Talk:Dwarf star

Alot of merges

Should orange, white-yellow, blue dwarf articles all merge with this. These articles seems like its too little to write, and they don't contain much contents.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 03:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are commonly used terms; I don't think they should even have articles as stars (in fact, they don't). What do you propose writing? This is just a disambiguation page anyway -- it shouldn't have any substantial content. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 03:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what should we do with orange, blue, white-yellow dwarf star articles. Those is stubs, and not much to write. Should we R# to main sequence article?--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 00:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orange dwarf redirects to K V star: I think that's appropriate. Blue dwarf is a disambiguation page, again appropriate (I think) because the term most often refers to a blue compact dwarf galaxy, but rarely refers to blue dwarf (red dwarf stage). White-yellow dwarf doesn't exist for good reason; is anyone really likely to type that by accident? I don't think any action is necessary or advisable on any of these. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 00:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about FV star, or OV star. Should they be emrge to any articles. They seems way too stubby, and very little we can write.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 01:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that pages for the individual classifications are worth keeping as separate pages, although you're right that there is a limited amount of material. I could see combining each of those pages into one with sections or a table to describe the individual classifications as well, though. If a merge is proposed, a central place like WT:WikiProject Astronomical Objects is probably the best place to get opinions. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 16:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Dwarf star" designation deprecated for most star types?

Not long ago I heard or read somewhere that the term "dwarf star" had been falling out of favor with reference to the main sequence, because we now know that the vast majority of stars in existence are dwarfs by that definition. By contrast, I believe that most of the stars we can see from Earth are giants, because only such stars are sufficiently luminous to be visible to us given the distances involved. I feel there should be mention of this in the article, but naturally I'm not about to do so unless I can back it up with a cite, and I can't remember (or find) where I got that from. Does anybody have a cite? What does the community think of adding this content to the article?Pithecanthropus4152 (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dwarf star is certainly a less relevant and less-used term than it was a few decades ago. As described in the article, its original meaning is now somewhat lost in our modern understanding of stellar evolution and relationships. It isn't really true to say that most stars we can see are giants, though. You can browse List of brightest stars for a very small sample. I didn't count, but main sequence stars may be in the majority, certainly very numerous. You could also examine the Bright Star Catalogue for a much larger sample, essentially of all naked-eye stars. Or the even larger Hipparcos catalogue. Lithopsian (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutron stars vs white dwarfs

Are neutron stars sometimes included in the scope of dwarf stars as well, though (like white dwarfs) are no longer undergoing fusion ? 2600:1008:B145:4076:52A:975C:6362:2E79 (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]