Talk:Period-luminosity relation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 24 September 2019 by reviewer StarryGrandma (talk · contribs).

Astronomy Mid‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Deletion for move complete

@StarryGrandma: I have deleted Period-luminosity relation so this article may be moved there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

There are period-luminosity relations (PLR) for several types of variable star, but this article only describes one. Arguably the most important one and the first to be discovered, but still at least some mention should be made of others. Most importantly, the type II Cepheid PLR, which is so closely-related to the classical Cepheid PLR that it is remiss to discuss one without the other. I understand the article was originally titled Leavitt's Law, so the focus is understandable, but it is a definite problem under its current title. Lithopsian (talk) 13:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw this article at AfC I was very surprised that Wikipedia didn't have an article on the period-luminosity relation. I think it should cover the pop II Cepheids and mention that there are distance scales for other types of stars. It is a real lack here. In the literature the unmodified term "period-luminosity relation" refers to this one, but one article should consider them all. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've also been surprised that it didn't exist, although there is the section at Classical Cepheid variable, and shorter pieces in a couple of other places. I've just been adding (a lot of!) wikilinks to this article and noticed that a few use punctuation other than a simple hyphen. I'm not a huge fan of grammatical sophistry in article titles, but is hyphen the right thing here? Lithopsian (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've generalised the lead to cover potentially all pulsating variable stars, and thrown in a quick mention in the body of some of the other relations (a little history also of important discoveries linked to this). Needs more obviously, but at least shows they exist. Lithopsian (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additions. As far as the name, in the journal world hyphens seem to be used. I copied it in from a journal article title. But see Titius–Bode law. It was moved to the title with the dash in 2008. But this isn't a named title, it is just a hyphenated word. So I don't know what applies. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a WP:ENGVAR thing going on here. American journals use hyphens in the titles of P-L related articles, while British journals use dashes. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delta Scuti stars

Is anyone interested in updating this page to add delta Scutis? I'm afraid I don't have time to take the lead at the moment, but I am happy to help. Here are some papers on the P-L relation:

Timb66 (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]