are about 70 references to solstation.com, which I expect are mostly links (possibly some have been changed to an archive link). solstation.com has been dead (according to reddit) for about 6 months. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:URLREQ might be the best place to deal with that, get a bot to post up archives if they're available. Primefac (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

New exoplanets discovered?

I saw that there was a page with confirmed exoplanets, and I skimmed through it, and was wondering if there was still observations going for more of these mysterious exoplanets (my personal favorite is J1407b!) AstronomyKid1 (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Hundreds of new exoplanets are discovered every year, see [2] and sort by 'discovery' year. There are about a thousand scientific papers each year that study them in more detail, such as performing follow-up observations or detailed simulations. Modest Genius ^talk 15:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

With these sorts of numbers, I'm honestly a little surprised that JWST is only 9-times oversubscribed.... Primefac (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll keep an eye out for more! I'm eager to work with you guys! <3

-AstronomyKid1 AstronomyKid1 (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I also would like to know what your favorite exoplanet is <3 (Just out of curiosity) AstronomyKid1 (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Well the most studied exoplanetary system is TRAPPIST-1. I'd say the most interesting to me, being the nearest candidate, is Proxima b. That article could probably be turned into an FA. The discovery was announced on 24 August 2016, so the same date in 2026 would be the 10th anniversary and likely to get it front page coverage. Praemonitus (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I think Proxima Centauri b wouldn't be that hard to turn into a FA. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Help needed at Talk:Minor-planet moon#Source of the provisional designations?

Your participation in the discussion linked above would be greatly appreciated. There are some major problems with the list of minor-planet moons. Please take a look. Renerpho (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Classification of rogue planets, white dwarfs, and neutron stars

There is a discussion going on at Talk:List_of_exoplanet_extremes#Conclusion? regarding:

1. Are rogue planets classified as exoplanets?

2. Are white dwarfs and neutron stars classified as stars? Manuductive (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

1. Generally rogue planets are not considered planets; the IAU doesn't consider them as planets because the original definition of planet was "objects that movement relative to stars" (antiguity) and "objects that revolve around the Sun" (renaissance age); the Exoplanet Archive also excluded FFPs and most papers adopted the term ''free floating planetary-mass objects'' for gas giants free-floating planets; other consider them as (sub-) brown dwarfs e.g. WISE 0855. However, some few astronomers consider them planets, like microlensing surveys which classify small rogue planets e.g. OGLE-2016-BLG-1928 as planets.

2. Neutron stars & white dwarfs are not stars by many definitions. 21 Andromedae (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

1. is undefined. The term 'planet' is defined by the IAU, and specifically requires them to be within the Solar System. No official body has defined the term 'exoplanet', partly because new types are being discovered frequently and we know the observed sample is dominated by selection effects (not intrinsic properties). Most astronomers call free-floating bodies 'planetary mass objects', with the term 'rogue planet' left for press releases and the like. However usage is not consistent or well established. There are also a wide range of opinions on where the boundary is between a brown dwarf and a gas giant exoplanet / planetary mass object. Wikipedia should explain that these terms are not strictly defined.

2. No. Those are stellar remnants, not stars. It's unfortunate that the term 'neutron star' includes the word 'star', which is purely for historical reasons. Again there isn't a formal definition, but in this case usage among astronomers is well-established and almost universal.

I hope that helps. Modest Genius ^talk 16:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I agree with 1. A working definition is technically not a full definition. I am not sure what you intend to say with 2. If you meant that usage of stellar remnant/compact object is well-established and almost universal, then I agree too, this is used >~90% of the time when asked what white dwarfs or neutron stars are. May I ask why you think white dwarfs and neutron stars are not stars? Because the few % of times there is that not white dwarf / neutron star is used but whether these objects are stars, they are named stars (e.g. by ESA, NASA, books on compact objects, publications, ...). Stevinger (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Among other things, stars are composed of plasma and powered by nuclear fusion in their cores; white dwarfs and neutrons stars don't meet either of those requirements. I don't understand your final sentence. Modest Genius ^talk 22:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

My bad, I was trying to say that it is rare that not solely 'white dwarf' and 'neutron star' is used in texts, but if the few % of times happen this is not the case, the objects are called stars. For example A) in definitions: Collins Dictionary: White dwarf: 'white dwarf ... one of a large class of small faint stars of enormous density ... It is thought to mark the final stage in the evolution of a sun-like star'. Collins Dictionary: Neutron star: 'neutron star ... a star that has collapsed under its own gravity to a diameter of about 10 to 15 km.' B) in press releases: NASA press release: 'The Hubble results show the star is very hot, and can be no larger than 16.8 miles (28 kilometers) across.' C) in star type pages. D) in Textbooks: Neutron stars: Page 1: 'Neutron stars are the smallest, densest stars known.' and 'Like all stars, neutron stars rotate ...'. Page 3: 'The constituents of neutron stars - leptons, baryons and quarks - are degenerate. They lie helplessly in the lowest energy states available to them. They must. Fusion reactions in the original star have reached the end point for energy release - the core has collapsed and the immense gravitational energy converted to neutrinos has been carried away. The star has no remaining source of energy to excite the fermions. Only the Fermi pressure and the short-range repulsion of the nuclear force sustain the neutron star against further gravitational collapse - sometimes.' White dwarfs: Page 57: 'white dwarf, a star whose high surface temperature (8000 K) makes it appear white.'

If you trust wikipedia as source, white dwarfs have plasma: 'Such densities are possible because white dwarf material is not composed of atoms joined by chemical bonds, but rather consists of a plasma of unbound nuclei and electrons'. Even neutron stars are not a single block of neutrons, having ions, electrons, nuclei. The mass of objects must be large enough to allow for hydrogen fusion, but that does not mean the fusion is currently ongoing. T Tauri stars or protostars are e.g. also considered stars, because they are heavy enough that they will fuse hydrogen in the future. Please see the discussion page. Do you have a source that clearly states white dwarfs and/or neutron stars are not stars (that is not by Ethan Siegel)? Stevinger (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I see the IAU's glossary suggest degenerate stars are not stars, here are some links:

• Stellar Evolution: Stars spend most of their life on the main sequence stage of stellar evolution.
• Main sequence: For all but the least massive stars, after a star has finished core hydrogen fusion it moves off the main sequence and begins to evolve into the giant phase.
• Dwarf star: Stars spend most of their "lives" as dwarf stars.
• Stellar Remnants: Stellar remnants are very compact compared to stars.
• Star: (Stars are) prevented from collapse by inner pressure that is the consequence of nuclear fusion processes in the star's core regions. This page even say that Such stellar remnants are not simply plasma balls.

21 Andromedae (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure, if you forget to mention Star: 'In a more general sense, the word "star" is taken to include protostars where nuclear fusion has not yet begun, and stellar remnants such as neutron stars or white dwarfs', which is scientific usage (see examples above). Also, White dwarf: 'Stars with mass up to eight times the mass of the Sun are expected to end their lives as white dwarfs. This includes our Sun.' and 'A white dwarf is no longer producing energy from nuclear reactions in its core, but shines due to its leftover energy.' (Please compare: Collins Dictionary: White dwarf: 'white dwarf ... one of a large class of small faint stars of enormous density ... It is thought to mark the final stage in the evolution of a sun-like star'.) Stevinger (talk) 02:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

They give the broad definiton, which is still sometimes used, but in general agree that denegerate stars aren't stars as shown in other pages. 21 Andromedae (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

No, it is not, this is my point. You claim a lot of pages 'imply' or 'suggest' white dwarfs and neutron stars aren't stars, which is a natural outcome of it being hard to find good wording to define a star (as visible by the long glossary entry of IAU). On the other hand lots of pages explicitly include them as stars, another example e.g. here as found by Manuductive (Encyclopedia Britannica says the white dwarf is a "faint star"[7] and the neutron star is a "compact star".[8]), not surprising as this is common scientific usage. Stevinger (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Btw, 'degenerate stars' is e.g. also not ideal wording (to talk about all of them not being a star), as still fusing stars can have degeneracy, too. Stevinger (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• The term "dead star" seems to see frequent use in public communications on topic #2, which may produce some ambiguity. Is a dead human still a human? In a certain sense yes. The dictionary definition of "star" is fairly flexible: a fixed luminous point in the night sky which is a large, remote incandescent body like the sun. Incandescent just means to emit light by being heated. Praemonitus (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  I see the biggest problem of defining a star just as "any large celestial body which shines" is because this allow for planets like Beta Pictoris b, HR 8799 b and others which still have an internal source of light to be considered stars, as well as brown dwarfs which are literally failed stars. 21 Andromedae (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  Well my point is that's probably the definition most lay readers are working with. I don't think the IAU has a formal definition for what is a star. I'm not sure it's our place to attempt that. Praemonitus (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

2. As an astrophysicist I think the Encyclopedia Britannica definition is a very good one: any massive self-luminous celestial body of gas that shines by radiation derived from its internal energy sources. However when I was a graduate student white dwarfs were stars going by the definition in the Astrophysical Journal's Glossary of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 2nd ed. (1980) which begins A star of high surface temperature ..., low luminosity, and high density ... The Britannica has an article about white dwarf stars. In other words, years ago a star was a hot totally gaseous body that radiates. (The degenerate matter of a white dwarf behaves as a gas.) The definition seems to be changing over time but the old definition is still in use. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Mind you, there are some white dwarfs and neutron stars that have internal heat sources[3][4] Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)