Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Astronomical objects and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

WT:ASTRO

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29: 6 months

Archives

Topical archives

Table of asteroids 1 - Table of asteroids I
Example tables - p1 - Table of asteroids II
Example tables - p2 - Table of asteroids III
Archive 19 - Table of asteroids IV
Table of asteroids 2 - Table of asteroids V
Table of exoplanets

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Edit this box

Project-independent quality assessments

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hundreds of new exoplanets are discovered every year, see [1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]