Talk:Luminous blue variable

message: The theoretical Mass Limit mentioned in Hypergiants is 120, while here it says 150. It does vary slightly depending on the star's composition, but isn't this too high? --Acoyauh (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size limit? 

message: "Hypergiants should not be confused with luminous blue variables. A hypergiant is classified as such because of its size and mass loss rate, whereas a luminous blue variable is thought to be a massive blue supergiant going through an evolutionary phase where it loses a large amount of mass." - page on Hypergiants.
"Luminous blue variables...are very bright, blue, hypergiant variable stars" - LBV
I don't have any expertise in the area to correct it, but this seems a blatant contradiction that would be worth bringing up. 72.187.145.13 (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction with "Hypergiant" 

message: I think that the term hypernova is used improperly.  Saying "If they were any larger, their gravity would be insufficient to balance their radiation pressure and they would blow themselves apart in a hypernova" implies that super Eddington luminosity is the direct cause of a hypernova.  This is not the case.  A hypernova marks the death of the most massive stars following the collapse of the core into a black hole.  This doesn't have anything to do with a large luminosity blowing off the stars outer layers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.118.147.106 (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypernova? 

message: There is a list in the article of what are described as "some of the best known" LBVs.  Most of them are not especially well known at all, but the list is far from a complete list of all LBVs.  There is also a Wikipedia category for LBVs which is even shorter than the list in this article.  This should really be rationalised and certainly the category needs to be at least as complete as any list we make in this article.  The list of galactic stars confirmed as LBVs is really very short at about a dozen and could easily go in the article.  Then there are a handful more in other local group galaxies.  The list of candidate LBVs, stars very likely to be LBVs but not studied long enough or in enough detail to be positive, is perhaps a bit too long and most are meaningless numbers from IR and X-Ray surveys, but a few certainly deserve mention.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lithopsian (talk • contribs) 13:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The list 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*
*Support. One comment, in the astronomical vernacular, "star" is omitted because the subject of conversation is already established as stars. In Wikipedia article titles, that isn't established. So consider my support weak - I'd prefer it because I also am used to seeing LBV without the "star", but it's not clear it is necessarily clearer for a non-astronomical audience. I notice that Red Giant and White Dwarf don't have the "star" at the end, but both require disambiguations. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I think that the list is rather long, so should be split off into a separate list article -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is not so big that it needs to split. The list is not stupidly long either. Op47 (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

text: I don't think either the article or the list is currently too long.  Yet the list is likely to expand in length (and perhaps width?) and already a good chunk of the entries are really not that interesting.  Lithopsian (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  split off list