Talk:O-type star

What to do?
This relatively new article is poorly structured and written, lacking sufficient citations, and rife with inaccuracies. So what to do with it? There are no corresponding articles for other stellar spectral types, so one thought is to merge it into O-type main sequence star in line with other types. However, that article is not itself particularly detailed, although the articles on blue giants and supergiants are better. The other approach is to improve this one, which I was about to start, but I'd like to get an idea whether people think this is a worthwhile article to keep. Lithopsian (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that whatever info is not specific to O-type main-sequence stars should preferably be here, whereas any info that is specific to O-type main-sequence stars, blue giants, and blue supergiants should go there. --JorisvS (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I pretty much agree with JorisvS on this one, but I do think we should keep brief summaries of the sections that are star-specific.. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. this page should probably also be moved to O-type star to keep it singular, as is convention in WP. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I just tried to make this technical move, but I'm not an admin, so I'll put in a request at WP:RM. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Reverting pointlessly (moved here from user talk page)
You have been restoring obviously incorrect material to O-type star. Your most recent edit summary made no sense and suggests that you did not understand my edit at all.
 * Undo: read WP:BRD, take this to the talk page before getting in an edit war, then read WP:SYNTHESIS before re-checking your calculation with the correct mass for the lower limit of your integration

Nowhere in that have you explained why you undid the edit. See WP:REVEXP. Your reference to WP:SYNTHESIS makes no sense. The text there says Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. I took material from one single source which says explicitly that 0.37% of main sequence stars are O stars. And I presume the calculation you refer to is one I mentioned in an edit summary to illustrate why the quoted figure was wrong. So apparently bow you're undoing an edit because you don't agree with something I mentioned in an earlier edit summary?

If you sincerely believe that a highly cited peer-reviewed article in MNRAS can be trumped by a note republished from an Ottawa newsletter in a magazine for amateurs, you're gravely mistaken. Pe19 (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Your calculation or the MNRAS calculation, still wrong.  is waaay too low for a class O star.  That's about B5, O starts at around .  Also, professional peer-reviewed paper or not, it is still a calculation, still a guess, and completely contradicted by actual observations.  See Eric Mamajek's page for some realistic numbers.  So yes, I do sincerely believe that a highly cited peer-reviewed article in MNRAS can be trumped by a note republished from an Ottawa newsletter in a magazine for amateurs.  Lithopsian (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * So you are, indeed, gravely mistaken. Here at Wikipedia, reliable sources are the standard, and no, amateur notes in Ottawa newsletters do not, under any circumstances, trump peer-reviewed papers in one of the five major journals of astronomy. Where do you think Kroupa got his numbers from? Out of thin air? Why do you suppose his paper has been cited 3200 times, where the amateur note has 9 citations? If you are still desperate to include an absurdly low number for the fraction of O stars, you'll need to find a peer reviewed paper in one of the major journals that supports your belief.
 * And what was it about my calculation, mentioned only in an edit summary, that triggered you so? You seem still not to have understood it. Perhaps you could tell me, then: for a Salpeter IMF of the form $$n(a) \propto a^{-2.35}$$, what is $$\frac{\int_{20}^{120}n(a)da}{\int_{0.1}^{120}n(a)da}$$? And, what should b be, such that $$\frac{\int_{b}^{120}n(a)da}{\int_{0.1}^{120}n(a)da} = 0.0000003$$?
 * If you choose to answer this, it may help you see that the number you quoted is ludicrously wrong. But that will be irrelevant to the article, which has a reliably sourced statement. In case you want to understand why the number from the Canadian amateur is not relevant (and the web page of Eric Mamajek is not either), consider that both refer to the solar neighbourhood. Where are O stars typically found? Is the solar neighbourhood one of those places? Pe19 (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There are hardly any O stars in the solar neighbourhood because they all blew up, not because they never existed.  Lithopsian (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You claimed that my calculation was wrong and yet you refuse to do your own. You claimed that a very highly cited peer reviewed paper was a "guess" and "completely contradicted by actual observations". And you found some web page that says roughly what you want and consider that a superior source to a journal paper. Your attitude here is ridiculous. You should do your own calculation to explain why you slandered mine; and you should grasp that quoting a figure which refers only to the solar vicinity and implying that it is universal is dishonest. Pe19 (talk) 08:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No calculation is necessary. That's the whole point of WP:OR.  Keep up the abuse, though, I actually like it.  Do you know what IMF means?  Hint, the first word is initial.  We are no longer at initial.  O stars don't live very long.  Get it yet?Lithopsian (talk) 11:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Just seen your latest edit. Looks like it finally clicked.  However, trying to hide your mistake behind sophistry hardly improves the readability of the lead.  Lithopsian (talk) 11:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What an immature coward you are. You still obviously don't comprehend the calculation I did, don't even yet grasp that it was only mentioned in an edit summary, and still obviously don't get that journal articles are superior sources to amateur newsletters and personal web pages. Pe19 (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Duplicate page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-type_main-sequence_star This page seems to cover the exact same topic. 24.233.97.244 (talk) 04:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Fusion
I would also mention that upon completion of the main sequence, the core is already hot enough for helium fusion, so the change is less dramatic than for solar mass stars, since there's no degenerative flash. 74.135.194.87 (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)