Talk:A-type main-sequence star

The name

I think we should ke this artical from confusing with white dwarfs. But I would like to see it also match it's buddies (i.e. yellow dwarf, red dwarf). But I had an idea, what if we call the title White dwarf (MKK); the MKK means Yerkes spectral classification. I thought this could work. What do you think? — Hurricane Dev o n @ 11:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be needlessly confusing, "white dwarf" has a particularly specific meaning. "White main sequence star" is the best description we have for these: the distinction between dwarfs and giants is less well defined for the earlier star classes anyway. Do you have any evidence in the scientific literature (i.e. papers) to indicate that the term "white dwarf" is used for A-class main sequence stars? Chaos syndrome 17:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article lacks notability, but may yet survive for a while. The relevant facts are in Stellar classification, but it might IMHO be reasonable to erect A-type stars, B-type stars, etc. like S-type stars, maybe. But S-type is a special case, since it is an intermediary from Oxygen star to Carbon star. Said: Rursus (☻) 09:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be possible to expand this article, per the example at B-type main sequence star.—RJH (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– "Main sequence" is a compound modifier. The rationale the mover used was the title of main sequence which of course, like African American, is a noun. Were Armbrust not blocked, I'm sure he would support this move. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – these titles would be better with the clarifying normal punctuation. Like in most scholarly papers. Dicklyon (talk) 06:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support — These titles should be properly punctuated. --JorisvS (talk) 08:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Another example is Large-cell lung carcinoma. Ruslik_Zero 08:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Habitable zone

How about the habitable zone around an A-type star? How well would life be able to cope with the increased UV levels? 174.103.211.175 (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Circumstellar discs in the planets section

In this page and B-type main-sequence star there was a 'list of stars with circumstellar discs' in the 'planets' table. At best, this is a marginally related topic, which is not enough to add to this section. The section is especifically about planets, so the average reader is going to expect content about planets, not circumstellar discs which are neither planets nor something significantly relevant to the section. And the table (which i removed) is fully uncited, failing WP:V. And for last, if such lists were complete, they would be very large. 21 Andromedae (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The first two sentences of the planet section deal with the circumstellar discs. It says e.g. 'This IR excess is attributable to dust emission from a debris disk where planets form.' with a reference for that. This makes the topic much more than marginally related. Even if you disagree on that, I do not understand why the table was deleted, since every object in the A-type main-sequence table (for circumstellar discs) also has an exoplanet or exoplanet candidate, so deleting it for not being related to planets seems not reasonable. The table is indeed uncited, except of the links to the individual objects in wikipedia, however, the example for A-type stars, the examples for B-type stars, the whole section for 'Chemical peculiarities' in B-type stars and the exoplanet examples were either uncited or with a citation that did not include what was given. Please explain why this single table should be deleted. For your last point, the example lists of stars are also incomplete, they are example lists in the end. If you can provide a list of A-type stars with circumstellar disc and exoplanet candidate that exceeds 20 entries I am truly impressed, so very large volume doesn't seem to be much of a problem and providing a list with both circumstellar disc and exoplanet candidate seems a good compromise. I adapted the heading of the A-type example list accordingly, the structure for the B-type section was already changed by someone else. Stevinger (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with the addition of this list if it was de-bloated to be succinct as its 'examples of stars with planets' counterpart and was placed right after the sentence This IR excess is attributable to dust emission from a debris disk where planets form., to better integration in the article. The scope of this list isn't even the main problem, but the fact that there is a whole table about it and no table about A-type main-sequence stars with planets with information. The average reader will not expect such a listing with all its information and likely question it, if not remove back. It is worth noting that all examples are of protoplanetary disks, not circumstellar disks, which can exist at any age and have no planet formation. 21 Andromedae (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC) 21 Andromedae (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of the list is to give examples of stars with a circumstellar disk and exoplanets or at least candidates around the same stars. This limits the amount of objects. Individual lists of stars with disks or stars with exoplanets might be too long. - The section does not need to be named 'planets', Beta Pictoris has a circumstellar environment section in which the planets are only about a quarter or a third of the information given. HR 8799 has a planetary system section in which the disk is a subsection. This can be organized in many ways. - It seems worth noting that none of the disk examples have a protoplanetary disk, all disks are circumstellar disks. The disks are too old for the former, admittedly Beta Pictoris only slightly. Stevinger (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not guarantedd planet formation but rather a higher chance of planet formationd and habitability ~2025-36225-14 (talk) 07:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR. Make sure that what you write represents verifiable information from reliable sources, not simple what you know to be true. When multiple editors are reversing a high proportion of your edits, it is time to stop and think that maybe you're not quite getting it right. Lithopsian (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So yourself admit that it is unrelated to the section at all and attempts to re-adapt it using the habitability argument, which is plain wrong. 21 Andromedae (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]