This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Star system article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Because of the use of the term 'Star System' in both show-business and astronomy/astrophysics, does this page need to be made into a disambiguation page? There's at least one astronomy page linked to this one ( Proxima Centauri). -- rparle 01:41, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
Constellation and Star System are not at all the same thing, but we have no content for the star system article yet. Best option is to blank/delete it until someone wants to write it. -- rparle 23:38, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)
Hello! I've noted recent statements about why this distinction has been so characterised; however (perhaps I'm missing this), I do not see any cited references (particularly from astronomical references) substantiating these distinctions. Please corroborate and verify. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 09:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Hello again! Further to my prior request (unanswered) and after some digging, my search for authoritative definitions for some of these terms has born some fruit:
EXCELLENT! Cameronbassir ( talk) 17:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Cameronbassir
In some respects, some of these clearly differ with definitions and interpretations already presented in the appropriate Wp articles. Based on this information and unless there are reputable opinions/citations to the contrary, I will be making these appropriate editions to the relevant articles. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 01:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
User:Nurg has recently added a citation flag to the current definition regarding 'star system' and its applicability to (a system having) just one star. Considering the above (including apparent contraindications in defintions) and particularly regarding usage of the term, I believe this is unjustified; for example:
Similarly, perhaps most importantly, the example of our own single star system -- the Solar System -- cannot be ignored.
As such, I am removing the citation tag. Cogito ergo sumo 11:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Nurg 00:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Cogito. Part of our problem is that people can take common words like system, single and star/stellar and string them together but mean different things. So, depending on the context, "single star system" could mean "single-star planetary system" (eg, Solar System), "single multiple-star star system" or "single-star something-else system". My approach to defining Wikipedia articles is, in order:
Applying these principles to this article:
The addition of "a star" to the article definition doesn't make much sense. A star alone is covered by the star article obviously. A system of planets etc orbiting a single star is covered by the planetary system article.
What type of further information do you think is required? Nurg 00:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The main problem, as I see it, is that there isn't yet an agreed term for an extrasolar solar system. I think this article should focus on the agreed definition of "stellar system" (that is, multiple star systems), and that the articles for "planetary system", "solar system" and "extrasolar planet" should note that a generic term for what we call the solar system has yet to be fully settled. Serendipodous 13:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
As the "Solar System" refers to the system of Sol (the Sun), would it then not follow that because Sol is a star, the Solar System is an instance of a stellar system? This would then imply that a stellar system would comprise a star system and a planetary system. If so, we should not equate "star system" with "stellar system", and "stellar system" should have its own article. LordOfPens ( talk) 05:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
This page claims Nu Scorpii has "at least seven stars", but the actual Nu Scorpii page mentions only a pair of close binaries with one being a spectroscopic double, for a total of 5 stars. I've replaced Nu Scorpii with castor, which is a sextuple system, and better known. CFLeon 04:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I can't see any reason why we should have separate article for triple star systems.-- JyriL talk 17:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
91 Aquarii is listed as a quintuple system, probably it is an obsolete theory, or a major confusion somehow, when following diverse links i find four or five star systems with at most three components, see Talk:91_Aquarii#Disputed. ... said: Rursus ( mbork³) 18:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Alcor/ Mizar are now considered bound together which makes the Alcor binary and the Mizar quadruple add up to a hextuple. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.5028 (Astrophysical Journal) Aidan Karley ( talk) 12:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Not mentioned in this article, would be useful to understand the nomenclature for star systems. For example, Alpha Centauri is a triple star system, the individual stars are Alpha Centauri A, Alpha Centauri B and Alpha Centauri C, however the system is referred to as Alpha Centauri or Alpha Centauri AB - the reason for this is not entirely clear just looking at this article. Perhaps this article could describe the conventions used and how they are determined based on how stars are gravitationally bound. -- EvenGreenerFish ( talk) 07:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't (a) in the diagram necessarily have to be unstable? -- JorisvS ( talk) 09:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
What are the frequencies of double, triple, etc. systems relative to single stars? -- JorisvS ( talk) 14:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Every source I can find online says that Mintaka is a four-star system, with an OII and a BV star pair forming an Algol-type eclipsing binary, and two distant companions (which seem to be mostly unstudied, but one source has the brighter of the two as a B-type star of some sort). However, it's listed as a quintuple system here, with no citation. Unless someone can back this up, I'm going to go ahead and change it. -- 203.57.209.105 ( talk) 03:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Star system. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://eaa.iop.org/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion about whether The Sun ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) should redirect to Sun ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) or to Sun (disambiguation) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). THe discussion is at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 25#The Sun. The editor whose username is Z0 06:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
"If there are no tidal effects, no perturbation from other forces, and no transfer of mass from one star to the other, such a system is stable, and both stars will trace out an elliptical orbit around the barycenter of the system indefinitely" I'm not an astrophysicist, but don't binary systems lose energy via gravitational radiation, and therefore eventually spiral into the barycentre? I appreciate it would be very slow, but it's not indefinite is it?
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Star system article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Because of the use of the term 'Star System' in both show-business and astronomy/astrophysics, does this page need to be made into a disambiguation page? There's at least one astronomy page linked to this one ( Proxima Centauri). -- rparle 01:41, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
Constellation and Star System are not at all the same thing, but we have no content for the star system article yet. Best option is to blank/delete it until someone wants to write it. -- rparle 23:38, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)
Hello! I've noted recent statements about why this distinction has been so characterised; however (perhaps I'm missing this), I do not see any cited references (particularly from astronomical references) substantiating these distinctions. Please corroborate and verify. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 09:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Hello again! Further to my prior request (unanswered) and after some digging, my search for authoritative definitions for some of these terms has born some fruit:
EXCELLENT! Cameronbassir ( talk) 17:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Cameronbassir
In some respects, some of these clearly differ with definitions and interpretations already presented in the appropriate Wp articles. Based on this information and unless there are reputable opinions/citations to the contrary, I will be making these appropriate editions to the relevant articles. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 01:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
User:Nurg has recently added a citation flag to the current definition regarding 'star system' and its applicability to (a system having) just one star. Considering the above (including apparent contraindications in defintions) and particularly regarding usage of the term, I believe this is unjustified; for example:
Similarly, perhaps most importantly, the example of our own single star system -- the Solar System -- cannot be ignored.
As such, I am removing the citation tag. Cogito ergo sumo 11:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Nurg 00:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Cogito. Part of our problem is that people can take common words like system, single and star/stellar and string them together but mean different things. So, depending on the context, "single star system" could mean "single-star planetary system" (eg, Solar System), "single multiple-star star system" or "single-star something-else system". My approach to defining Wikipedia articles is, in order:
Applying these principles to this article:
The addition of "a star" to the article definition doesn't make much sense. A star alone is covered by the star article obviously. A system of planets etc orbiting a single star is covered by the planetary system article.
What type of further information do you think is required? Nurg 00:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The main problem, as I see it, is that there isn't yet an agreed term for an extrasolar solar system. I think this article should focus on the agreed definition of "stellar system" (that is, multiple star systems), and that the articles for "planetary system", "solar system" and "extrasolar planet" should note that a generic term for what we call the solar system has yet to be fully settled. Serendipodous 13:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
As the "Solar System" refers to the system of Sol (the Sun), would it then not follow that because Sol is a star, the Solar System is an instance of a stellar system? This would then imply that a stellar system would comprise a star system and a planetary system. If so, we should not equate "star system" with "stellar system", and "stellar system" should have its own article. LordOfPens ( talk) 05:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
This page claims Nu Scorpii has "at least seven stars", but the actual Nu Scorpii page mentions only a pair of close binaries with one being a spectroscopic double, for a total of 5 stars. I've replaced Nu Scorpii with castor, which is a sextuple system, and better known. CFLeon 04:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I can't see any reason why we should have separate article for triple star systems.-- JyriL talk 17:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
91 Aquarii is listed as a quintuple system, probably it is an obsolete theory, or a major confusion somehow, when following diverse links i find four or five star systems with at most three components, see Talk:91_Aquarii#Disputed. ... said: Rursus ( mbork³) 18:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Alcor/ Mizar are now considered bound together which makes the Alcor binary and the Mizar quadruple add up to a hextuple. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.5028 (Astrophysical Journal) Aidan Karley ( talk) 12:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Not mentioned in this article, would be useful to understand the nomenclature for star systems. For example, Alpha Centauri is a triple star system, the individual stars are Alpha Centauri A, Alpha Centauri B and Alpha Centauri C, however the system is referred to as Alpha Centauri or Alpha Centauri AB - the reason for this is not entirely clear just looking at this article. Perhaps this article could describe the conventions used and how they are determined based on how stars are gravitationally bound. -- EvenGreenerFish ( talk) 07:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't (a) in the diagram necessarily have to be unstable? -- JorisvS ( talk) 09:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
What are the frequencies of double, triple, etc. systems relative to single stars? -- JorisvS ( talk) 14:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Every source I can find online says that Mintaka is a four-star system, with an OII and a BV star pair forming an Algol-type eclipsing binary, and two distant companions (which seem to be mostly unstudied, but one source has the brighter of the two as a B-type star of some sort). However, it's listed as a quintuple system here, with no citation. Unless someone can back this up, I'm going to go ahead and change it. -- 203.57.209.105 ( talk) 03:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Star system. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://eaa.iop.org/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion about whether The Sun ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) should redirect to Sun ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) or to Sun (disambiguation) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). THe discussion is at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 25#The Sun. The editor whose username is Z0 06:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
"If there are no tidal effects, no perturbation from other forces, and no transfer of mass from one star to the other, such a system is stable, and both stars will trace out an elliptical orbit around the barycenter of the system indefinitely" I'm not an astrophysicist, but don't binary systems lose energy via gravitational radiation, and therefore eventually spiral into the barycentre? I appreciate it would be very slow, but it's not indefinite is it?