Talk:Luminous blue variable

paper

For those interested on the Luminous Blue Variables, check out this paper: [[1]]. I suggest to check the HTML version; it includes several tables with "bona-fide" LBVs as well as candidates.

Size limit?

The theoretical Mass Limit mentioned in Hypergiants is 120, while here it says 150. It does vary slightly depending on the star's composition, but isn't this too high? --Acoyauh (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction with "Hypergiant"

"Hypergiants should not be confused with luminous blue variables. A hypergiant is classified as such because of its size and mass loss rate, whereas a luminous blue variable is thought to be a massive blue supergiant going through an evolutionary phase where it loses a large amount of mass." - page on Hypergiants. "Luminous blue variables...are very bright, blue, hypergiant variable stars" - LBV I don't have any expertise in the area to correct it, but this seems a blatant contradiction that would be worth bringing up. 72.187.145.13 (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hypernova?

I think that the term hypernova is used improperly. Saying "If they were any larger, their gravity would be insufficient to balance their radiation pressure and they would blow themselves apart in a hypernova" implies that super Eddington luminosity is the direct cause of a hypernova. This is not the case. A hypernova marks the death of the most massive stars following the collapse of the core into a black hole. This doesn't have anything to do with a large luminosity blowing off the stars outer layers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.118.147.106 (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.140.200 (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

S Doradus "brightest star" contradiction

The article states that the luminous blue variable is "named after S Doradus, the brightest star of the Large Magellanic Cloud." This statement contradicts with this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_luminous_stars where it's apparent that R136a1, part of the same Large Magellanic Cloud, is the most luminous star at this moment.

The list

There is a list in the article of what are described as "some of the best known" LBVs. Most of them are not especially well known at all, but the list is far from a complete list of all LBVs. There is also a Wikipedia category for LBVs which is even shorter than the list in this article. This should really be rationalised and certainly the category needs to be at least as complete as any list we make in this article. The list of galactic stars confirmed as LBVs is really very short at about a dozen and could easily go in the article. Then there are a handful more in other local group galaxies. The list of candidate LBVs, stars very likely to be LBVs but not studied long enough or in enough detail to be positive, is perhaps a bit too long and most are meaningless numbers from IR and X-Ray surveys, but a few certainly deserve mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lithopsian (talk • contribs) 13:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Luminous blue variable star → Luminous blue variable – In nearly all fields, these stars are known as luminous blue variables (LBVs) and are not specifically called luminous blue variable stars, since that is tacitly implied (as all LBVs are stars). Therefore, WP:COMMONNAME applies, and this article should be moved. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support. One comment, in the astronomical vernacular, "star" is omitted because the subject of conversation is already established as stars. In Wikipedia article titles, that isn't established. So consider my support weak - I'd prefer it because I also am used to seeing LBV without the "star", but it's not clear it is necessarily clearer for a non-astronomical audience. I notice that Red Giant and White Dwarf don't have the "star" at the end, but both require disambiguations. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
• Cautious support - when I think about it...I never use the word "star" so I guess it's ok......Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd be a little cautious with this one. We are required to make sure that article titles actually mean something to the reader, so they have a fair idea what to expect when they arrive at the page. They should use names and terms that are precise enough to unambiguously identify the topical scope of the article and be those that readers are likely to look for or search with. They should be recognizable to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic. Whilst in the field of astronomy, I have no doubt these are always referred to as luminous blue variables, to the layman the phrase means nothing, and they are left pondering luminous blue variable what? The same simply doesn't apply to Red giant and White dwarf, which are much better known to the wider population. Even though they might not be able to tell you exactly what they are, if you stopped a person in the street and asked them what those two are, they would probably answer some sort of star. Ask that same person what a luminous blue variable is, and they are as likely answer a car? a handbag? as a star? Skinsmoke (talk) 08:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I do not think that if you stopped a person in the street and asked them what "white dwarf" means, they would answer "a star". More likely answer would be some mythological character. However all this is irrelevant. Ruslik_Zero 16:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support, no need to disambiguate this title. Modest Genius ^talk 19:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support, unless someone comes up with another field where the term is used. Lithopsian (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support, no need for the 'star' in the title. --JorisvS (talk) 09:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Anyone like to produce some evidence one way or the other, rather than just personal preferences and unverified assertions? A quick glance at an advanced Google search shows more hits for Luminous blue variable than for Luminous blue variable star, but there seems to be a preference to include star when addressing a more general public, and to omit it when addressing astronomists and physicists. Perhaps the proposer would like to delve a little more deeply to see whether this move is justified. Right now I'm in the middle of something and haven't got the time to do a detailed analysis. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Cepheid variable is at "Cepheid variable", FWIW....Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• @Skinsmoke - agree that all astronomy content omits the word "star" - some others when dealing with a more general audience use "star" but it is more as a descriptor appended to a title rather than titular itself - hence "Luminous Blue Variable star" (note capitalisation absence of last word) - given that our article will have the word "star" in the first sentence and lots of other immediately obvious references that it is one, I don't think omitting the word "star" in the title will confuse anyone......Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

split off list

I think that the list is rather long, so should be split off into a separate list article -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The article is not so big that it needs to split. The list is not stupidly long either. Op47 (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think either the article or the list is currently too long. Yet the list is likely to expand in length (and perhaps width?) and already a good chunk of the entries are really not that interesting. Lithopsian (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)