User talk:Diamantinasaurus
Welcome!
[edit]Hi Diamantinasaurus! I noticed your contributions to List of largest known stars and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
The article List of stars larger than any closer star has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Fails WP:GNG since there is no coverage in reliable sources. The page also relies on WP:SYNTHESIS.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 19:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of List of stars larger than any closer star for deletion
[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of stars larger than any closer star until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 09:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of G0.238-0.071 for deletion
[edit]The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G0.238-0.071 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 15:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 5
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spinostropheus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Syntarsus. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Radius of VV Cephei
[edit]Special:Diff/1228541985 Actually the radius of 779 R☉ uses a distance (~1000 pc from parallax) that is very close to the noiseless distance from Bailer-Jones et al. (1018 pc), which makes it reliable, despite the large astrometric noise in parallax. Using this distance and the angular diameter (7.251 mas) it gives 794 R☉, just 15 R☉ of difference. 21 Andromedae (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Just because it is close to a value that might be accurate doesn't mean that it is too. The Bailer-Jones distances are also questionable for red supergiants as they use optical parallaxes which are often inaccurate due to RSGs having angular diameters larger than their parallax values and have inhomogeneous surfaces. The "rpgeo" value is somewhat better than the other one but still should be taken with a grain of salt. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 07:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- It is still the most recent data we have. I have no doubt that it is trustworthy. The error bars are acceptable for a red supergiant, which is too distant to have its distance accurately measured. We don't need to dismiss the new data just because it may be inaccurate, all other estimates may be as well. 21 Andromedae (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- "Newer" does not mean "more accurate". I used a radial velocity measurement to approximate the distance and got to ~1.85±0.45 kpc, which is a lot higher. Also, a low uncertainty doesn't automatically make the data used for it more accurate. There could still be interferences.
- Masers can also be used to very accurately determine an RSG's parallax, they aren't too far away. Here is the paper for my previous claim about optical parallaxes by the way. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 11:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- I know that “newest” doesn’t mean “most accurate”, but we still can't rule out the recent measurements, because we don't know if they are less or more reliable than the older one, or if they are unreliable. Almost all RSGs will have significant uncertainty in the distance, including VV Cephei, which has distances ranging from 600/750 pc (Gaia/Hipparcos), up to 1,500 pc from Bauer (2008) or more. 21 Andromedae (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- About the very low temperature of 3396 K, it is caused by the low luminosity estimated by Baines (2021), only 73,000 L☉. If we use 116,000 L☉ from Ayres et al. (2022), it gives 3,815.9 K. 21 Andromedae (talk) 12:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- It is still the most recent data we have. I have no doubt that it is trustworthy. The error bars are acceptable for a red supergiant, which is too distant to have its distance accurately measured. We don't need to dismiss the new data just because it may be inaccurate, all other estimates may be as well. 21 Andromedae (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)