Talk:star cluster
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Definition[edit]
I'd like to suggest that this definition may be slightly more accurate than the current entry:
A star cluster is...
"An association of stars that remain in proximity to each other because of their shared gravitational bond, but are not arrayed in a heirarchy of orbits as with a multi-star system. Classically, a star cluster is a nebula that can be resolved into individual stars."
But I'm sure it can be further improved. Thanks.—RJHall.
Deletion debate[edit]
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
SoP. Not idiomatic. TeleComNasSprVen 01:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Which sense of cluster? --Yair rand (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- "A group of galaxies or stars that appear near each other." Sense 2, under English Nouns. TeleComNasSprVen 04:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. It’s not SoP. You can’t get the meaning of a star cluster by looking up the parts. It’s not simply "a cluster of stars" . —Stephen (Talk) 02:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- What makes it different from such a cluster? TeleComNasSprVen 07:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep star clouds are not star clusters, and vice versa. The use of "cluster" as a group of stars derives from "star cluster", and not the other way around. "cluster" is the short form of "star cluster" or galaxy cluster. If something was shorted from a longer form, does the longer form get deleted because of it? 65.93.14.196 06:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep technical term with specific meaning. DAVilla 06:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep if (and only if) the definition is accurate, as it would be more than the sum of its parts. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep—it is a distinct supercategory of astronomical objects consisting of globular clusters and open clusters. It differs from a association (or moving group) of stars, which have become gravitationally unbound. It also differs from an asterism and a multi-star system. Indeed, I think the definition should be able to distinguish a star cluster from a multi-star system, which it does not appear to at present. The single-generation statement at the end of the definition may also be open to debate for many globular clusters.—RJHall 17:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. It is a good example of a term that is more than SoP in one context and almost completely SoP in general usage, where the definition given is far beyond what a hearer/reader is likely to understand, let alone intend. OTOH, I doubt that all of the encyclopedic wording of the definition is appropriate and could be attested from usage. DCDuring TALK 18:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)