Talk:Stellar evolution

message: In the section for low mass stars, it says "A star of less than about 2.6 space and solar mass.."..guess there is a problem here...could someone correct this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.168.161 (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  — Better now, four years later? The sentence is no longer there. TNKS, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The symbol \begin{smallmatrix}M_\odot\end{smallmatrix} for solar mass is used without definition.
TommoB (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. Corrected that. -- Stiip (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undefined Symbol 

message: The image "Life cycle of the sun" quite at the beginning of the page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Life_Cycle.svg) scrambles layout at any resolution below 1280 x 1024 in FF 5. Don't know whether that's a FF issue (IE in this case handles it better) only, but is there any chance to correct that? (I'm not a CSS native so I won't change the code right away.)
-- Stiip (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It'd be nice if that image could be modified so that it has a vertical orientation rather than horizontal; doing so would probably make it a better fit for many Wikipedia page layouts. Maybe I'll give it a shot... Regards, RJH (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout 

message: Stars cannot be more than about 120 solar masses because the outer layers would be expelled by the extreme radiation. Although lower mass stars normally do not burn off their outer layers so rapidly, they can likewise avoid becoming red giants or red supergiants if they are in binary systems close enough so that the companion star strips off the envelope as it expands, or if they rotate rapidly enough so that convection extends all the way from the core to the surface, resulting in the absence of a separate core and envelope due to thorough mixing
Not true....
http://io9.com/5596886/the-largest-star-ever-found-is-300-times-bigger-and-10-million-times-brighter-than-the-sun
Thank you and keep up the good work peeps  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.145.81.60 (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive Stars 

message: Silicon burning process says that the end product of the nuclear burning process is Nickel-56 with minutes of Zinc-60 produced. It also says that silicon-burning process lasts about a day or so. Half-life of Nickel-56 is about 10 days and then decays into cobalt-56 with a half-life about 77 days which decays into iron-56. 
The discrepancy is that various images on Wikipedia show that pre-supernova state star's core consists of iron, rather than nickel and cobalt, despite only small amounts of iron being created within a day before supernova occurs. Unless a star releases energy via decay of nickel-56 and cobalt-56, should the main element in star's core be nickel with some cobalt instead of iron? --Artman40 (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Silicon burning process article says the supernova explosion occurs once the iron starts to be fused with helium to produce nickel. Hence it should be an iron-nickel core. My understanding is that additional radioactive elements are produced during the explosion itself. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Massive star pre-supernova state core composition discrepancy

message: Do we have an entire article about stellar evolution without a picture of evolutionary tracks on the HR diagram?  The closest is that absolutely horrible and inaccurate indication of the sun's evolution.  This picture is better although not without it's faults:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stellar_evolutionary_tracks-en.svg
Lithopsian (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have created a blank evolutionary tracks image and put it into this article with annotations.  It looks a little bare at the moment and needs a better caption, but I think it is the start of something useful for this article.  Anyone can edit the annotations so we can easily make it a lot better, or use it in different ways in different locations.  The solar track image is still there for comparison, but it is so horrible that I'm going to delete it soon whatever else happens. Lithopsian (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the much-improved image. However, I might suggest that you get it ready for display with edits in your userspace before putting it in the article, as getting that right will require a good bit of tweaking. A couple comments: 1) The image is too wide at 500px; it takes most (but not all) of a column). 350px would be better. I would have made that change myself, but it requires modifying all the annotation indices too. 2) The title should not be "proposed stellar evolutionary tracks image"! —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 21:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I improved the caption.  Too much?  The width is tricky.  I tried 350px (easy, just downsize all the annotations by 0.7) and I couldn't read it clearly.  Remember that annotated images can't be expended like a thumbnail, what you see (or can't see) is what you get. Lithopsian (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this how to use the talk page? Sorry if this is off topic, but I've never used one before. FluxLightSpectrum (talk) 05:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolutionary tracks 

message: It would be great if someone could do a section (better yet - a new article) about the different generations of stars (currently, Star Generation goes to the James Brown song!) and what their properties are. For example, to discuss how first generation stars and their respective solar systems have only the lightest elements such as H and He, their comparatively short lifespans and how they are likely to only have gas-giant "superearths" orbiting at extremely close distances as planets; how after a supernova you get heavier elements in the second generation, what type of planets are likely; how a new supernova leads to generation III with the heaviest elements, etc; and to discuss what the likely timespans are for each generation and between the generations... and to say when (second/third generation...?) life is likely to occur thanks to the presence of the elements C, N, O, P, etc...
So, please someone in the know create such a section, or better yet new article. Thanks! BigSteve (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Already exists.  See Population I, for example.  That is the correct terminology.  Maybe those sections could be expanded. Lithopsian (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I knew I'd read it way back when, but spent ages looking for it yesterday in vain. I disambig'd the song page. Cheers! BigSteve (talk) 09:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  star generations 

message: Why is there no mention of plasma recombination or heterolysis? Are we talking about stars here or pseudoscience?Wavyinfinity (talk) 19:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just plainly a preposterous proposition. This has absolutely nothing to do with stars or stellar evolution at all. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plasma Recombination 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Stellar evolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120204173630/http://www.dtm.ciw.edu/boss/definition.html to http://www.dtm.ciw.edu/boss/definition.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120608135141/http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/~hammer/lager/pair.pdf to http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/~hammer/lager/pair.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130402053638/http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14968-first-pulsar-identified-by-its-gamma-rays-alone.html?feedId=online-news_rss20 to http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14968-first-pulsar-identified-by-its-gamma-rays-alone.html?feedId=online-news_rss20
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Stellar evolution. 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/20030627124651/http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/HIGHLIGHT/2001/highlight0102_e.html to http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/HIGHLIGHT/2001/highlight0102_e.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030803015427/http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/HIGHLIGHT/2003/highlight0306_e.html to http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/HIGHLIGHT/2003/highlight0306_e.html
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) 23:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: An 'History' section has recently been added. It seems a bit off topic as it cover the Chronology of the universe more so than the history of stellar evolution. It originally included a sentence about the formation of heavier elements and the use op copper in Mesopotamia. Both statements were untrue and Mesopotamian metallurgy is very off topic. The one remaining sentence in the section includes no citation and contains little information. Does this section need to exist? If it must to exist it needs to be expanded and sourced. Kardoen (talk) 09:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: How about now?  Lithopsian (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Just like when I removed it before it got added back. This time it was even more gibberish.Kardoen (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Just keep at it.  Try to leave constructive edit messages, plus this talk page.  Eventually they'll get the idea or get blocked.  So far, it appears to be well-meaning, but not especially valuable.  Lithopsian (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section