Talk:Stellar population

"Stellar population"

While the discussion of stellar populations in this article may match what is found in first year textbooks, it has little to do with how 'stellar population' is used in the current astronomy literature. Korandder (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was demerged from metallicity

See talk:metallicity for old talk. - Rod57 (talk) 10:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lineweaver hypothesis and importance

The sentence beginning, "It was hypothesised..." reads a bit strange for a 2000 paper. Can it be improved? (Apart from the spelling error, which I corrected.)

As for importance, it is quite important in relation to the naïve, yet famous Drake Equation which is ranked Mid but really was just conjecture when initially formulated and is since long obsolete. In any circumstance, this article is fundamental to estimate planets with life in the Milky Way and able to provide a part of the actual answer. I would rank it Top for Fundamental, but am unsure how to nominate it from [[1]].

Henrik Erlandsson 23:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenrikErlandsson (talk • contribs)

Black holes and pop III

The LIGO papers with the discovery of the stellar black holes hypothesized that these black holes came from Pop III stars. Certainly, the mass range of 30-40 solar mass is consistent, as well as some other details. Maybe its time to make a mention of this. Kotika98 (talk) 03:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pop III and UMP

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2MASS_J18082002−5104378

Is a UMP star in our Galalaxy. Are all UMP starts PopIII stars? What is difference. And what are "limits" for Metal Poor vs UMP and POPII vs POPIII — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramlerGrindstone (talk • contribs) 11:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Population III and WHL0137-LS

A paragraph on WHL0137-LS as the first Pop. III star seems to have been added recently. I don't have the expertise to judge or edit it (except adding a link, as I have done) but hopefully someone knowledgeable can look into this. For me, the line between UMP and Pop. III is pretty blurry and it's not at all clear to me that this counts as a "first". - CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Not by me, but I agree that the statements about this star did not accurately reflect the current state of our knowledge about it. Lithopsian (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stellar population image with heliocentric coordinates

I'm wondering why an image with a heliocentric coordinate system in which the center is the Sun, and not the Galactic Center. This image should be replaced by something less heliocentric. If somebody posted a diagram of the solar system with the Earth at the center, people would be hysterical. So why is it okay for an image of the Milky Way? VoidHalo (talk) 07:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which image? The main image (of the Milky Way) is centred on the Milky Way. Where would you prefer it to be centred? Lithopsian (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The image is centered on the Milky Way. Not the coordinates. What's centered in the image itself doesn't make any difference at all, that's not what I'm talking about.

So, what I would like is an image of the Milky Way in which the coordinate system is centered on the galactic center, not the Sun. It's pretty well established that The Sun isn't the center of the Milky Way, so it doesn't make any sense to center a coordinate system on it. I hope that clears up any confusion/miscommunications.

I will edit my original post to reflect that I was referring to the coordinates and not the image itself. VoidHalo (talk) 04:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the image in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_population#/media/File:Artist's_impression_of_the_Milky_Way_(updated_-_annotated).jpg VoidHalo (talk) 04:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

I propose that Population I star be merged into this article. There is no doubt that the topic title exists, but it is unhelpful to try and define it in isolation. This article covers population I, II, and II stars and can hardly be considered too long or too diffuse as it stands, where population I star is a stub that hasn't been developed substantially for a decade. Lithopsian (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No 96.30.183.2 (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article, Population I star, is a gross violation of copyright, have now nominated for deletion as per the warning I'd left on the talk page. If a decent enought article were written than maybe it could standalone but as it is it should be deleted or merged. Hughesdarren (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig's Copyvio Detector does not appear to support the 'gross violation of copyright' you've purported - but that tool can be fallible, as can all. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've submitted relevant revisions for deletion with the underlying copyrighted source (the reference, so not hard to find). They only constitute about half the article, so probably not speedy-deletion-worthy, but they do appear to be unambiguously copyrighted. Lithopsian (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge; this (target) article is by no means large enough to benefit from the current extant stub. Likewise, would support de-merge when and if the content here were to begin to 'take over the article' sizewise. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]