Talk:List of nearest stars/Archive 2

Parallax
I'd like to suggest we list the Parallax column in units of milliarcseconds (mas). This would make it consistent with the Infoboxes on the various star articles. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed (consistent with many other sources too, and more readable) Metebelis (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Hekerui (talk) 07:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Please update 2d star map to include WISE 1541-2250
I had added the y class brown dwarf which is 9ly but it is not reflected in the map.the code is too complex for me to understand. 122.176.168.30 (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We should wait with that anyway, considering the margin of error the y class dwarfs still have. Hekerui (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Technically, an independent brown dwarf is not a star system. Thus there is no need to update the map for that reason. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that, is that official or in your estimation? Hekerui (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen the IAU refer to brown dwarfs as "failed stars"; I haven't seen the IAU call them stars as such. But I can see the need for further clarification since part of the definition of a planet requires it to be orbiting a star. It has been suggested that free-floating objects below brown dwarf mass be called "sub-brown dwarfs". So what do you call a planetary mass object orbiting an independent brown dwarf? Is it a "sub-stellar system"? I'm not sure. But I don't think we need to be on the bleeding edge on that topic. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No, there is no consensus in the sources on whether brown dwarfs are stars or not, as was discussed above. But since the current star map already contains several brown dwarfs, consistency would dictate that the missing ones be added (not only the WISE object, the UGPS dwarf is also missing) when their positions are known well enough. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's no skin off my nose. Good luck with your map. I believe you'll need Mathematica to revise it. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Does someone has mathematica?.This map needs to be updated and included wise 2250 star manchurian candidate 05:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Possibly this is something that can be taken to Graphic Lab as a request. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would leave it, the error is so horrendous. Hekerui (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the illustration is likely to need ongoing updates as new discoveries and distance measurements are made. Is it worth all the trouble? Shrug. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Adding a second table for physical properties?
I had this idea that it might be interesting to add a new section with a separate table listing the physical properties of each object. The current table is already crowded, so I'm not sure that expanding it would be beneficial. Instead, the first table would list mainly the astrometric properties while the second would be for the physical details. The absolute magnitude and the column with the extra notes could then be moved to the second table, along with a copy of the object names and spectral classes. We can then add columns for radius, mass, luminosity, effective temperature, projected rotational velocity, and age in gyr.

What do you think? It seems like this type of information would be of interest to potential readers. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't mind adding such a table, though I don't consider these facts that interesting (except for age; most others can be roughly guessed from the spectral class AFAIK). Actually, one could remove several columns from the current table without really losing information: the "Star #", the parallax (only interesting to calculate the distance, which we already list in the next column), and maybe the almost-empty "Additional references". --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, although I suspect many readers many not be that aware of the relationship. Shrug. I'll just drop it then as it's no big deal. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As you choose. I'd suggest dropping the useless parallax column anyway; so feel free to replace it e.g. by the "age" column if you like. Otherwise I'll remove it without replacement (if no-one disagrees).--Roentgenium111 (talk) 00:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Missing Objects
Some of the objects in the paper found here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.2122 seem to be missing from the list. But I could't find the missing objects using simbad, so I may be wrong (especially since I also can't find some of the objects already listed here in that database) 141.84.69.20 (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So I've now taken a closer look on table 4 in the referenced paper and first it seems that the GL 166 - System seems to be just inside of the 5pc-radius used in the list. Second the 61 Cyg and Procyon - systems switched places (Simbad also has it this way now). Third: Teegarden's Star now is considered to be a bit farther away than the SCR J1845-6357 system. UGPS 0722-05 moved behind DEN 1048-3956. WISE J035000.32−565830.2 seems to be missing in the list here. Gl 876 and GJ 1002 switched and WISEPC J140518.40+553421.4 is also missing in the list here. DENIS J081730.0−615520 also seems to be missing here.


 * WISEPA J154151.66−225025.2 now is thought to be farther away (now it's just a little bit nearer than Wolf 1061). WISE J1741+2553 is now considered to be around 5.7pc away moving it out of the list (but I still can't find that one with simbad). I would change all the things myself but to be honest I'm not so confident editing Wikipedia yet. 141.84.69.20 (talk) 08:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. You can try to make necessary changes yourself, just use the "preview" before hitting save so you know what the table will look like. (I also suggest you create your own account so you can edit Wikipedia comfortably from now on :) Still, I looked at the distance measurements for WISEPA J154151.66−225025.2 and considering the enormous discrepancies (9.3 ly which is currently on the list, 37.5 ly which is a new measurement, and the spectrophotometric distance estimate they went with at 13.7 ly) I wonder whether we shouldn't make it a habit to accept only objects that are measured with a certain precision into this list and note that in the description. Hekerui (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good idea. We should use the main table for objects with, say, four or more digits of precision and have a separate table for objects with low levels of precision. Once they are known with better precision, we can merge them back in. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd oppose that suggestion; objects that are virtually certain to be closer than 5 pc are notable enough to be on the "main list", whether their distance is known to within 1 or 4 digits. (Also note that practically none of the stars has four or more digits of precision, so this exact requirement would almost empty the main list.) I'd rather restrict the main list to objects that are almost certain to be closer than 5 pc (say, up to 2 or 3 sigma) and put those that might reasonably be further out in a separate table. (This would still move the WISE dwarf mentioned out of the main list, if the diverging distance estimates cannot be reconciled.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly they are notable enough to be on the article. However, there is nothing about the table that signifies further notability. Hence, I'm not clear that I understand your objection. The large margin of error means that the ordered ranking of the objects is incorrect with very high probability. If the objects with large error margin are not going to be distinguished with a separate table, then they need to be distinguished by removing their ranking. ( We could use a '?' instead.) Regards, RJH (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would prefer (and support) removing their ranking (or putting a "?" behind the ordinal). Though we cannot be sure of the ordering even for objects whose distance is known to high precision, as the "61 Cyg and Procyon" example mentioned shows. (For my objection, I assumed that objects in a separate second list would be implicitly considered less notable, but you're right that this is not logically the case.)--Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that this paper hasn't been accepted for publication yet. It's possible that the published article may have revisions. Just a thought. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

J-band
Please note the the vmag and near-IR J band magnitude are not the same thing! For the T/Y-dwarfs WISE 1541-2250, UGPS 0722-05, WISE J1741+2553, and SCR 1845-6357 we must either remove the incorrect apparent magnitude (mV) listed or specify a J next to it so people know it is not a visual magnitude. Without this correction, the red dwarf SCR 1845-6357 would be dimmer than the brown dwarf orbiting it. For now I have just added the J qualifier next to the magnitude. -- Kheider (talk) 12:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to present both V and J band values? --JorisvS (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that having two separate columns for the J band would be an ideal solution, but perhaps we could put the J-band values in square brackets then explain it with a note? Or the column header could say (MV [MJ]). Regards, RJH (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would think listing a 2nd column for J band apmg would only confuse the readers more. Parenthesis or brackets might help the difference standout more. -- Kheider (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

WISE 1541-2250
There's quite a large discrepancy between the distance given on this page and the one give on the star's own page. What's up? Ethan Mitchell (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like different references are being used. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Showing star-system names only once
As the table stands now, the star system names are repeated for every single star in the system, which is a rather poor way to indicate systems. This is due to the 'class="sortable wikitable"' instead of 'class="wikitable"' in the table syntax. Can this be fixed without making the table unsortable again? --JorisvS (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

WISE 1506+7027 @ 11 ly?
Based on Marsh2012, should WISE 1506+7027 be added to the list at 11 ly? -- Kheider (talk) 02:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Any reason not to? --JorisvS (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My only concern is that different sources list different estimates as to the distance to the nearest brown dwarfs. But I guess that is just the way it goes for now. -- Kheider (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * How different? --JorisvS (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Check the estimates, they vary widely. I'm more inclined to argue for keeping those brown dwarfs off the list considering their distance estimate dicrepancies and the general uncertainty of the estimates. Hekerui (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Kirkpatrick2011 had a photometric distance estimate of 16 ly. Parallax estimates by Marsh2012 are 11.1$$ ly. But I am inclined to include it in the list. The estimates will get better as the observation arcs get longer. -- Kheider (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

WISE 1541-2250
WISE 1541-2250 was estimated to be 13.7ly away and is now estimated at about 20ly. Should it be removed from the list? -- Kheider (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that with only 54 systems the list is currently rather short. That may be a different discussion, though. If not expanded, the object does not seem to belong into the list. --JorisvS (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The introduction states that it only covers objects up to 5.00 pc from the Solar System. Have you see the discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects about the notability of brown dwarfs within 20 light-years of the Sun? I think it is useful to have main articles about stellar neighbors where distance estimates and other issues can be covered in more detail, but I seem to be in the minority. -- Kheider (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't seen it. It's too long for me to read completely now, but I couldn't make much sense of the first part of the discussion. Inclusion in this list isn't about notability anyway (because the notability guidelines only apply to articles, not article content). We can easily expand the cut-off to, say, 7.00 pc and not care about whether objects have associated articles or not, like we do at List of Solar System objects by size. --JorisvS (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

WISE 1049-5319
Could someone add these stars to the chart? I don't want to mess up the formatting - I would rather have someone do it who is more familiar with this topic. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I added some information about WISE 1049-5319 to the main table. The photometry table in the paper was not sufficiently straightforward to me to enter magnitudes; also, would appreciate a check of my conversion of RA & Decl from decimal degrees to the units used in the table (H:M:S, and °:':")  Mathsan (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Sol vs. Sun
Preface: I have never used or viewed a Wikipedia Talk page before; forgive me (and correct me, if you'd like) if I'm doing anything wrong.

Should our sun, the star of our sol ar system, be called Sol instead of Sun? Sol is the common name for our star; "the sun" is 'that shiny object in the sky that gives us light and warmth'. On a planet of any other star system, I believe they would also point to their light-giving sphere and call it "the sun", even if the star is, say, Sirius A.

tl;dr: I don't think "Sun" is the name of our star -- it is the common name for "light-giving sphere in the sky", not the official name of the star. Sol is the better and more-common name.

Sources/References/Relevant:
 * 1) ninjawords.com: (One) definition of "sun": (n) "A star, especially when seen as the centre of any single solar system."
 * 2) wikipedia.org/Sun: "The Latin name for the star, Sol, is widely known but is not common in general English language use; the adjectival form is the related word solar."
 * 3) wikipedia.org/Sol: "Typically used in science fiction and other contexts where the author wants to distinguish our particular star or the Solar System from "a sun" or "a planetary system""
 * 4) earthsky.org/space/what-is-the-suns-name: "Bottom line: Our sun doesn’t have an official proper name, according to the International Astronomical Union. In antiquity, the names Sol and Helios referred to ancient sun gods and perhaps the sun itself."

Elaborating from Reference #4 above, there currently is no official name -- which is why I'm coming to wikipedia to try and encourage the use of Sol as the official name, because, as I explained above, I think it is a more practical name for both astronomy and the English language.

What does everyone else think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.89.121 (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Facts in "Future and past" section are contradictory
The section List of nearest stars contains a table that, supposedly, lists all stars that will pass within 5.1 LY (1.6 parsecs) of our sun at any time between 2 million years ago and 2 million years from now.

The first paragraph in this section states that Ross 248 will be 0.927 parsecs from our sun in 36,000 years, and that Gliese 445 will be the closest star to our sun in 40,000 years. Therefore, both of them should be listed in this table.

However, they are not. Are there many omissions, or are these the only two?

Also, since the name of this article is "List of nearest stars", and the subsection is entitled "Future and past", I would expect that we would be given a list of the future and past nearest-stars to our sun. But we aren't. I suggest that the table be expanded, so that for each star we are given the following additional data:  the (approximate) year when this star will become the nearest star to our sun, and the (approximate) year when it will cease to be the nearest star to our sun. (If some of the stars in the table will never be the nearest stars, I think they should stay in the table anyway; that way the table has multiple uses, and readers can take advantage of the handy sort-by-column tool.) &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 03:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

List jumps from number 29 to number 31
Number 30 accidentally skipped. Please subtract 1 from the numbers 31 on, (or wait for a new nearest star to be discovered). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollwollfumble (talk • contribs) 21:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing it. Mollwollfumble (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ No problem. I was in a bit of a hurry and so forgot to note it here. --JorisvS (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Darn. Now I know why you had skipped number 30. Number 30 is actually WISE 0535-7500. I didn't notice it until I was reading Marsh (2012). Don't change it yet because Marsh's distance of 21 pc is wildly incompatible with his parallax of 250 mas. I've emailed him asking for clarification.Mollwollfumble (talk) 11:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

WISE 0535-7500
There is a problem with WISE 0535-7500: Its distance in the list corresponds to the 250-mas parallax (i.e. 4 pc, 13 ly) from the source. The same source, however, says that its distance is 21$$ pc, which is obviously inconsistent. The same problem exists in the article about it. --JorisvS (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I had thought it was something like a weighted mean of the different values, but upon a look at them that would seem strange since they are so different and don't overlap. Still, a simple average is in the 13 ly region. Hekerui (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The source, strangely, says nothing about this discrepancy. It just lists both next to one another, and remarks only that the distance is 'the most probable distance corrected for the Lutz–Kelker bias', whatever that is. --JorisvS (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Lutz–Kelker bias is a bias based on the assumption that the number of observable stars increases as the square of the distance. The problem is that the "correction" reinvents Olber's paradox and gives all stars a finite probability of being at infinite distance. Thus it is not renormalizable and hence gives zero probability to the star being at any fixed finite distance. The solution is that observability is limited by minimum observable luminosity which adds a distance cut-off. The "correction" has been applied by Marsh without a distance cut-off and that results in infinite distances that are only brought back to finite values by adding a poor distance estimate based on proper motion vs statistical star speeds. That is a very bad strategy, a simple inversion taking distance as 1/parallax is much more accurate for T and Y dwarfs at these distances.Mollwollfumble (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping me find the article. I've corrected its title. Unfortunately, the article is of limited help, because it says nothing about why the bias exists. Scanning the cited source did not help me either. The only thing that does seem clear from the article is that the distance from the observed parallax is an underestimation (and hence that it is farther away than 4 pc), which seems to indicate that 21 pc would be the more reliable distance estimate... I'll remove it from the table here. --JorisvS (talk) 11:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Have recalculated the distance to this. It's not 21 pc, it is actually 4 pc away. The 21 pc measurement was based on the incorrect assumption that ALL Y dwarfs were visible with current equipment out to infinite distance. This false bias has increased the most probable distance enormously.Mollwollfumble (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Discovery dates
Your list of discovery dates is very incomplete. I have a near-complete list of discovery dates for all the nearest stars and brown dwarfs up to the 37th nearest system (Gliese 1). Before I add them in, I need to know WHICH discovery date you want. I have separate discovery dates for "First confirmed observation", "Discovery paper", "First confirmed cataloging", "First measurement of proper motion", "First parallax measurement (includes photometric and spectroscopic parallax)", "First trigonometric parallax measurement". Half the stars do not have a "discovery paper". All of these dates may be different. For example, GJ 1061 was first cataloged in 1944 and its proper motion measured before then, the distance had been accurately measured by 1961, but the first appearance of the "discovery paper" was 1995 (not 1997 as its Wikipedia page claims). My personal preference is for "discovery date = first trigonometric or spectroscopic parallax", because that tends to be when we first know for sure that the star system is one of the nearest; "photometric parallax" is too uncertain. What do you think? Mollwollfumble (talk) 03:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Added to site Mollwollfumble (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Epsilon Eridani Reference
In the "additional references column" it claims that Epsilon Eridani has "at least one planet" and there is a source paper reference which looks like it was placed, in front of it, to back up the claim: "A comprehensive examination of the ε Eridani system. Verification of a 4 micron narrow-band high-contrast imaging approach for planet searches", Janson, M. et al. (September 2008). Looking at the paper, the paper only seems to be limiting the size of potential planets, it doesn't prove or speculate on there being more than one planet, in fact the paper doesn't even claim to prove Epsilon Eridani b exists. Quoting the paper, "As the ﬁnal output images show 'no signs' of 'any' convincing companion candidate, we place constraints on any planets that may reside in the system." The paper is only saying that Epsilon Eridani has nothing 3 times larger than Jupiter orbiting it. I think, either the reference paper should not be quoted or if it is kept it should be put before that claim of "at least one planet" or separated from it more so it doesn't look like it's there to complement the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.87.11 (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

WISE 0410+1502
It looks like WISE 0410+1502 should be cut from this table - according to the WISE 0410+1502 article, an updated distance estimate puts it at 7.6 pc (24.7 ly) from Earth, which is well beyond the limit for inclusion in this table. --IJBall (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Hekerui (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And deleted from list by 86.89.117.206 on 15 November 2013. --IJBall (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Add power output for comparison
Could I ask the editors to include a column for (surface) power output (watts) for the stars listed in the main table, for comparison, where they are available? Or can this be calculated from the figures already given? If so, how? My Other Head (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Power output can be calculated from bolometric magnitude, which is not listed here, but should be roughly similar to the absolute magnitude, which is listed and determines the output when restricted to visible light. (The exact total power output value can only be estimated theoretically and is probably not known for most stars.)--Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Most people don't know how to do that, so please put that there. Also, put the other physical properties there, replacing the parallax column. Adeptzare3 (talk) 08:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Commentary about the distance column
Since the article is about 'nearest' and 'stars', I'd like to suggest that the 'distance' column be located right after the star designation. Everything else is peripheral to the main subject, so it should follow in later columns.

I think it was mentioned in an earlier discussion that the parallax column isn't needed, and that's likely true. I'm not even sure we really need the coordinates columns because nobody is going to use this table to find the stars. (It might be better to put the stars on a celestial map, for example, which we kind of do in the "Map of nearby stars" section.) Regards, RJH (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC) I don't want the parallax, but I do want to keep the coordinates.Adeptzare3 (talk) 08:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree? with both suggestions. Anir1uph (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll wait a little while to see if there is any objection before proceeding. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the current structure is a problem. The first column identifies the distance. The specific value is relevant but I don't think the page is confusing as it is. Hekerui (talk) 08:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not really an issue of confusion, but rather of prioritization. The distance estimate is well off to the right, whereas I think that's an important column and should be available right next to the star's name. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In principle I agree with your suggestions, but moving the distance column to the left might look a bit strange for binary stars which have a single distance value, but different spectral class and magnitude. I agree that the coordinates are probably not needed; for the non-specialist reader it might be a better idea to list the constellation of the star instead (which is, for many stars listed, not clear from their name). Removing the parallax section seems uncontroversial from my earlier removal suggestion (which I forgot to act upon back in May). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * How about moving the distance column to the left of stellar mass column. I am persuaded by the argument that since it a list of nearest stars, the distance column must take priority. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess you probably mean stellar class. Yes, that is the proposal. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oops, sorry! yeah, that is what i meant. Also, this section seems more like a comparison table than a list. Anir1uph (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, there's that. But it's not unusual compared to some of the other nearest-star lists out on the web. Shrug. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

WISE 1506+7027
The parallax for WISE 1506+7027 is inconsistent with the distance given. --Adeptzare3 (talk) 07:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks okay now. Hekerui (talk) 09:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

WISE 1405+5534
WISE 1405+5534 has been nominated for deletion. -- Kheider (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Like WISE 0410+1502 which was deleted from the list earlier, it appears that more recent measurements put this one's distance at over 25 light years - meaning that it should be deleted from this list as well. --IJBall (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed it. Hekerui (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Video?
"This video takes you on a fly-through of the space around the nearest stars to the Sun." The video is missing... 85.240.149.141 (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Found it. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Flying_among_the_closest_stars_to_the_Solar_System.ogg 85.240.149.141 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

List of nearest exoplanets
I am trying to put together a complete list related to this one. If you guys know of any more unconfirmed planets I would really appreciate any help. Nergaal (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Future and past section of main article
Hi there, I'd rather combine the information given in the diagram (ALL known stars passing by within 7 ly, -20 ky to +80 ky) and in the table (it contains Hipparcos stars only). It is sort of confusing not to find all passing stars from the diagram and from the text in that table below (that's for Gliese 445, Ross 128 and Ross 248).

My proposal: All known passing stars within 5.1 ly (or 6.5 to catch Ross 128 too) in one table, one could mark those stars measured by Hipparcos with some colour.

What do you think?Farin12 (talk) 10:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. --JorisvS (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Technically the table only lists objects out to 5.1 ly, surely numerous stars passed (or will pass) within 7 ly given a timespan of ±2.1 million years. It could be misleading to the readers if we are not careful. -- Kheider (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes I see. But then we can include data for Ross 248 (max. approximation 3 ly in 36 ky) and Gliese 445 (3.7 ly in 45 ky) in the table. They come closer than 5.1 ly. Ross 128 is too far away. Any volunteers for these? Farin12 (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

"Known"
The title was changed to "List of nearest known stars" with the explanation that it was obviously only known stars. I say, since it's obvious we might as well omit the word, otherwise we would have to add it to every list of astronomical objects. Better to keep titles simple and consistent. Regards Hekerui (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to agree. -- Kheider (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Also agreed. The word "known" is redundant in these contexts... --IJBall (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Approaching or not
considering the article emphasizes closeness to the solar system it might be a good addition to the table to list if is still approaching or receding from us and what it's estimated closest approach might be - see and related articles. --Smkolins (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * With the change to Wikipedia's basic formatting, this table is already going "past the edge of the page" on many laptops now. I don't think adding another column to the table is a good idea in light of that... --IJBall (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * i appreciate not wanting to make the table unwieldy, yet i also note two comments above the same idea suggested lacking only someone to do it... Btw an updated paper .--Smkolins (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah - I see it is all in the lower table. This seems the most recent work (also referred to at  which is cited. --Smkolins (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

B rown dwarfs
A brown dwarf is not star, why they are in a list named "List of nearest stars"? --Kirk39 (talk) 08:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And white dwarfs are technically not stars either, but dead stars. This list includes all of the nearest non-planemos. Maybe having 'stars' in the title is a bit unfortunate, but do you know a better, (well recognizable) alternative? --JorisvS (talk) 12:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Change the title ;-) A white dwarf is dead, but it's a star, finally, the definition is Compact star. A brown dwarf never was a star, because <0,08 M☉ and only it's a substellar object. --Kirk39 (talk) 03:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Given the table clearly distinguishes between which are stars and which are brown dwarfs, I have no problem with it. Kirk39, you have not suggested a better title. -- Kheider (talk) 06:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The title is a problem, I know. But look for example (only 1) Wolf 359: is it or no third closest to Sol? And Tau Ceti, another example, de:Tau Ceti, it:Tau Ceti fr:Tau Ceti, in not the 19 system closest? Ok, every wikipedia is indipendent, but you know, many users look this wiki, so it's better to be a good example, and the inclusion of brown dwarf in this list is an error :-D Imho, it would better another list with only brown dwarfs, or substellar objects. --Kirk39 (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Which would mean there would no longer be a list for easy comparison of all closest extrasolar systems (whether stellar, substellar, or remnants). --JorisvS (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And as discussed before, brown dwarfs are called stars by several reliable sources. There is no consensus on the definition of "star". --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You said: maybe without ordinal number. It was an idea, so, with the ordinal number, it's an error, beacuse manu sources say the contrary. The definition of star is clear: "a star shines due to thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium in its core, releasing energy that traverses the star's interior and then radiates into outer space". "Brown dwarf is a star" is an original research. No problem, let the page so, confused.. --Kirk39 (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't give any sources for your own claim but call the sourced contrary claim OR? That makes no sense. E.g. NASA clearly says about WISE J104915.57-531906: "Both stars in the new binary system are "brown dwarfs," which are stars that are too small in mass to ever become hot enough to ignite hydrogen fusion."--Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Kirk, it is very difficult to differentiate the lowest mass stars from the highest mass brown dwarfs, so there will always be a fussy overlap between the two. -- Kheider (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Planetary mass objects
Now that planetary mass objects like WISE 0855–0714 (with only 3–10 Jupiter masses) are on the list, should objects estimated to be less than 13 Jupiter masses (a more genuine brown dwarf) be highlighted in a different color? I certainly think we should do this for objects less than ~8 Jupiter masses. -- Kheider (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There is now apparently a separate list for List of nearest free floating planetary mass objects. My advice would thus be to eliminate the new WISE 0855–0714 entry from the table itself (by a full reversion to the last version of the article), and perhaps just mention it in passing in the article's lede. But, based on the article's title, objects such as WISE 0855–0714 should not be included here. IMHO. --IJBall (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It depends a lot on how you define a brown dwarf vs a planet: Giant planet and brown dwarf formation (Chabrier et al. 2014) -- Kheider (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Going by what that paper says basing the term brown dwarf on formation not on mass since the masses of bds and planets overlap, and since the discovery paper of WISE 0855–0714 refers to it as a brown dwarf in the paper title and abstract, and as a planetary mass brown dwarf in the paper, and since this Wikipedia list has long included brown dwarfs, I've moved the page to 'List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs'. Arguably it should have been called 'List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs' all along since brown dwarfs are sub-stellar. Nestrs (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A couple of days ago I created and redirected List of nearest free floating planetary mass objects to the Rogue planet article, however based on the above discussion and if these directly imaged objects are mostly brown dwarfs and not ejected planets (as suggested in Analysis of the SEEDS High-Contrast Exoplanet Survey: Massive Planets or Low-Mass Brown Dwarfs?) then these object should be included in the nearest stars and brown dwarfs list and not the free floating planetary mass objects list. Nestrs (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * FTR, I don't approve of the latest "move" of this article to its new title - those kinds of changes should undergo discussion before being made. As it is, I think that addition of "...and brown dwarfs" to this page's title is redundant and unnecessary (especially if we excise any "rouge planet"-type objects from this list, as we should...). --IJBall (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The Chabrier paper mentioned above includes an argument as to why brown-dwarfs are sub-stellar: "In 2003,

the IAU has adopted the deuterium-burning (DB) minimum mass,~10MJup, as the official distinction between the two types of objects. We have discussed this limit in previous reviews (Chabrier, 2003; Chabrier et al., 2007) and shown that it does not rely on any robust physical justification and is a pure semantic definition. Deuterium burning has no impact on star formation and a negligible impact on stellar/BD evolution (Chabrier and Baraffe, 2000). This is in stark constrat with the lifetime impact of hydrogenburning, making H-burning a genuine physical mechanism distinguishing objects in nuclear equilibrium for most of their lifetime, defined as stars, from objects which lack significant support against gravitational contraction and keep contracting for ever since their birth, defined as brown dwarfs." Nestrs (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Also the new title matches the lead of this article which starts "This list contains all known stars and brown dwarfs" Nestrs (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Nuclear equlibrium is one argument for distinguishing them, but there's also good arguments for considering BD's a subcategory of stars - e.g. the common formation mechanism, the luminosity or (if you exclude sub-brown dwarfs) the existence of nuclear energy production for some time after formation. As I already wrote above, brown dwarfs are called stars by several reliable sources. There is no consensus on the definition of "star". (FWIW, Chabrier's claim of "objects in nuclear equilibrium for most of their lifetime, defined as stars" is mathematically wrong - a (non-super nova) star only burns for a few billion/trillion years before becoming degenerated for all eternity.)
 * Therefore I tend to prefer the old title; the used broad definition of "star" can (and should) be spelled out in the lead. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

LP 944-020
According to LP 944-020, the distance estimate used here is debatable at best, far beyond the stated error margin. If we make the star on this list consistent with its article, it would be much too far away to be on this list at all. Art LaPella (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This has happened before, where new data revises the distance of a star entry to outside of what is covered in this table - when in doubt, I'd feel free to cut it from the table: just remember to renumber all the entries after the deleted one... --IJBall (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ Art LaPella (talk) 04:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

End point
This is overall a pretty good list, but I think the table needs a more clearly-defined end point. Right now, we have 54 entries, which seems arbitrary, especially since it does not seem to end at a specific distance. I think we should either have a specific number of entries here (e.g. 50) or end at a specific number of light-years (e.g. 15). Thoughts? StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I'm dumb and didn't see the first sentence. Carry on! StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Stars at the edge of the list - 40 Eridani
The triple stellar system of 40 Eridani lies at 16.257 light years considering the Van Leeuwen estimation of 2007 and at 16.255 light years considering the RECONS TOP100 survey of 2012 (listed as 49. GJ 166), this means that the most accurate distance estimate lies inside the criteria for the extension of this list (nearest stars to a 5 parsec distance = 16.308 light years away). Could someone add this triple star to the list please. By the way is important because 40 Eridani A it's even visible to the naked eye (very little of the nearest stars are), so it's important to add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.221.20.152 (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I am thinking the naked eye triple star system 40 Eridani should be added to the list. As far as HIP 85605 is concerned, the distance to HIP 85605 is not securely know and even if the "guess" is right, it is currently 5.6-8.5 pc from Earth with 22 ly being the best fit. -- Kheider (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Can the limit be changed to 100 nearest stars?
According to this, #101 is 82 Eridani at jsut under 20 ly. Nergaal (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * People think it must be numbered so the list can't be extended any further unless we remove the numbers to make editing easier... 80.61.187.2 (talk) 07:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Eight planets
We are told that the Sun "has eight known planets". Minor planets are obviously not being counted.
 * The current number of known minor planets is 707,664, most of which are insignificant nameless little clumps of rock. You don't want to count those. --JorisvS (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Future and past
The section Future and Past may need to be updated. A recent survey here Close Encounters of the Stellar Kind (2014) lists some other stars and the star HIP 85605 may pass closer than Gliese 710, within 0.1 parsecs (about a third of a light year), around 300,000 years from now. All the estimates have wide distributions so I think it is not possible to say which of the stars will pass closest for sure, or which will have the most gravitational influence on the solar system. Robert Walker (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The star HIP 85605 has *very poorly* determined data and is more marketing hype than science. -- Kheider (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

See also the Close Encounters of a Stellar Kind which lists the future and past close encounters with error bars from the study. Robert Walker (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The distance given for the star Gamma Microscopii is erronous. The source gives the same numbers, but in units of parcecs, not lightyears.Renerpho (talk) 04:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs. 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 tag to http://science.psu.edu/alert/photos/research-photos/astro/Luhman_ApJL_32013.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140327221259/http://www.oklo.org/GL687.pdf to http://www.oklo.org/GL687.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051030160049/http://nstars.nau.edu/ to http://nstars.nau.edu/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)