Talk:List of most massive stars

message: Anyone mind if I move this from List of heaviest stars to List of the most massive stars? Weight and mass have different meanings in space! AndrewRT - Talk 21:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-name

message: Galaxy's heavyweight champ loses its crown AFP. BlankVerse 06:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pismis 24-1 in the news

message: Well, after added a few more stars to the list, I have now come across the following table  from the following site , which lists a good 100 more ! I'll let someone else add these :)
For those interested, the following pdfs may also be of use, as they also list massive some stars amongst the discussions ...
* http://www.stsci.de/fg/pdf/crowther2007.pdf
* http://www.astroscu.unam.mx/massive_stars/news/news83.pdf
* http://www.chara.gsu.edu/~wiita/UML_Stars_obs.pdf
* http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0610356v2
* http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.1742v1
The Yeti (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Umpteen loads more stars

message: Listed in the table as 120 solar masses, this has recently been shown to be a pair of stars making HD 93129 a triple system rather than a binary, so HD 93129 A would have a smaller mass. http://www.arcetri.astro.it/iaus227/posters/maizapellaniz_j.pdf . HD 93129 is missing from the English wikipedia but exists in http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_93129 Mollwollfumble (talk) 01:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: HD 93129 A

message: I notice that, although due to mangled markup it's not visible in the article, the table assigns a mass of 200 solar masses to the Pistol Star.  According to http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/pistol.htm, this is a possible initial mass for the star rather than its estimated current mass.  How should this be indicated in the table?  Should it be indicated in the table?  Should only current masses be listed in the table?  Osteoderm_Jacket (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Pistol Star

message: Perhaps we should trim the list to not bother listing stars smaller than (say) 100 solar masses? There's no point in having the smaller stars on the list.  Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably.  The list is pretty much complete (with known data) to lower than  though.  Maybe near .  Below that we just have a random sample of supergiants. Lithopsian (talk) 10:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of list 

message: @
@
Ok. This article says that the legend is; red for hypergiant (yet most of the hot stars there are hypergiants and are definitely not red); Dark blue is for Wolf-Rayet (That's fine); Light blue is for O (yet some stars that are luminous blue variables (I'll get to that later) are listed as O-type stars and then are sometimes listed as luminous blue variables); Lighter blue is for B (Most luminous blue variables have a B-type spectrum so the article uses B-type sometimes and LBV-type sometimes which isn't good. Plus, the article lists 6 Cassiopeiae as a B-type star and not as a A-type star, which it actually is); White is for luminous blue variable (Now this has a large problem. Most LBVs aren't white, but when they are, the article uses the LBV color (white). When they aren't, the article puts them as something else.(B,O etc.)
Someone should do something about this error. Any ideas? hi (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is ''messed'' up

message: I would like to point out that the mass values for Eta Carinae A are . However, it is placed among relatively lower mass stars such as WR 102ka (Peony Nebula Star). The upper mass value of the star should not be disregarded because a new article has been found showing a lower mass. It only provides more uncertainty, and a larger range for possible mass values of the star. It should be placed higher on the list with these given values. 
Also, I would like to add that the mass of Eta Carinae A can strongly be constrained to  due to its high luminosity.
Thanks. 174.110.102.238 17:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The stars are generally sorted by the lower range of their mass; there are some obvious failures to do so in the list due to the haphazard nature of changes on this list, but the general principle mostly applies. Given that Eta Carinae A is somewhere between 100 to 200 solar masses, it seems to be placed at the correct place. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Placement of Eta Carinae A

message: Not by any stretch of the imagination the most massive star now, but since it was once thought to be and because it crops up from time to time on various blogs and APOD, it would be far more relevant to the other notable stars section than the other Pismis 24 entries. Lithopsian (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's Pismis 24-1? 

message: I want to know the mass of some of the naked-eye stars especially the brightest stars for the purpose of comparison.
Julliene mae (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ask for naked-eye and well-known stars 

message: We should trim back the list of "example" non-massive stars; the list is supposed to be of the most massive stars, with "a few" example stars of lower mass. I'm guessing that trimming that list down to maybe a dozen of the more well known stars might do it. Any objections? Tarl N. (discuss) 18:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've trimmed it more than once, but they keep creeping back.  Everyone thinks their favourite stars should be in the list, massive or not. Lithopsian (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: How about numbering the list, and instead of "A few additional examples with masses lower ..." say "Twenty examples with masses lower ..." (or some limit), so editors will be more reluctant to add, and other editors will be more likely to truncate?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples list 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of most massive stars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071028091902/http://www.3towers.com/sGrasslands/Essays/HeavyStar/HeavyStar01.asp to http://www.3towers.com/sGrasslands/Essays/HeavyStar/HeavyStar01.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: New paper: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/697/1/701/pdf - table 4 shows lots of clusters. I've seen one of the refshttps://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2005/05/aa0447-04.pdf, that alone gives lots of stars. Someone want to  add them?PNSMurthy  (talk) 04:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paper 

message: This paper has a value of 587 Msol for the star HD 269333, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.5474.pdf.
What is up with this value? Why is it impossibly high? Nussun05 (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Probable binary.  The mass is calculated naively from the luminosity.  If the observed luminosity is boosted by an OB companion, then the calculated mass will go off the chart.  Lithopsian (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  587 Solar Mass star??? 

message: Are their mass estimates reliable? If they're larger in both mass and radius than R136a1, then why are they less luminous? --Carnifex33 (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Westerhout 49-2 and BAT99-98 

message: The title is List of most massive stars. But these are stars discovered, so I suggest the writer does rename it to List of most massive known stars. Cosmicwolfanimations (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title has small inaccuracy  

message: Someone added a "sticky header" template to the main list (heaviest-stars, vs. nearby semi-heavies). I find it annoying. I think it wouldn't be that bad if it was only a single-line header, but haven't been able to compress the heading enough to do that. Am I the only one who finds it a nuissance? Any reactions to taking it out? (I will admit that a sticky column heading can be nice, but I think that this one is not nice.)12.75.128.20 (talk) 08:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sticky header annoys me – am I the only one?