Talk:star cluster

Definition

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

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.

---

star cluster

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)

kept -- Prince Kassad 08:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)