Talk:HE 1523-0901: Difference between revisions
Kepler-78b (talk | contribs) →Radius: new section |
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Astronomy}}. Tag: |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start| |
||
{{WikiProject Astronomy|object=yes|importance=low}} |
|||
}} |
|||
==Needs A Picture== |
==Needs A Picture== |
||
| Line 44: | Line 45: | ||
== Radius == |
== Radius == |
||
[[User: |
[[User:Primefac|Primefac]], do you know [[HE 1523-0901]] is 37.41 Times Larger Than Our Sun? [[User:Kepler-78b|Kepler-78b]] ([[User talk:Kepler-78b|talk]]) 02:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC) |
||
:No, but I do now. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 10:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 06:08, 3 February 2024
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Needs A Picture
[edit]Article needs a pic of the star.
69.171.160.150 (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)real The
The artists renditon is very good and should be kept, but more astronomy pictures and graphs should be added to the article.
75.166.172.10 (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Basic infobox added
[edit]I've added a basic infobox for this star, however, among the missing information would be the stellar classification. I couldn't find any reliable information on this, and perhaps it's still unknown. I could also not find any boundaries for the approximation of its distance. — Northgrove 11:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Discrepancy?
[edit]"HE 1523-0901 is the designation given to a red giant star," but, later in the article, we see that it's "approximately eight-tenths the size of the Sun."
A red giant that's only 1,000,000 km wide? No star so small would be visible 7,500 ly away. 68Kustom (talk) 07:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
That should really say 0.8 Solar masses. The star is a highly evolved red giant, giving it a much larger radius than the Sun and hence making it possible to see. --114.76.62.26 (talk) 10:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Mass and size are two very different things, hence the confusion.
75.166.172.10 (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Also the article doesn't say 7,500 light years, it says 750 light years.
75.166.172.10 (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
"Second" oldest?
[edit]On 22 Dec, 109.242.25.81 (talk) changed "This makes it the oldest object yet discovered in the galaxy," to "This makes it the second oldest object yet discovered in the galaxy,". I can find no supporting statement in the citation. Can anyone clarify what makes this the second oldest, or should we edit it back? --50.41.5.211 (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, and have reverted the change. HenryFlower 05:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Was this maybe in reference to HD 140283? I got here in search of "the oldest known star", and found the information on this page a bit confusing when taking Methuselah into account. 98.194.174.9 (talk) 06:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- HD 140283 does beat it; I suppose you can call 1523-0901 the "oldest member of the galaxy", since HD 140283 is just passing through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.52.158 (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Radius
[edit]Primefac, do you know HE 1523-0901 is 37.41 Times Larger Than Our Sun? Kepler-78b (talk) 02:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- No, but I do now. Primefac (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)