Talk:Star formation

message: Star formation and Star Formation currently point to different articles. They should be merged or disambiguated in some way. -- BenRG 09:40, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Star Formation & Star formation

message: Why do planets form if gravitational collapse is insufficient to form stars?  I gather from this article that it is all or nothing.  Jupiter is supposed to be a failed star.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.122.165 (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Stars form through gravitational collapse. I'm not clear how you concluded otherwise. Regards, RJH (talk) 04:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to star formations 

message: Wouldn't some coverage of the following information be appropriate for this page?
* Jeans Instability
* Bok globule
* Protoplanetary disk
* T Tauri star
* Herbig Ae/Be stars
* Herbig-Haro object
* Hayashi track
* Henyey track
* Brown dwarf
and the formation of binary star systems? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions 

message: This partially relates to RJH's comment above. Wikipedia has a range of articles on different aspects of the star formation process with many of them containing excellent material. However, I found from browsing that a lot of that material doesn't seem to be in the right place and that much of it describes the broader picture of star formation rather than the specific sub-object or process mentioned in the article title. It is my opinion that star formation articles need more of a general framework. To that end I've created a nav box for this astronomy subsection to try and give some sense to these articles as whole. I don't claim its perfect, but some sort of unify construct would help focus the topic. --Jason Kirk 15:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Star Formation Nav Box

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: I have removed 2 dot points from the pathfinder objects as they are clearly not pathfinder objects. One point was a statement which did not have a appropriate reference and the other was an unreferenced irrelevant quote. Coffeeassured (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed irrelevant information from pathfinder objects

message: Does it say in the article that the process takes millions of years?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.192.12 (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: ==

message: In the discovery channel, I have seen how important is supermassive black hole for the formation of stars of the galaxy. After taking out the summary of a part, I fount it like this :
It said that the gas of the early universe collapsed to form a giant black hole which immediately started feeding off gas and creating a quasar. The energy released by the quasar would create intense change in temperature causing it to condense into stars.
Could not we use it on the article. --Extra999 (talk) 12:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If a suitable reference could be found that shows active supermassive black holes cause triggered star formation (or else reduce star formation), then it could be added to the 'Cloud collapse' section. I'll have a look. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay I found a reference and added a paragraph. Is that all right?—RJH (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Supermassive black hole]]

message: I have put a small paragraph at the end of the article's text giving a link to the new discovery in 2009 of Pea galaxies.
This is relevant and gives a link to the wiki article Pea galaxy. Richard Nowell (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the relevance is quite unclear, at least to me. It is about a type of galaxy that has a high rate of star formation, but it placed in a section discussion how low or high mass stars are formed. The topic is more relevant to the Galaxy article, where content such as Starburst galaxy is discussed. Also, no offense, but the actual entry also doesn't say much of value.—RJH (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Pea galaxies

message: Protostar cloud clump "cores" contract "up and to the left" along a Kelvin-Helmholtz contraction phase track, until they reach the Hayashi Limit at the "peak" of that track across the HRD.  Then, protostars, having "made it over the Hayashi forbidden zone hump", then "drop straight down" at (nearly) constant surface temperature near 3000K, along the Hayashi track.  Massive-enough stars (>0.5Msun) then "veer leftwards" onto Henyey tracks.  Overall, densities and temperatures only increase, the entire time.66.235.38.214 (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Protostar collapse section errant ?

message: I don't know if asking questions in the Talk page is allowed, but here I go:
The "Protostar" section states that "This occurs when the density is about 10−13 g cm−3" I'm confused about the "cm−3". Does this mean an negative cubed? Does that make any sense? Also, shouldn't there be a "/"? Like so: "This occurs when the density is about 10−13 g / cm−3"
62.12.14.25 (talk) 09:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The negative exponent means reciprocal. 1 g cm–3 = 1 g/cm3 = 1 gram per cubic centimetre. The professional astronomy literature always uses the negative exponent, but maybe the / would be better here. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 09:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  For a layperson the / is easier to understand.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.12.14.25 (talk) 11:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  queation 

message: I think that it would be a good idea to remove this section, because this topic is not particularly important to star formation. Instead, some of the results from Herschel about filamentary molecular clouds, e.g. André et al. (2010), are more important. I can try to track down the empty-space paper, and insert it as a reference elsewhere in the article. OtterAM (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. That section is just a summary of a new bit of research (interesting, to be sure), but it doesn't fit in the flow and is just way too specific for this article. Here is the diff with the text, since it might be worth putting in somewhere else (perhaps in a different article). —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 14:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the section "Empty space" 

message: The term "Stellar ignition" redirects to this page, even though the article doesn't seem to use any variant of the word "ignite." It might be a good idea to have a small section explaining what it means for a star to "ignite." This is actually an ambiguous term. For astronomers it's the point at which a protostar becomes a star, defined as the moment it becomes visible because it has blown away enough of the surrounding dust. In astrophysics it sometimes means the point at which the protostar has become hot enough and bright enough to slow down the rate of infalling matter so that its net mass stops increasing, thus marking the transition from protostar to pre-main-sequence star. After that it slowly begins blowing away dust and gas, although it can be a hundreds of thousands of years before this is visible from afar. And finally, ignite can mean the point at which a pre-main-sequence star begins to experience full-scale nuclear fusion and enters the main sequence. For our sun, that happened tens of millions of years after the first two events.
There is a popular misconception that all three definitions are synonymous. This article might be a good place to clear up that misconception. Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stellar ignition 

message: I think recent news on this topic should be highlighted 
 109.206.156.72 (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I agree. More generally, Wikipedia needs an article about the nuclear star cluster in the Milky Way. There is a lot of material on this topic, and, maybe, if I have time, I will write/contribute to that article. OtterAM (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interestingly, the article on nuclear star clusters in general is 1 day old. OtterAM (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star formation around the black holes 

message: I don't have the knowledge to create this section, and online searches don't readily return information such as, who was the first scientist to propose a method of star formation. What significant efforts, if any, were there prior to 1981? And of course, Richard Larson's contribution through his '81 paper in MNRAS would feature significantly in such a section, but I assume there was work before him. And it would be great to have a thumbnail sketch of significant updates to his theory. Thoughts? Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host  Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host  (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , we should really have a history section here. Theories of star formation go back to the 1700s and Larsen's work is only one part of the modern theories. There is a nice presentation from 2012 on star formation that includes some of the history here. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  It'd be great to add a History section of the theories... 

message: I think it would be good to add very brief info about this, such as about / info from the study below (e.g. to section "Observations"). This is featured in 2022 in science (January):
Astronomers report, based on new spatial and dynamical constraints, that the Local Bubble, a ~1,000-light-years wide superbubble, is driving nearly all recent star formation near the Sun and that it originates ~14 Myr ago.
 Prototyperspective (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please update with info about the role of superbubbles in star formation