Talk:2MASS J18082002−5104378

Created talk-page

Created the talk-page for the 2MASS J18082002-5104378 B article - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Also, I was thinking, perhaps we could start a new article for ultra metal-poor stars. Apparently they've found about 30 of these in our galaxy, to date. I will start the article myself, if I get time, but you're welcome to create it before me if you want. Wjfox2005 (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I have created one redirect at ultra metal-poor star. This appears to be the preferred hyphenation, although there are other variations in use such as ultra-metal-poor. I have made the target mention the term, but only briefly. It may not merit a separate article at this point, but maybe some expansion or its own section. This article and at least a dozen others can be wiki-linked to it. UMP is a disambiguation page and ultra metal-poor star is included there. Lithopsian (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Possible clarifications needed?

@Lithopsian: (and any others that may be interested):

FWIW - not quite clear at the moment about several items that may have been added to the main article - esp the following =>

• This tiny companion star has a very low metal content, about 1/10,000th of the levels in the sun. (may need supporting reference for the "1/10,000th" text)

[Fe/H] means log(Fe/H) relative to the sun. That means that [Fe/H] of -4.1 is 1/12,589th of the sun's levels. It shouldn't need citing separately, in fact you'd be hard-pressed to find any scientific paper expressing it that way, but it seems appropriate here to ram home just how metal-poor we're talking about. You could add a note if you think it is likely to keep getting tagged or causing confusion. Lithopsian (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• It is the brightest UMP star known, {refers to primary or secondary star? - cited supporting reference is really ok or not?)

Any help with the items noted above would be appreciated - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

References

The primary certainly, or the combination if you like. The cited paper states that HE 1327−2326 (V=13.7) is the second-brightest star with [Fe/H] < -4.0, after J1808−5104. It also states that the definition of UMP is [Fe/H] between -4.0 and -5.0, with [Fe/H] < -5.0 being called hyper metal poor (separate references available for that if needed). That seems to be a clear statement that, in the opinion of that paper at that time, J1808−5104 is the brightest UMP star. It could be considered a potentially-dated statement if a brighter one were ever found, but that is the case for any biggest/brightest/fastest/ whatever, and fairly unlikely to ever happen in this case. Lithopsian (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done @Lithopsian: Thank you for your comments - and clarifications - the main article has now been updated and should now be ok - please comment if otherwise of course - in any regards - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Restore removed text - or Not?

FWIW - seems original text has been removed by an editor

QUESTION: Should the removed text material (see copy below) (or perhaps some similar text) be restored to the main article - or Not?

Comments Welcome from other editors - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Copied from the original main article/"Secondary star" subsection (version 09:34, 14 November 2018)

According to astronomer Kevin Schlaufman, one of the authors of the study that described the discovery of the unseen companion star, "This [companion] star is maybe one in 10 million. It tells us something very important about the first generations of stars." Schlaufman further states, "Our Sun likely descended from thousands of generations of short-lived massive stars that have lived and died since the Big Bang ... However, what's most interesting about this star is that it had perhaps only one ancestor separating it and the beginnings of everything ... Observations such as these are paving the way to perhaps one day finding that ever elusive first generation star." Andrew Casey, astronomer and co-author of the study, notes, “This discovery tells us that the very first stars in the Universe didn’t have to all be massive stars that died long ago. These ancient stars could form from very small amounts of material, which means some of those relics from soon after the Big Bang could still exist today.” Casey continues, "We really need to just keep searching for ancient-looking stars like this system ... These stars are extremely rare ... But with huge amounts of data from ground-based and space-based telescopes, the future looks good: we are closer than ever to understanding how stars formed in the early Universe."

References

I would reword it. Using mainly your own words. The paragraph is more quote than encyclopaedia and as such falls foul of various policies. I considered removing it, but it isn't the most gratuitous case I've seen and the information is largely relevant even if the language isn't ideal for Wikipedia. The last reason it shouldn't come back without rework is that it is difficult to distinguish that most of the words are direct quotes. Where it is important to quote more than a few words directly, a block quote can make that obvious and provides standardised fields for attribution. Lithopsian (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - yes - agreed - a rewording may be better after all - suggested possible rewordings are welcome of course - in any regards - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi- sorry if my edit yesterday was a bit heavy-handed. My thinking was that this was the longest paragraph in the article and it was basically all quotes, which kind of goes against the WP quote guidelines. Having extensive quotes in that way seems un-encyclopedic, and would be better suited to a news article than a WP article. If there's an important scientific point in one of those quotes, it can be paraphrased and just included as a factual statement in the article with a reference, preferably a reference to a primary source if possible rather than to a popular article or press release. Aldebarium (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Another point: it seems like the references section is very heavy on popular news articles that aren't really adding new information in terms of the key science points about this object. I might suggest that the primary articles in scientific journals are probably sufficient as references for most or all of the scientific information, and the news article links could instead be moved to the "External links" section. Does that seem reasonable? I'm not sure if the WP policies on primary sources have a specific recommendation on this, but my view is that WP astronomy articles often rely too heavily on press releases and news items which aren't always the ideal sources. Aldebarium (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

"Oldest" star...

This one is 200 million years younger than another star listed in the list of oldest stars...

can anyone actually tell for sure which is oldest, especially with some error ranges of 500 million years in some cases?

is there a case for not using "this is the oldest star" sort of language in favour of "this is one of the oldest stars" instead in these pop II star pages? 82.9.104.192 (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Reese's star?

This star seems to be known as Reese's star. Who is Reese? If Reese is (or was?) a real person, is it possible to let us know something about "Reese"? DannyCaes (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)