List of nearest stars is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
The map is interesting, but it lacks orientation. What relation does the plane of the circle have to the plane of the Earth's orbit (the ecliptic)? How about the plane through the center of the Milky Way? Presumably the zero vector points to the center of our galaxy, or does it? And which way is up? Earth's North pole? Or some other direction? Pergelator.
I tried to give a better description caption. For a more detailed explaination see the dedicated image page and its long explaination. For better directions I have uploaded this more cluttered contextualized version. Distance and angle conformal map of the celestial neighbourhood of Sol and galactic directions of note, correctly depicting the proximity between all objects.Nsae Comp (talk) 09:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, this article illustrates where the nearest stars are in relation to the Sun using four graphics: a video in the WP:LEAD and three images in the section List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs#Maps of nearby stars. These are pretty redundant, and the best illustration (the animated 3D one) is not even on the page. It would be better to remove the map section and replace the video in the lead with the rotating gif, since that's the only one that gives our readers a fair impression of the relative positions in 3D space at a glance (there are other illustrations at commons:Category:Solar neighborhood, but they are unfortunately all "flat" – though if somebody were to make a rotating version of this or this, that would also work). TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing these to my attention. They're all further away than the 200 mas parsec limit, but following up references from that link I've found that at least one on the list WISE 0521+1025 probably shouldn't be there and that another which is missing, WISE 1741+2553, should be included.Mollwollfumble (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As another editor has pointed out to me on my Talk page, the 'Discovery dates' column in this table is largely unsourced. A lot of these dates were added on 18 August 2013 by editor Mollwollfumble who commented up-page, saying they "had" a lot of the discovery dates, but did not provide inline sourcing for the dates when they added them to the table. (Mollwollfumble hasn't posted in months and is unlikely to see this message.)
Long-story short: Either the dates in the 'Discovery dates' column need to be largely sourced with inline sources (or, if there is largely one source for most of these dates, an inline column source can be added), or I propose the entire column should just be removed from the table. (I'd argue that this column is likely extraneous to what this table/article is trying to do any way...)
An added benefit of removing the 'Discovery dates' column is that it might allow us to stop using 'small text' (i.e. font-size: 90%) in the table, a change I opposed when it was made at the time. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the discussion entry. I agree the whole column is unnecessary, thank you for the constructive possible solution. All the best. Nsae Comp (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the column can be salvaged – but sourcing will be needed to do that... But, separately, I despise that this table is "font-size: 90%" and would like to see it restored to 100% font size. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"A lot of these dates were added on 18 August 2013 by editor Mollwollfumble ... not provide inline sourcing for the dates when they added them to the table. (Mollwollfumble hasn't posted in months and is unlikely to see this message)". I'm back, and am happy to supply sources, though it's a lot of work because almost every date has a different source. I can guarantee that all the discovery dates I added on 18 Aug 2013 are correct. Mollwollfumble (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's only half the issue, though – yes, these dates must be sourced – but the other half of the question is: Is this information even relevant/important enough to keep in the table? I think a good argument can be made, as this table is already "too big", that we should just remove the 'Discovery date' column. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My first rule for editing wikipedia is "Never delete anything from wikipedia unless you replace it with something better". Far too often I look up a topic on wikipedia to find that the information I want simply isn't there, when I know that it used to be there. As for discovery dates, you should see my bar chart of discovery dates, it's both interesting and very revealing. Yes, it is very relevant because it shows that the nearest stars were found using the best available large-field telescopes one at a time, sometimes only one a decade, and important enough to keep in the table. Attached are links to three charts of important discovery dates for the nearest stars and brown dwarfs https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RJH7nTKE2wTuLKCZesxhQ83snuOsO-4K/view?usp=sharinghttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZTM-WdKc4WSsrdDZdQxlpZE4tu-LiDJL/view?usp=sharinghttps://drive.google.com/file/d/12a3IF-LomSa8oBve3htJpmyWTDFY0w5m/view?usp=sharing As for references, you have to think what references are used for, they are for checking accuracy. Of course everything that becomes out of date has to be referenced. Discovery dates don't become out of date so adding references is moot, unless the discovery is controversial, and most aren't. At least 80% of the stars in the table have false information attached to them, because that information has been superseded by Gaia EDR3 and by more recent papers on brown dwarfs, you need to concentrate on this. Mollwollfumble (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works at all – as per WP:BURDEN and WP:V, when you add something, you have to source it to something. That applies to historical dates as much as anything. So, no – those discovery dates need to be sourced to something. If they aren't, I'm well within my rights to just remove that column of information. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the table only contain information which is relevant to the topic? So in this case stars and their necessary data to ascertain their distance. Discovery date is not important for that, so I think removal was the right way to go. DutchHoratius (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is the source of the absolute magnitudes? Is this magnitude updated when a new, better value for the distance becomes available? Hobbema (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Distance 16.3±4.2 is incompatible with parallax 217.5±40. Distance is calculated directly from parallax. For that parallax, the distance would be 15.0±2.9 light years. Distance 16.3 is also on the WISE J0521+1025 wikipedia page which doesn't mention parallax, so if that distance is correct, the parallax presented here must be wrong. Mollwollfumble (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
what should happen to the section "Distant future and past encounters" after the move? It wouldn't really fit in the scope of the article after the move, as it discusses past and future encounters of stars within 5 light-years. Sirius3100 (talk) 06:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I also agree that 15 light-years makes more sense as the cutoff, and I think matches the other list articles that are 15-20 light-years, etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if it is 5 parsecs, use 5 parsecs. Don't equivocate with the random number and imprecise 16. "5" is a commonly used number and makes sense, while 16 is not -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Right now, the article's lead reads 20 light-years (6.1 parsecs) as the cutoff. By nature, we need to impose some arbitrary cutoff, but we don't really need to change the title every time. The current title is adequate, and the criterion for inclusion must be specified in the lead anyway. No such user (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, "nearest stars" is meaningful and useful to readers, if you'll choose 16 ly, 20 ly, or 5 parsecs it would be just a cryptic name nobody would ever find. Besides, there is no reason to rename a reasonably named article. Artem.G (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The table has no Edit button; and the Edit button in the text above it seems to not have "Stars that are known to have passed or will pass within 5 light-years of the Sun" within it, nor enough text to represent that large of a table. Misty MH (talk) 09:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nsae Comp, Serendipodous, Praemonitus what do you think about moving the table into the article and deleting this separate template? It's used only here (and in one other article about a star, though I doubt it's useful there) and so there is no need for it being a template. Artem.G (talk) 11:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey everyone I cant decide which version of the map is better, the 12 ly or 9 ly one to give an overview. I though also of puting both in, but I am also not sure about that. I changed it yesterday from 12 to 9 because I was afraid that the amount of stars in the 12 ly is too overwhelming for a first overview. What do you think? Nsae Comp (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With the release of CNS5. All celestial bodies in this list have CNS5id except the sun, and other celestial bodies have GJ numbers. Is it possible to add a column as the GJ number display, and its number length is appropriate and unique. 文爻林夕 (talk) 08:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose adding another column to this already over-stuffed table. It's possible this info could be added to an already existing column somehow. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The important star 2MASS J0610-4246 is listed in the article as being like the 2nd-closest star at some point. But why isn't in a chart/table? Misty MH (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2MASS J0610-4246 is a redirect to a different table, one of stars which were or will be one day, just not now, the closest. 2MASS J0610-4246 isn't in the table since it was only the second-closest and even that is somewhat uncertain. Do you have a reliable reference for anything relating to this star? Lithopsian (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should the table be updated with data from CNS5 catalog?
CNS5 (Catalogue of Nearby Stars) has been released in 2022. It contains the most recent and accurate data from Gaia. Currently this table on Wiki contains a lot of data from sources and measurements that are outdated.
As mentioned in a talk before this, the GJ number would be a welcome addition to the table, as it can serve as an universal identifier of each star which can otherwise go by many different names. Every object within 25 parsecs has a unique GJ number assigned in CNS5 (the ones Gliese and Jahreiß classified in previous versions of CNS have their original Gliese/GJ numbers, the newly discovered have new unique GJ numbers).
If the CNS5 data is better than what's currently in the list, then yes it should be updated. It looks like most parallaxes (and thus distances) are from Gaia (E)DR3, so that should already be up to date. I don't think a column for GJ numbers is necessary; it could make the table too wide, and if the GJ/Gliese designation is in common use it is (or should be) in the "Designation" column. SevenSpheres (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to have a "magnitude at closest approach". There could be a disclaimer that this assumes that the star is not intrinsically variable and that this magnitude is therefore simply a consequence of the distance change. I'm too brainfogged to do this myself now. 2001:8003:E40F:9601:2586:E005:AF6E:B56B (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support as per nom. Also as per WP:CONCISE; that brown dwarfs are considered substellar objects by many astronomers can be clarified in the body text itself. ArkHyena (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It seeems that this star could also be one of the nearest neighbours. The distance is of 13.378 ly. Apparently, it is a faint white dwarf [1]. If true, it would be the third-closest white dwarf to Earth. 21 Andromedae (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
That column is already present (with the name "Stellar class"), but that list isn't completely redundant to this one since it includes stars beyond 20 light-years. In particular, there are no B-type or O-type stars within 20 light-years. SevenSpheres (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on the basis that the list 'by spectral type' is not redundant - it gives the nearest stars in any given spectral type, some of which do not appear on the overall list of nearest stars. Merging it in and keeping the extra information might make this article too long, whereas getting rid of it entirely would lead to a loss of some important and useful data. Agree that the list by spectral type could use some additional contextual information/prose. — Jumbo T (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
When reading this list versus the star details linked from it, the two are not alwaysin agreement regarding distances and other details. This is true for the other lists, as well (Stars between 20-25 ly,25-30 ly, etc.). Is it possible to have the editing procedure for authors include updating these lists as well? Although the data is extremely comprehensive and helpful, when there are discrepancies the readers do not know which source is accurate (the individual-star[s] articles or the lists of ranged stars). Tesseract501 (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}