Talk:Star

Revelations section - do we really need to add anti-Bible snark to every science article?  ħ uman  14:04, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Why not? Proxima Centauri 14:08, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Because it gets old, seems obsessive, and detracts from the actual content? "Stars in the Bible" just seems rather tangential to me. Shall we also have "rocky planets in the Bible", "Quantum Mechanics in the Bible", etc.?  The anti-Bible stuff makes more sense in articles that directly relate to it.  Should we also include any poetic or literary references to stars that are at odds with modern astrophysics?  ħ uman  15:13, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Stars in the bible was added to demonstrate the idiocy of taking a literalist "Conservapedia" interpretation. If a third of the stars of the universe were really cast down to earth it would definitely harm the climate.  Xena 12:15, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

Variable stars
Could someone help me expand that bit? -- 19:56, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I think some of this stuff about Zeta Reticuli and Proxima Centauri and what-have-you were created by people who thought RW was going to be a parallel encyclopedia to WP or something. Then we all started to see the dreaded "MISSION" banner. Xena 16:11, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * The Proxima Centauri section was created by Proxima Centauri, who makes terrible writing styles into an art. If it can go on for more than a few sentences without using any forms of punctuation other than full stops, you know she wrote it. 16:18, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Zeta Reticuli actually sort of fits in, it is mentioned in various UFOlogy, though it does fit better as a section. Proxima Centauri isn't actually the nearest star (it's Alpha Centauri).
 * Astronomy FAIL. 16:28, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Not so, Proxima Centauri is 4.22 LY away. Alpha Centauri A/B is 4.35 LY Xena 16:30, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

Got any ideas?
For example, any other stars, like Alpha Centauri, we might want to have a section on? Any more articles that should be merged with it? -- 12:01, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Wait a second.  I wasn't paying attention to these Star articles, but we had a Proxima Centauri article, which you copied and pasted into a section on this article, yes?   And then deleted what would have been an OK article?   Now, it's a redirect?   That doesn't make much sense.   What was your rationale for doing that?   DogP  12:23, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * It was a perfectly fine article, but it seemed to fit better here. If you want, I will revert that. -- 15:28, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Sirius, which is where dogs flew here from. Beetlejuice, which is where, well, beetle juice comes from.  ħ uman  19:40, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

From "Talk:Neutron star"
Mission? 15:54, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I say merge with star. If we are going to cover stars, instead of having thirty small articles, we should have one big article. If a section gets too large, we can always give it a seperate article. -- 15:56, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Precious little we can say about this. Neutron stars were once proposed as a possible method of time travel (you need a neutron star ten times longer then its width, apparently), but that's it really. Yeah, merge. Totnesmartin 15:59, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I was initially going to include this in the article on stars, but I thought it would be too large and so I created a different article altogether. Admittedly, neutron stars per se don't really analyze and refute the anti-science movement, ideas and people, analyze and refute the full range of crank ideas, or explore authoritarianism and fundamentalism. --e|m|c  [TALK] 16:02, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

Paraphrase
That bit on brown dwarfs (the sub-sub-section) is almost entirely from Wikipedia. If anyone could rephrase it without deletion, that would be helpful. -- 16:48, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * What do you mean, "without deletion"? Is there at least some part of this article that relates to the mission that I missed during my cursory proofreading?  Oh, and using WP as a "reference" is poor form, you should find where they got it,  make sure it's correct, and cite the original source.  ħ uman  19:46, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

Cover story
Please do not archive this section

CUR seems to think this is cover material, since he added the "cover" template to it.
 * Disagree. Not even related to the mission.  ħ uman  16:58, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Agree (with Human I mean). There is nothing wrong with the article but not as a cover story. Ace McWickedRevolt 17:03, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Not Cover. It's good but not on mission at all. 17:18, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * No - off-mission. This is just Felidae part 2 isn't it? Why not transfer the whole page to aSK, it'd be fine for there. Totnesmartin 17:37, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Okay, pulling nomination, if I can. -- 17:44, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

Next question: Since we seem to agree (?) that it is least a good article (is it?  I haven't the patience to slog through all of it - is it well-organized?) perhaps it does, or might with work, qualify for the "best of science" cat?  ħ uman  18:00, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I didn't know we had one, but if we do it qualifies. Totnesmartin 18:06, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * That cat is used to generate the random articles listed under "science portal" on the main page.  ħ uman  19:30, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * PS, I don't think it's "best of" while some of the footnotes are to frigging WP articles, not even using permalinks. That needs to be addressed.  ħ uman  19:31, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

Cruft
i.e. nearly everything here. Thoughts or crush kill destroy? Тy Yarrr 19:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * there's no such thing as cruft on RW. Apparently everything in mainspace is on-mission if one person kinda likes it or thinks it informative in some way. I suggest a move to reference space. Sophie  because liberals  19:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * uh, right. (goes to create a bunch of articles on cartridges) and move it there how?  Тy Serious Business Guy 19:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Soerry, the sarcasm didn't come off so well in print. Sophie  because liberals  19:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I understood it. ;} pulling out my editing machete. Тy Yes? 19:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Be back in a few hours to finish if noone else does, the lab calls. Тy YAUA 19:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Pour l'amour de Dieu...
Is this really all RationalWiki has to say about stars? There's a universe of woo out there, like New Age bullshit, modern geocentrism, astrology, et cetera ad infinitum, nauseum, et absurdum. I'm meeting my quota with things like Candida. (Article a week club reboot, anyone?) The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

This article seems encyclopedic
It doesn't appear to cover any woo. We're not an encyclopedia (and even on those terms, compare the quality of our article to ). Either our article needs to start covering woo/sync up to the mission statement generally, or it needs to go. Thoughts? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. Same with Black hole, which should be better, because there is a lot of woo about black holes (so leave a template for that one).  Brown dwarf as well.  Petey Plane (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Petey. We should compile a list of the worst culprits and possibly AfD them en masse. We are not an encyclopedia. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Typo?
The section 'Nuclear pasta and antipasta' has 'the neutron star's outer crust may be composted of some of the toughest material in the universe' - is this deliberate? Anna Livia (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

God and stellar objects
As a thought-experiment what happens to deities, especially of the universe-pervading kind, in the vicinity of neutron stars (and other fast-rotating stellar bodies) and black holes? Anna Livia (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)