Talk:Giant star

Facts

While I may not be an astronomer im pretty sure mass loss does not cause a red giant to become a blue giant.Indomei (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-- I'm pretty certain they mean that a blue giant will become a red giant or if it looses mass it will then become a blue super giant. SamuelR-NJITWILL (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of moving the following unsigned comment into this thread from a thread with the same name (and then replying to it) - A yellow / orange star, in the succession of death, will become a Red Giant star. Arcturus will expand, grow colder and then "implode" toward a cold white dwarf star. This article has it backwards. Orange stars don't become Blue Giants!

It is hard to know what these comments are referring to. Some are old and may be referencing text that no longer exists. Is the most recent one referring to the discussion of the horizontal branch, which is the only place I can find references to cool stars becoming blue giants? A little more clarity and detail in the comments might prompt discussion which hopefully will improve the article. As it stands, I can't see anything coming of this comment, not even an explanation on this talk page. Lithopsian (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

unreferenced

This article is seriously short on references. Can anyone think of a reason not to delete all the unreferenced text? Jeepday 04:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Hahaha... I didn't check the history, but it looks like the references were added by a third grader. Which isn't necessarily bad, but it is terribly ambiguous confusing and lacking in context. Potatoswatter 04:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article as is now, has enough of references. If "confusing" and "lacking in context" refers to the article, I'm a little inclined to agreement, it's somewhat confusing, but most of the necessary facts are there, just not quite in a comprehensible order. Said: Rursus (☻) 21:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the concept giant star is confusing by itself: in spectral classification "giant" is defined as luminosity class "III" which means some certain narrowness of some certain hydrogen lines in spectrum, in stellar evolution "giant" refers to stars burning helium, which makes "red giants" not "giants" (!), but "AGB giants" are "giants" with splendor; in the HR diagram giants are stars in either the "horizontal branch", or "the red clump" depending on population. It's like the "dwarf planet" stuff ― it's in heavy need for a linguistically correct cleanup. Said: Rursus (☻) 21:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow giants. Planets.

I've restored the planet info to the article. Yellow giants don't have their own article: The Yellow giant section of this article is the only place to put info about Yellow giants until a separate article is created. Almost all articles about types of star have a section listing a few examples of planets that orbit that type of star. For many types of star only a handful of planets are known. Examples of known planets around a star type seems very pertinent information to include in articles on star types. On this article the planet section sticks out because this is the only star type that doesn't have its own page. Astredita (talk) 05:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orange and white giants also do not have their own pages. I believe personally that this information would be more suited for an article specifically about exoplanets. If we list planets here (which are becoming increasingly common and mundane discoveries), do we also list all yellow giants in nebulae? How about with white dwarf companions? I fail to see why exoplanets should be singled out. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some white giants

At least as described in Wikipedia - peer-reviewed references are thin on the ground:

Lithopsian (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Giant 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/20110720034111/http://www2.astro.psu.edu/users/rbc/a534/lec23.pdf to http://www.astro.psu.edu/users/rbc/a534/lec23.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: 5 June 2024).

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) 03:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deducing original main sequence characteristics at giant phase

I am wondering if there is an appropriate summary or table that might be added to help with a question like this? Red giant mass and radius to approximate main sequence mass and radius, for instance. Greenbound (talk) 06:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult and unreliable. Many different main sequence stars go through red giant phases which are very similar. The mass is often not known reliably enough for giants to extrapolate back to the main sequence, although obviously you can take a guess and some cases will be more obvious than others. Lithopsian (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]