Talk:Herbig–Haro object

Italian version of this article could help

the Italian version looks as though it could be quite useful, has quite a few images and more inline citations Tom B (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Needs more references

Hi all, the article currently needs more inline citations e.g. the 'Proper motions and variability' section doesn't have any Tom B (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Stellar jet

For some reason, stellar jet redirects to this article. Why is this? I presume it's because there is some sort of connection between stellar jets and Herbig-Haro objects but it's not at all clear what this connection may be.

I came to this article looking for information on stellar jets, such as what are they? Where do they come from, what causes them? How big are they? What are they made of? Etc, etc. Perhaps they should have their own article. Nibios (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I know that this is several years late, but I had a look and stellar jets seem to be called astrophysical jets on wikipedia, and they are similar to HH objects. NewbTopolis Rex (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I hope there are no objections to Episodic Ejections

Template:Quote This is the most beautiful sentences I've ever read on wikipedia. But I changed it to "Episodically ejected by young stars like cannon salvos..." to make it ring even beautifulier.  :-)

But maybe you disagree. Maybe "ejected episodically" sounds more episodic? No, I think "episodically ejected" also sounds episodic. Tomato, tomato. Pigkeeper (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference definitions

Hi

I would like to move the reference definitions form article body to reference section. This will reduce clutter in body and will make source reading easier for any future editing and improvement. If anybody has objection(s), please comment. Thanks--UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 13:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Uncontroversial change. Lithopsian (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Before copyediting....

Template:Ping are you satisfied all the content that you want to add is present? I recommend full copyediting is better afterwards, but am looking as I go...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• For instance, under Numbers maybe add some of the most prominent examples? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cas Liber, thank you for the ping. GOCE page says that waiting time is normally about a month. I do have a couple things to add to the article, but I think I will add them within 2-3 weeks at most. And yes, addition of famous HHOs in Numbers is also a great idea. Thank you :)--AhmadLX (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

ENGVAR

Why was this article changed from British English? --The Huhsz (talk) 10:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I've changed it back per MOS:RETAIN. --The Huhsz (talk) 12:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Huge speeds! Fantastic discovery!! Aliens here we come! Call the Express!!!

"... when narrow jets of partially ionised gas ejected by stars collide with nearby clouds of gas and dust at several hundred kilometres per second."

"Spectroscopic observations of HH objects' doppler shifts indicate velocities of several hundred kilometers per second, but ..."

"Spectroscopic observations of HH objects show they are moving away from the source stars at speeds of several hundred kilometres per second."

See Speed of light, which is "(approximately 300000 km/s ...)". In terms like those above that would be "three hundred kilometers per second". 'Three' is hardly 'several'.

Why does the text repeatedly make it sound like we've found faster-than-light travel?

Is this still a good article? Do any other astronomical articles exceed the speed of light also? Shenme (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The speed of light is three hundred thousand kilometers per second. XOR'easter (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Re:Template:Xt, according to Oxford Several: More than two but not many. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah, me. Ate too well and then thought too little. Shenme (talk) 03:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

There is now a JWST photo of HH 49 that is much clearer than the Spitzer one here

Should it be replaced with this ? --Rpresser 14:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)