Talk:HE 1523-0901: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:44, 2 August 2013

Astronomy: Astronomical objects Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

Needs A Picture

Article needs a pic of the star.

69.171.160.150 (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)real The[reply]

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)[reply]

Basic infobox added

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)[reply]

Discrepancy?

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Mass and size are two very different things, hence the confusion.

75.166.172.10 (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Second" oldest?

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)[reply]

I agree, and have reverted the change. Henry ^Flower 05:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 On 22 Dec, [[Special:Contributions/109.242.25.81|109.242.25.81]] ([[User talk: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? --[[Special:Contributions/50.41.5.211|50.41.5.211]] ([[User talk:50.41.5.211|talk]]) 15:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 :I agree, and have reverted the change. [[User:Henry Flower|Henry]][[User talk:Henry Flower|<sup>Flower</sup>]] 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. [[Special:Contributions/98.194.174.9|98.194.174.9]] ([[User talk:98.194.174.9|talk]]) 06:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)