Talk:Subdwarf B star

A Proposed Uniform Nomenclature for Pulsating Hot Subdwarf Stars

The nomenclature for pulsating hot subdwarf stars has been a mess for some time, as the discoveries were too new for consensus to have been reached yet. The article at this link clears it up: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010IBVS.5927....1K Bruddl (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Subdwarfs vs Hot Subdwarfs

If I may, hot subdwarfs have nothing to do with traditional subdwarf stars. The name is misleading and that has to be pointed out at the beggining. I'm sorry I can't do the change, I'm not as fluent in english as I should be. For verification about sdB's: Ulrich Heber's article is: "Hot Subdwarf Stars", DOI: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101836 (not-free on Net). Al Ganonim (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I have added a sentence. Do you think we should have a cool subdwarf article? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe that already existing subcategory on "Subdwarf stars" page is good enough. If I expand my knowledge on sd stars I shall contribute some more. Thank you for your help! Al Ganonim (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Betsy stars

I have searched the reference for Betsy stars. I have never heard this name, and the reference does not explain the origin or usage of the name. Furthermore, references therein purporting to explain the so-called Betsy stars do not mention the name. At all. I propose this needless confusion to the nomenclature be dropped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjmurphy6 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Subdwarf B star. 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/20110721003323/http://www.sternwarte.uni-erlangen.de/~heber/araa/araa_revised.pdf to http://www.sternwarte.uni-erlangen.de/~heber/araa/araa_revised.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Planetary systems

The 2015 paper "Planetary candidates around the pulsating sdB star KIC 5807616 considered doubtful" and the 2019 paper "Analysis of putative exoplanetary signatures found in light curves of two sdBV stars observed by Kepler" (published in Astronomy and Astrophysics) cast doubt on the existence of the Kepler-70 exoplanets. The authors of the latter paper state (among other things):

"we performed this test on the F 1 and F 2 sig- nals that were observed in KIC 5807616 sdBV. Both signals have larger frequency variations than expected from the exoplanetary origin. After a careful study, we classified the F 1 and F 2 fre- quencies as resulting from a beating of intermediate-amplitude pulsating g modes."

I would like to edit this page (and the Kepler-70/70c/Subdwarf-B pages) to cite these papers and to add a note saying something like "Recent research has suggested that the Kepler-70 exoplanets may not exist, and that the apparent variations in brightness can be explained through other means".

I'm not a professional astronomer and don't know if counter-arguments to those in the papers exist, so I thought I'd post on the talk pages first and see what other editors thought. However, after looking things up further, authors including Ulrich Heber have cited the 2015 paper in their work and appear to find its arguments convincing, so I'm planning on making the edit anyway. I'm still posting on the talk page, though, as you can see!

(I'm posting near-identical messages to this one on the other three relevant talk pages. I hope it doesn't trigger any sort of automated spam-detection.)

Someone else pointed me to the 2019 paper during a Stack Exchange discussion; I don't normally keep up with this research, and hadn't known about the 2015 paper until today either.

AstridRedfern (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Move

Could this please be moved to 'B-type subdwarfs'? The name doesn't seem right. If the article has the right name, please confirm it. Until confirmed, this article will be moved.

Thanks!

PNSMurthy (talk) 05:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Merge with O-type subdwarf into blue subdwarf and rearrange of the sections

How much do they live? What happens once the blue subdwarf stage ends? Erkin Alp Güney 09:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I also propose merging Subdwarf B star and Subdwarf O star into Blue subdwarf.Erkin Alp Güney 09:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose as Subdwarf B star and Subdwarf O star are different. It is better to have more articles rather than less. Also Blue subdwarf is used about 90% less than Subdwarf B star so by common name we should not use Blue subdwarf as the primary title. However a disambig or redirect is a good idea. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

They are from a common evolutionary origin, giant/supergiant stars stripped of shell layers. Erkin Alp Güney 13:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)