Talk:Star

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2021

There is a typo in the "Nuclear fusion reaction pathways" section, the word "because" in "but becuase enormous numbers" is misspelled. DustyDonkey (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

All set. Thanks for the heads up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

"Kwerralye" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Kwerralye. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26#Kwerralye until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Certes (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2023

Change the title from Star to Star (astronomical object) Rest in peace Technoblade you were a legend (talk) 07:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Lemonaka (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC first. Praemonitus (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

add a picture of the night sky

taken with a camera to represent how the naked eye sees it. Rguyr (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a 'Night sky' article with such pictures if that is what you want to see. Praemonitus (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

how do you remove a topic? Rguyr (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

If you mean this one, I don't think you should. Others might have opinions on the subject that they want to express. Praemonitus (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Star position in relation to the Sun

Is it possible to create a graph of each star in its real position (below/above; distance, etc.) in outer space in relation to the solar system plane/the Sun as the center? Let me explain why: when I see the information given as declination, ascension, latitude/longitude and other data, they do not match the graphs on the various websites (in addition to having too many stars with lines that confuse us). Other confusions appear that have no relation whatsoever to the official data. For example: on the internet I find the position of Aldebaran above or below the plane of the solar system, they show it to the left or right of other stars, the graphs with other terms, near or far from the Sun and so on. Many of them are more confusing than informative. The ideal would be to include in each article of each individual star its position in relation to the Sun and it could even contain a system that contains the declination, ascension, ecliptic latitude/longitude. It could also be in the following perspectives: the plane seen from above and from the side (West on the left and East on the right). And don't forget to place an arrow indicating the center of the Milky Way. 2804:1B3:6601:419B:3083:299E:2D9D:8565 (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Given the immense number of stars in the universe, that's not really practical. Perhaps the charts on List of nearest stars would help? Praemonitus (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I understand. Unfortunately I cannot put drawings here to illustrate what I imagine. I will reformulate my idea. Thanks. 2804:1B3:6601:419B:3083:299E:2D9D:8565 (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

"failed starfailed star"

FYI Failed star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Proper motion is not the same as parallax.

The paragraph where proper motion is described confuses parallax with proper motion. It should distinguish between them instead. This is a serious and obvious mistake. This article is 20 years old; in all that time, no one could be bothered to correct it? Bcgirton (talk) 08:50, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Should a collage image, like the one on the page for asteroids, be added?

We have images of resolved stars ( List of stars with resolved images - Wikipedia ) so why not? - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 09:36, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

To what purpose? I mean, unless you're actually illustrating different aspects of a star it's just eye candy. E.g. normal star, mass transfer, rapid rotation, pulsation, flare, protostar, &c. But then you can argue that those illustrations belong in the appropriate sections. Praemonitus (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

A possible mistake of year in the history part

In the section of observational history, it says that “Edward Pickering discovered the first spectroscopic binary in 1899 when he observed the periodic splitting of the spectral lines of the star Mizar in a 104-day period.” It doesn’t have a citation and I believe the year 1899 is a mistake. I found this online, which looks like the abstract of Pickering’s original article and suggest the year of discovering the first spectroscopic binary should be 1889. Maybe someone can verify this. — Louer2 (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2026 (UTC)