Talk:Quasi-star

Hyphenation
The status of whether it should be "quasi-stars" or "quasistars" is turning out to be a bit confusing. I was pretty sure it was hyphenated, based on the print version I work from. However, I noticed that the arXiv preprint is not hyphenated, whereas the NASA ADS Database entry (and therefore the printed journal article) is.

I moved on to the print version of the article (in MNRAS), which is hyphenated. To double-check, I went back to a 2006 article which first mentions the term "quasi-star", to see whether it was hyphenated there or not. Again, the preprint contains "quasistar", but the printed article uses the hyphen.

In short, the preprints have no hyphens, but the actual journal articles do. Now, I'm not really sure what Wiki guidelines say about this kind of thing, and though I lean towards the hyphenation, it really doesn't matter to me. The important thing is that the article is self-consistent.

Warrickball (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * i like quasi-stars more in my opinion as quasistars is to squeezed together and its easier to read quasi-stars in my opinion and autocorrect favors quasi-stars so it be harder saying quasistars if you have automatic auto correct on You choose your username 1124 (talk) 03:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * i agree Thegreathans (talk) 15:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Collecting more sources
I would ask that more than two sources be used. I see the first source is cited perhaps 3 or 4 times out of only two sources. While rated low on the importance scale, more information is still required. There is also frequent use of language such as "it is suggested" etc. Being less ambiguous is preferred. Carter | Talk to me 14:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Theoretically...
we can observe a Quasi-star, because even though they could have only existed in the early universe where hydrogen and helium where the only elements, the light radiating from them (about as much in a small galaxy) would still have reached us, billions of years later, even after they died.

Thus, if we look to the edges of the universe where the light emitted takes billions of years to reach us and where the light was radiated in the early universe, we can see a Quasi-star and use spectroscopy to study it in further detail.

Also, if the Quasi-stars are confirmed to have existed (at the edge of the observable universe), because they are newly-formed with their cores having collapsed into a black hole shortly after their protostar's contraction, they would be main-sequence stars on the H-R diagram (which they would stay for their entire lifetime, not evolving onto the giant branch, and even though their light is not produced by nuclear fusion. They also obey the mass-luminosity relationship, where more massive, blue stars on the main-sequence would be more luminous than less massive, yellow and red stars). Hence, Quasi-stars might make a yellowish "island" above the supergiant region of the H-R diagram making the main-sequence turn back ("turnoff") towards right in temperature even though the mass and luminosity both become larger. 114.204.219.12 (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Don’t remember a source, but saw it stated that at these distances it is impossible to observe individual stars so we can never observe one. Codefisher (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * That's true of normal fusion stars. The article claims each quasi-star may have had the luminosity of a small galaxy, so they might be observable. 198.98.200.181 (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The "newer papers"
It say's there's a newer paper from august of 2022 that has newer information not in the wiki does anyone know of the link to that paper? Thegreathans (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

First paragraph
The disclaimer in the beginning makes it clear that "quasi-stars" and "quasars" are different objects. But then the first paragraph suddenly starts talking about quasars out of the blue. I think someone who doesn't know the difference edited that wrong. - 45.6.129.36 (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)