Talk:Stellar classification: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 12:39, 28 September 2024

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Smuscarello97. Peer reviewers: Smuscarello97.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetic O stars

The printed version of the Magnetic O stars is very confusing because There is a ? Symbol which doesn’t make sense — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.47.226.110 (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The question mark is intentional. It is the symbol indicating this particular spectral peculiarity, although you don't see it very often. Not a good choice IMO, but not many good symbols left. Lithopsian (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Percentages don't add up

In the table of proportion of main sequence stars by spectral class, the percentages don't add up to rather more than 100%! Steve (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers are calculated from table 2 in the given reference based on the total number of stars in each class compared to the total column. However, the number of stars in each class don't add up to the total 800. I rebased the proportions on the actual total of 824 (and a fraction). I'll expand the explanatory note to cover this. There are some other sources that could be used (eg [1]), but I haven't found a peer-reviewed one. The numbers don't end up radically different, and they actually vary quite a lot depending on how the sample is chosen. Lithopsian (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram

The classification table is wrong by a mile! According to it, Kepler-186 is ~K8, AU Microscopii is K9 or M0, Canopus is F0, 2-MASS J0523-1403 is a brown dwarf, and Kepler-442 is ~M1 by radius. Please fix! Jtadesse (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LBV

LBV is sometimes treated as a spectral type. Should it be added? Diamantinasaurus (talk) 12:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
-{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Science|class=B|subpage=Physics}}
-{{WikiProject Astronomy |class=B |importance=top |object=yes }}
+{{WikiProject Astronomy |importance=top |object=yes }}
+}}
 {{Archive box |auto=long |bot=MiszaBot I |age=3 |units=months }}
-{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/CUNY_College_of_Staten_Island/AST102_-_Contemporary_Theories_of_the_Universe_(Fall_2016) | assignments = [[User:Smuscarello97|Smuscarello97]] | reviewers = [[User:Smuscarello97|Smuscarello97]] }}
 {{User:MiszaBot/config
 |archiveheader = {{aan}}
@@ Line 12: / Line 13: @@
 }}
+==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
-== Young lithium-rich giant star ==
+[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/CUNY_College_of_Staten_Island/AST102_-_Contemporary_Theories_of_the_Universe_(Fall_2016)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:Smuscarello97|Smuscarello97]]. Peer reviewers: [[User:Smuscarello97|Smuscarello97]].
-KIC 9821622: An interesting lithium-rich giant in the Kepler field, [http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.07192]<br>
-For future note.<br>
-Thanks, [[User:Marasama|Marasama]] ([[User talk:Marasama|talk]]) 14:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
-== [[Authority Control]] request on 26 December 2015 ==
+{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 10:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}}
-<nowiki>{{Authority control|VIAF= xxxx|LCCN= xxxx|ISNI= xxxxx|ORCID= xxxxx|GND= xxxxx|SELIBR= xxxxx|SUDOC= xxxx|BNF= xxxxx|BPN= xxxxx|RID= xxxxx|BIBSYS= xxxxx|ULAN= xxxxx|MBA= xxxx|NLA= xxxx|NDL= xxxxx}}</nowiki>? — [[Special:Contributions/73.47.37.131|73.47.37.131]] ([[User talk:73.47.37.131|talk]]) 23:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
+== Magnetic O stars ==
+The printed version of the Magnetic O stars is very confusing because There is a ? Symbol which doesn’t make sense  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/98.47.226.110|98.47.226.110]] ([[User talk:98.47.226.110#top|talk]]) 03:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-:This is not a valid request. Please state exactly what it is you want added to the article rather than having others guess. <span style="white-space:nowrap; text-shadow:gray 5px 3px 1px;">— [[User:Huntster|Huntster]] <small>([[User talk:Huntster|t]] [[Special:Emailuser/Huntster|@]] [[Special:Contributions/Huntster|c]])</small></span> 01:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
+:The question mark is intentional.  It is the symbol indicating this particular spectral peculiarity, although you don't see it very often.  Not a good choice IMO, but not many good symbols left.  [[User:Lithopsian|Lithopsian]] ([[User talk:Lithopsian|talk]]) 10:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
-== What happened to R & N ? ==
+== Percentages don't add up ==
-I learnt the list as OBAFGKMRNS. The article mentions S but what happened to R and N? Somewhere I read that RNS were later additions describing stars with heavy metals to the original OBAFGKM list.[[Special:Contributions/150.227.15.253|150.227.15.253]] ([[User talk:150.227.15.253|talk]]) 13:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
-:Wow, you must be even older than me!  You're talking ancient history here.  R and N essentially still exist, as C-R and C-N within the carbon star classification system.  R and N were largely dropped in the 1960's although some authors persisted with them for much longer.  The C class wasn't expanded into C-H, C-N, and C-R until 1993 I think.  For that period the C class didn't include a good mapping of the R and N classes, which is one reason some people kept using them.  [[User:Lithopsian|Lithopsian]] ([[User talk:Lithopsian|talk]]) 14:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
+In the table of proportion of main sequence stars by spectral class, the percentages don't add up to rather more than 100%! [[User:GhostDancer|Steve]] ([[User talk:GhostDancer|talk]]) 14:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
-== Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2019 ==
+:The numbers are calculated from table 2 in the given reference based on the total number of stars in each class compared to the total column.  However, the number of stars in each class don't add up to the total 800.  I rebased the proportions on the actual total of 824 (and a fraction).  I'll expand the explanatory note to cover this.  There are some other sources that could be used (eg [http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/startype.html]), but I haven't found a peer-reviewed one.  The numbers don't end up radically different, and they actually vary quite a lot depending on how the sample is chosen.  [[User:Lithopsian|Lithopsian]] ([[User talk:Lithopsian|talk]]) 15:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
+== Diagram ==
-{{edit semi-protected|Stellar classification|answered=yes}}
-'Harvard spectral classification' section: 'Class' table> 'Fraction of all main-sequence stars' column:
-:::::::change "~0.00003%" to "~3.034*10^-5%"
-....CRITICAL-ERROR  →  change "0.13%" to "~0.1214%"
-:::::::change "0.6%" to "~0.6068%"
-:::::::change "3%" to "~3.034%"
-:::::::change "7.6%" to "~7.646%"
-:::::::change "12.1%" to "~12.14%"
-....CRITICAL-ERROR  →  change "76.45%" to "~76.46%"
+The classification table is wrong by a mile! According to it, [[Kepler-186]] is ~K8, [[AU Microscopii]] is K9 or M0, [[Canopus]] is F0, [[2MASS J0523−1403|2-MASS J0523-1403]] is a brown dwarf, and [[Kepler-442]] is ~M1 by radius. Please fix! [[User:Jtadesse|Jtadesse]] ([[User talk:Jtadesse|talk]]) 17:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
-* All changes to be made to 4 significant figures for standard mathematical consistency
-* Tilde(~) used before all numbers since they are all approximated to 4 s.f.
-* just pointing out that the editors have made calculation error from their source (refer pg 33 last table)<ref>Ledrew, Glenn. (2001, February). The Real Starry Sky. In The Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada (JRASC). (Vol. 95(1), pp. 32-33). Retrieved from https://www.rasc.ca/sites/default/files/publications/JRASC-2001-02.pdf</ref>
- [[User:HassoonBobster|HassoonBobster]] ([[User talk:HassoonBobster|talk]]) 21:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
+== LBV ==
-:I will be happy to make any necessary changes, but I think you need to show a little more of your working because I don't get the same results that you show when I do the calculations myself.  I do see some dodgy rounding in the article numbers, and some of the numbers do appear to be incorrect but not as you show them.  Also, why four significant figures?  The input data is two significant figures at best.  Consistency is good, but meaningless precision is not.  I don't think the tildes are going to happen.  All figures are approximate, and there is nothing special about these that requires tagging them as especially approximate.  Tildes are generally only used in astronomy for really really approximate values, preferably when used in the citation itself.  [[User:Lithopsian|Lithopsian]] ([[User talk:Lithopsian|talk]]) 21:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
+LBV is sometimes treated as a spectral type. Should it be added? [[User:Diamantinasaurus|Diamantinasaurus]] ([[User talk:Diamantinasaurus|talk]]) 12:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
-{{talkref}}